Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
Interesting mutation of Libertarian doctrine.
Okay, well.. As in the past, I think we will have to disagree. (and, I agree with you about the "bossie" thing, believe it or not)
Because I really find this twist confusing.. I mean, who defines "beneficial purpose"
The popular election of senators makes the upper house of the US Congress a direct federal body, instead of a body which represents the interests of the state legislatures.
Most people look at this as an issue of politics (i.e. "we could get more republicans in office if..."), but that isn't it at all.
It's really an issue of power distribution and corrpution. Under the original system, senators served at the discretion of the state legislatures, and could be recalled at any time. If they failed to represent the interests of their state, then they got the axe.
But under a popular election scheme, the senator from Rhode Island, has the opportunity to in effect, sell his vote on that fat juicy defense contract in Washington State, in exchange for a nice comfortable campaign contribution. Or perhaps he's faced with a question of whether to extend federal power, or to preserve power for the states. His actions do not necessarily serve the interests of his state, and he doesn't really care. His existence is driven by popular election concerns, and not the concerns of protecting the power of his state's legislature.
The 17th amendment has eroded the balance of power between state and fed, every bit as much as the 14th... and has served to destroy the idea of a small and limited federal government.
This is a serious question...If States are subject to the Federal Bill of Rights, why have any state constitutions at all?
The Constitution doesn't bite, save perhaps in drug induced hallucinations.
-- You have fooled no one here with your fake 'sweet reason' in your last series of posts. You are as big a libertarian hating basher as your other compadres.
You seem to be missing the point.
The neighbors are not morally entitled to decide how others behave. They are entitled only to decide if individuals have caused harm to others, and to restrain and punish that harm.
See the difference?
So I send Roscoe FreepMail asking if he is a narc. I expect to be ignored. Instead I get a reply that goes "Dont's send me FreepMail. First warning." Oooooooooo! He's going to tell my mamma I'm a baaaaad boy. Naturally, I send a reply asking why. I can hardly wait for the response.
In the meanwhile, let's see what's on Roscoe's Freeper page. Interesting! An ad for a Black Republican ex-Marine running for California state assembly. Ironically, the very sort of guy most Freepers would be campaigning for. So what's Roscoe got to do with this guy?
Most politicians who hang out on FR see FR and Freepers as an important resource. Yet Roscoe is very shy about whether he is a cop or running for office. Looking further into the bio we see: Ex manager at several retail stores (probably had to supervise stoned slackers). Law degree from someplace I never heard of. Ex cop (so it was probably the kind of degree cops get). Well, we can guess being a cop in Cali can give you a pretty orthodox view of the Drug War. So maybe Roscoe IS this guy. Or a relative. "Roscoe" sounds like a plausible brother or cousin.
Well, it makes me feel a lot more sympathetic to Roscoe. Let's assume he's family to this Black ex-Marine Republican state assembly candidate. Probably grew up in an environment where referring to the Constitution rather than more proximate rules is being a wise-ass. Might be a cop, too, given his (limited) legal education. That would explain the lack of ability to question fundamentals. One thing cops are not about is self-doubt.
So Roscoe, feel free to tell us how close we are.
That's because you and your fellow big-government advocates have systematically removed all of it's teeth.
You are not free to commit conspiracy of any kind, either, and the laws against same have been upheld all along. Why should we as a society throw away centuries and centuries of precedence just to make the thin-skinned, the paranoidal, and the debauched feel good about themselves and their flakey, unproven ideology? Go find yourself some backward semi-deserted island-nation you and your mercenary friends can take over, um, by force, and have fun redefining all the civilization you want to with your own families, and leave the rest of us the h*ll alone. ;)
Yes, exactly.. "No force, no fraud"
But, like I said.. if they can get together and seek a remedy when you have not initiated force or fraud against them.. IMO, that ammounts to controlling your behavior.
Like if me, CJ and Kevin got together and sued you for smoking weed in your garage.. You didn't hurt us, you didn't defraud us.. But we are going to punish you anyway.
That's a clear cut violation of Libertarian ideology..
Unless you say that it's a civil proceeding and not an arm of Government acting premptively to alter your behavior..
I believe animals have rights. Not in the PETA sense because they seem to afford animals all the same rights as humans. But I do believe that their rights are from the same source as ours come from.
So, when I say "killing with a beneficial purpose" I mean that killing an animal for sustainance is a justified act.
Killing an animal for no reason is not. Should you face murder charges if you kill an animal for no good reason and leave it on the side of the road? Nope.
The initiated act of aggression is always a consideration. It is supposedly always wrong. There are two ways to deal with this regarding animals. Claim that they are merely property and you may do with your property as you see fit no matter how cruel. However, this requires that you say that animals have no rights at all.
In which case, if a man were to become your property, the initiation of aggression principle could be ignored.
Clearly, slavery is not a question of morality as God condoned slavery if you believe the bible.
So does it immediately become moral to kill a man then if he is now your property and a slave? Of couse not. The same follows with animals in my opinion. Owning an animal does not give you the right to initiate aggression against it unless that aggression will actually help sustain a human life. Humans eat meat. Killing animals is beneficial to humans who eat meat.
You, CJ and Kevin have to prove that you were harmed.
When a person initiates force the victim and his or her agent (police or Samaritan) may exercise their highest moral right -- the right of self-defense and physical survival. And that ought to be all that a person confronts another person unless invited to associate with another person. Too many busybodies (basically harmless unless the busybody is one of the parasitical elite) telling other people how to live their lives.
The new paradigm proposes to not live by the popular code of do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Instead, leave people alone to create their lives as they see fit.
Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.
Principle Three: No exceptions shall be allowed for Principle One and Two.
Principle One is first a law. For every instance that a person has force initiated against them there is a loss to that person. Only the person/victim knows the true value of their loss. The law underlying Principle One is as true as physics law.
All a person need be concerned with is whether he or she has been the victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury.
Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claiming to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All jurors will be informed that they have the option of jury nullification. Objective law; The Point Law nullifies agenda law and ego law.
TP, I will let you in on a secret that almost everyone else on this forum already knows..
ALL Conservatives have a Libertarian streak. I challenge you to find me one who doesn't.
It's when you run it out to the ragged edge.. that is where we part ways.
And it becomes a total impasse.
Now, please.. you are embarassing your friends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.