Posted on 12/17/2002 9:39:06 AM PST by Joe Bonforte
Oops, back to school. It gets tiring teaching the same lessons over and over to the same people. I'll go over it one more time with you;
People have rights, governments have powers. No "right" to see someone "properly punished" exists. And governments (groups of people) have no legitimate power to "punish" someone for doing anything which does not violate rights.
I feel threatened by people who advocate violating my rights. I guess under your theory, I could insisit that government "properly punish" them. In this case you.
Nah, he just wants to outlaw drug profits...
However, I do not think the Federal government should be able to give our tax dollars to support a State's policies.
I can just about guarantee that if Federal dollars are available, every State will find a way to get their hands on your and my money.
I can't find anything in the Constitution that grants that power to the Feds.
One other question, are you in favor of abolishing the office of drug czar and its agency?
Not necessarily. I just like things to be kept in the proper context. Being opposed to it because you believe that society can handle it is not the same as being opposed to it because society accepts it. Somewhere we need to make a determination as to which aspects of our lives are appropriate to defer to society, which are appropriate to defer to government, and which are best left to us as individuals. We find ourselves in our current situation because we were convinced that individually, or collectively as a society we were unable to handle it, and that goverment could do it better. Now it's been suggested that perhaps we might have been wrong about that. One of the implications of that proposal is that it will once again become the responsibility of society and individuals to handle it, and it's hard to imagine that happening because we've never seen it. If that is to be sufficient reason to oppose even the attempt, then once government has assumed a given responsibility for and authority over us for a sufficient amount of time, it is theirs forever.
To be fair, I also find that if you treat the more thoughtful WODdies around here with a modicum of respect, they're more likely to do the same. I've had ratioanl debates lately with the likes of TexAggie and robertpaulsen, because I don't throw around "Jack-booted thug" and "RINO" at every turn when they say something I disagree with. Of course, they still say a LOT that I disagree with, but it's nice to actually get a little direct point/counterpoint going on that doesn't involve ad hominem on both sides.
I agree. I was thinking as I posted the last reply to you that the only way to do it would be to somehow isolate funds directly from those states that support it and direct them towards the funding. It would be a seperate tax, in paychecks perhaps. FDIC.....State......WOD.... hehe
As for the Drug czar, I think the position should be abolished unless there is some way to only associate the department to the states that supported it.
Nonsense, anything which does not violate someone else's rights, is a right.
Irrelevant, elections do not define rights.
Oh, good grief. Here you go again with the old "prove you didn't violate my rights" crap. Tex, you are smart enough to know that the burden of proof is upon the accuser.
If you can do that, then you can also prove that me holding a loaded gun at my neighbor whilst standing on my property does not violate their right either.
And this again, too?? Please, Tex. I think we are about to get into the old, "well, lets say its not pointing right at me, but Im sitting on my porch and its pointing two degrees to my left". This stupidity has been refuted time and time again.
BTW, Dan Burton is my Congressman. I may just give him a buzz, er, a call.
It seems the likeliest explanation.
That the congressmen of that time simply wanted to CONTROL our lives?
Some wanted control, others were taken in by bogus arguments, and still others knew it was wrong but didn't want to rock the boat---same old story.
Thanks, CJ. It wouldn't be a real drug war thread on FR without one of your irrelevant responses to try to cover up for the fact that you have no logical argument to make. After all, Dan Burton's been one of your pro-WOD boys for a long time, hasn't he?
Where has someone figured out EXACTLY when a threat is valid enough to be a violation of our rights.
What is this "valid enough"? If you have a problem, and think your rights have been violated, then take the person to court. You can then try to convince a jury of intent, which is the only area where your "valid enough" question is raised.
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.