By your own criteria then both should be legal as no one’s rights are violated and acts between consenting adults in private are not the governments business.
An animal can't give consent. And which part of "overt" did you not understand?
By the bye, did you find what you were looking for in the Declaration?
Yes ... as I said, it says that anything created by law is preceded by private rights, and does not contradict the point that the rights of the public are not created by law, but are the natural rights of each individual that makes up the public - that each has the right to disallow others from defacating or lovemaking on his property, so the public has that right on public property.
Show us the governmental enactment that whatever is not forbidden is permitted. If you can't then the government did NOT create that default position.
No answer?
So it's possible in theory that there might be something of which you disapprove but the banning of which exceeds limitations on government authority?
No answer?
Still no answer?
Please point out any evidence you cited - I see none, only claims by you.
No answer?
Can you cite any restrictions on the private act of making love with one's spouse?
No answer?
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
No answer?
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
No answer?
An animal can’t give consent. And which part of “overt” did you not understand?”
And you said they have no rights. By what logic then could public law forbid these vile practices in private?
I understand “overt” quite well and you gave no example of any threat of force, covert or overt, that exists between consenting adults, but here again the public asserts a right to forbid incest no matter the privacy observed.
“Show us the governmental enactment that whatever is not forbidden is permitted. If you can’t then the government did NOT create that default position.”
That should be so obvious that it needs no explanation.
No rule or law need enactment since a person cannot be punished for violating a law that doesn’t exist. Hence if no forbidding law exists a thing is permitted, that’s what a “default” position is.
And yes, the default position of permission is created by the laws silence.
Public and private rights are quite different. The public can assert a right to seize private property of any within its borders for its own use, or press the private person into service of the public or set the value of property within its borders. And this by force of arms, no comparable rights exist in the private realm.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.