Replies

"pretending that our jury system [under constitutional rule of law] cannot cope with simply regulating the public aspects of morally repugnant behaviors."

Quite the contrary. I contend that our constitution allows us to write laws governing immoral behavior.

It is the libertarians who insist on restricting our laws to those that only involve harm to others. And where is the harm in flashing? A person may be alarmed, or shocked, or offended, yes. But harmed? Harmed to the point of monetary compensation?

Find a jury that can cope with that one.

"I contend that our constitution allows us to write laws governing immoral behavior".

Our Constitution does not allow laws taking away individual freedoms. Our Constitution guarantees individual freedoms.

Wrong again, robertpaulsen. You do like the government jackboot, don't you?

"It is the libertarians who insist on restricting our laws to those that only involve harm to others. And where is the harm in flashing? A person may be alarmed, or shocked, or offended, yes. But harmed"?

Flashing another person is not an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT! There is more than one person involved.

How does this contrast to a single person who has grown their own marijuana and is smoking it all by themselves? No one else is involved but a single individual.

You and your straw man arguments! Always indirection, inuendo and just plain B.S.

Zon's question can't be answered by the warriors, so like paulsen they dance around pretending that our jury system [under constitutional rule of law] cannot cope with simply regulating the public aspects of morally repugnant behaviors..
These warriors insist that 'we the people' must ignore our own constitution in order to prohibit some types of property, and some types of behavior from ~society~. -- Thereby initiating a police state.

Quite the contrary. I contend that our constitution allows us to write laws governing immoral behavior.

You so 'contend' without any basis. [see the 14th]
- Nothing in the Constitution allows government at any level to deprive us of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Both writing & enforcing prohibitory 'laws' violates constitutional due process.

It is the libertarians who insist on restricting our laws to those that only involve harm to others.

Rational people everywhere support our Constitutions restrictions on writing laws that infringe on our right to life, liberty, or property.

And where is the harm in flashing? A person may be alarmed, or shocked, or offended, yes. But harmed? Harmed to the point of monetary compensation? Find a jury that can cope with that one.

Paulsen, when you wag your willy in some innocent young girls face on the subway, - you have not only harmed her, -- you have 'breached the peace'.
I could see a jury fining you heavily in order to "cope with" your behavior, and to compensate your victim.