Posted on 11/12/2012 5:16:33 AM PST by AtlasStalled
With little pushback from law enforcement within its borders the United States increasingly is serving as a global distribution hub for the Mexican drug cartels.
Last week police in Melbourne, Australia busted two suspects including a reputed "high ranking member of the Comanchero Motorcycle Club" for their alleged roles in receiving cocaine shipments from an unidentified Mexican drug cartel in the United States as reported by Andrew O'Reilly for Fox News: "while it is unclear which cartel the outlaw motorcycle club members were working with, it is well known that Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán's Sinaloa cartel has a major stake in Australia's burgeoning cocaine market."
Earlier this month Quebec police charged more than 100 individuals for their alleged roles in a drug conspiracy which used a trucking firm to bring cocaine into Canada from the United States, and the arrested include those with suspected ties to the Italian Mafia, the Irish West End Gang and Hells Angels motorcycle club as reported by The Canadian Press.
The 'Ndrangheta or Calabrian Mafia also has developled a partnership with the Mexican cartels in the United States for moving cocaine from New York City into Italy. Nicola Gratteri, a top anti-Mafia prosecutor in Italy warns that "this mafia is quickly spreading in the United States, particularly in Florida and New York" as reported by Beatrice Borromeo for The Daily Beast: "Gratteri's latest operations . . . uncovered a new route in the mafia's international drug trade, centered in New York City, where the crime syndicates can secure easy access to cocaine shipped in by Mexican cartels."
Security analysts are at a loss to explain why law enforcment has failed to break the distribution infrastructure which the Mexican drug cartels have established within the United States as reported by Sari Horwitz for The Washington Post:
"The success of the Mexican cartels in building their massive drug distribution and marketing networks across the county is a reflection of the U.S. government's intelligence and operational failure in the war on drugs, said Fulton T. Armstrong, a former national intelligence officer for Latin America and ex-CIA officer. 'We pretend that the cartels don't have an infrastructure in the U.S.,' said Armstrong, also a former staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and now a senior fellow at American University's Center for Latin American and Latino Studies. 'But you don't do a $20 billion a year business . . . with ad-hoc, part-time volunteers. You use an established infrastructure to support the markets. How come we're not attacking that infrastructure?'"
Let's face it: the U.S. is just a druggie nation.
So you're OK with legality of private drug use?
I assume by “drug use” you're speaking of use outside medical need. And with that I am not O.K. with legal or not.
Your "legal or not" confuses me - my question was whether you're OK with legality of private drug use, not whether you're OK with private drug use itself.
I certainly don't want to be the source of confusion. It seems to me that only if I were a crass pragmatist would I favor legalization of something I obviously disapprove.
No, favoring legalization of something one disapproves requires only recognition of limits to governmental authority.
Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?
Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.
“some acts”? What might those be?
I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.
It is indeed the the argument that is false and deceptive as the argument for toleration or legality was privacy and the argument for not keeping private acts private was a right to recognition as a public right and legality.
If two different people make those two different arguments, how is either of them “deceptive”?
It's not two arguments but all one that tolerated private acts should become public rights and therefore protected by legality and finally acceptance as normal.
That "all one" argument is not my argument - nor is one who argues for the right to do A in private thereby logically required to argue for the right to do A in public. If you want to argue against the "all one" argument, go find somebody who makes that argument - it ain't me.
One can go on google and find testimony for marijuana's beneficial use for numerous conditions, fibromyalgia, loss of appetite, nausea, sleeplessness and on and on.
It's believable that marijuana might be beneficial in many of these conditions,
I'm glad to see you say so. You may have noticed the anti-pot zealots on FR who strenuously deny the possibility of any medical benefit from marijuana.
what is not believable is that as soon as medical use legality was obtained thousands would suddenly become sufferers.
Where is the evidence that those thousands were not previously sufferers?
If virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer
Those alleged “thousands” are a small fraction of the adult population - so we're very far from having evidence that "virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer."
then full adult legalization is not so far away.
Yes, the “right” to commit perverted acts in public is an invented “right”
Invented by whom? By those who claimed a “right” to perversion in private?
No, by those who claimed a “right” to perversion in public. As I said, in public, some acts (such as defacation and lovemaking) can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.
(like your invented “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight”)
That right to me and obligation to the employer was created by law
BZZZT! As the Founders knew, the law does not create rights but simply recognizes natural rights (or fabricates nonexistent "rights").
as a matter of safety and liability in the work place both for the impaired worker and those around him.
As I said before, employers have a legal responsibility/obligation to make sure that workers doing jobs with the potential to injure are unimpaired - but that doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.”
Do you think you're in some way contradicting me?
You're doing that just fine without my help.
You have yet to demonstrate any self-contradiction in my position - instead you keep arguing against positions I've never taken.
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.
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.
Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?”
This conversation is becoming more interesting all the time!
If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.
My granny aunt down in Hope, Arkansas used to say only the
Baptists and the bootleggers wanted the county dry. Same desire, different motives, with the Baptists being a tad more straight forward in the matter.
Th power to declare legal and the power to ban is an expression of the same power of government.
“That “all one” argument is not my argument - nor is one who argues for the right to do A in private thereby logically required to argue for the right to do A in public. If you want to argue against the “all one” argument, go find somebody who makes that argument - it ain't me.”
As I pointed out, what was once banned even in private in stepwise fashion became tolerated in private to legal in private to legal in public and finally demands for public acceptance and approval.
The argument for the right to do A in private because it was in private is deceptive and false. Do you have an example?
“Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.”
“some acts”? What might those be?
“I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.”
On what basis then do your examples violate these rights (I'll not ask you for a list of them) of the public, these rights being rights created by law?
“BZZZT! As the Founders knew, the law does not create rights but simply recognizes natural rights (or fabricates nonexistent “rights”).
Then where did these “rights” of the public come from if not created by the law?
The Founders drew upon men like John Locke, the history of Europe's kings with their claims, from their own religious perceptions, and so on to decide that the rights men had could not be abrogated since men were endowed by their Creator with those rights.
So any right simply recognized by the law and not created by law would predate said law with all other rights being fabricated and in reality nonexistent.
“I'm glad to see you say so.[that marijuana might have a beneficial use] You may have noticed the anti-pot zealots on FR who strenuously deny the possibility of any medical benefit from marijuana.”
I see the problem with the user not the substance. Cocaine, opium, dextroamphetamine and chemically similar drugs, barbiturates, all have legitimate medical uses and misusers.
On the use of pot for medical needs. Colorado recently legalized, with some restrictions, recreational use of marijuana. medical use was already legal with a medical card. The number of card holders went from a high (hee, hee, hee..”high”..Rocky Mountain High in Denver?) from a high of about 128,000 to about 80,000 in a few years.
So either these 48,000 quit using or left the state or simply decided to not worry about medical cards. The latter seems more likely. Now that marijuana use outside of medical need the number of cards will likely drop over the next few years. The great increase and decrease in the legal medical cards makes one wonder just how difficult it was to obtain these cards and how much medical use really was medical.
As to the small percentage, yes the legal users were a small percentage of the five million state population. Legalization should reduce the suffering considerably.
“As I said before, employers have a legal responsibility/obligation to make sure that workers doing jobs with the potential to injure are unimpaired - but that doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.”
What you said before was that I could quit and the employer could employ whom he wished.
An employer has no obligation or responsibility to honor a right that doesn't exist or that I invented.
Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?
This conversation is becoming more interesting all the time!
If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.
So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?
My granny aunt down in Hope, Arkansas used to say only the Baptists and the bootleggers wanted the county dry. Same desire, different motives, with the Baptists being a tad more straight forward in the matter.
Your granny aunt was right - and I'll bet she recognized that the noble motives of the Baptists didn't change the fact that their efforts helped criminal bootleggers. Same applies to the war on drugs.
Th power to declare legal and the power to ban is an expression of the same power of government.
Government does not declare things legal - show me the statute that explicitly allows you to wear plaid shirts. In a free society, everything is legal that does not violate the rights of others, and government's role is to protect rights by banning those acts and only those acts that violate rights.
That “all one” argument is not my argument - nor is one who argues for the right to do A in private thereby logically required to argue for the right to do A in public. If you want to argue against the “all one” argument, go find somebody who makes that argument - it ain't me.
As I pointed out, what was once banned even in private in stepwise fashion became tolerated in private to legal in private to legal in public and finally demands for public acceptance and approval.
That has happened in some but far from all cases - see below.
The argument for the right to do A in private because it was in private is deceptive and false. Do you have an example?
Easy: the right to be naked. Unchallenged in U.S. history as a private right, but never as a public right.
Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.
“some acts”? What might those be?
I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.
On what basis then do your examples violate these rights (I'll not ask you for a list of them) of the public, these rights being rights created by law?
The rights of the public are not created by law, but are the natural rights of each individual that makes up the public. Each has the right to disallow others from defacating or lovemaking on his property, so the public has that right on public property.
That right to me and obligation to the employer was created by law
BZZZT! As the Founders knew, the law does not create rights but simply recognizes natural rights (or fabricates nonexistent “rights”).
Then where did these “rights” of the public come from if not created by the law?
Answered above.
I'm glad to see you say so.[that marijuana might have a beneficial use] You may have noticed the anti-pot zealots on FR who strenuously deny the possibility of any medical benefit from marijuana.
I see the problem with the user not the substance. Cocaine, opium, dextroamphetamine and chemically similar drugs, barbiturates, all have legitimate medical uses and misusers.
On the use of pot for medical needs. Colorado recently legalized, with some restrictions, recreational use of marijuana. medical use was already legal with a medical card. The number of card holders went from a high (hee, hee, hee..”high”..Rocky Mountain High in Denver?) from a high of about 128,000 to about 80,000 in a few years.
So either these 48,000 quit using or left the state or simply decided to not worry about medical cards. The latter seems more likely.
Why? Maybe they quit using because they got better, or found a better medicine.
Now that marijuana use outside of medical need the number of cards will likely drop over the next few years. The great increase and decrease in the legal medical cards makes one wonder just how difficult it was to obtain these cards and how much medical use really was medical.
I'll bet a lot more people use Tylenol - should that makes one wonder how much Tylenol use really was medical?
As to the small percentage, yes the legal users were a small percentage of the five million state population.
So as I said, we're very far from having evidence that "virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer" and it remains true that legal medical marijuana falls far short of full adult legalization.
As I said before, employers have a legal responsibility/obligation to make sure that workers doing jobs with the potential to injure are unimpaired - but that doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.
What you said before was that I could quit and the employer could employ whom he wished.
And then I elaborated on that statement. By harping on my initial formulation, you only make yourself look childish.
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.
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.
Didn't say that, didn't imply it, thank you.
Tylenol isn't pot nor is it like pot.
“So as I said, we're very far from having evidence that “virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer” and it remains true that legal medical marijuana falls far short of full adult legalization.”
In both California and Colorado marijuana use with a physician’s diagnosis of anything from anxiety to PMS allows the purported sufferer to legally use marijuana. Anyone can claim insomnia or back pain and qualify, in short, virtually any adult.
You are wrong.
“Government does not declare things legal - show me the statute that explicitly allows you to wear plaid shirts”
By silence on the subject it is declared legal. Or by statute if there is a legal challenge.
You're wrong again.
“The rights of the public are not created by law, but are the natural rights of each individual that makes up the public”
So I own the public park. I can cut down a tree in my back yard so therefore I can cut down a tree in the public park. Somehow I don't think that will fly unless permission is given by law, ordinance, statute of local government.
No, ownership of public property is diffused among all those who comprise “the public” and usually only the majority have sufficient ownership to make decisions about its use.
My natural rights which the Founders said the Creator endowed me with plays no part in it. If it did then I should be able to practice in public what I do in private and any interference would be a denial of my rights.
But such is nonsense. Public and private are two different things.
A misunderstanding of that is why you can not make a logical argument that private acts may not be allowable in public, other than to say “it's self evident”.
“I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.”
Even these activities in private are regulated to a degree so maybe they should be stricken from your list.
No, favoring legalization of something one disapproves requires only recognition of limits to governmental authority.
Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?
What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.
So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?
Didn't say that, didn't imply it, thank you.
Hence the question mark. Please answer my question, thank you.
The great increase and decrease in the legal medical cards makes one wonder just how difficult it was to obtain these cards and how much medical use really was medical.
The increase was entirely predictable when starting from a base of zero - and as I said, the decrease may very well be because users got better, or found a better medicine.
So as I said, we're very far from having evidence that “virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer” and it remains true that legal medical marijuana falls far short of full adult legalization.
In both California and Colorado marijuana use with a physician’s diagnosis of anything from anxiety to PMS allows the purported sufferer to legally use marijuana. Anyone can claim insomnia or back pain and qualify, in short, virtually any adult. You are wrong.
Even supposing what you say is true (and only your say-so currently supports it), to conclude that "full adult legalization is not so far away" you would additionally need to show that doctors do no investigation to confirm these problems, and that they will at a patient's request prescribe marijuana rather than some other medication.
Government does not declare things legal - show me the statute that explicitly allows you to wear plaid shirts.
By silence on the subject it is declared legal.
Wrong - a declaration is by its definition not silence.
The rights of the public are not created by law, but are the natural rights of each individual that makes up the public. [OMITTED BY COUNT-YOUR-CHANGE:] Each has the right to disallow others from defacating or lovemaking on his property, so the public has that right on public property.
So I own the public park.
Not by yourself but in conjunction with the other members of the public, as is made clear by my text that you omitted from your reply.
I can cut down a tree in my back yard so therefore I can cut down a tree in the public park. Somehow I don't think that will fly unless permission is given by law, ordinance, statute of local government.
Yes, with the agreement of your co-owners, as is made clear by my text that you omitted from your reply - all fitting within natural rights.
No, ownership of public property is diffused among all those who comprise “the public” and usually only the majority have sufficient ownership to make decisions about its use.
That's been exactly my position all along, as is made clear by my text that you omitted from your reply.
My natural rights which the Founders said the Creator endowed me with plays no part in it. If it did then I should be able to practice in public what I do in private and any interference would be a denial of my rights.
Wrong again - private co-ownership is a widespread arrangement, cf. every company with stock traded in open markets.
I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.
Even these activities in private are regulated to a degree
Please provide evidence for this highly dubious claim.
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.
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.
By now, I think everyone knows that infrastructure is part of our government. Find the biggest blowhard politicians supporting the Drug War and you will quickly find where the most cartel money is flowing.
I'm not going to haggle over idiomatic English given that silence on a subject does indeed speak volumes, an acceptance of the status quo with no requirement of a actual statement.
Further what I edited out is so patently wrong I saw no need to even reply to it. Public rights or ownership is not an accumulation of private ownerships.
Nor is it at all like stock shares in a company.
For example: Shares of stock in a company may be sold or otherwise transferred to others but shared ownership in public property cannot. A share of a privately owned company is an aliquot part of that company and has a definable monetary value while shared ownership of public property accrues to members of the public because the individual is part of a class....the “public” and a monetary value cannot be reasonably assigned to the individuals ownership since he lacks control over any use of public property unless, as is typical, he is in the majority. The ownership is simply too diffused to set a monetary value on.
I could add to the list but it should be abundantly clear and sufficient that public ownership and private ownership are two very distinct and different things.
I used the tree example to demonstrate that public rights are not an accumulation of private rights Private rights precede public rights according to the foundational Declaration of Independence and being Creator endowed cannot be removed.
So as to your question of limitations on government power or authority, of course there are and should be limitations.
“Even supposing what you say is true (and only your say-so currently supports it), to conclude that “full adult legalization is not so far away” you would additionally need to show that doctors do no investigation to confirm these problems, and that they will at a patient’s request prescribe marijuana rather than some other medication.”
What supports what I said is the reality of what is happening in both California and Colorado and that can be found by a tiny amount of research if you're willing to do it.
I need show nothing else at all as it's not my task to do research for you or according to your demands, particularly research that you have not and likely will not do.
Going to your list that includes “defacating or lovemaking on his property”, in the village where I live we have running water and sewer systems and every dwelling is required to have a functioning toilet or be condemned as uninhabitable. This regulation cannot be sidestepped by an outdoor privy or something similar. Other municipalities have regulations too.
And “lovemaking on his property”? Do I really need to point to laws against incest and bestiality? And at one time sodomy before the sodomites demanded that what they claimed was private conduct they now demand be recognized with public acceptance.
Government does not declare things legal - show me the statute that explicitly allows you to wear plaid shirts.
By silence on the subject it is declared legal.
Wrong - a declaration is by its definition not silence.
I'm not going to haggle over idiomatic English given that silence on a subject does indeed speak volumes, an acceptance of the status quo with no requirement of a actual statement.
Exactly what I'm saying - liberty is the default assumption, or "status quo," and government does not "declare" or "state" anything to be legal, therefore legality and liberty are NOT "an expression of the power of government."
Public rights or ownership is not an accumulation of private ownerships.
"Accumulation of private ownerships" is a strange way of putting it - maybe that points to the source of your problem. I'm simply talking about mutiple persons all sharing ownership - a concept well known in the private sphere.
Nor is it at all like stock shares in a company.
For example: Shares of stock in a company may be sold or otherwise transferred to others but shared ownership in public property cannot. A share of a privately owned company is an aliquot part of that company and has a definable monetary value while shared ownership of public property accrues to members of the public because the individual is part of a class....the “public” and a monetary value cannot be reasonably assigned to the individuals ownership since he lacks control over any use of public property unless, as is typical, he is in the majority. The ownership is simply too diffused to set a monetary value on.
I could add to the list
You should first establish how any of those differences are relevant to the point - which is simply that there is such a phenomenon as shared ownership that is not created by law (although there may be laws regarding it to assist in dispute resolution) but is an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.
I used the tree example to demonstrate that public rights are not an accumulation of private rights
You failed - you simply pretended that the rights of mutual ownership were identical to those of sole ownership.
Private rights precede public rights according to the foundational Declaration of Independence and being Creator endowed cannot be removed.
Where exactly does the Declaration of Independence say that private rights precede public rights?
If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.
So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?
So as to your question of limitations on government power or authority, of course there are and should be limitations.
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?
Even supposing what you say is true (and only your say-so currently supports it), to conclude that “full adult legalization is not so far away” you would additionally need to show that doctors do no investigation to confirm these problems, and that they will at a patient’s request prescribe marijuana rather than some other medication.
What supports what I said is the reality of what is happening in both California and Colorado and that can be found by a tiny amount of research if you're willing to do it.
I need show nothing else at all as it's not my task to do research for you
Backward - in the forum of reasoned debate the burden of proof is on the one making the claim (else debate would degenerate into an exchange of unsupported claims).
in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.
“some acts”? What might those be?
I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defecation and lovemaking.
Going to your list that includes “defecating or lovemaking on his property”, in the village where I live we have running water and sewer systems and every dwelling is required to have a functioning toilet or be condemned as uninhabitable. This regulation cannot be sidestepped by an outdoor privy or something similar. Other municipalities have regulations too.
How is that relevant to the fact that my defecating in private infringes on nobody else's rights? Note that the right to defecate in no way implies the right to do with one's feces whatever one pleases.
And “lovemaking on his property”? Do I really need to point to laws against incest and bestiality?
No, since "the already mentioned example of lovemaking" I cited was "make love with their spouses." Can you cite any restrictions on that private act?
And at one time sodomy before the sodomites demanded that what they claimed was private conduct
And they were right - private acts of sodomy infringe on nobody else's rights.
they now demand be recognized with public acceptance.
And in that they're wrong.
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.
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.
I said legality is a statement by silence of the government not liberty. Governments create laws, laws create the state of legality or its reverse and thus the legal status quo.
No government, no laws, no laws no legality or illegality and thus no legal status quo.The government creates the default position by the standard that whatever is not forbidden is permitted
“.You should first establish how any of those differences are relevant to the point - which is simply that there is such a phenomenon as shared ownership that is not created by law (although there may be laws regarding it to assist in dispute resolution) but is an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.”
You brought up stocks and I established that it was a poor comparison to public ownership because of those differences..
“”Accumulation of private ownerships” is a strange way of putting it - maybe that points to the source of your problem. I'm simply talking about mutiple persons all sharing ownership - a concept well known in the private sphere.”.
And shared ownership is the basis of public property but by using the same terms it does not follow that the two concepts are variations or extensions of one from the other. Public ownership is not “...an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.” as those differences show. The one is quite dissimilar to the other.
That there are private rights to ownership not created by law was never in question as I earlier pointed out that these private rights preceded any legal rights established by governments but as the Founders said, people are endowed by Creator.
On tree cutting in my yard of public park.
“You failed - you simply pretended that the rights of mutual ownership were identical to those of sole ownership.”
Nope. No pretending involved, just high lighting the lack of logic in some of your arguments.
Private rights precede public rights according to the foundational Declaration of Independence and being Creator endowed cannot be removed.
“Where exactly does the Declaration of Independence say that private rights precede public rights?”
Ahhhh...you might try paragraph one and two.
As to burdens of proof and medical marijuana cards, I think what I did cite would support my conclusions so if you want more such as you suggested, yes, that research you'll have to do on your own.
Regulations on sanitation.
“How is that relevant to the fact that my defecating in private infringes on nobody else’s rights? Note that the right to defecate in no way implies the right to do with one’s feces whatever one pleases.”
Infringing on other’s rights while practicing your own rights and needs are what sanitation regulations are designed to avoid and that without such regulations some people do tend to do whatever they please, endangering all.
And “lovemaking on his property”? Do I really need to point to laws against incest and bestiality?
“No, since “the already mentioned example of lovemaking” I cited was “make love with their spouses.” Can you cite any restrictions on that private act?”
I simply responded to the phrase you used. Not immediately but then your list of two was rather short.
Sodomy laws overturned but not allowed in public.
“And they were right - private acts of sodomy infringe on nobody else’s rights.”.
Well, we've seen where that leads.
And that brings up the question of why incest and bestiality should not be legal on the same basis..
I said legality is a statement by silence of the government not liberty. Governments create laws, laws create the state of legality
That's what you're still confused about - you yourself characterized legality as the "status quo" that is "accepted" NOT created.
or its reverse and thus the legal status quo.
No government, no laws, no laws no legality
Now who's haggling over idiomatic English? No government means EVERYTHING is legal.
or illegality and thus no legal status quo.The government creates the default position by the standard that whatever is not forbidden is permitted
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.
You should first establish how any of those differences are relevant to the point - which is simply that there is such a phenomenon as shared ownership that is not created by law (although there may be laws regarding it to assist in dispute resolution) but is an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.
You brought up stocks and I established that it was a poor comparison to public ownership because of those differences..
Wrong - you merely listed some differences, and have yet to establish that any of those differences are relevant to the point above.
”Accumulation of private ownerships” is a strange way of putting it - maybe that points to the source of your problem. I'm simply talking about mutiple persons all sharing ownership - a concept well known in the private sphere.
And shared ownership is the basis of public property but by using the same terms it does not follow that the two concepts are variations or extensions of one from the other. Public ownership is not “...an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.” as those differences show. The one is quite dissimilar to the other.
You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Your list of differences proves only that private and public ownership are not identical (which I never said or implied they were) not that they are not variations or extensions.
You failed - you simply pretended that the rights of mutual ownership were identical to those of sole ownership.
Nope. No pretending involved, just high lighting the lack of logic in some of your arguments.
Wrong - all you highlighted was your hamhanded misrepresentation of my argument.
Private rights precede public rights according to the foundational Declaration of Independence and being Creator endowed cannot be removed.
Where exactly does the Declaration of Independence say that private rights precede public rights?
Ahhhh...you might try paragraph one and two.
Those say that anything created by law is preceded by private rights. They do 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.
If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.
So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?
So as to your question of limitations on government power or authority, of course there are and should be limitations.
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?
As to burdens of proof and medical marijuana cards, I think what I did cite
Please point out any evidence you cited - I see none, only claims by you.
How is that relevant to the fact that my defecating in private infringes on nobody else’s rights? Note that the right to defecate in no way implies the right to do with one’s feces whatever one pleases.
Infringing on other’s rights while practicing your own rights and needs are what sanitation regulations are designed to avoid and that without such regulations some people do tend to do whatever they please, endangering all.
None of that addresses my point.
And “lovemaking on his property”? Do I really need to point to laws against incest and bestiality?
No, since “the already mentioned example of lovemaking” I cited was “make love with their spouses.” Can you cite any restrictions on that private act?
I simply responded to the phrase you used.
After taking it out of context - which I have now restored. Can you cite any restrictions on the private act of making love with one's spouse?
And they were right - private acts of sodomy infringe on nobody else’s rights.
Well, we've seen where that leads.
No, we've seen you engage in the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. That one thing followed another chronologically simply does not establish a logical connection between them.
And that brings up the question of why incest and bestiality should not be legal on the same basis..
Animals have no rights, and incest as it exists in the real world is rape without the overt threat of force.
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.
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.
“Animals have no rights, and incest as it exists in the real world is rape without the overt threat of force.”
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.
By the bye, did you find what you were looking for in the Declaration?
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.
And you said they have no rights. By what logic then could public law forbid these vile practices in private?
I'm reconsidering that claim - it seems to me plausible to say that sentient creatures have the right to not be made to suffer.
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.
If the public really asserts such a "right" regarding adults, the public is mistaken - but I think the public's concern about incest centers around the protection of children.
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.
So far you haven't disagreed with me.
And yes, the default position of permission is created by the laws silence.
No, the default position of permission is MAINTAINED AS THE ACTUAL POSITION by the law's silence - NOT created by it. That the default is what it is, is a consequence of the natural rights of human persons.
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.
So rather than keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms and bloodstreams, you'd surrender to "the public" your rights to your property and even your person? Are you sure you're on the right Web site?
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.
The laws against incest even between consenting adults in private arose from the Biblical proscription, the natural abhorrence to such acts and efforts to protect the gene pool.
“If the public really asserts such a “right” regarding adults, the public is mistaken”.
If mistaken, then mistaken by what logic?
Why cannot the public, society at large, the community say that there are certain acts that so offend its sense of moral order that they are not tolerable even in private? And that the effects of these acts will be harmful to the public interests?
“So rather than keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms and bloodstreams, you'd surrender to “the public” your rights to your property and even your person? Are you sure you're on the right Web site?”
It's not my nose and I'm not talking about what I see as the best course but rather what the reality has been since the founding of the country.
I completely agree.
The laws against incest even between consenting adults in private arose from the Biblical proscription, the natural abhorrence to such acts and efforts to protect the gene pool.
As a historical explanation, I expect that's about right. Whether the public thinks that way today is open to question.
If the public really asserts such a “right” regarding adults, the public is mistaken.
If mistaken, then mistaken by what logic?
Why cannot the public, society at large, the community say that there are certain acts that so offend its sense of moral order that they are not tolerable even in private?
For one thing, there's no defined limit to governmental power there. Interracial marriage was once seen as "offending its sense of moral order."
And that the effects of these acts will be harmful to the public interests?
Your "interests" do not take precedence over my rights.
So rather than keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms and bloodstreams, you'd surrender to “the public” your rights to your property and even your person? Are you sure you're on the right Web site?
It's not my nose
You make it partly yours when you vocally support not keeping it out of other people's bedrooms and bloodstreams.
and I'm not talking about what I see as the best course but rather what the reality has been since the founding of the country.
If all you're saying is that the public has in fact said that there are certain acts that so offend its sense of moral order that they are not tolerable even in private, then your question "Why cannot ..." makes no sense.
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.
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.
I said “public” interests not my interests. and the public interests can certainly take precedence over your rights with the exceptions noted in the Constitution and the Declaration.
Your have a right to own property but it can be seized for public use, public interests. You have a right to your life but it can be pressed into public use with the very real possibility of losing it.
“For one thing, there's no defined limit to governmental power there. Interracial marriage was once seen as “offending its sense of moral order.”
And that's why we have courts, to supply such definitions of limits. To restrain a tyrannical government as well as a tyrannical public at large.
But your comment raises a good point...the obsession with rights over obligations to others.
“You make it partly yours when you vocally support not keeping it out of other people's bedrooms and bloodstreams.”
I've said nothing about wanting to get my nose into others bedrooms and bloodstreams. What I have said is that the chant of “consenting adults in private” is not some magic mantra that protects the actors from illegality and that the arguments that it does have no basis.
“If all you're saying is that the public has in fact said that there are certain acts that so offend its sense of moral order that they are not tolerable even in private, then your question “Why cannot ...” makes no sense.”
Maybe you just don't understand the question.
I said “public” interests not my interests. and the public interests can certainly take precedence over your rights with the exceptions noted in the Constitution and the Declaration.
Your have a right to own property but it can be seized for public use, public interests. You have a right to your life but it can be pressed into public use with the very real possibility of losing it.
Can, yes - should, no.
For one thing, there's no defined limit to governmental power there. Interracial marriage was once seen as “offending its sense of moral order.
And that's why we have courts, to supply such definitions of limits. To restrain a tyrannical government as well as a tyrannical public at large.
So if the courts found a right to drug use, like they've found a right to abortion, you'd think things were working as they ought?
But your comment raises a good point...the obsession with rights over obligations to others.
How does my comment raise that point - was insisting on the right to interracial marriage an "obsession" that disregarded "obligations to others"?
You make it partly yours when you vocally support not keeping it out of other people's bedrooms and bloodstreams.
I've said nothing about wanting to get my nose into others bedrooms and bloodstreams.
You've vocally supported government's putting its nose there.
What I have said is that the chant of “consenting adults in private” is not some magic mantra that protects the actors from illegality
Then you've been arguing with the voices in your head - nobody here said it protects the actors from illegality.
and that the arguments that it does have no basis.
You utterly failed to establish that claim.
If all you're saying is that the public has in fact said that there are certain acts that so offend its sense of moral order that they are not tolerable even in private, then your question “Why cannot ...” makes no sense.”
Maybe you just don't understand the question.
You could rephrase the question - or you could remain coy and let readers draw their conclusions as to why. Your call.
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.
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.
Some courts obviously have discovered a right to drug use and being a law abiding person I have to accept that decision not approve it.
Race is not a moral choice, however the term race be defined.
The obsession with rights is an obsession that ignores any harm done to others or dismisses it as too trivial to matter.
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.