Yeah right...
1. Stop supporting policies that undermine the Fourth and Fifth Amendment in "support" of Prohibition II.
Why don't you give some concrete examples instead of blanket generalizations?
2. Make clear that "morality laws" are only applicable to public behavior.
All laws legislate some kind of morality, and perversion that breeds in Private seeps into and destroys the Public. As one of our FOUNDING FATHERS opined from the Bench of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
Although every immoral act, such as lying, etc., is not indict able, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid. The corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences. No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.
3. Acknowledge and honor the clear meaning of the Second Amendment.
So please tell us, what is the clear meaning of the Second Amendment? (FYI: I already know the answer to this, but I want to see if the libertarian answer squares with reality.)
4. Articulate a sound and coherent economic policy rationale, bearing in mind that "Democrat Lite" is not logically sound.
What party gave us the tax cuts?
Have you ever read the rants on DU and the Kos Kids in favor of their dope?
Further, many Libertarians are opposed to the use of public schools to indoctrinate students into sexual immorality and Marxism.
So are many Republicans. Including myself.
Further, if you separate out the issues where libertarians disagree among themselves, I think you'd find that while a fair number of libertarians take the liberal side in disagreements with Republicans, nearly all of them would take the conservative side in their disagreements with Democrats.
Interesting, at the online political simulations, and the various discussion boards that I have visited, the libertarians inexorably ally with the Democrats against Republicans. I wonder why that is?
Why don't you give some concrete examples instead of blanket generalizations?
Are you kidding here? You want "concrete examples?" How about the concept of "asset forfeiture?" Talk about bending the Constitution! They courts ruled that assets could be seized by the government ON THE SUSPICION that they were earned illegally. This is facilitated by NOT arresting and charging the rightful owner of those assets. The courts ruled that it wasn't the rightful owner of the property that was being arrested, but the property itself. Since the owner had not been arrested or charged with a crime, his rights have not been violated. Instead, the courts ruled, the property itself has been arrested, but since that property isn't a human being, the property has no rights under the Constitutional protections. So, the government seizes your property, and lets you go on your way. And if you want your property back, you need to sue the government to recover it.
How's that for just ONE concrete example?
Mark
All laws legislate some kind of morality, and perversion that breeds in Private seeps into and destroys the Public. As one of our FOUNDING FATHERS opined from the Bench of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
Although every immoral act, such as lying, etc., is not indict able, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid. The corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences. No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.
Well, morality has a habit of evolving over time... After all, some things that were once considered immoral are now though of as moral. And interestingly enough, some things that were thought of as moral at one time, are now seen as immoral. Slavery, for instance.
Using the above example, there's a serious difference between lying and fruad or purjury. In once case (lying), there may or may not be harm done to another. For instance, were I to say that your baby was cute, no matter how ugly the baby is, no harm is done. That's not indictable. On the other hand, were I to lie to you in a business transaction, or purjur myself in a court, then I am causing direct harm to another, and those would be cause for action by the government against me.
Also, exactly when was the ruling you quote made. Was it while PA still had an official State religion? Today, that's known as a Theocracy, something that's decried by most thinking people in our society: But some people, who seem to denounce the muslim propensity towards theocracy the loudest often seem to look longingly towards a Christian based theocracy. So it's not the theocracy they hate: Just who's running it.
Mark
What party gave us the tax cuts?
And which party has been spending like a drunken teenager at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch armed with daddy's Platinum card? I use that as an example, because no group of drunken sailors could possibly keep up with the spending spree that's been going on during the pubbies rule of all three branches of the federal government.
I don't understand it. Maybe they thought that if they outspent the dems, the dems would like them.
Mark
Why don't you give some concrete examples instead of blanket generalizations?
I believe it was Republicans who passed statutes allowing people's propety to be confiscated by the state on suspicion of wrongdoing, without having to convict the people of wrongdoing; a judge appointed by (IIRC) GHWB found that police don't even need probable cause sufficient for arrest to justify such a taking. For the government to hold the property of someone who was under indictment for a particular crime may be reasonable, but to declare that the government can keep property without even having to charge its owner with something is horrible.
I don't think the Republican Party has been complaining about "sobriety checkpoints" and such, even though the logic used to justify them is truly bizarre (somehow the fact that a driver was the fifth person past a checkpoint represents probable cause!?)
The Republican Party, and judges appointed thereby, have not so far as I can tell raised any particular objection to the widespread use of no-knock raids in even minor drug cases, despite the harm that such raids cause to many innocent people.
Should I go on?
All laws legislate some kind of morality, and perversion that breeds in Private seeps into and destroys the Public.
The only way laws which legislate private acts can be effectively enforced is by giving the government the power to monitor people's private activities. I would posit that the harm done by granting the government such power exceeds the harm done by allowing people to engage in such activities in private.
I think it's also important to consider that many people do many things which are not illegal, or even immoral, which they have good reason not to want other people to know about. Government agents who are allowed to discover such things will be in a position to blackmail such people. Best not to give them such power. So please tell us, what is the clear meaning of the Second Amendment? (FYI: I already know the answer to this, but I want to see if the libertarian answer squares with reality.)
All free persons have the right to keep and bear arms of any and all such types as might be useful in a well-functioning group of citizens joined for the defense of themselves, their community, their state, or their nation. The first part of the Second Amendment makes abundantly clear that the right to keep and bear arms is not just for "hunting or sporting purposes".
What party gave us the tax cuts?
Which party gave us the Medicare prescription drug plan?