[CDHart]

Just wanted to thank both of you for dropping me from your argument. However, after reading many of your posts, I have to jump in and say that PaxMacian has the better understanding of how our Constitution is intended to work. Individual rights should be protected in all scenarios, as long as no one is being harmed by the exercise of those rights.

Carolyn

[SampleMan]

However, after reading many of your posts, I have to jump in and say that PaxMacian has the better understanding of how our Constitution is intended to work. Individual rights should be protected in all scenarios, as long as no one is being harmed by the exercise of those rights.

I've never said otherwise. I've made that quite clear. But one person or a minority of people demanding that no harm is done, doesn't make it true. There is a minority of people who think that five should be the age of consent, and that no harm is done.

What is and who decides "harm" is my point. If the People are too stupid or dangerous to be given that power, then who should decide in their place, and why are they more qualified?

I think all alternatives to the People are quite dangerous and unacceptable.

If a law is passed and the backer's say, "No harm is done, but we don't like it." You have a Constitutional argument. If you simply don't agree about the harm done (going 120mph in a school zone) then you have failed to win in the arena of ideas.

As there will always be a minority to say that no harm is done, even in cases such as rape and pedophilia, how do you propose to ensure that the People always make perfect decisions?

The four of you continue to avoid the issue of harm and insist as a foregone conclussion that no harm is done. It is not a foregone conclussion, as most people disagree with you and think that harm is done. But instead of arguing that point, you want to create a system where you don't have to debate and get to force your will on others.