Replies

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.

Perhaps I can explain it better this way:

A close reading of the Constitution and the Founders' other writings (including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers) gives me the understanding that the Constitution in essence gives the government no more authority to act than we as individuals possess. We, as individuals, may properly set rules for ourselves and our families, even complete with punishments for those who break those rules. We may properly defend ourselves and our families and property with whatever amount of force we consider needful, even deadly force. We have also banded together to establish a COMMON defense, through the Constitution.

However, we cannot give any government one whit of authority which we, ourselves, may not legitimately exercise. We cannot, for example, give government the LEGITIMATE authority to ban or prohibit voluntary behaviors of others when done privately. We, as individuals, do have the proper and legitimate authority to act when something is done in public which could have a negative impact on ourselves or others and we can properly delegate this authority to government. We can even act when something is done by another IN PRIVATE when we have very good grounds to believe that it involves the INVOLUNTARY participation of another person, as for example a rape or attempted murder. This authority we can also delegate.

We can delegate no other authority to government, as it is NOT OURS TO GIVE. Sadly, FedGov and the Several States have taken on powers they were prohibited from exercising and we have not stopped them. Some folks, even here on FR, actually cheer on government for so vastly exceeding its proper and legitimate authority. I suspect you are not one of those, but you do seem to have some sort of majoritarian tendencies which need to be curbed.