Posted on 09/19/2001 6:23:08 PM PDT by Uriel1975
You're probably thinking of Medieval Venice. Also the Byzantine Empire, at least post-1000 AD. I believe (if memory serves) that both Venice and Byzantium depended on unreliable foreign mercenaries -- to their misfortune.
But I don't think that the analogy applies here, as Letters of Marque and Reprisal approve the armament and Bounty-payment of the US's own citizenry. That's an entirely different matter. Mercenaries, yes, but of the home-grown variety. They live here. Their homeland is the same country -- the US of A -- for which they fight, and from which they collect Bounty.
A domestic armed citizenry? I consider that a good thing. In fact, I bet you do too.
Also I hope you got my message about a neighbor of yours who may find this issue "close to home."
However the animal has no way to get out on its own.
Only by the decision of the Property Owner.
If, OTOH the Property Owner takes his animal outside the Fence, he is 100% responsible for any harms his animal commits.
Likewise, he is 100% responsible for any harms he commits.
This would have to be the case in a person on hard drugs.
Hard Drugs like Everclear?
'Fraid Not. The Bible provides no justification for State invasion of Property when the Property-Owner commits no Harm, and restrains his Potential Harm to within his Fence. OTOH, if the Property Owner brings the potential Harm outside the Fence, the Bible admits of no reduction in his "Personal Responsibility" whatsoever.
You see, I have you several ways now. Hard drug users would have to be restrained and observed, if their drug were legalize (which you fight SOOOO hard for).
Chain up all vodka-users??
Biblically, no justification for that idea whatsoever. Rather, they are permitted to drink themselves silly, or allow their pit-bulls to roam free, within their Fence. And held 100% responsible for their actions, or the actions of their pit-bull, if they should bring the Potential Harm outside the Fence.
The Bible treats both Property Rights and Personal Responsibility as absolute.
You give your consent to the law by choosing to live in your community that outlaws it.
Just as Paul advises Slaves to tolerate their situation with meek-ness.
Unless, of course, they have (as all citizens of a Republic do), the opportunity to change the Law.
If a Christian has the opportunity to change the Law, he must seek to bring it into conformity with Biblical Law. Period.
I tell ya Uriel, if you put HALF the effort into spreading the good news to the unsaved that you do on trying to Biblically legitimize the legalization o drugs, this world would be a much better place.
The Biblical question is not "legalization" of intoxicants, but whether there is any Non-Covenantal justification for State prohibition of intoxicants in the first place. (There isn't).
As to my "efforts", I spend an awful lot of time defending Sound Christian Doctrine, as all too many professing "christians" don't even really know what the Good News is. We can hardly preach it if we don't get it right ourselves.
Also, there's the matter of my sponsorship of a call for the Federal issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attack, a proposal which -- thanks in large part to the efforts of several other Libertarian FReepers and some personal friends of my own (mainly my friend Murray Sabrin, National Vice-Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus) -- has already been brought to Congressional attention on the floor of the House of Representatives (see TimeLine, above).
At this point, we're somewhat at the mercy of Congress to move forward. But if we are able to move this thing forward.... I might have a few more tricks up my sleeve.
To wit:
I have already acknowledged on Free Republic that thanks to a friendship I established back in early 2000, I am now "two degrees of separation" from US Representative Ron Paul -- I am good friends with Murray, and Murray is good friends with Ron Paul. What I haven't previously acknowledged publicly is that I am also only "two degrees of separation" from billionaire H. Ross Perot, one of the few American individuals in recent history (Iran, 1979, "On Wings of Eagles") to carry out a 100% successful mercenary conuter-terrorist infiltration operation -- while the Government, as Governments often do, completely failed (Iran, 1979, "Desert One").
Not that I know Ross personally. I don't. But he's the personal friend of a personal friend -- which is all I care to tell the likes of you, Tex. (The only reason I am mentioning this now is to give my fellow libertarians an idea of where I'm hoping to go with this "Marque and Reprisal" thing -- and because I'm a little offended at the idea of a third-rate slap-fighting midget questioning my "efforts"). IF the Free Republic Liberty Caucus can get this proposal to a Congressional Vote, then I might be able to swing Perot's backing... depending on whether or not he'd be interested in private paramilitary counter-terrorist operations again, or not (heck, it might be right up his alley). If I can pull that together... expect fireworks. (Time will tell).
So, in response to your challenge, yes, I keep myself busy -- with a range of different projects that engage my attention. Responding to the incessant Logical and Theological fallacies of a little Texas-Aggie wanna-be G-banger yappy-dog, nipping at my heels and crying for my attention, is (at least you got at least that much right) probably a waste of my time (I don't get enough sleep as it is). But , I'll admit -- I'm a sucker for a chance to educate my fellow-citizen. "The Best Defense of Liberty is an Informed Citizenry", Jefferson is reputed to have opined; if someone doesn't impel you to honest self-criticism of the MTV-educated pablum you call your "thought process", how will you ever learn to actually think??
But the United States never signed the treaty.
Our delegates rejected the treaty on the grounds that, at that time, the US Navy was completely dependent upon Private paramilitary participation via Marque and Reprisal to protect US shipping.
The Marque and Reprisal option is open and available for us, if we can get it to a vote.
But the dog is not allowed to roam free. Therefore, as I said, the user would have to be observed at ALL times and LOCKED into his own property, as the dog. And I quite like the analogy of a hard drug user being a dog. They should enjoy the same amount of freedom while intoxicated. And no hard liquor does not qualify.
And the good news is SALVATION, not living under a perfect gov. Do you really think that God is concerned because our gov. does not allow crack heads to legally enjoy their habit? If you do, you are sick.
God is more concerned about our SPIRITUAL lives than our political ones. The government we live under is of very little concern to him, compared to our SPIRITUAL freedom. You focus your efforts on social LIBERALISM and you go against God.
As for Ron Paul, he was my moms OBGYN. RP is a great family man and is not arrogant and conceded as you are. You are nothing but a mouth, backed by nothing.
Perhaps if you focus more on SPIRITUAL life and not political, you may actually have a chance to do something worth while.
Oh, BTW Demidog is banned.
Nope. Biblically, a Human Being is not a dog.
Biblically, humans are always treated as being 100% responsible for their actions at all times.
And yes, vodka, Bacardi 151, and Everclear are hard drugs, and as likely as almost any other hard drug (and moreso than many) to affect a man's tendency towards inflicting Harm on his neighbor.
If you don't know this, you don't know vodka.
And the good news is SALVATION, not living under a perfect gov. Do you really think that God is concerned because our gov. does not allow crack heads to legally enjoy their habit? If you do, you are sick.
I think that God is concerned that the Government violates Biblical Law for the purpose of seizing those non-violent "hard drug" users who have not Harmed their neighbors (only themselves) and throwing them in a prison to become victims of homosexual rape, members of violent criminal gangs, and proficient street thugs unable to get a job because of a criminal record but completely calloused towards human life, yes.
I have no difficulty whatsoever supposing that God sees that as a violation of His Law for Government. And guess what, TexHypocrite79: it is.
God is more concerned about our SPIRITUAL lives than our political ones. The government we live under is of very little concern to him, compared to our SPIRITUAL freedom. You focus your efforts on social LIBERALISM and you go against God.
Gnostic Heresy, TexAggie (look it up, maybe you'll understand).
The Spiritual Life is the Political Life. The Political Life is the Spiritual Life. You are never allowed to take off your "Christian Hat", it applies to all aspects of your life, equally and at all times.
As for Ron Paul, he was my moms OBGYN. RP is a great family man and is not arrogant and conceded as you are. You are nothing but a mouth, backed by nothing.
Ron Paul is a great Man, largely because he is a great Libertarian.
He has an iron-clad set of rock-solid Biblical Principles guiding his life, and thereby, infusing his libertarianism.
You, of course, do not.
Perhaps if you focus more on SPIRITUAL life and not political, you may actually have a chance to do something worth while.
Perhaps your entire conception of man is flawed.
God demands our whole souls -- spirit and flesh. For the Christian, the Political and the Spiritual ought never be considered as separate affairs. To do so, results in the sort of "moral compartmentalization" preached by those who know that it would be sinful for them to trespass onto a neighbor's property and shoot him for ingesting the "wrong" kind of intoxicant, but imagine that by "voting" for such Assault and Battery, it becomes morally "Okay".
As I said -- that's just the result of the anti-Christian Gnostic heresy at work in your thought processes. The fact is, you can never take off your "Christian Hat" to approve of Violence which you would not commit yourself when you "put your Christian Hat back on". Never.
Oh, BTW Demidog is banned.
Currently.
I'm actually ashamed of how much I personally do know it, and other hard liquors. The majority of everyone I knew and my worst reaction from it was passing out and being VERY sick.
become victims of homosexual rape, members of violent criminal gangs, and proficient street thugs So because our prison system is out of control we need to allow criminals to walk? And yes hard drug users are criminals, they use an illicit drug, deemed illicit by their community and they also thereby endanger their neighbors.
The Spiritual Life is the Political Life.
You know what, as much as I hate the notion of paying for other people's irresponsibility, i.e. medicare, welfare, ect. I don't think God gives a good crap. THERE are billions of unsaved lives out there, and God is going to be concerned that some guy is freeloading off the gov? You have your priorities WAY screwed up.
Ron Paul is a great Man, largely because he is a great Libertarian.
But he is also a realistic man, by running within the Rep. party. He is also a reasonable man because you hardly hear any crap about legalizing drugs from him. That is nowhere near the top of his list. And he does not go around telling people how much he "outclasses" them.
but imagine that by "voting" for such Assault and Battery, it becomes morally "Okay".
You guys are SOO propaganda driven. Should we commit assault and battery on a person that does not pay his traffic tickets? But we should arrest them right? Your analogy is horrendously off.
I have not ever promoted breaking into user's houses.
The fact is, you can never take off your "Christian Hat" to approve of Violence
As I said, I think people who do not pay their traffic tickets should be arrested, but not have violence committed upon them. You are entering another red herring.
The only times I've ever seen him the least bit out of line is after he's been repeately attacked with personal insults.
I'm entirely in favor of bringing him back, and find it hard to believe he did anything which justified banning him even temporarily.
But there might be a different reaction. You might become violent. You might become an adict(alcoholic) and rob houses to get your alcohol. So, if you're treating potential harms as crimes in addition to actual ones, you have to punish drinkers. Not just of the hard stuff, but of all alcoholic drinks, since they do the same thing lower levels.
BTW, Vodka's good, but Jager's really good.
And yes hard drug users are criminals, they use an illicit drug, deemed illicit by their community and they also thereby endanger their neighbors.
Are you really prepared to say that anything deemed illicit by the community should be illegal?
You guys are SOO propaganda driven. Should we commit assault and battery on a person that does not pay his traffic tickets? But we should arrest them right? Your analogy is horrendously off.
...
As I said, I think people who do not pay their traffic tickets should be arrested, but not have violence committed upon them.
What do you think happens if you don't want to be arrested, and attempt to avoid it?
Most people react similarly to opium, heroin, etc... actually they just "zone out", and you'd be lucky if you could get them to kill a cockroach, let alone a human being.
But some people react to hard drugs by getting violent. And hard liquor is certainly as powerful a contributor to their violent tendencies as most any other kind of "hard drug" (and as mentioned above, moreso than most).
But the Bible does not justify any State invasion of their Property. None whatsoever. They are held responsible for violent actions, not intoxication.
become victims of homosexual rape, members of violent criminal gangs, and proficient street thugs ~~ So because our prison system is out of control we need to allow criminals to walk? And yes hard drug users are criminals, they use an illicit drug, deemed illicit by their community and they also thereby endanger their neighbors.
The same could be said of 190-proof Everclear, because you have no rational reason whatsoever for excluding it from the community of "hard drugs".
You choose to make "hard drugs" (defined as, "any drugs other than the ones which Texaggie79 has used") illegal upon Private Property -- a choice for whcih you have no Biblical Justification whatsoever -- and thereby "sanctify" your choice to subject non-violent users of "hard drugs" (defined as, "any drugs other than the ones which Texaggie79 has used") to become victims of homosexual rape, members of violent criminal gangs, and proficient street thugs unable to get a job because of a criminal record but completely calloused towards human life -- while you wash your hands of the whole mess and say, "I didn't do it, I just voted for it!".
Nuthin' for nuthin', but that attitude is Pharisiacally sanctimonious, Ethically hypocritical, and downright sick.
The Spiritual Life is the Political Life. ~~ You know what, as much as I hate the notion of paying for other people's irresponsibility, i.e. medicare, welfare, ect. I don't think God gives a good crap. THERE are billions of unsaved lives out there, and God is going to be concerned that some guy is freeloading off the gov? You have your priorities WAY screwed up.
You think that God doesn't "give a good crap"?
That's nuts.
God is intimately concerned with every sparrow that falls in the woods. He is intimately concerned with the revolution of every electron around every proton in the universe.
Yes, tex, He most certainly does "give a crap" about how we subject our Political Philosophy to Biblical Law (much as you hate that notion).
Ron Paul is a great Man, largely because he is a great Libertarian. t he is also a realistic man, by running within the Rep. party. He is also a reasonable man because you hardly hear any crap about legalizing drugs from him. That is nowhere near the top of his list.
Bullhockey.
Ron Paul's speeches contain plenty of condemnations of the insanities of the "War on (some) Drugs". I could post a dozen such excerpts if you liked, but you know how to use a search engine, and you know I'm right.
And he does not go around telling people how much he "outclasses" them.
Ron needs your vote.
I don't.
I don't mind telling you that you're dead wrong.
but imagine that by "voting" for such Assault and Battery, it becomes morally "Okay". You guys are SOO propaganda driven. Should we commit assault and battery on a person that does not pay his traffic tickets? But we should arrest them right? Your analogy is horrendously off.
Traffic tickets are the result of an individual's refusal to obey the "usage rules" of public property -- essentially, they are trespassing.
Biblically, not only can you ethically employ Force against a trespasser, you could even shoot them if they resisted.
By contrast, you are trying to pretend that you may ethically trespass onto another man's property, and commit Assault against him thereupon because he is using "hard drugs" (defined as, "any drugs other than the ones which Texaggie79 has used"), so long as you "vote" that action to be morally "Okay".
That attitude is Pharisiacally sanctimonious, Ethically hypocritical, and downright sick.
I have not ever promoted breaking into user's houses.
So police may not break into user's houses?
So in other words, the police may not invade a man's Property - ever - unless they have reason to believe that the individual is committing an Aggressive Harm against aomeone else thereupon?
Then what are you whining about? I've already acknowledged that so long as Public Commons are Public Property, you may legislate "usage rules" concerning "public intoxication" even without unanimous covenant, on the basis of public ownership.
If you believe, OTOH, that police should not break into user's houses, then you are admitting the Biblical sanctity of Private Property -- which essentially grants my entire argument.
In which case, glad you finally came around to the Biblical position. Thanks for the debate.
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.