Posted on 09/24/2001 12:49:15 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
Bon jour, ma petit ami.
"A non-tyrannical government exists to protect the persons and property of everyone inside its jurisdiction by punishing domestic criminals and defeating foreign attackers, and as such is an ally and supporter of the people. To the extent that a government exists for any other purpose, especially a purpose which aims to force human nature to fit an artificial ideal, it must treat the people as an enemy to be subdued."
If I may, sir, it is when the sovereigns of a Constitutional Republic, the people, fail to maintain vigorous involvement in their election process that the Republic is in greatest peril. The rise of a criminal enterpirse democrat party and a gelatinous-spined Republican party have greatly imperiled this Republic because the somnambulent electorate have irresponsible representatives ... neither tyrranical or non-tyrranical, merely shortsightedly self-absorbed. Hopefully, with this war on a religious totalitarian enemy the people will waken and remain awake when the peace comes.
[BTW, I enjoyed your article, and I happen to agree with much of your agenda in writing the article the way you focused it. You used a reference to the Taliban in a generic sense of the people, then responded to my simplistic critique in a specific application (only if the populace is roughly 50% female, does your assertion works non-generically).]
Perhaps the policies of the "Clean Hands" types -- like the Saudis whose Zero Tolerance policy actually rings of a "War on Drugs" -- has somehow confused you.
I myself think EVERY thread on terrorism should include a connection to drugs and drug profits ... if only because that's the way it works in Real Life.
Personally, I don't have a problem with it. But in a state that deems that to be harmful to your neighbors, you violate their right to determine the standards of which they live by.
You continue to try to assert that and each time I prove you wrong, you look for something else. There is no lie here as you hope so desperately for. The comment on prohibition of drugs being tyrannical was made, this is fact.
No where does it state the prohibition on drugs is "tyrannical."
It states that we, too, have adopted policies unfit for a free people, and that we need to return to our Constitutional roots.
In the mission statement of this website, JR assrts correctly that our government has drifted from its constitutional roots, but he stops short of calling that "tyranny." There are degrees, you know.
So yes, you continue to make dishonest assertions. I expect more honesty of my fellow Texans.
Not at all! Nothing forces them to smoke the evil weed or quaff the devil's brew.
I suspect you mean their right to determine the standards I live by, but they have no such right and therefore I cannot violate it.
The theory that there's a such a thing as a "positive right", i.e. a right to order other people around, is false. Such rights amount to little enslavements.
If you'll consult the posting history of the individual to whom you directed this reply you'll see that . . . . . . . . . . uh . . . . . . . . . . . you get my drift. The 13 calories you invested in typing it are lost to you forever. You could have blown your nose twice with that same energy.
I do not however agree with our "war on drugs", not because it isn't a lofty idea, but because it is a lofty idea that has been corrupted. It is unreasonable to assume any war on drugs can be won while refusing to control our borders.
What results is a general tyranny in which an honest person caught driving with over 750. dollars is robbed of that cash along with his car, with no recourse or hope of recovering ones property.
The attempt to expand this tyranny by the "Know Your Customer" policy of the IRS was slapped down, now the DEA is attempting to continue this policy. It is tyranny to make everyone guilty until proven innocent. We think we find ourselves on the horns of a delima that doesn't really exist, we can still protect our rights while confiscating the assets of terrorist that have no US citizenship.
Nope it is the right of association. We form communities, and we as the individuals of those communities have the right to determine the type of community we live in, i.e. the standards of which it lives by. You guys like to call them gated communities, however the founders already created the idea with independent states. To take away the people of the state's ability to set their own standards within the bounds of the constitution is wrong.
Is anyone proposing to make people associate with drug users?
We form communities, and we as the individuals of those communities have the right to determine the type of community we live in, i.e. the standards of which it lives by. You guys like to call them gated communities, however the founders already created the idea with independent states. To take away the people of the state's ability to set their own standards within the bounds of the constitution is wrong.
The only way such restrictions don't violate property and other rights is through the consent of everyone involved. You could get that in a local community, but not in a whole state. The fact that something isn't prohibited by the Constitution doesn't make it a good idea.
LOL
I guess that's not the ultimate subtlety, but it's good enough for me.
Of course you can. You consent by choosing to live there.
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.