Posted on 02/15/2002 6:50:19 AM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt
To summerize:
Leftist liberals do not accept anyone to testify on their behaviors and beliefs, typical of the criminal mind. Liberals hence hate any kind of tradition against which it can be gauged, let alone a US constitution that puts severe limits on their aims and their internationalism (a Soviet and invasive form of militantism).
Libertarians accept judgment and testimony as it promotes free speech, but not the enforcement of those judgments, a sort of anti-enforcement "Christianity" only there to testify to God in an afterlife type group. Libertarians view the US constitution as a more nationalist mechanism to run things smoothly in the nation. (Which is, ironically, a German approach to politics).
Then we have conservatives who believe in a freedom of speech fundamental to testimony and judgment, but somewhat against the active recruitment of immoral and oppressive cults that threaten to intimidate the very witnesses conservatives aim to protect. Conservatives see in the constitution a mechanism but also something to be used in a tradition of honoring the past and enforcing such recognition. Conservatives are not limited to nationalism as it views that foreign threats and internationalist infiltrations should be neutralised. They view that consensual abusive behavior is an evil that needs to be removed from the midst, in a Judeo slant of Judeo-Christianity.
IMHO
The Fourth Amendment was a clarification of the extent of the powers delegated to the federal government.
You keep avoiding the point. Here it is again...
Roscoe: If the Boy Scouts owned an apartment building and rented out units to the general public, they would be required to make the apartments available to applicants without regard to their races. 242
Zon: The fourth amendment refuses government access to a person's home, property or business without a properly signed warrant. Yet the government forces business owners to give access to total strangers via discrimination laws. In effect the government, taxpayers' employees, can't be trusted, yet the same government that can't be trusted proclaims that business owner must trust total strangers. 272
Roscoe, how do you explain the glaring contradiction?
The above is the 'ignorant assertation'. -- The Fourth Amendment was a restriction to the extent of the powers delegated to both federal & state governments.
Why ya'll so scared of freedom?
Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Why should I have an "answer" to a question I asked of someone else?
There is no reason the child should ever see the person drunk.
it sets a bad example for children and as you know it takes a village to raise a child so the government must outlaw the bad example."
No, but how much easier would it be to tell Billy he can't do something and neither can his friends, as opposed to Billy being the only person that can't do it. This is a major reason to live together with people who share similar standards.
And the threat by the user is enough to merit a law anyways. A hard recreational drug simply cannot be used responsibly. It not only takes away the users ability to make resposible decisions while high, but it also takes away the users ability to control the amount he or she takes. They become addicted, and do nothing but destroy everything around them. They hurt their loved ones, their neighbors, and especially kids, if they have any.
If I were to raise my child in a Muslim community, would there be just as much of a chance of my child being a Christian as if I had raised him in a Christian community? I'm not saying it is impossible, but it helps a hell of a lot when the majority of other adults your kids sees shares similar views as you do.
Willfully ignorant assertion, endlessly and citelessly made.
I was beginning to have a positive feeling about Libertarians until I read this. I was almost fooled.
Willfully ignorant assertion, endlessly and citelessly made.
Obviously, The constitution itself is the proof of my 'assertation'. It is written in common english, easy to understand, - save for those [like you], who choose to misinterpret its words.
Amusingly enough roscoe, you do more endless, mindless nay-saying than anyone else at FR. You mirror your own faults with nearly every post.
As to your silly generic charge above, make your specific points as to what is false in my statement on the Fourth, - and I will answer, & 'cite'.
Otherwise, just give us another snappy bit of BS pap, - with more humor, if you please.
Citeless and sightless.
> "Everything not prohibited is mandatory"
> Sorry, but I had to say it.
No problem. It was quite a bold proposition anyway.
But I stand by it, since I believe that, if I forbear from certain actions because they are immoral, but other people can do them unpunished, they gain an unfair advantage. What do you think of this?
(I am aware that this does not legitimize a ban on drugs, pornography, or other forms of self-destructive behavior. They're another story.)
Could you give an example?
OK, let's talk about drugs. Assume you are a capitalist. You have a large number of workers who are not very intelligent or rational, but can perform certain jobs your business needs done. Rabid Liberals, maddened with envy for your success, approach your useful but gullible employees and persuade them to take drugs. You go bankrupt.
Your employees did not take drugs because it made them happier. They did it because they lacked independent thinking. And there are many foolish people.
Are you entitled to a remedy? How about prevention?
Speeding is what immediately comes to my mind, thought I guess that would be handled somehow in a Libertarian society.
Let's make it prostitution then. That danged hooker is allowed to make money by selling herself, and thus gains an unfair advantage over my daughter.
In this case, you made poor business decisions by hiring irrational and unintelligent workers. Because of your poor business decision, not the actions of liberals or the existence of drugs, you went bankrupt.
Blaming others for their your own failures, are we?
People do not exist to make you profits. They aren't your cattle, and to limit rights because you will profit less if people have rights reduces them to beasts of burden, not free men. You have no entitlement whatsoever to the fruits of anyone's labor. You may dictate the terms of your employment. You can require drug testing, you can fire people who show signs of intoxication. You CANNOT restrict the rights of the entire population because you draw your employees from them.
In a free market, Adam Smith's invisible hand will solve your problem. If these people you speak of are incapable of production, for whatever reason, the market will decline to purchase their labor. Others will prosper at the opportunity given by the open jobs. You will get good employees if you refuse to pay for bad employees. The law of supply and demand ensures it.
This is wrong in so many different ways.
1. Why is it any of your business how much money another person makes?
2. You think you can write laws because someone makes more money than you, in a manner in which you wouldn't work?
3. Who says the hooker is better off? Say the hooker makes more money, but suffers the result of her own poor career choice (STD's, broken marriage, shunning by the community, etc...) Who has come out ahead?
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.