Posted on 01/15/2002 6:27:04 AM PST by tberry
You're still arguing from authority. Will you get off your high horse?
No good comes from growing drug addicts or using illegal drugs.
LMAO, says who? States can ban Pokemon cards if they wanted to.
Its ok for driver's licenses, but nothing else?
What is ok for driver's licenses? What one state does with their driver's licenses does not effect the other. Mississippi, you can drive at 15, Alabama, 16. It's a state decision, just like with everthing else that goes beyond the BoR.
Try to use some logic here. Ask any other Freeper, even Libertarians, and they will agree. Why do states even exist if they all must have the exact same laws? Why not just form one union with regions like the U.K.?
From a federalist point of view this is correct in principle. However, it's pertinent to point out we are guaranteed a republican form of government. The states themselves are republics, and the state constitution should clearly give the state government the authority and the power to regulate card games.
Not cornerstones, but acid tests. Try substituting 'contract rights' and 'unlicensed medical practice' if those two bother you.
Are you FOR the right of two people to contract anything they please?
Are you FOR the right to hire anyone, without qualification, to give you medical, legal or other - advice, treatment or services?
You are upset not based on the principles, but on two ramifications of those principles that you would rather exempt from your definition of 'freedom'.
To say that he was "pointing out" assumes that his statements were a matter of fact rather than his personal opinion. Like everyone else, he is entitled to his opinion, but his are no more a matter of fact than any other person's opinion.
Using the same justification, I could say that your owning an SUV degrades my environment (emmissions), endangers my children (via size-of-vehicle in accident) and destroys my communities value (offroad driving).
Also, if prostitution endangers you, then so does extramarital sex and unprotected sex or ANY sex in general (via neccessity of welfare for children).
The reason we let you have a gun is to allow others to enjoy freedoms that, yes, maybe-might-could, endanger you [just like alcohol use, or you having a gun in the first place]. (The real reason drug use endangers you is your insisting on its illegality, creating the black market and drug-related crime).
Act like a sovereign, not like a cowering thumbsucker.
Every time I get into a discussion with Tex, I regret it. He likes to play the old "circle" game. You always end up where you started with him - nowhere.
If you don't like your community, or your neighbors, MOVE. Quit supporting laws that insist every square inch of the US, or even a State, live up to your standards.
BUMP!
If you don't like your community, or your neighbors, MOVE. Quit supporting laws that insist every square inch of the US, or even a State, live up to your standards.
In this poster's case, I'm not so sure that "up" is really the general direction of standards. ;-)
Bump for absolute perfection.
The NON-INITIATION of force, even when applied to government, means that no one may initiate for any reason any aggressive act against another. It does NOT mean that, for example, we may not ANNIHILATE the bunch who initiated 9-11 AND their sponsors. It means that we may not START anything.
If gov't is aware of a specific threat, it may take steps to prevent it, such as having a cop watch a building and stopping the arsonist just before he strikes his matches. In other words, there must be an overt ACT first, but the act need not (and SHOULD not) be completed before it can be stopped. For someone to be busted just because they MIGHT do something or they are TALKING about doing evil is pretty much how we got where we are now.
WRT taxes, there are probably ways to make it work non-coercively, but that's for a later time.
Because... what? It isnt in the BOR??
Your a DEMOCRAT if you believe such bunk. You could equally outlaw ANYTHING as long as it isn't "offensive to the specifics of the BOR".
Does the BOR give you the right to procreate? To kiss anyone? To practice acupuncture? To grow a garden? Play paintball?
The ONLY WAY to make consistant law is to recognise rights (limits on the scope of what can be done to protect people). I could claim your video game (religion/sport) makes kids violent.
Too bad. Since there is no scientific or logical method of determining this mythical DEGREE of "endangerment" that you want to use as THE LINE that allows government intervention, you must use rights.
If you use "Democracy" to do so, you are advocating nothing more than "popular tyranny".
Even if there was such a method, it would be repugnant to the individual because it statisticizes an activity (guilt by grouping people by activity).
Your argument against prostitution, since it assumes harm, would have to ALLOW a form of prostitution that did not cause such harm (high class prostitution).
Or do you assume, like a demoncrat does, that you can outlaw whatever activity is repugnant to you?
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.