Posted on 03/04/2002 10:49:56 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
Good example, especially since the states have no business telling anyone what guns he can buy.
Why do you have to be 25 to rent a car? I know it's not a law, but it is a standard.
It can be an industry standard all you want, but it's not comparable to a law. Why? Because the car companies own their cars. They can, or ought to be able to, refuse to rent to anyone for any reason or no reason. That's because they have property rights. An "underage" drinker also has property rights.
Yeh, the philosophy goes something like this: "We own the gold, we own the guns, now do what we say(while we do what we want)".
It is not, I repeat NOT, the state's job to worry about anyone's money, health, weight or liver.
It is not, I repeat NOT, the state's job to worry about anyone's creativity or "wasted" youth.
It is NOT the state's job to make you feel "safer".
It is NOT the state's job to worry about people's money or the "worthwhileness" of their passtimes.
I'm sure they think they are. That's part of the problem, the other part of the problem is that they don't know thats none of their business. A well meaning tyrant is still a tyrant.
I can come up with a whole laundry list of things that "would be best" for other people, and if they were made law, people might be a whole lot better off in some ways, such as wealth, efficiency of time, finances, life span, etc..., but they would be a lot worse off in terms of freedom.
It is not the proper role of government in a free society for government to play mommy and engage in social engineering, and the fed violates its constitutional charter by blackmailing states to enforce its drinking age.
I'm more than willing to wager that there are quite a few 20-year-old Republican Christians currently serving stateside in a military branch of our government who would fiercely disagree with you on that point.
And how can you possibly know their intentions???
It is at least NAIVE to assume they are motivated by such a trite reason. All humans I know are far more complex than that.
Control freaks want control; this is no mystery.
LOL, no. I only have seen people try to regulate what they perceive to be dangerous. Be it for good reason or no. I have yet to see people try to regulate something just because it's not their "cup of tea".
The alcohol industry has a study that shows 50% of their product is consumed by 5% of their customers. In other words, these brewers depend on addiction, the same as the drug dealers. They, however, are allowed to buy legality.
Of course not. Because YOU don't drink. I think your tune would change pretty darn fast if there were bible-reading laws passed.
And he has the right to purchase beer, if the state he chooses to reside in views 18 year olds as mature enough to handle it.
Reread. The voting age involves adults. Further, it doesn't matter. My point was that different situations call for different solutions. Where in any law is an "adult" defined? Why are you assuming that if one has the right to vote and enter into a contract, he is an adult, but one that has the right to drive is not (keep reading before you respond)? Yes, adult is generally accepted to mean 18 or over, but the law itself doesn't make any distinction. It simply says: drive at 16; vote and contract at 18; drink and buy a handgun at 21. If you disagree with those ages, that's fine, but it would be arbitrary to say there should be a distinction between driving and voting age, but none between voting and drinking age.
So, we have levels or degrees of "abridgement of one's freedom"?
This is exactly why our freedom and liberty are in such trouble now - people such as yourself saying "small" encroachments are ok, because you feel it doesn't affect 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.