Posted on 10/01/2002 11:16:00 PM PDT by SheLion
Austin also.
I eat at restaurants in town only when I have to.
For social dining, I'll go to a place outside the city limits.
Yes, most of them are.
My drugs of choice are nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol.
No coffee or tea --notta biggie.
No beer --I went 'dry' for 3 years no problem (ex-wife thing, don't ask).
No smokes over the weekend --problem.
Liberal swine.
Ochlocracy. Government by the mob. Comrade.
Each of those decisions defines more or less and restricts more or less uses of all property, private or public, and individual conduct, private or public.
No group of people can rightfully collude to restrict or deny individual rights, comrade Whilom.
You and Hillary, cut from the same cloth. Red cloth.
Small and locally do have sensible definitions. Only obfuscation or nominalism will make those meanings vanish and the best then be undiscoverable. We are conditioned by our modern liberal education to ignore meaning and to make all things equal and open to individual judgement. Such a virtueless look at the world is a curse of modernity.
You stress "representative democracy" and for me that is a key in where we differ. It, again, is a lie sold to us as modernity substituting for history. The founders never used the word "democracy" in our constitution and the ommission was entirely intentional and providential.
Deliberative Representation is what we have in the bulk of the offices that serve use under our State and Federal Governments. Read Burke's Speech to the Electors at Bristol for a clear understanding of that convention as I mean it. We do not have Pliebisitory Delegates and we darn sure were never meant to have a "democracy". Our Deliberative Representatives were chosen by diverse means, some of which were elective and therefore democratic in process as a broad part of it was participatory. This holds true for appointed roles as well, because the appointor is often elected.
Democracy, especially egalitarian, implies that my desires of the moment are to somehow make their way into the process and there was nothing further from the founders' intent. But, why was that?
It was to keep the tyranny of the majority in check. Sure Numbers matters and deciedes things. But only those Numbers and by those processes framed in the diverse process of our constitutions. Thereby the Majority is kept from (1) violating by whim of the moment, (2) intemperence, (3) the will of demogogues, (4)violating prescriptive principle honored from time immemorial (as opposed to abstract rights), and (5)never being given the ability to announce any One decision, of merely 51%, as the ultimate public will.
While conservatives often believe in an Enduring Moral Order, an Order for the Soul and an Order for the State, Government itself is a narrow tool often negative that is not the perfect vessel for all that Order. Culture and social society itself must carry the bulk of that Order; not the negative and blunt tool of government.
The framework of which you speak is actually meant to be an absence of most authority, not the counterpoint between an all encompassing Process or Authority (or Anarchic lack thereof).
In your second paragraph, you again put Democracy in a primacy where it doesn't belong. But even more, you make the same mistake of utilitarian primacy that Sowell criticizes modern liberals and libertarians for in establishing the greatest good, or abstract rights, as a judge or value to measure by.
In a battle on abstract rights the right of the one always gives way to the rights of the many. Speech or something similar, always trumps property says Sowell ( See A Conflict of Visions). We weren't given a governmental structure to lay on that much control over us.
In your third paragraph, I agree the the citizen must submit to just and proper authority. But he also must resist and fight improper authority of the acquisitive nature of those in authority will overturn his society. So if I agree that Judges Interpret as well as Adjudicate, I will always make that resistance when they Legislate rather than Interpret. So you see that we are once again back to the plain meaning of Words.
When we confuse the Animating Principles of our Revolution with the Constitution, when we get filled with the metaphysical nonsense of what Hayek calls Rationalist Totalitarian Democracy, why then our land is no longer the land of liberty.
And besides, a valued customer and I, discussing a book in my own future book store, can't each smoke our pipes fired with virgina and burley. My countryman, if you wish to give community its proper due, go no further than Nisbet.
So you are anexing Dallas to California??? Now that is news.
The Rule of Law as understood by the Old Whig tradition that founded this nation was something seperate from just the legal process. It contained the freedom from arbitrary power and equality under law, a blind justice.Well, it is late and I have to mow the lawn in the morning...nite all.Law applied in the manner of activist judges leads to arbirary application of punishment. The lowly, under the eyes of courts or society, get the heavy punishment and the alleged worthy do not.
Society then reacts with harsher laws through representative legislative power as they see the rule of law unevenly applied. Activist judges then further pervert the process by applying more, and more, arbitrary justice as they see it rather than adjudicating an offense under the law and established precedent.
False. Predictably.
There isn't ONE thing FOUL about Joe! Not one thing!
So you are anexing Dallas to California??? Now that is news.
Excuse me? I did not say that. You should go back over the thread and see who REALLY said it!!!!
Well then, maybe I shoould use it a little more often with YOU.
It might be enough to turn the tide of health nazism this country is turning to.
BZZZZZT. Wrong examples to make.
Emphysema is mostly caused by FIRST HAND SMOKE, not ETS. There goes that argument.
Asthma is the condition not ETS. Whether the CONDITION is triggered by ETS, automobile exhaust, dust, or anything else, the CONDITION was there first.
Thanks for your blessing and if it's YOUR health that you're concerned about my suggestion would be to start your own non-smoking business and let others make that decision for themselves.
How rude can you get. I never said you said it. It was me saying it at that time. A little to touchy aren't we?
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.