Posted on 01/15/2002 6:27:04 AM PST by tberry
States only have rights in relation to the federal government. In relation to individuals, they have powers.
States rights in the first case, (which really are just limitations on the power of the federal government, in other words, reserving powers to themselves,) are never rightfully allowed to usurp individual rights.
How Clintonesque.
It is patently obvious that, in the context of a thread concerning the legitimate functions of government, what is meant by "force" is the enactment of laws and the enforcement of same by police.
Ah yes, but you see, they agree by choosing to live there. From the time of each state's establishment, every person therein freely chooses to abide by its laws, in their choice to live there.
Come one tex, you know states can not "decide for themselves" right now.
Yes, and I oppose the tyrannical actions by the fed to prevent such constitutional activities. But that does not change the fact that that is what was meant by the founders.
So yes, STATES would be "forced" to not "initiate force".
I have already established that force cannot be specifically defined. I consider having to see a man legally smoke crack while I walk down the street is force upon me to tolerate such garbage. Someone else might see that being arrested for aiming their gun in a particular direction is FORCE initiated against them for the use of their own property.
You simply take your and the LP's definition of "force" and apply it as fact, and use the "because we said so" argument to defend it.
LDS keyword alert! ;-)
Explain Time Square in NYC then. Most of what was changed there was legal activity, such as porn shops. Why has crime so GREATLY decreased?
For the same reason "good" people act in ways that make a community better, "bad" people act in ways that make a community worse.
I've seen too many good people take a hard drug for some stupid reason, and turn into bad people who would have remained good, if they had never touched the drug.
Your lack of knowledge of our founders and the constitution amazes me.
It still seems pretty "cut-and-dried" to me.
From your response, it's clear that the question of what constitutes the initiation of force is something that must be clarified at length.
From a philosophical standpoint, it's as clear as a bell.
Therefore, it's rather inaccurate to say that libertarianism can be boiled down to a one-sentence creed — wouldn't you agree?
No. Libertarian philosophy is simple enough to express as a single sentence, while maintaining a clear and concise meaning.
Yikes! So Libertarianism is a political philosophy without a viable political vehicle to put Libertarian ideas into practice?
WOW, I've never heard that one. I would LOVE to see how you get that from the 14th. PLEASE, show us. The 14th applies the BoR to all states. But, in no way, does it say that all state's laws must be uniform to one another. LOL
While I'm not often inclined to agree with Texaggie79, and I don't share his views on the use of drugs in the context of this discussion, there is a point here. It is not apparent, even to libertarians, exactly what "force" includes or does not include. For instance, is abortion an illegitimate application of force? What about the death penalty?
It seems that the non-initiation principle is not so obvious when boiled down to one absolute sentence. Does this make libertarianism fatally flawed? I don't think so, but I do think it does it a great disservice to represent a single creed as the end-all, be-all of a political philosophy that is clearly more complex.
I did in one particular case. We had the cops come and get her. She was FORCED into treatment. If this were a Libertarian state we would have just had to sit back and watch her die.
Your point regarding the universality of moral law;i.e., the state is as bound by law as the citizens, is interesting because the contrary belief is the practical foundation of all modern totalitarian regimes.
Behaving morally would not leave the state impotent; just as you can pre-emptively act to avert a violent attack, so can the state.
In the very long run, man's political life may change for the better. In the short run, we are stuck with a world of mostly gangster regimes; those few which are relatively free must maintain constant vigilance against the overwhelming majority. Luckily for us, these mostly socialist regimes are mostly poverty-stricken and militarily impotent, except against their own citizens, who are kept in ignorance of their true situation.
There's no one but us to uphold the basic principles of the American Revolution. If liberty is not upheld as the prime political value in America, the world will be in for much darker times.
That's why I'm a libertarian.(small 'l') ;^)
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.