No, not exactly. I was graciously using a placeholder you would understand. My rights come from being a rational, concious, accountable creature.
The Constitution. That don't seem too unending to me.
The Constitution(s) can be changed, and that is my point.
. I see it as obscene, and a detriment to society, 100 fold over anything McDonalds does.
The degree is not the issue, can you enumerate this degree? In another post you were harping on 'subjectivity', are not your feelings of obscenity the ultimate in subjectivity?
Complete freedom, is not always a good thing. We must have structure
Definately. Here is the structure: The law is (has to be) constricted in its purpose to protecting people from harm, it is only allowed to do this mandate by punishing those who cause harm AFTER harm has occurred.
Any other methodology places no expressible limits on 'what may be done to prevent harm'. The result is an incremental erosion of freedom and the vast regulatory scheme and police/fascist state we have now.
It creates a society that drives its members insane. It bogs down with a topheavy, self-preserving bureaucracy that ultimately requires violent revolution to remove.
You seem to think, Im guessing, that the brakes can be applied, that we can tread water at 'just the right level of freedom'...
Look at reality, look at the past 100 years, are we becoming more free? Are we even slowing the tide? No. Because we have made a fatal mistake, we let the law be used for whatever motive we wish. THAT is a cancer, and picking away at parts of it is not going to work. It needs to be EXORCISED.
I agree, we have slaughtered our founders vision of our government with giving it the job of charity, school, ect. However punishment for harm, and substantial RISK of harm is a VITAL function of government. If we went by your theory that the government can do nothing until actual harm has occurred, we would just have to sit back and allow the terrorists to attack us in our own home. If Mohammed is walking down the street with a bomb strapped to his back, all we would be able to do is hope he doesn't get us.
Of course. The founders new that, that's why they wished us luck. There is absolutely nothing that can usurp the ultimate rule of the majority, be it immoral or not.
However, The Constitution, hopefully, will not befall further defacing.
are not your feelings of obscenity the ultimate in subjectivity?
Of course, I said it ALL is subjective. But my opinion that follows the majority of my state makes it objective for the time being in THAT state.
it is only allowed to do this mandate by punishing those who cause harm AFTER harm has occurred.
So conspiracy to murder, putting others at substantial risk, ect are fine by you? I guess I can go back to my old pointing-a-gun-at-my-neighbor's-head argument.