Posted on 06/12/2002 11:57:24 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:38:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
VICTORVILLE, Calif. (AP) - A man described by a judge as "an evil monster" was sentenced to 25 years in prison for using a baseball bat, metal pipe and golf club to attack a 12-year-old Halloween trick-or-treater on his doorstep.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Roscoe typically diagnoses Libertarians as being afflicted with his own disease. There is no right where permission is required.
It can and it does.
Among others, the right to attend its public schools, to enjoy the use of its public parks and museums, to vote in its public elections, to run for its public office.
I was merely following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.
You said, "...the founders supported state laws that prohibited witchcraft, and sodomy..."
Therefore what? Therefore we should support something because the founders supported it? That isn't an argument. It is a fallacy known as Argumentum ad Verecundiam.
So what? You cannot have "respective" control over something reserved to somebody else. Furthermore, all political powers are derived from the people themselves. To claim that the states, which derive their own powers from the people, may infringe upon powers they do not posess and were never given them through the people, borders on the insane.
If it's the States right's to self determination.. then certainly we should..
You should consult a dictionary. You do not have the right to attend any public school. You do not have the right to enjoy public parks and museums.
Voting and running for office are rights. They cannot be infringed and require no permission.
Nonsense. You have rights to use an office you lease, acquired by permission of the owner.
If he evicts you without cause, you a right to file suit in the courts provided by the public.
Come on.. When you talk about the federal WOD I am with you, but surely the people of the states have this right.
I submit that they didn't view blacks as equal humans, therefore slavery was constitutional. Their mistake was in that belief. What say you to their mistake in thinking States can prohibit and outlaw certain activity and property?
No. The right to ingest medication is not under state authority. But I note that you refuse to acknowledge that all political power comes from the people.
If you do not have the personal right to kill your neighbor in order to prevent him from smoking pot or take aspirin, then you cannot confer that power onto others.
-- Go back, read, and post your points. -- Otherwise, shut up.
So, you believe the origin of rights is the public?
Does any one individual have the power to grant rights or can only a group of people have the power?
Nonsense. Of course people do.
Voting and running for office are rights.
Granted by society.
They cannot be infringed
Felons may be prevented from voting. Society set the time and place regulations for exercising the right.
Someone who wishes to run for public office must meet the requirements established by society for ballot access, such as filing dates, signature requirements and filing fees.
The world isn't a huge Libertarian kindergarden.
But, who limits the States power and from where does their power extend?
Sounds to me like the people of the state can do as the please, and pass the laws they please.. within the framework of the constitution.
A right cannot be granted from one person to another.
Our laws are more than all or nothing reductionism.
If I were the kid's father...the perp never would have made it to trial.
No joke here either.
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.