Stronger Liberal Arguments:

[King of the Americas]

ABORTION: "Pro-lifers are anti-women, BECAUSE making abortion illegal unknowingly gives Rapists the legal authority to force any woman of their choosing to carry their child."

TAXES: "We are all held to the contract of government, and have a DUTY to help care for our brethren. We NO LONGER exist in the 'State of Nature', where it is up to each individual to provide for themselves. Within a working government, 'self sufficiency' is a misnomer. Without a good police system in place, ANY person with massive wealth would soon suffer from pirates better armed than themselves. Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, is NOT 'self sufficient'. To ask for lower taxes, when there are those who go hungry, homeless, or without proper clothing is tantamount to a crime against civility"

FREEDOM: "Criminality ONLY occurs when one individual infringes on the Life, Liberty, Property, or Pursuit of Happiness of another. Producing and ingesting Drugs endangers no one but the individual taking them, and thus is NOT a 'criminal activity'."

INTERNET: "That which is known exists in the Public Domain, and should be accessible to anyone wanting. If it has been aired, printed for mass distribution, or posted in a public venue it is NO LONGER protected by copyrights, and should thusly be available for download on the World Wide Web."

GUNS: "The right of citizens to keep and bare arms is what keeps them from suffering from a military invasion. It is ONLY when a people find themselves fat, lazy, and unarmed that they will suffer military aggression."

---

...more to come. Let's discuss these for now.

[Samus]

TAXES: "...To ask for lower taxes, when there are those who go hungry, homeless, or without proper clothing is tantamount to a crime against civility" Reply: "It is possible for a government to be fiscally responsible, and responsive to those in need. Lower taxes do not automatically correspond to a government's lack of action apropos to hunger and homelessness. Furthermore, if private charities can do the job better, why not just let them?"

INTERNET: "That which is known exists in the Public Domain, and should be accessible to anyone wanting. If it has been aired, printed for mass distribution, or posted in a public venue it is NO LONGER protected by copyrights, and should thusly be available for download on the World Wide Web." What is the opposing conservative viewpoint? To my knowledge, public domain is a non-partisan issue.

GUNS: "The right of citizens to keep and bare [sic] arms is what keeps them from suffering from a military invasion. It is ONLY when a people find themselves fat, lazy, and unarmed that they will suffer military aggression." Since when is this the liberal's standpoint? Sounds like an NRA ad to me.

[King of the Americas]

YOU WROTE:

"It is possible for a government to be fiscally responsible, and responsive to those in need. Lower taxes do not automatically correspond to a government's lack of action apropos to hunger and homelessness. Furthermore, if private charities can do the job better, why not just let them?"

*Government's biggest problem today is underfunding. Where private charities leave off, Government has a Duty to Civility to step in.


What is the opposing conservative viewpoint? To my knowledge, public domain is a non-partisan issue.

*That copyrights are all but perminate, big business is synomonious with Republican, isn't it?


Since when is this the liberal's standpoint? Sounds like an NRA ad to me.

*Then I highly suggest it is AN argument that Liberals begin espousing, regardless of who else holds the same belief.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...Government has a Duty to Civility...

Exactly which article of the Consitution is that??


Originally posted by King of the Americas
That copyrights are all but perminate, big business is synomonious with Republican, isn't it?

Hypocrite. The biggest "big business" is the federal government, and you lefty's just love it when its plump and burgeoning.

Copyrights largely protect literary and artistic work, and most of those publishers, writers and artists draw a percentage income based on units sold. It is propaganda of the first order to suggest only "big business" benefits from copyright law.

[Samus]

*Government's biggest problem today is underfunding. Where private charities leave off, Government has a Duty to Civility to step in. The federal budget for FY 2004 is by far the largest in history, one cannot possibly assert that underfunding is a problem. It is possible to trim billions in pork-barrel projects, cut taxes for everyone, extinguish deficit spending, pay down the public debt, and still have enough money for social programs.

Can you cite evidence that indicates private charities cannot fulfill the need?

*That copyrights are all but perminate, big business is synomonious with Republican, isn't it? hmmm, I don't know enough about copyright law, and who is fighting for what, to respond accurately. Yes, big business tend to favor the Republican party, but I am unaware of any public domain issues that have split along party lines.

*Then I highly suggest it is AN argument that Liberals begin espousing, regardless of who else holds the same belief. Me too. If only more liberals saw things that way.

[c0rbin]

The strongest liberal argument is this opening passage from a well-known document (here in the US).

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

A lot is implied, nothing is specific, but I think a lot can be gleened from this passage as to the intentions of our "forefathers."

I strongly believe that big business should not be in bed with government. It is a conflict of interest. The bottom line for a business is profit. The bottom line for government should be the citizenry...all of the citizenry.

With that in mind, re-read the preamble.

[King of the Americas]

Exactly which article of the Consitution is that??

I'd call it the dividing line between The State of Nature and Government/Civility. Which article declares that We the People are to work 'together' (NOT against one another), in order to form a more perfect union...?

AGAIN, we LEFT the State of Nature.



Hypocrite. The biggest "big business" is the federal government, and you lefty's just love it when its plump and burgeoning.

*Government is not and should not be in the 'profit' making business. Althoughm government programs should be empolyed to be as self sufficient as possible. Specific Example: "Our local hospital has suffered massive budget cuts, due to recent taxcuts. As a result, they have had to decrease services, forcing willing patients elsewhere. IF the hosptial were fully funded, it could offer more services, and thus become self sufficient and be LESS of a burden and more of a benefit to taxpayers."

Copyrights largely protect literary and artistic work, and most of those publishers, writers and artists draw a percentage income based on units sold. It is propaganda of the first order to suggest only "big business" benefits from copyright law.

*When you play something 'in Public', it is no longer your's. You have offered it up to the Public for consumption, that's on you. Ask the common musician how many cents on the dollar they get every time an album is sold. If the RIAA isn't big business, I don't know what is???

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin


I strongly believe that big business should not be in bed with government.



I'll add to this and say that NO special interests (which "big business" is) should be in bed with government.

[Graham]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Copyrights largely protect literary and artistic work, and most of those publishers, writers and artists draw a percentage income based on units sold. It is propaganda of the first order to suggest only "big business" benefits from copyright law.

*When you play something 'in Public', it is no longer your's. You have offered it up to the Public for consumption, that's on you. Ask the common musician how many cents on the dollar they get every time an album is sold. If the RIAA isn't big business, I don't know what is???

To which your solution is to deny them their "cents on the dollar"?

How odd.

Graham

[Psiload]

King of the Americas wrote:

GUNS: "The right of citizens to keep and bare arms is what keeps them from suffering from a military invasion. It is ONLY when a people find themselves fat, lazy, and unarmed that they will suffer military aggression."

Nonsense. Even a cursory glance at the history of warfare shows that a rabble, no matter how well-armed, is no match for a trained, and organized military force. Moreover, any contribution that an armed private citizen may have been able to lend to homeland defense against invasion in the past, has been rendered essentially moot by the technology of modern warfare.

I think you've watched the movie Red Dawn one too many times... The potential threat from a pack of Montana high school kids turned guerilla commando squad is not what kept the cold war cold. Do you think the Rooskies even considered armed citizenry when they drew up possible invasion plans? I think they were more worried about our subs, and silos than the 12 guage pump in the gun rack of Cooter's pick up.

If an heavily-armed citizenry insures security, then why does it seem that the most heavily-armed societies are also the most unstable? Iraq had an extremely well-armed citizenry, and they proved to be little use against the greatly outnumbered invading U.S. forces... oh, wait... that was a "liberation", not an invasion... right?

Are you suggesting that countries that practice strict gun control... (Japan, Great Britain, etc...) are ripe for the plucking? In danger of imminent invasion?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I'd call it the dividing line between The State of Nature and Government/Civility. Which article declares that We the People are to work 'together' (NOT against one another), in order to form a more perfect union...?

You didn't answer the question. You instead quoted the preamble.

The functions of the federal government are specifically enumerated even though broad constructionist courts have since indirectly added to it.

What you call "civility" I call an unconstitutional intrusion into the private sector that robs citizens of their ability to care for themselves and puts the yoke of government dependance on the very people the government claims it wants to help.

[c0rbin]

You instead quoted the preamble.

That was me, K.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...

GUNS: "The right of citizens to keep and bare arms is what keeps them from suffering from a military invasion. It is ONLY when a people find themselves fat, lazy, and unarmed that they will suffer military aggression."

---

...more to come. Let's discuss these for now.

I would like to discuss just this one for now.

KOA, I suspect that you are not very knowledgeable about military history otherwise you would have not made such claim. However, if you actually have any facts to to support this claim, then I would like to see them.

[King of the Americas]

The federal budget for FY 2004 is by far the largest in history, one cannot possibly assert that underfunding is a problem.

*The problem is too many underfunded programs, that fail in their original purpose, and thus require MORE programs the following year. FULLY fund the creation of a government program and it won't require as much annual support.

It is possible to trim billions in pork-barrel projects, cut taxes for everyone, extinguish deficit spending, pay down the public debt, and still have enough money for social programs.

*Pork is caused by ignorant taxpayers, and if it happens, it is THEIR fault.

Can you cite evidence that indicates private charities cannot fulfill the need?

*Cannot or do not? Are YOU suggesting that 'churches' keep everyone dry when it rains, arm when it is cold, and cool when it is hot, and fed when they are hungry. While I applauid them for their services to their fellow man, they can't OR don't help everyone...


hmmm, I don't know enough about copyright law, and who is fighting for what, to respond accurately. Yes, big business tend to favor the Republican party, but I am unaware of any public domain issues that have split along party lines.

*Does the GOP stand with the RIAA?


Me too. If only more liberals saw things that way.

*THAT argument isn't being put forth by ANYONE, not even the NRA. They aren't for 'assault weapons', designed to repel light infantry. Which isn't neccessary for everyone to own in order for a people to be Free. However, to disallow someone the protection they feel neccessary is wrong. That said with great ability comes great resonsibility, the more damage you do to another individual's Life, Liberty, Property, or Pursiut of Happiness the greater price you will pay in retribution.

[King of the Americas]

"No, I'd suggest they charge people to hear THEM play their music LIVE, and tell the record producers to go f*ck themselves. For they no longer need them to 'produce & promote' their work. The Internet could deliver/distribute any music to anyone anywhere for NOTHING. Musicians could play to houses of 5-5,000,000, and charge whever the marketplace would be willing to pay, writers could read their material to LIVE audiences, and artists could make personal apearancs and describe their work. The record companies are the middle men that technology is killing."

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Crossbow


I would like to discuss just this one for now.

KOA, I suspect that you are not very knowledgeable about military history otherwise you would have not made such claim. However, if you actually have any facts to to support this claim, then I would like to see them. Of course he does. Please refer to the following documentary:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0792838041/102-9340629-7507358

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by c0rbin


That was me, K.

You mentioned it first, but KOA tried to use it as a response to my question...

[King of the Americas]

Citizens armed with handguns, untrained in the art of militia, would be no match for a well trained military force.

However, if most citizens own guns, and part of them are and practice the militia arts, then they are much less like to suffer a military attack.

History would suggest tht this country's freedom would likely NOT have been won without our very own Minute Men, even if their part was 'small'. More often than not the 'image' of a War will turn the tide one way or another. An armed citizerny fighting against military aggressor, will usually win with sympathy...(unless they take part in inhumane attacks aganst their aggressor's citizenry).

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Psiload
Of course he does. Please refer to the following documentary:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0792838041/102-9340629-7507358

Thanks much!

I figured he was espousing military tactics via Hollywood.

:)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Citizens armed with handguns, untrained in the art of militia, would be no match for a well trained military force.

However, if most citizens own guns, and part of them are and practice the militia arts, then they are much less like to suffer a military attack.

History would suggest tht this country's freedom would likely NOT have been won without our very own Minute Men, even if their part was 'small'. More often than not the 'image' of a War will turn the tide one way or another. An armed citizerny fighting against military aggressor, will usually win with sympathy...(unless they take part in inhumane attacks aganst their aggressor's citizenry).

Again, I would have to say you were out napping during History class.

In the case of the American Revolution, the British had their hands full fighting the French at the time, so while military victories won by the Americans certainly did help to win the war, it was hardly the only factor.

[King of the Americas]

You didn't answer the question. You instead quoted the preamble.

The functions of the federal government...

*Ahhhh... Stop right there. the SPECIFIC limitations of the Federal Government...

are specifically enumerated ...

*And what isn't therein is the responsibility of State Government.

...even though broad constructionist courts have since indirectly added to it.

*Nay.

What you call "civility" I call an unconstitutional intrusion into the private sector that robs citizens of their ability to care for themselves and puts the yoke of government dependance on the very people the government claims it wants to help.

*Citizens can NOT take care of themselves, without their fellow citizens, period. One man with his own canon, can't fire in every direction, all at once, forever. Sooner or later his thumbs are going to get tired, and he is going to ask someone else to man his position. Add to that piss breaks, sleep time, time to eat and clean youself, and then you have at least 4 people working together...well THAT is government- People working together because they realize that they can do more as a group than as individuals.

[King of the Americas]

Again, I would have to say you were out napping during History class.

In the case of the American Revolution, the British had their hands full fighting the French at the time, so while military victories won by the Americans certainly did help to win the war, it was hardly the only factor.

*If it "did help to win the war", then how can you argue that an armed citizenery isn't what 'helps' keep them safe and free?

[Psiload]

King of the Americas wrote:

Citizens armed with handguns, untrained in the art of militia, would be no match for a well trained military force

Correct...

Which is why is why a well-armed citizenry is no deterrent against invasion.

However, if most citizens own guns, and part of them are and practice the militia arts, then they are much less like to suffer a military attack.

Please give me a single historical example of this being the case.

History would suggest tht this country's freedom would likely NOT have been won without our very own Minute Men, even if their part was 'small'.

The Minuteman of the American revolution was a trained, uniformed combatant whose arms, and ammo were generally(albeit not always) military issue... in the same vein as today's Army National Guardsman. He was not merely an armed civilian by any stretch.

More often than not the 'image' of a War will turn the tide one way or another. An armed citizerny fighting against military aggressor, will usually win with sympathy...(unless they take part in inhumane attacks aganst their aggressor's citizenry).

So... armed citizenry are more effective as PR fodder, than as an actual fighting force? I might agree with this.

[c0rbin]

You mentioned it first, but KOA tried to use it as a response to my question...

Did he? I thought he was displaying his own brand of beligerent ignorance: "Exactly which article of the Consitution is that??"

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Again, I would have to say you were out napping during History class.

In the case of the American Revolution, the British had their hands full fighting the French at the time, so while military victories won by the Americans certainly did help to win the war, it was hardly the only factor.

Our military victories in the Revolution were few and far between anyway. We won a few key victories but most of the time we, and especially George Washington, were getting our butts kicked. We did, however, win just enough to convince the French to help us out, so I have toa gree with KOA about the "image" of a war being able to turn the tide, even if it's in a backhanded sort of way and probably not in the way he meant

The American Revolution is a good example of the adage taht in warfare, one needn't win every battle, one only needs to win the final one.

[c0rbin]

Which is why is why a well-armed citizenry is no deterrent against invasion.

I think an armed population is more of a protection against it's own government. That way we can aboid the killing fields or the guillotines of oppressive states.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...

*If it "did help to win the war", then how can you argue that an armed citizenery isn't what 'helps' keep them safe and free?

Well you started off saying that having armed citizens prevents military invasion, and now you are saying that having armed citizens can be helpful in repelling a military invasion.

There is a big difference between these two statements and the latter one could hardly be considered a strong liberal argument. To illustrate, here is how it might look on a 30 second ad:

Vote for Joe Schmo Liberal!
He thinks that having well armed citizens could be helpful in case there was a military invasion!
Go Joe!

Somehow, I do not think such an approach will make much of an impact with the voters and/or donors.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Citizens can NOT take care of themselves, without their fellow citizens, period. One man with his own canon, can't fire in every direction, all at once, forever. Sooner or later his thumbs are going to get tired, and he is going to ask someone else to man his position. Add to that piss breaks, sleep time, time to eat and clean youself, and then you have at least 4 people working together...well THAT is government- People working together because they realize that they can do more as a group than as individuals.

Sorry, but government IS NOT some utopian ideal of societal reciprocity like you are painting it above.

Government is a system of institutions and laws which direct and administer NATIONS. The fact that nations are made up of individual citizens does not give government the right to involve itself in the private sector and the daily affairs of those individual citizens.

[Samus]

CC: The federal budget for FY 2004 is by far the largest in history, one cannot possibly assert that underfunding is a problem.

KOA: The problem is too many underfunded programs, that fail in their original purpose, and thus require MORE programs the following year. FULLY fund the creation of a government program and it won't require as much annual support. Under-funded programs, un-funded mandates, and wasteful government are problems that plague social programs (and everything else the government does). So how, exactly, will throwing more money at it solve the problem?

I understand what you're getting at -- that government should do things right the first time and they won't need as many programs. I just disagree. When pondering a new problem (which, in theory, is why you need a new government program), it's pretty difficult to get it right the first time. Often times, programs treat the symptoms, not the cause. It stems from the fact that a large organization cannot be expected to do everything, and do it well. Yet we expect the federal government to do just that.

CC: It is possible to trim billions in pork-barrel projects, cut taxes for everyone, extinguish deficit spending, pay down the public debt, and still have enough money for social programs.

KOA: Pork is caused by ignorant taxpayers, and if it happens, it is THEIR fault. I agree. Every good, and bad, thing that elected officials due is ultimately accountable come election time. Unfortunately, the U.S. has a devastating case of voter apathy.

CC: Can you cite evidence that indicates private charities cannot fulfill the need?

KOA: Cannot or do not? Are YOU suggesting that 'churches' keep everyone dry when it rains, arm when it is cold, and cool when it is hot, and fed when they are hungry. I think this was covered in other threads. Even homeless people can get a hot meal if they want one. Those who are homeless and mentally ill, that is a different problem entirely. I'm not sure if the best government program in the world can "solve" that. But for those who have fallen on hard times, there are a myriad of options for them: Salvation Army, soup kitchens, churches, etc.

KOA: However, to disallow someone the protection they feel neccessary is wrong. That said with great ability comes great resonsibility, the more damage you do to another individual's Life, Liberty, Property, or Pursiut of Happiness the greater price you will pay in retribution. I'm confused. I think we agree, but I can't tell. There are those on the fringes of the left that think personal gun ownership is wrong. It is generally the liberals that seek to place more restrictions upon legitimate firearm owners. That's why I was surprised you were using this as a liberal argument...generally, it is the conservatives that seek to remind everyone of the importance of the second amendment.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tony



I'll add to this and say that NO special interests (which "big business" is) should be in bed with government.

Hear here!

But what would be left?

[c0rbin]

Maybe "Commons" advocacy groups (air, water, land), product safety, FDA, EPA, OSHA, military?

Safegaurds for the citizens.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
That's why I was surprised you were using this as a liberal argument...generally, it is the conservatives that seek to remind everyone of the importance of the second amendment.

Yeah, KOA!!!

Get your own Amendment!!! :mad:





;) :p

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Hear here!

But what would be left?

Explain...

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
-snip-

However, if most citizens own guns, and part of them are and practice the militia arts, then they are much less like to suffer a military attack.


Originally posted by Psiload
Please give me a single historical example of this being the case.


Uh, Switzerland, anyone?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by LFTKBS





Uh, Switzerland, anyone? Big difference between a large-scale, well-organized civil defense program, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry packing heat.

Switzerland's situation centers around obligating a large percentage of the general population to participate in the armed services, and national defense programs. It has very little, if anything, to do with lax gun control, and large numbers of privately armed civilians.

Once again... it's a matter of military organization, rather than widespread gun ownership that determines a country's degree of self-defense capability.

I'll even take it one step further... I'd suggest that a country that has a heavily armed private citizenry is probably more susceptible to foreign invasion... as oft historically demonstrated, well-armed, undisciplined, untrained rabbles will only serve to contribute to the chaos following an invasion, undermining the effectiveness of that nation's ability to mount an organized, efficient defense.

[digitalmcq]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
ABORTION: "Pro-lifers are anti-women, BECAUSE making abortion illegal unknowingly gives Rapists the legal authority to force any woman of their choosing to carry their child."

TAXES: "We are all held to the contract of government, and have a DUTY to help care for our brethren. We NO LONGER exist in the 'State of Nature', where it is up to each individual to provide for themselves. Within a working government, 'self sufficiency' is a misnomer. Without a good police system in place, ANY person with massive wealth would soon suffer from pirates better armed than themselves. Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, is NOT 'self sufficient'. To ask for lower taxes, when there are those who go hungry, homeless, or without proper clothing is tantamount to a crime against civility"

FREEDOM: "Criminality ONLY occurs when one individual infringes on the Life, Liberty, Property, or Pursuit of Happiness of another. Producing and ingesting Drugs endangers no one but the individual taking them, and thus is NOT a 'criminal activity'."

INTERNET: "That which is known exists in the Public Domain, and should be accessible to anyone wanting. If it has been aired, printed for mass distribution, or posted in a public venue it is NO LONGER protected by copyrights, and should thusly be available for download on the World Wide Web."

GUNS: "The right of citizens to keep and bare arms is what keeps them from suffering from a military invasion. It is ONLY when a people find themselves fat, lazy, and unarmed that they will suffer military aggression."

---

...more to come. Let's discuss these for now.


KOA, I'd be interested to see your sources for the above quotes. I assume you're not just making them up, right?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Since when is this the liberal's standpoint? Sounds like an NRA ad to me.

It depends. Its the line between leftist and liberal. Whereas a leftist wants all guns banned, a liberal merely takes the progressive point of view.

We have seen countries where gun bans seem to work, and we have states in this union where they have the most stringest gun regulation and the worst crime rates.

Ergo, I don't think the progressive opinion would be to simply ban guns. Perhaps 50 years ago it would have been progressive.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by LFTKBS





Uh, Switzerland, anyone?

The unique geography of Switzerland has done a good bit to deter military invasions as well. The Alps make moving large columns of combat troops and military supplies very difficult.

Also, the Swiss defense forces are well trained and part of an organized military as opposed to angry citizens using deer rifles and pistols to fight an invasion and occupation force.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sorry, but government IS NOT some utopian ideal of societal reciprocity like you are painting it above.

Government is a system of institutions and laws which direct and administer NATIONS. The fact that nations are made up of individual citizens does not give government the right to involve itself in the private sector and the daily affairs of those individual citizens.
How does government a nation if it carnt have an effect on its component parts? Btw, what do you think of the idea of the role of government being to ensure the rights of its citizens?

[The Don]

And then there's the gentleman's agreement not to invade because everybody's money there.

Win or lose, if you're still at liberty, you want to be sure to get your money afterwards

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
ABORTION: "Pro-lifers are anti-women, BECAUSE making abortion illegal unknowingly gives Rapists the legal authority to force any woman of their choosing to carry their child."
Pro-lifers are anti-women because they deny women the right to make decisions about their own bodies. This supercedes any (erroneous looking) assumptions about rapists' motivations.

TAXES: "We are all held to the contract of government, and have a DUTY to help care for our brethren. We NO LONGER exist in the 'State of Nature', where it is up to each individual to provide for themselves. Within a working government, 'self sufficiency' is a misnomer. Without a good police system in place, ANY person with massive wealth would soon suffer from pirates better armed than themselves. Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, is NOT 'self sufficient'. To ask for lower taxes, when there are those who go hungry, homeless, or without proper clothing is tantamount to a crime against civility"
Someone seems a little confused about the Hobbesian 'natural state'and the 'social contract'. The rest I don't get; rich people should pay taxes because people are hungry, if they don't they'll be attacked by pirates? I think there's two linked but distinct issues here.

FREEDOM: "Criminality ONLY occurs when one individual infringes on the Life, Liberty, Property, or Pursuit of Happiness of another. Producing and ingesting Drugs endangers no one but the individual taking them, and thus is NOT a 'criminal activity'."
Ingestion is not a criminal activity, but production? Which drug are we talking about?

INTERNET: "That which is known exists in the Public Domain, and should be accessible to anyone wanting. If it has been aired, printed for mass distribution, or posted in a public venue it is NO LONGER protected by copyrights, and should thusly be available for download on the World Wide Web."Copyright is about usage, not ownership, right?

GUNS: "The right of citizens to keep and bare arms is what keeps them from suffering from a military invasion. It is ONLY when a people find themselves fat, lazy, and unarmed that they will suffer military aggression."
I think military dominance and those oceans might play a small matter in this...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by corplinx


It depends. Its the line between leftist and liberal. Whereas a leftist wants all guns banned,
That's one heckuva sweeping generalisation; can you support this?
a liberal merely takes the progressive point of view.

We have seen countries where gun bans seem to work, and we have states in this union where they have the most stringest gun regulation and the worst crime rates.
Are the two comparable?

Ergo, I don't think the progressive opinion would be to simply ban guns. Perhaps 50 years ago it would have been progressive.
Wouldn't the progressive view be to avoid making hasty generalisations?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by digitalmcq



KOA, I'd be interested to see your sources for the above quotes. I assume you're not just making them up, right? Actually... "The King" is, in fact, quoting himself. He believes that framing his own words with quotation marks somehow makes them more dramatic, and profound.

I like him. He's silly.

[King of the Americas]

"The right of citizens to keep and bare arms is what keeps them from suffering from a military invasion. It is ONLY when a people find themselves fat, lazy, and unarmed that they will suffer military aggression."

How should this "Quote" be amended to more accurately portray the importance of the relationship between the people and the right to bare arms in regards to the preservation of liberty & freedom?

...oh ye thrower of stones of silly, may you wallow in my bizarro, and thus my shadow, until you find yourself the one who is silly.

[King of the Americas]

Pro-lifers are anti-women because they deny women the right to make decisions about their own bodies. This supercedes any (erroneous looking) assumptions about rapists' motivations.

*Like I said STRONGER Liberal Arguments. Mine provides a profound understanding of the consequences of eliminating a woman's personal freedom.


Someone seems a little confused about the Hobbesian 'natural state'and the 'social contract'. The rest I don't get; rich people should pay taxes because people are hungry, if they don't they'll be attacked by pirates? I think there's two linked but distinct issues here.

*I think the two are one in the same. Either we are here to help take care of each other, and we should do it to the best of our collective ability, or we are individuals only out for self perservation success regardless of its affect on the environment and others in it- for each other or ourselves. State of Nature vs. Civility There is just one of two ways about it...

Ingestion is not a criminal activity, but production? Which drug are we talking about?

*If 'I' grow, produce, and manufacture and INGEST, ANYTHING I have commited no crime. Now, if I sell it...then maybe you've got me on something...ESPECIALLY if I "misrepresent" the attributes of my product. Nut I haven't commited a crime in just make and ingesting something, regardless of its toxicity.


Copyright is about usage, not ownership, right?

*I don't care WHAT it is about, I think it infringes upon my Right to Free Press.

I think military dominance and those oceans might play a small
matter in this...

*That TOO, but the right of people to be able to defend themselves with force and arms is a good thing, period. It is onlt when you find yourselves fat, unarmed, and untrained that you find yourself at the mercy of a military occupation.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
"The right of citizens to keep and bare arms is what keeps them from suffering from a military invasion. It is ONLY when a people find themselves fat, lazy, and unarmed that they will suffer military aggression."

How should this "Quote" be amended to more accurately portray the importance of the relationship between the people and the right to bare arms in regards to the preservation of liberty & freedom?

...oh ye thrower of stones of silly, may you wallow in my bizarro, and thus my shadow, until you find yourself the one who is silly. "The right of citizens to keep and bare arms is not what keeps them from suffering from a military invasion."

There you go. One little word can make a world of difference.

It is ONLY when a people find themselves fat, lazy, and unarmed that they will suffer military aggression."

Fat, lazy, and unarmed... yeah, that sure describes the citizens of Iran, Southern Africa, Serbia, etc.. etc..

No wonder they've got problems... serves the bloated, shiftless, unarmed bastards right.

[Tmy]

A citizen wh a gun can fight an invading army.

Look at Iraq. The US military, one of the greatest on the planet, still cant get full control of Iraq even after disposing of the army and Saddam. Why? Cause the people are armed to the teeth.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Tmy
A citizen wh a gun can fight an invading army.

Look at Iraq. The US military, one of the greatest on the planet, still cant get full control of Iraq even after disposing of the army and Saddam. Why? Cause the people are armed to the teeth. C'mon, Timmy... get a grip. The "King" is saying that armed citizens can repel an invasion. If you don't consider the recent U.S. "liberation" of Iraq to be an example of a successful invasion, then I'd hazard a guess to say that your application to West Point isn't going to be accepted anytime soon. ;)

[Tmy]

Repel an invasion? No.

BUT one well placed bullet can take out a countries leader causing a chain reaction that coudl result in revolution. I dont see the 2nd as being able to defend a country, I see it more as a way of keeping ones govt from getting to powerful.

[King of the Americas]

...not that they are "armed", but that they must be well practiced in the Militian Arts to keep a people free of military aggression. However, without the most basic principle of keeping and baring Arms would you soon find it difficult to raise a Militia...

Failure to fight off a military aggressor might come on more than one front, ONE of which being a lack of organization, another the lack of arms to use. Without BOTH knowledge & ability- Militian Ways & Arms, one would be assured of aggression.


How bout that???

[Psiload]

King of the Americas posted:

Conceeded...

Indeed... effective national defense is not dependant upon lax gun control policies, and large-scale private gun ownership. I knew you'd see it my way.

...not that they are "armed", but that they must be well practiced in the Militian Arts to keep a people free of military aggression. However, without the most basic principle of keeping and baring Arms would you soon find it difficult to raise a Militia...

I disagree. The U.S. government has no shortage of guns, and they would hardly need to rely upon a supply of privately-owned guns to repel an enemy invasion.

Merely owning a gun does not instantly make a person a more qualified candidate for the armed services. I'm sure there were plenty of brave souls who fought in WWII who done us proud despite never having fired a gun before they answered the call.

Firearm handling is only one part of military training, and I daresay a small part. My personal military experience exposed me to less than one week of formal firearm training. I'd estimate that actual firearm training makes up only a tiny percentage of overall military training. It takes a lot more than knowing which end of a gun is dangerous to make a good, soldier, sailor, airman, marine.

As far as the notion of "raising a militia" goes... what the hell year is it on your calendar? 1770?

[Jocko]

Hey King, as long as you're quoting yourself and pretending you're Thomas Freaking Jefferson, at least get the terminology right.

To keep and BEAR arms. BEAR, not bare.

You've done enough damage to the reputation of Americans here without making the world think we're illiterate as well.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
ABORTION: "Pro-lifers are anti-women, BECAUSE making abortion illegal unknowingly gives Rapists the legal authority to force any woman of their choosing to carry their child."


I am pro-choice; however, before you consider statements like that, you have to consider how many women get abortions due to rape, versus how many get abortions for other reasons (too young, other birth control fails, etc.) From what I understand, only a small minority of abortions are done because of rape.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
TAXES: "We are all held to the contract of government, and have a DUTY to help care for our brethren.... To ask for lower taxes, when there are those who go hungry, homeless, or without proper clothing is tantamount to a crime against civility"

FREEDOM: "Criminality ONLY occurs when one individual infringes on the Life, Liberty, Property, or Pursuit of Happiness of another. Producing and ingesting Drugs endangers no one but the individual taking them, and thus is NOT a 'criminal activity'."


I have to disagree that ingesting drugs 'endangers no one but the individual taking them'. Taking drugs while performing other activities (such as driving) is a problem. (It should be pointed out that while alcohol is legal, yet it is still illegal to drink and drive, there are at least simple techniques that can be used to test impairment due to alcohol; not so with other drugs.)

Yes, many drug users would be responsible and not drive under the influence, but many believe it does not impair their judgement; keeping drugs illegal (at least until better detection mechanisms are in place) at least gives the police some influence in preventing driving under the influence.

I also have a problem suggesting that people should be forced to both pay higher taxes, and be allowed to take all the drugs they want. The unemployed drug addict does exist, and will not likely go away if drugs are legalized, and I see no reason why I should be forced to support them. (Having drugs 'illegal' provides one mechanism, although imperfect, to hopefully keep some addicts as productive members of society.)

[King of the Americas]

How 'well' do you taking correction, because some of this is going to sound pretty harsh...

You may not agree or respond to this:

I am pro-choice; however, before you consider statements like that, you have to consider how many women get abortions due to rape, versus how many get abortions for other reasons (too young, other birth control fails, etc.) From what I understand, only a small minority of abortions are done because of rape.

*It DOESN'T matter how many vs. this or that. If you take a Pro-life stance, then you give ONE rapist the Legal Authority to do this to any woman he so chooses, period.


I have to disagree that ingesting drugs 'endangers no one but the individual taking them'. Taking drugs while performing other activities (such as driving) is a problem. (It should be pointed out that while alcohol is legal, yet it is still illegal to drink and drive, there are at least simple techniques that can be used to test impairment due to alcohol; not so with other drugs.)

*I am a product of "irresponsible drug (testible) use".


Yes, many drug users would be responsible and not drive under the influence, but many believe it does not impair their judgement; keeping drugs illegal (at least until better detection mechanisms are in place) at least gives the police some influence in preventing driving under the influence.

*No it doesn't. It just diverts their attention from holding people accountable for their criminal action. If you are speeding or weaving in ad out of traffic, pull him over, get him off the road. I don't care if you were just tired or had one too many at the bar, I want THOSE people held accountable for their actions. 18,000 people die EVER year due to DRUNK drivers. Not 'high' drivers... Why are you bust'n on the guy token in his home, when you should be focusing on the dangerous drivers on the road!?!?


I also have a problem suggesting that people should be forced to both pay higher taxes, and be allowed to take all the drugs they want. The unemployed drug addict does exist, and will not likely go away if drugs are legalized, and I see no reason why I should be forced to support them. (Having drugs 'illegal' provides one mechanism, although imperfect, to hopefully keep some addicts as productive members of society.)

*Hey, I got news for you EVERYONE takes 'drugs'. Drugs-some chemical or potion designed to make you feel better/different. From coffee-Caffine, to any number of vitamin supliments, 'I' get to decide what 'I' want to put into my body, NOT you. When MY actions infringe upon you, or your Life, Liberty, Property or Pursuit of Happiness, THEN charge me with a crime. Until then what I consume is none of your concern.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*It DOESN'T matter how many vs. this or that. If you take a Pro-life stance, then you give ONE rapist the Legal Authority to do this to any woman he so chooses, period.


I think women should be allowed abortion, regardless of the reason for pregnancy. The problem with concentrating on pregnancy due to rape as the main excuse for allowing abortion is that it will give anti-abortionists an 'out'; in other words, they can try to eliminate abortions by saying "Ok, abortions are illegal except in case of rape" and go from there.

Not everyone views abortion as a black and white issue; a minority are for or against abortion in every case, but many people who are against abortion will say "its ok in case of rape/incest/danger to the mother", and many people who are pro-choice will say they are against abortion if its done for the case of, for example, aborting a child if its the wrong sex. I would rather not give the anti-abortionists the ability to divide the pro-choice side by having us concentrate on one possibility (pregnancy from rape) which they can reason away.

Originally posted by King of the Americas

*No it doesn't. It just diverts their attention from holding people accountable for their criminal action. If you are speeding or weaving in ad out of traffic, pull him over, get him off the road. I don't care if you were just tired or had one too many at the bar, I want THOSE people held accountable for their actions. 18,000 people die EVER year due to DRUNK drivers. Not 'high' drivers... Why are you bust'n on the guy token in his home, when you should be focusing on the dangerous drivers on the road!?!?


It is possible to be impaired to the point where your ability to control a vehicle is compromised, without it being immediately obvious (by weaving in and out of traffic, etc.) Since you seem to think that only criminal actions should be punishible, do you think that a person should be able to drive with as much alcohol in their system, as long as they don't speed and/or weeve in and out of traffic? I don't. If you do, that's fine, just warn me next time you go driving, m'kay?

Its unfortunate that the guy smoking in their own home gets 'punished' because some people behave irresponsibly (remember though that driving while impaired by drugs was only one reason I gave for drug laws).

Originally posted by King of the Americas

*Hey, I got news for you EVERYONE takes 'drugs'. Drugs-some chemical or potion designed to make you feel better/different. From coffee-Caffine, to any number of vitamin supliments, 'I' get to decide what 'I' want to put into my body, NOT you. When MY actions infringe upon you, or your Life, Liberty, Property or Pursuit of Happiness, THEN charge me with a crime. Until then what I consume is none of your concern.

Ever drive drunk, or "under the influence" of any other drug? If so, you are risking my life.

If you decide to make drug use a regular part of your life, are you willing to forego any claim to government welfare, or any health care costs that may result from your actions? If you decide to use drugs that you inject, are you willing to move out of my neighbourhood so I don't have to worry about finding used needles? If you decide to use pot outside, will you be willing to check with all others in any restaurants you go to to make sure that I'm not there, because I don't want to inhale any second-hand smoke. (Remember, you may be the most responsible drug user in the world, but not everyone will be as considerate as you.)

[Jocko]

Oh, give it up KOA. Vote Libertarian, they love guys like you. Why wreck the Dems further when you have the Libertarians just dying for new members?

Plus, because they never win, you'll have an endless supply of powerless bitching potential. Sounds like a win-win to me.

[King of the Americas]

I think women should be allowed abortion, regardless of the reason for pregnancy. The problem with concentrating on pregnancy due to rape as the main excuse for allowing abortion is that it will give anti-abortionists an 'out'; in other words, they can try to eliminate abortions by saying "Ok, abortions are illegal except in case of rape" and go from there.

*It isn't the main issue, it is a definate unintended concequence, MOREOVER IT IS ONE THAT IS THE DEALBREAKER. Abortion HAS to be legal, and of the woman's choice.

Not everyone views abortion as a black and white issue; a minority are for or against abortion in every case, but many people who are against abortion will say "its ok in case of rape/incest/danger to the mother", and many people who are pro-choice will say they are against abortion if its done for the case of, for example, aborting a child if its the wrong sex. I would rather not give the anti-abortionists the ability to divide the pro-choice side by having us concentrate on one possibility (pregnancy from rape) which they can reason away.

*If you want to give a rapist the Legal Authority to force nay woman of his choosing to carry and bare his child, then I say you are uncivil. Pro-lifers are exactly this, and should remove themselves from the wrong side of the argument. Then and only then will we be able to discuss and understnad that both sides have concessions to make in this argument.

-Firstly, if a woman decides NOT to deliver a baby to term, she isn't going to do it. If the mind or the body is unwilling, the process will not proceed. That said, BEFORE the 9th month (sometime around 5-6 months with present technology) that fetus is capable of independent life with the specific carrier host. And is thus deserved of every Right and Liberty afford to any other person. But before that time, the entity is merely a parasite to a willing and able host, and thus is part & property of such host so long as she sees fit. In short, Abortion is absolutely legal, up to a point.


It is possible to be impaired to the point where your ability to control a vehicle is compromised, without it being immediately obvious (by weaving in and out of traffic, etc.) Since you seem to think that only criminal actions should be punishible, do you think that a person should be able to drive with as much alcohol in their system, as long as they don't speed and/or weeve in and out of traffic? I don't. If you do, that's fine, just warn me next time you go driving, m'kay?

*We have 'limits' as to what you can or can't do on the highway. You can't sped excessively, weave in an out of traffic, or run red lights and ignore stop signs. When you do these things IF there is an officer present, you'll get pulled over. Because you broke the law and endangered other drivers. Now 'I'
don't care WHY ou did that... You DID it, and you should suffer the consequences. That you did is because you were just sleepy, listening to the radio while trying to dial your cell, or because you were on your way home from partying with the Bush daughters.
Those are excuses for doing what you did, and just don't matter. The point is punish the crime commited, not the idiocy behind it as odd as that sounds.

Its unfortunate that the guy smoking in their own home gets 'punished' because some people behave irresponsibly (remember though that driving while impaired by drugs was only one reason I gave for drug laws).

*Unfortunate? It is down right criminal. If 'I' haven't infringed upon someone else, then leave me alone. 'I' don't even drive anymore, so how COULD I be a danger to anyone, regardless of how many different drugs and alcohol I have ingested???



Ever drive drunk, or "under the influence" of any other drug? If so, you are risking my life.

*No, but I am in a wheelchair because of a drunk driver...

If you decide to make drug use a regular part of your life, are you willing to forego any claim to government welfare, or any health care costs that may result from your actions? If you decide to use drugs that you inject, are you willing to move out of my neighbourhood so I don't have to worry about finding used needles? If you decide to use pot outside, will you be willing to check with all others in any restaurants you go to to make sure that I'm not there, because I don't want to inhale any second-hand smoke. (Remember, you may be the most responsible drug user in the world, but not everyone will be as considerate as you.)

*Look, you should get punished for what you DO do, not for what you 'might' do. No one is saying anyone should have the right to blow smoke in your face, just like drunks can't offer your kids swig while they are playing in the Park. There ARE laws against those kinds of things BECAUSE the infringe upon other people pfreedom. When THAT happens, you hold them accountable for their actions. Hosptials "inject" people with drugs all the time, what would you require of them? What people do to themselves in NONE of your concern. If & When thy commit a crime, then punish them for it. Until then, let Freedm reign.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*Like I said STRONGER Liberal Arguments. Mine provides a profound understanding of the consequences of eliminating a woman's personal freedom.
No it doesn't; it conflates two related but distinctive issues—abortion and rape—to produce a non-sequitur; rape is not about forcing a women to bear a child; it's about sexual dominance.

*I think the two are one in the same.
That's why you're confused. Addressing deprivation will have no effect on attacking pirates
Either we are here to help take care of each other, and we should do it to the best of our collective ability, or we are individuals only out for self perservation success regardless of its affect on the environment and others in it- for each other or ourselves. State of Nature vs. Civility There is just one of two ways about it...
It's a false dichotomy. Surely you appreciate that the best way to address deprivation is to ensure that individuals have access to the resources they need to provide for themselves? Give a man a fish and all that.

*If 'I' grow, produce, and manufacture and INGEST, ANYTHING I have commited no crime. Now, if I sell it...then maybe you've got me on something...ESPECIALLY if I "misrepresent" the attributes of my product. Nut I haven't commited a crime in just make and ingesting something, regardless of its toxicity.
So I can ingest drugs, I just carnt buy them? I've got to grow my own tobacco and open my own whisky distillery?

*I don't care WHAT it is about, I think it infringes upon my Right to Free Press.
Could you explain what you think your right to free press is, and how it's arrived at?

*That TOO, but the right of people to be able to defend themselves with force and arms is a good thing, period. It is onlt when you find yourselves fat, unarmed, and untrained that you find yourself at the mercy of a military occupation.
If you could correlate the creation of the Office of Homeland Security with the rise in obesity in the US, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, I think there's something more to it... after 12 years of UN sanctions I doubt if there were that many fat Iraqis.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

*It isn't the main issue, it is a definate unintended concequence, MOREOVER IT IS ONE THAT IS THE DEALBREAKER. Abortion HAS to be legal, and of the woman's choice.

*If you want to give a rapist the Legal Authority to force nay woman of his choosing to carry and bare his child, then I say you are uncivil. Pro-lifers are exactly this, and should remove themselves from the wrong side of the argument. Then and only then will we be able to discuss and understnad that both sides have concessions to make in this argument.


Now, where exactly did I say that I wanted to give rapists legal authority to make women bare children? I didn't. In fact, I am pro-choice.

You seem to have totally missed my point. Go back and read my posts to see if you can understand them.

My concern is that if the pro-choice side uses the 'rape' argument as their main arguing point, then anti-abortionists can use that in a negative way. For example, a conservative president or politician can pass a law saying "Abortions only in the case of rape/incest" (which many people would support), and then make the determination of what constitutes "rape" so restrictive that few (if any) women would fall into that category.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*We have 'limits' as to what you can or can't do on the highway. You can't sped excessively, weave in an out of traffic, or run red lights and ignore stop signs. When you do these things IF there is an officer present, you'll get pulled over. Because you broke the law and endangered other drivers.

Once again, you have totally ignored one of the key points I had made in a previous points. I'm going to try to expain it to you as simply as I can....

Your ability to control a motor vehicle safely may still be compromised even if you do not violate any traffic rules.

Do you understand? If not, go back and read the previous line again. I have explained it in other posts. You need to understand that before you go further.

Understand it yet? If not, bo back and read it again. Please don't respond to this post until you do.

That's why the government has set blood-alchohol limits and has created RIDE programs (to do random checks for people who drive drunk). But there are no simple equivalent checks for other drugs. That is my concern.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*Unfortunate? It is down right criminal. If 'I' haven't infringed upon someone else, then leave me alone. 'I' don't even drive anymore, so how COULD I be a danger to anyone, regardless of how many different drugs and alcohol I have ingested???


Fine you don't drive anymore. But what of the people who do still drive, and who use pot or other drugs?

And what of the other issues I had brought up, such as possibly increased medical care due to drug use?

Originally posted by King of the Americas

*Look, you should get punished for what you DO do, not for what you 'might' do.

So, should I be allowed to fire a gun randomly in the air in the middle of a crowd? If nobody gets hurt, then by your reasoning, I
shouldn't get punished, even if I endangered other people's lives.

Originally posted by King of the Americas

No one is saying anyone should have the right to blow smoke in your face,

And just how do you plan to prevent that? Its troubling enough just having smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. Are we going to have to have non-smoking, pot-smoking only, cigarette smoking only, cigarette-smoking and pot smoking, crack smoking only, pot and crack smoking, etc. sections in restaurants?

And are you going to have the police patrolling everwhere outside to make sure that no pot-smoker stands too close to non-smokers?

Sorry, but if you make drugs totally legal, you will be exposing others to drug use when they don't want to be. Not everyone is going to be doing it in the privacy of their own home.

Originally posted by King of the Americas

There ARE laws against those kinds of things BECAUSE the infringe upon other people pfreedom.

And if someone gets addicted to drugs and goes on welfare as a result, my tax money goes to support them, then a part of my freedom (my econdomic freedom, to spend my money the way I want) is taken away. And there are people who are unemployed and who are regular drug users.

As I said, if drug users waived all claim to welfare and other government assistance, I wouldn't mind them using anything they wanted.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Hosptials "inject" people with drugs all the time, what would you require of them?

Probably the same thing they do now; if the 'drugs' injected have a narcotic effect (like after the last operation I had), then they will require someone to drive the patient home.

It should also be noted that drugs administered in hospitals are typically well tested and dosages are controlled; also, the 'supply' is limited so the person cannot easily become an addict.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
If & When thy commit a crime, then punish them for it. Until then, let Freedm reign.

So, I expect you'll be pushing to have all drug-users taken off welfare roles. People have 'freedom', let them live with the consequences.

Do you also feel the same way about gun laws, pollution, and taxes? should people be allowed to ignore gun restrictions, not pay taxes, and dump any toxic substances anywhere, all in the name of "freedom"?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BillyTK

How does government a nation if it carnt have an effect on its component parts? Btw, what do you think of the idea of the role of government being to ensure the rights of its citizens?

A federal government taking constitutional action that affects its component parts is not the same as infringing unconstitutionally on individual and state's rights, which it what I was specifically addressing.

The Constitution, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, ensures the rights of citizens.

Government must simply interpret (narrowly and strictly, IMO...), comply with, and enforce that Constitution.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
The Constitution, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, ensures the rights of citizens.
I believe the Constitution merely enumerates the rights of citizens. It is up to various government (and some non-government) agencies to actually ensure them.

Originally posted by Kodiak
Government must simply interpret (narrowly and strictly, IMO...), comply with, and enforce that Constitution.
Actually, only the Judicial is supposed to interpret. Executive enforces. I think we are all supposed to comply.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky

I believe the Constitution merely enumerates the rights of citizens. It is up to various government (and some non-government) agencies to actually ensure them.

Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution explain and limit the roles and responsibilities of the 3 branches of federal government, while Article IV covers States rights, amendment and ratification. The BILL OF RIGHTS enumerates the rights of citizens and ensures those rights with laguage such as "shall make no law"; "shall not be infringed; and "shall not be violated". Those rights and protections exist regardless of any government agency.

If your point is that government support and cooperation is necessary for the system to work, then I agree. Otherwise, we have secession or revolution


Originally posted by Tricky
Actually, only the Judicial is supposed to interpret. Executive enforces. I think we are all supposed to comply.

Correctimundo.

3 branches of government = 3 specific roles

Executive: enforce
Legislative: comply (enact;carry out)
Judicial: interpret

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak


A federal government taking constitutional action that affects its component parts is not the same as infringing unconstitutionally on individual and state's rights, which it what I was specifically addressing.
Thanks for the clarification. I interpreted your comment:
The fact that nations are made up of individual citizens does not give government the right to involve itself in the private sector and the daily affairs of those individual citizens.
as meaning no involvement, rather than conditional involvement.
The Constitution, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, ensures the rights of citizens.

Government must simply interpret (narrowly and strictly, IMO...), comply with, and enforce that Constitution.
My apologies; I was asking in terms of general principles, rather than specifically relating to your country. So in the latter context, surely your final comment here acknowledges that it's governments, not documents, which ensure individual rights? A document may outline what should be, but in and of itself is not self-enforcing, and requires some agency (i.e. government) to ensure that the should be becomes an is?

However, in your response to Tricky, you say:
[...]Those rights and protections exist regardless of any government agency.
This may be a semantic argument over the use of the word "exist", but how can rights and protections be said to exist without some agency to enforce them?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BillyTK
This may be a semantic argument over the use of the word "exist", but how can rights and protections be said to exist without some agency to enforce them?

I think it is semantics, as I posted above in response to Tricky: "If your point is that government support and cooperation is necessary for the system to work, then I agree. Otherwise, we have secession or revolution."

[King of the Americas]

We're reaching a common ground of understanding here.

I KNOW what you think, but what you don't realize is that your reasoning is flawed.

You can't hold people accountable for how they feel, nor how they live. That's freedom. "Yes, fat people cost the taxpayer more money, but that doesn't mean they are limiting or attacking your Life, Liberty, Property, or Pursuit of Happiness. The taxes you pay in order to pay for people's health care isn't really YOUR's anymore, it Our's. Fat people don't keep you from living, nor do they infringe upon your personal liberities, and I hope they don't keep you from being happy. Thus thay have commited no crime, but Freedom does place a burden on the taxpayers..."

Now, I will conceed that present testable standards are subpar, which is EXACTLY why we should adopt a new policy.

It is NOT about how you FEEL, it is about what you DO.

People commit crimes/endanger other people's lives for ANY number of reasons, but THAT isn't the punishable issue.

You wanna be like the thought police...this guy was on cannabis while he was driivng and killed a family, and this guy had not had any sleep in 2 days on coffee while he over another family. It is the SAME crime, and punishable by the same standard. I don't care if the driver was perfectly sober, if you drive wrecklessly and kill someone you have to be held accountable, period.

I think the two of us have very different ideas about Freedom, the role of Law, and the defination of a Crime.

[King of the Americas]

"The crickets played, as the King's stance stood uncontended."

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
"The crickets played, as the King's stance stood uncontended."

Homer to Lisa in an Episode of The Simpson's: "You're living in a world of make-believe!!!"

[King of the Americas]

...doth mine ears detect a personal attack, or a rational argument to my post???

[Psiload]

King of the Americas posted:

Producing and ingesting Drugs endangers no one but the individual taking them, and thus is NOT a 'criminal activity'."

Are you suggesting that illicit drug use,(i.e.- crack cocaine, crystal meth, etc...), and the illicit drug trade has no detrimental effects on society as a whole? The ill consequences resulting from the illegal drug trade are suffered only by the individual users?

Hosptials "inject" people with drugs all the time, what would you require of them?

You see no difference between pharmaceutical medications and "street drugs"? Seriously? That's whacked.

But, to answer your question... Accountability, that is what I/we require of hospitals when they administer drugs to patients. Should we not want at least as much from the shady character on the corner when he dispenses his "medication"?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...doth mine ears detect a personal attack, or a rational argument to my post???

"Been there, tried that..."

[King of the Americas]

Are you suggesting that illicit drug use,(i.e.- crack cocaine, crystal meth, etc...), and the illicit drug trade has no detrimental effects on society as a whole? The ill consequences resulting from the illegal drug trade are suffered only by the individual users?

*What I am saying is that LOTS of our behaviors have a detrimental effect on society as a whole. THAT is the cost of Freedom. Fat people cost money, but we don't make laws against over-eating. Sure cocaine may make addicts, but look at how much work they'll get done!? Meth heads are some of the fastest most concentrated workers, on a good fix. The actual trade of such goods could be taxed, in order to fund rehab facilities if citizens seeked out such services.


You see no difference between pharmaceutical medications and "street drugs"? Seriously? That's whacked.

*I see no difference in injecting people with morphine and citizens taking drugs-legal or illegal, to releave their pain.

But, to answer your question... Accountability, that is what I/we require of hospitals when they administer drugs to patients. Should we not want at least as much from the shady character on the corner when he dispenses his "medication"?

*SURE, that is what we need to LEGALIZE the procedure, so that we CAN test products for reliability. I think you probably agree with me, but would never say as much in a public venue.

[Psiload]

King of the Americas posted:

*What I am saying is that LOTS of our behaviors have a detrimental effect on society as a whole. THAT is the cost of Freedom. Fat people cost money, but we don't make laws against over-eating.

No, but we do acknowledge the detrimental effect certain types of behavior have on society, and we try to offset the burden these individuals who indulge in such behavior place on society in the form of "sin taxes" i.e.- cigarettes, alcohol. There has been talk recently about taking such steps with junk food.

Sure cocaine may make addicts, but look at how much work they'll get done!? Meth heads are some of the fastest most concentrated workers, on a good fix. The actual trade of such goods could be taxed, in order to fund rehab facilities if citizens seeked out such services.

I'm going to assume... no, I'm going to pray that you are joking here. "The Super Productive Cokehead Tax" Ha Ha, that's a kneeslapper... at least I hope it is.

*I see no difference in injecting people with morphine and citizens taking drugs-legal or illegal, to releave their pain.

Well maybe you should... self-medication often leads to much worse problems than the self-medicator started off with i.e.-
http://www.rassi.com/graphics/rush.jpeg

How about people who use illicit drugs for recreational rather than clinical purposes? Are they no different than people who take pharmaceutical medications?

*SURE, that is what we need to LEGALIZE the procedure, so that we CAN test products for reliability. I think you probably agree with me, but would never say as much in a public venue.

Actually, I agree with much of the arguements in support of decriminalizing certain drugs... marijuana is one example. But I also feel that certain drugs should remain illegal, based on a risk vs. benefit assessment of each drug's merits(or lack thereof), and how they affect society as a whole. The notion of just saying, "Leagalize em' all now, and sort it out later." strikes me as a tad risky, and irresponsible... not to mention naive

[King of the Americas]

No, but we do acknowledge the detrimental effect certain types of behavior have on society, and we try to offset the burden these individuals who indulge in such behavior place on society in the form of "sin taxes" i.e.- cigarettes, alcohol. There has been talk recently about taking such steps with junk food.

*What you are ignoring is that making something illegal doesn't make it unavialable, it just creates a black market for the item. Black market goods seldomly suffer the kind of checks and oversights that regular market goods do. So ne could easily argue that you do more harm than good, by putting anything into the black market...


I'm going to assume... no, I'm going to pray that you are joking here. "The Super Productive Cokehead Tax" Ha Ha, that's a kneeslapper... at least I hope it is.

*MANY people perform their jobs better on Coffee, hell I am one of them. Are you suggesting that EVERY person who tries meth or cocaine IS an unproductive self-destructive slow witted slob of a worker??? Are you aware that our present pilots are given "Go Pills", that are little more than meth-anphetimeans. Believe it or not, illegal drugs have and are employed to enhance some people's perception and responsiveness.



Well maybe you should... self-medication often leads to much worse problems than the self-medicator started off with i.e.-

*...often leads to much worse problems..." Well, as long as you are being specific.

How about people who use illicit drugs for recreational rather than clinical purposes? Are they no different than people who take pharmaceutical medications?

*I believe that you should be FREE to consume whatever you damn well please, and if those things you consumed make you feel better, GREAT! No one should be made to suffer by making their preferred consumption materials illegal, period.

Actually, I agree with much of the arguements in support of decriminalizing certain drugs... marijuana is one example.

*I am gald to hear you aren't completely mis-guided on this issue...

But I also feel that certain drugs should remain illegal, based on a risk vs. benefit assessment of each drug's merits(or lack thereof), and how they affect society as a whole. The notion of just saying, "Leagalize em' all now, and sort it out later." strikes me as a tad risky, and irresponsible... not to mention naive

*Why not just let personal accountability rule the day. If you commit a crime, and get caught doing so, you go to jail. Take cops OFF the drug beat, and put them on the tail of sincere criminals. Hold people accountable for what they DO do, an NOT for what they 'might' do. If speed is good enough for military pilots, why isn't it good enough for me???

[Psiload]

King of the Americas posted:

*What you are ignoring is that making something illegal doesn't make it unavialable, it just creates a black market for the item. Black market goods seldomly suffer the kind of checks and oversights that regular market goods do. So ne could easily argue that you do more harm than good, by putting anything into the black market...

Well then, how about we legalize kiddie porn? If it were legal, we could regulate it, right? Then we could tax it, and make some dough off of it... win-win situation, no?

*MANY people perform their jobs better on Coffee, hell I am one of them. Are you suggesting that EVERY person who tries meth or cocaine IS an unproductive self-destructive slow witted slob of a worker???

Are you suggesting that the use of illicit drugs such as crack cocaine, and crystal meth are actually beneficial to society?

Are you aware that our present pilots are given "Go Pills", that are little more than meth-anphetimeans.

Yes, and we should assess the cost vs. benefit of this practice just as we should with all drugs, legal, or otherwise.

Believe it or not, illegal drugs have and are employed to enhance some people's perception and responsiveness.

Oh, I certainly believe it... I see plenty of perceptive, responsive crackheads here in the detox clinic of the hospital where I work.

Me:Well maybe you should... self-medication often leads to much worse problems than the self-medicator started off with i.e.-

You:*...often leads to much worse problems..." Well, as long as you are being specific.

Hellooo McFly... uh, addiction... is that specific enough for you?

*I believe that you should be FREE to consume whatever you damn well please, and if those things you consumed make you feel better, GREAT! No one should be made to suffer by making their preferred consumption materials illegal, period.

How about those that are made to suffer from the consequences of those who consume whatever they damn well please? Do they get any say in the matter?

*Why not just let personal accountability rule the day.

It's been tried before... anarchy is not pretty.

If you commit a crime, and get caught doing so, you go to jail. Take cops OFF the drug beat, and put them on the tail of sincere criminals. Hold people accountable for what they DO do, an NOT for what they 'might' do.

If we were to legalize drugs like crack cocaine, and crystal meth. overnight, then I'm sure the police WOULD be spending plenty of time tailing sincere criminals.

[King of the Americas]

Well then, how about we legalize kiddie porn? If it were legal, we could regulate it, right? Then we could tax it, and make some dough off of it... win-win situation, no?

*Child pornography is criminal, in that it uses and abuses someone not able to protect themselves. My growing and consuming cocaine infringes upon no one Life, Liberty, Property, or Pursuit of Happiness, and thus is NOT 'criminal behavior'.

Are you suggesting that the use of illicit drugs such as crack cocaine, and crystal meth are actually beneficial to society?

*When used in a responsible manner, I am SURE these substances can be used in a benefical manner.


Yes, and we should assess the cost vs. benefit of this practice just as we should with all drugs, legal, or otherwise.

*They HAVE been 'assessed', and found to be beneficial, THAT is why our pilots are using them...duh!


Oh, I certainly believe it... I see plenty of perceptive, responsive crackheads here in the detox clinic of the hospital where I work.

*I'll conceed that some people do NOT use all drugs responsibly. But this deosn't mean that everyone should suffer as a result.

Me:Well maybe you should... self-medication often leads to much worse problems than the self-medicator started off with i.e.-

You:*...often leads to much worse problems..." Well, as long as you are being specific.

Hellooo McFly... uh, addiction... is that specific enough for you?

*I know people who are addicted to coffee, but they never moved onto anything harder...


How about those that are made to suffer from the consequences of those who consume whatever they damn well please? Do they get any say in the matter?

*As a matter of fact, No. Just like you can't tell me how many Whoppers I can have. Freedom & Civility have a price.


It's been tried before... anarchy is not pretty.

*Anarchy is the LACK of a governing authority. Governing authority's purpose is to hold people accountable for their crimes against their fellow citizens.

If we were to legalize drugs like crack cocaine, and crystal meth. overnight, then I'm sure the police WOULD be spending plenty of time tailing sincere criminals.

*Look, if you steal to get drugs you should be held accountable for theft. When the prohibition on alcohol was lifted did this result in more or less criminal actions?

[Psiload]

King of the Americas wrote:

*Child pornography is criminal, in that it uses and abuses someone not able to protect themselves. My growing and consuming cocaine infringes upon no one Life, Liberty, Property, or Pursuit of Happiness, and thus is NOT 'criminal behavior'.

You're right... the kiddie porn analogy was a poor one. Let's try another. How about C4 plastic explosives? Why is it illegal to possess C4? There is nothing "criminal" about possessing C4. I'm not infringing upon anyone's life, liberty, yada, yada, yada... when I possess, or even use C4. I'll even go as far as to say that C4 is quite useful. There are many constructive uses for it... demolition, removing old stumps, etc... So why is it that the U.S. Military can have C4, and I can't? Am I not good enough? Why not legalize C4, and just rely upon personal accountability? Only arrest the people who commit crimes using C4. Same goes for weapons grade plutonium.

The obvious reason why it is illegal is because of the potential harm that C4/plutonium can do. The same goes for illicit drugs... their potential for harm is readily apparent.

*When used in a responsible manner, I am SURE these substances[crack cocaine, crystal meth] can be used in a benefical manner.

Can be... but are they? Look around.

*They HAVE been 'assessed', and found to be beneficial, THAT is why our pilots are using them...duh!

Back to the C4 analogy... just because fighter pilots, and green berets benefit from such substances, doesn't mean that they're automatically fit, and proper for public consumption.

*I'll conceed that some people do NOT use all drugs responsibly. But this deosn't mean that everyone should suffer as a result.

A handfull of terrorists used a couple of planes irresponsibly, does that mean that we all have to suffer as a result? YES! That's how society works... we sometimes have to sacrifice in the name of public safety, and security.

Why do we have traffic/speeding laws? Why do we have to suffer for the sins of a handfull of reckless individuals? The vast majority of citizens are responsible drivers. Should we repeal all traffic laws, and only prosecute those irresponsible individuals who cause accidents, injuries, and deaths?

*I know people who are addicted to coffee, but they never moved onto anything harder...

Show me a 12 ounce newborn "caffeine baby" struggling with his/her addiction in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, and I'll consider your comparison between crack and coffee.

*As a matter of fact, No. Just like you can't tell me how many Whoppers I can have. Freedom & Civility have a price.

Exactly... and the price of freedom & civility is that you can't legally take WHATEVER substance "you damn well please"... Just as you can't legally buy a truckload of C4, and mustard gas.

*Anarchy is the LACK of a governing authority. Governing authority's purpose is to hold people accountable for their crimes against their fellow citizens.

Government's also have the responsibility to mitigate potential threats against their citizenry... prosectuting offendors who have carried out those threats is only the second part of the process.

The risks that illicit drugs pose to society is very real, and very grave. Believeing that those dangers will go away as a consequence of decriminalizing illicit drugs is ludicrously naive.

*Look, if you steal to get drugs you should be held accountable for theft. When the prohibition on alcohol was lifted did this result in more or less criminal actions?

Actually, more... because the criminal enterprises that organized themselves around the production, and distribution of illegal alcohol branched off into other areas of organized crime. Sure, there were less arrests for illegal alcohol-related crimes(duh?) directly following prohibition, but that certainly doesn't mean the Al Capones of the world hung up their Tommy guns... they went on to greener pastures. Just as the Pablo Escobars of the world would if illicit drugs were legalized.