Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Drugs in the FSP  (Read 44988 times)

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2003, 02:52:20 pm »

Plano Texan - again, I have to disagree, this time on your characterization of constitutional amendments.  Madison, widely cited as the author of the Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10), actually spoke out quite strongly against amendments, because he truly believed that the rights that pro-amendments folks wanted to see protected were already deeply enshrined in the original document.  If anything, Madison feared that a necessarily incomplete list of citizens' rights would end up limiting the rights that the American people think that they have.  And that's exactly what's happened.

Why then did Madison accede to the anti-federalists' demands for constitutional amendments?  Because he made a political decision and realized that if he maintained control (as much as possible) over the situation, harm could be averted.  Madison's proposed amendments were carefully crafted to change absolutely nothing in the rights of citizens', precisely because the citizens of America had too many rights to count--hence the last paragraph of his fourth proposal (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/speeches/amend.htm), which became the 9th Amendment.

So as for
Quote
If it were written well in the first place, we wouldn't need all the ammendments.
, if we still have half of a grasp of the constitutional logic we don't.

For more, see a terrific book by Robert A. Goldwin called From Parchment to Power.
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2003, 02:56:03 pm »

Also:
Quote
Once heard, the language stays.
Quote
Quote: ATR
Think about free speech. Which do we value? The right to say what you want or the right to not hear what you don't want to hear? Who is being oppressed? The person being censored? Or, the person who is exposed to the uncensored material?

Your reply: Now you're talking about an entirely different matter.

Doesn't your first comment belie your second?  

Don't buy into enumerated rights, my friend.  It's a sham.
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2003, 03:05:01 pm »

Quote
Madison, widely cited as the author of the Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10), actually spoke out quite strongly against amendments, because he truly believed that the rights that pro-amendments folks wanted to see protected were already deeply enshrined in the original document.  

And yet the Constitution itself provides for amendments to be made.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution..." Article V
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2003, 03:10:46 pm »

Yes, but who's to say that those amendments would necessarily be concerned with rights?  In fact, based on the text of the Constitution itself, it stands to reason that amendments would logically have hard more to do with governmental structure.  After all, the word "amendment" implies a change to that which is already there--but in a document that, in its original form, makes no real mention of rights, what is there to amend if not structure?
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2003, 03:13:44 pm »

In which case the Constitution neither allows nor denies rights.
Logged

atr

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #35 on: October 08, 2003, 03:20:59 pm »

Quote
But you still have a choice. You can look away.
Not until I've seen it to know to look away.
Quote
Or cover your eyes.
Not until I've seen it to know to cover my eyes.

I agree that you have the right to make the choice of having the orgy as I would hope that you agree that I have the right to choose not to see it in the first place.  Once seen, the image stays.  Once heard, the language stays.  Should you be arrested for exercising your right to an orgy on the street corner?  No.  I will concede to that, but either way you look at it, the liberties of one impede the liberties of the other. Places can be designated for various behaviors.

Thank you for making that concession.

Why shouldn't someone be arrested for having an orgy on the street corner?

The point I've been trying to make is that someone should only be arrested for doing something that inflicts harm (e.g. force/fraud) on another person in violation of that person's right to govern his/herself.
Quote
Quote
Think about free speech. Which do we value? The right to say what you want or the right to not hear what you don't want to hear? Who is being oppressed? The person being censored? Or, the person who is exposed to the uncensored material?

Now you're talking about an entirely different matter.  Is the right to free speech a Constitutional right?  No.  It is the Ammendment to the Constitution.  What about the right to bear arms?  Another ammendment.  The right to public orgies on street corners?  I haven't found that one yet, but I'll keep looking.

I've seen many posts dealing with unConstitutional laws and returning back to what the Constitution was originally made for, but most of these rely on ammendments to make their point.  For myself, I disagree with much of the Constitution and find it not very well written.  If it were written well in the first place, we wouldn't need all the ammendments.  The same posts that argue with the ammendments changing the Constitution to allow for taxation, etc. are also in other places citing freedom of speech as a Constitutional right rather than an ammendment.  Is one of the FSP goals to throw out some ammendments and keep others?  If so, why didn't GimmeFuel get to vote?

There are many points the FSP has made in posts that I agree with.  There are many that I disagree with.  I know I'm not the only one from having read many other posts where people agree or disagree.  At least be consistent.  Don't seek to go back to the Constitution using ammendments as the reasons both why it liked and disliked.

I did not mention the Constitution. I am talking about a free state. Liberty includes the liberty to speak freely, but that's far from the only kind of liberty.

This all goes back to my question, "When is it okay for the government to restrict someone's freedom to make choices for him/herself--specifically, choices about what to do and what not to do?"
« Last Edit: October 08, 2003, 03:22:51 pm by atr »
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #36 on: October 08, 2003, 03:37:15 pm »

Let me try to make one more Constitutional argument, and then I'm going to give up.

Our Constitution is a formal one, which is to say that--apart from the later additions--it is entirely concerned with how to make a government work.  That's layer one.

Layer two is, of course, the idea of that government.  Any government is formed with goals in mind, so the appropriate question is "what were the goals of the Founders?"  As laid out in the preamble to the Constitution those goals were:

1 - justice
2 - domestic tranquility
3 - the general welfare
4 - liberty

Some people claim that the Constitution is a frame of silver around the Declaration's gold--I would argue instead that Articles I through Article VII are the frame around the golden preamble.  What on earth are the "Blessings of Liberty" if not rights--and fundamentally one right: self-determination.

For comparison, you should take a look at the new proposed EU Constitution--a bloated compilation of entitlements (http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN).  
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #37 on: October 08, 2003, 03:54:05 pm »

Quote
Why shouldn't someone be arrested for having an orgy on the street corner?
The punishment is not longer limited to the person involved in the orgy.  In most places, public nudity or "indecent exposure" or whatever you want to call it results in being arrested (waste of time), a booking process (waste of money however minimal), possibly jail (big waste of money), court dates (time and money) and is taxing more ways than one on many people.  IMO, it's completely ludicrous.  Maybe "law" seems to strong a word, but what is a law other than a rule?  What is a rule other than an enforced guideline?  Rather than impose a heavy punishment for breaking the rule, you're asked to move along to the "free sex zone" with some sort of warning.  You do it again the next day with the same results.  Soon this becomes a habit.  Rather than impose a burden on the people who don't want to see the actions and whose rights are being infringed on,  you pay a fine or are asked to do some sort of community service.  Has the government restricted your choice by doing this?  No.  Have you restricted my choice not to see by going to the "free sex zone"?  No.  What has been restricted?  Only the location where you make the choice.
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #38 on: October 08, 2003, 04:02:08 pm »

Quote
Rather than impose a burden on the people who don't want to see the actions and whose rights are being infringed on...
What are these rights that you keep referencing?  I cannot understand a principle of freedom that rests on the right not to be exposed to things you don't like.  I wish I didn't have to see the graphic pictures carried by animal rights protestors, smell the pot that my neighbor smokes, or hear Celine Dion ever.  But that doesn't (or shouldn't) make those things illegal.
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #39 on: October 08, 2003, 04:13:05 pm »

Quote
What are these rights that you keep referencing?
The same rights everyone else is referencing.  You have the right to do.  I have the right not to do.  You have the right to be seen.  I have the right not to see.  I'm not saying those things should be illegal.  I'm saying there should be places such things are not permitted.

Quote
Creating a small-government, limited intrusion state is the prerequisite for the real leap--deciding for yourself.  That may include, within the free state, the decision to move with like-minded people to a town that would viciously shun drunk drivers, maybe be dry, offer free health care, education, or whatever.  The key is the right to find your own community or to live outside of one.  It's all about exit rights.

And yet by what atr is stating, this violates his right to have an orgy on the street corner in that town.

Quote
For comparison, you should take a look at the new proposed EU Constitution
No thanks.  I've lived in Europe (Italy and Germany) within the last ten years.  You think we have it bad?
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #40 on: October 08, 2003, 04:25:07 pm »

First, for the sake of clarity:

Quote
I'm not saying those things should be illegal.  I'm saying there should be places such things are not permitted.
 That is an oxymoron.

The second quote gets to my main point which is this: the government does not give you your rights.  I doubt very much that ATR is arguing a universal right to orgy--rather that the most libertarian (that is, the most free) government would leave that decision up to the citizens.  ATR would apparently go to the most hands-off community, and you would not.  So be it.

As for Europe, I am hardly arguing that Europe is a good example--in fact, I hold it up as a complete disaster.  The problem is that, with a Supreme Court that is increasingly interested in referencing international law (see Lawrence v. Texas, and recent statements from Justices Breyer and Ginsburg), the rot is likely to spread across the Atlantic.
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #41 on: October 08, 2003, 04:31:26 pm »

Quote
Quote
I'm not saying those things should be illegal.  I'm saying there should be places such things are not permitted.

 
  That is an oxymoron.

That's a matter of perception.  Texas has a concealed handgun law.  I can carry with a license, but I cannot carry inside a school; ergo. carrying is not illegal but there are places where carrying is not permitted.
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #42 on: October 08, 2003, 04:45:06 pm »




  ... how can a structure based on assumed innocence convict citizens for being in a state in which they migh commit a crime?


Bingo.  Exactly right, and my reason for opposing drunk driving laws.


How about someone who has set up a target on the other side of a public street and has so far managed to miss pedestrians by at least an inch with every shot?  Or is being vewwy vewwy careful with his Anthrax hobby?

There are some things that are dangerous to others, and the government is entirely correct to punish those who engage in them - even if harm was, that time, narrowly avoided.  This is not really even Preemptive; the Punishment may come weeks after the Offense.  Long as people know it's coming down on them if they endanger me.

Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #43 on: October 08, 2003, 04:47:10 pm »



Texas has a concealed handgun law.  I can carry with a license, but I cannot carry inside a school; ergo. carrying is not illegal but there are places where carrying is not permitted.


Well duh duh duh.  If you carry inside a school, you have commited a Crime.  I call that an Illegal Act.

Logged

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2003, 04:52:08 pm »

Quote
[Quote from: The Plano Texan on Today at 05:31:26pm]
Texas has a concealed handgun law.  I can carry with a license, but I cannot carry inside a school; ergo. carrying is not illegal but there are places where carrying is not permitted.
Well duh duh duh.  If you carry inside a school, you have commited a Crime.  I call that an Illegal Act.
Quote
Semantics.  My point was that carrying is not illegal.  The place carried is the restriction.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 13   Go Up