Republicans Vs. Republican TEA Partiers

[rambone]

However, you're not really answering my question. How are any of those things Constitutional rights. I see 2-3 that might fit that category. Care to explain it?

Seriously? The majority of that list is covered under the 1st Amendment.

I guess the question I have is, what drugs would you legalize? All of them or just some?

All of them.

The Federal Government has no constitutional power to ban drugs.

All prohibition is anti-capitalist.

Prohibition doesn't even work.

There is not a single prohibition argument that makes sense. Its all based on fear, ignorance, and benefiting the elites.

Next question is, are you willing to remove the safety net for drug abusers BEFORE legalization?

No. The safety net needs to go, but there is absolutely no sensible argument that would lead me to conclude that they need to be abolished in a certain order. You already have a full burden of people in the safety net, in the presence of all the prohibition laws your heart can desire. Both programs need to go as soon as possible, in any order.

This isn't a one way street though. You never gave me an example of something immoral that you can also show is a Constitutional right.

What part of worshiping idols did you miss? Cursing the Lord? These are guaranteed under the 1st Amendment and both immoral... along with that huge list of other things that are free speech issues but also immoral. Face it, biblical morals are a completely inappropriate standard for creating laws.

 

[Liberty1911]

Here it is:

Rambone listed many, but I already answered. I answered that the constitution wasn't designed to enumerate each of our rights. There is nothing in there that says I have the right to drink coffee in the morning, but I should still have that right. It's a silly question. Read the thread about natural rights and discuss it there, if you choose.

I'll check that thread out then. I suspect though, I'll probably find the same answer I always seem to get. Natural rights are whatever the individual decides they are for themselves. There is no external standard.

On the hypothetical - I don't need the government to sanction my marriage.

 

[Liberty1911]

What part of worshiping idols did you miss? Cursing the Lord? These are guaranteed under the 1st Amendment and both immoral... along with that huge list of other things that are free speech issues but also immoral. Face it, biblical morals are a completely inappropriate standard for creating laws.

I said 2-3 on the list might qualify. But seriously, do you think you have a Constitutional right to commit adultery, a Constitutional right to pride? That's silly.

There lies your problem with advocating government sanction of things like homosexual marriage that are nothing more than immoral choices.

As far as I'm concerned, the "right" to immoral choices ends when you ask government to force me to recognize it, as you are doing with homosexual marriage.

 

[rambone]

I said 2-3 on the list might qualify. But seriously, do you think you have a Constitutional right to commit adultery, a Constitutional right to pride? That's silly.

Government has no constitutional authority to stop these activities. You have a right to do them. They are immoral.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Government has no constitutional authority to stop these activities. You have a right to do them. They are immoral.

You are correct. In the most obvious case, the people in question lost any sympathy I may have had for them when equal legal standing was not good enough for them, but rather they demanded legal redefinition of marriage which has never in human history included such combinations. They also expect special status as a protected group. In the end, they are demanding federally mandated acceptance.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No. The safety net needs to go, but there is absolutely no sensible argument that would lead me to conclude that they need to be abolished in a certain order. You already have a full burden of people in the safety net, in the presence of all the prohibition laws your heart can desire. Both programs need to go as soon as possible, in any order.

Here's where idealism meets reality. It seems to be human nature that if I'm paying your bills, I get to have a say in how you're spending my money. It has been that way in any family situation I've seen, when you borrow money from a friend or a bank, you are constrained on how you spend it to one extent or another by the lender. So long as people cannot or will not regulate themselves, so long as people surrender themselves to the public dole, the public will, in turn, demand to be able to regulate them. You don't want anybody telling you what to do?--fend for and regulate yourself.

 

[DragonGunner]

Seriously? The majority of that list is covered under the 1st Amendment.


All of them.

The Federal Government has no constitutional power to ban drugs.

All prohibition is anti-capitalist.

Prohibition doesn't even work.

There is not a single prohibition argument that makes sense. Its all based on fear, ignorance, and benefiting the elites.


No. The safety net needs to go, but there is absolutely no sensible argument that would lead me to conclude that they need to be abolished in a certain order. You already have a full burden of people in the safety net, in the presence of all the prohibition laws your heart can desire. Both programs need to go as soon as possible, in any order.


What part of worshiping idols did you miss? Cursing the Lord? These are guaranteed under the 1st Amendment and both immoral... along with that huge list of other things that are free speech issues but also immoral. Face it, biblical morals are a completely inappropriate standard for creating laws.

"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits...it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."

Fishers Ames, Framer of the First ammendment.

 

[jamil]

The Tea Party started out with a message about constitutional governance. That won them a congressional landslide in 2010. But the message has morphed as the movement has gained more socially conservative Republicans wishing to attach themselves to past success. In a lot of ways, today the Tea Party acts more like the 700 club.

Most of the Tea Party supported candidates who lost in 2012, lost on the social "moral" issues and not because they wanted lower taxes, reduced spending, smaller government, individual rights. If they want to become relevant again, they need back the simple message that made them successful in the past.

The infighting is because the establishment Republicans want to compromise with Obama and the remnant of the Tea Party who still want lower taxes, less spending, smaller government, personal liberty, doesn't.

Funny how Romney voters turn a thread about republicans going after republicans into a "let's trash the libertarians" thread. No wonder they can't win elections, these days.

I'm a Romney voter. I didn't bash any libertarians. But there's plenty of fodder if you'd prefer your stereotype would remain pure.

 

[jamil]

I said 2-3 on the list might qualify. But seriously, do you think you have a Constitutional right to commit adultery, a Constitutional right to pride? That's silly.

There lies your problem with advocating government sanction of things like homosexual marriage that are nothing more than immoral choices.

The question implies, not only that a law against it is even possible to enforce, but also that it's a prohibition on thought, which is also silly.

As far as I'm concerned, the "right" to immoral choices ends when you ask government to force me to recognize it, as you are doing with homosexual marriage.

I can agree with this statement because forcing recognition implies that laws can prohibit thought. I'm not sure, however, what legislation forces you to recognize anything.

 

[VN Vet]

Republican Party (formally known as the GOP) are left of center. Republican Tea Party is right of center. A clear simple difference. You choose which side of center you want to belong.

Neither are as far left if center as the Sociallist (formally known as Democrats)

 

[jamil]

Republican Party (formally known as the GOP) are left of center. Republican Tea Party is right of center. A clear simple difference. You choose which side of center you want to belong.

Neither are as far left if center as the Sociallist (formally known as Democrats)

The center line isn't static. For example, compared with today's political mean, JFK would be right of center.

 

[Ted]

Murder should be illegal because it is an initiation of force, not because it is 'immoral'. That was what I was getting at.

Murder is more a possible result of an initiation of force, as well as an infringement of one's rights by the taking of human life without due process of law.

That is all I was attempting to convey.

 

[jamil]

Murder should be illegal because it is an initiation of force, not because it is 'immoral'. That was what I was getting at.

I disagree that this is why murder should be illegal. Initiation of force, by itself, may be necessary to preserve your own rights.

Murder is more a possible result of an initiation of force, as well as an infringement of one's rights by the taking of human life without due process of law.

That is all I was attempting to convey.

This is a more complete reason.

 

[steveh_131]

I disagree that this is why murder should be illegal. Initiation of force, by itself, may be necessary to preserve your own rights.

Oh, gosh. Here we go again. Remember that the word 'initiation' also appears in the phrase. It's not just 'force'. It's 'initiation of force'.

Never mind, I give up.

 

[jamil]

Oh, gosh. Here we go again. Remember that the word 'initiation' also appears in the phrase. It's not just 'force'. It's 'initiation of force'.

Never mind, I give up.

I missed those threads. Semantics.

 

[mrjarrell]

I missed those threads. Semantics.

No. It's not semantics. It's core language. There's a huge difference between initiation of force and self defence.

 

[Ted]

Oh, gosh. Here we go again. Remember that the word 'initiation' also appears in the phrase. It's not just 'force'. It's 'initiation of force'.

Never mind, I give up.

Actus Rea.

I can initiate actions for a murder, but if I don't successfully complete the task, it ain't murder.

 

[steveh_131]

Actus Rea.

I can initiate actions for a murder, but if I don't successfully complete the task, it ain't murder.

I don't think we are discussing the same things at all.

 

[Ted]

Murder is an issue of morality. Just because you don't like that standard of morality doesn't mean there isn't one. You're proposing anarchy.

Murder is an initiation of force.

Your response to nawainwright. He stated that murder is an issue of morality. You stated its an initiation of force.

Murder is immoral, but has no effect upon the enforcement of the law. However, it is a consideration in the making of the law.

Your definition in this regard is wholly incomplete.

What isn't to understand?

 

[steveh_131]

Your response to nawainwright. He stated that murder is an issue of morality. You stated its an initiation of force.

Murder is immoral, but has no effect upon the enforcement of the law. However, it is a consideration in the making of the law.

Your definition in this regard is wholly incomplete.

What isn't to understand?

The argument taking place is whether or not personal morality should be the basis for law. Rambone made the argument that it shouldn't, as did I.

nawainwright implied that it should be. His implication was that if we don't use morality as a basis for law, then things like murder would be legal, hence the 'anarchy' argument.

My response was that personal morality doesn't have to be the basis for law in order for murder to be legal. Initiation of force is a superior standard, and includes violent acts such as murder.

Hopefully we are on the same page now.