Privileges vs. Rights.

[Bill of Rights]

The thought that comes to mind for me, SFUSMC, is "prior restraint". It's not strictly correct, but speaking generally, the requirement of a license, prior knowledge of ability, medical clearance, vehicle clearance, insurance, etc. are all limitations on a right, the right of travel or of fair use of one's own property. In the example of the 10K acre farm and the cropduster, the pilot might unsafely fly the plane off the property and into the neighbor's house... of course, the same thing did happen a year or so ago in Anderson, when a medical helicopter crashed into someone's property. Fortunately, there were no deaths. All of the items you cited (as per my condensed listing of them), with the replacement of "firearm" for "vehicle", have been proposed by gun banners as controls upon our lawful behavior. This is not an abstract exercise: mandatory firearms training, mandatory licensure, verification of health (albeit mental, and that definition is nebulous), "firearm safety inspections", or so they're called so that the serial number and the owners name can be recorded by police, insurance requirements that were discussed and perhaps enforced in Chicago in light of the McDonald ruling. Frankly, I don't care what anyone would like to know before I exercise one or all of my rights; what he, she, they, or you would like to know is irrelevant to the existence of the right and my choice to exercise it. When my exercise of my rights affects you,(i.e. the proverbial swinging of the fist and the end of your nose), then it is your rights that matter. You may call this strawmanning, but the logic is identical, and while travel by plane is not specifically in the Constitution, the 9A says it doesn't need to be, while the 10A specifies that unless that power is granted the fed. gov in the Constitution, it is not theirs on which to speak. Sadly, the fact that something merely exists is taken to mean that it affects interstate commerce and thus is actionable by Congress.

I'm having trouble keeping up with all the fallacies Bill. Flying an airplane over public property or private property (not your own) and driving a car on public roads HAS NEVER BEEN DECLARED A RIGHT. I challenge anyone to produce evidence to the contrary. Evidence. No circular arguments. No strawmen. No equivicating. No red herrings. No appeals to emotion, fear, ridicule, popularity or spite. Not 90 year old BS rulings from Virginia where the text of the decision is not available for scrutiny. Real evidence. So to start off I reject the premise that it is a right. Could it be determined to be one? Sure. But not based on any existing evidence I've seen.

Is it your contention that a right does not exist until it is declared to exist by government? [strike]No equivocating[/strike] (edit: No equivocating on my part). I'm not willing to say that flying a plane over property not your own or driving a car on public roads has been declared a right. To my knowledge, it has not. Very clear, no BS. My question stands, though. I am not of a belief that governmental (or for that matter, any) declaration is required to establish a right, as that would mean that it was from that source that the right sprung and unless the source is our Creator, it just ain't so.

Now as Blackhawk pointed out there are areas where you can fly (generally under 1200 feet) your own plane (ultralight-class) and with within unrestricted air space (not controlled by airports, not over populated areas, etc.) So the issue is moot. There are areas you can fly without license, maintenance records, insurance and other items needed to fly in restricted airspace.

The continual attempt to associate flying / driving licensing and firearms restriction is nothing but a red herring intended to appeal to emotion.

So your rights only exist where some authority has not been established restricting them? I know that's not what you're intendint to say, but that is how its coming across. And no, I'm not sending up red herrings. I'm not diverting attention at all. The discussion here is on rights vs. privileges. The use of travel or firearms vs. religion, speech, or housing of troops are mere examples of each. (We got onto the topic of flying one's own plane when I commented that doing so allowed you to avoid the whole TSA "security theater".) A right is something with which you are born. You have the right to travel. You have the right to use your personal property as you see fit. Concomitant with that (any) right is the responsibility for the results of your actions, whether it be the swinging of your fist, the firing of your pistol, or the shouting of "Fire" in the absence of one in a theater. You are responsible for the actions you undertake.

^^This. If harm is done, liability is present. (Though as SFUSMC points out correctly, gov't has no rights at all, only powers and the correct term we should use, IMHO, is "authority", for gov't has much power, mostly abused and unauthorized by the Constitution)

You may not like the word power and favor the word authority. The Founders disagreed. In fact they are not synonomous. Authority derives from and is dependent on power. You have no authority unless you first have power. The Constitution uses the word power 48 times. The word authority 8. No where is the word authority used in place of the word power, nor vis versa. Waxing eloquente does not alter the meaning of words.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in the Constuitution or you don't. I do.

I shouldn't need to say this at this point, but regardless, I will. I believe in the Constitution. There are some clauses in it of which I'm not fond, but I believe in it overall. To clarify, I was not saying that the Constitution was wrong to use the word "power(s)" in the 10A specifically or in any other place, I was pointing out that government has the power (that is, the might) to do many things. It does not, according to the 10A, have the power (that is, the permission, the authority) to do most of them. This is a matter of semantics and I consider it a very minor point, more of a lament than a point of discussion.

Our forefathers ceded the power to regulate behavior to reduce risk in the Constitution? Please specify what you mean; I'm not being argumentative here, I just want to know to what Article and Section you refer.

Section 8 of the federal Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Thank you.

10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment (State's Rights) reserves all powers not delegated to the Constitution to the States

or to the People

. Powers. Not authority. Under the federal Constitution states are free to regulate however they choose as long as they do so within Constitutional parameters. Namely, that states not encroach on federal powers. Again, this is the governmental system our founders established.

There can be reasonable restriction of activities by the people, through their government. There are too many such restrictions, but to claim it must be all or nothing is a fallacious argument.

You describe a top-down model, wherein the Constitution is a source of federal government power. I see it quite differently, wherein the source of that power is the people who created it and the Constitution is the "brakes", the limitation upon those very few specified, permitted federal powers. As above, I use the term power here in the sense of the authority to do something... That the fedgov has the might to do essentially anything is not in argument.

Further, I do not claim there should be NO restrictions, not at all. I claim that those actions a person undertakes that cause harm (actual, not potential) to another person carry with them the responsibility for those actions. I disagree with the concept of restricting and controlling because of what someone might do. (for example, I can't draw and shoot someone because I thought he might try to rape my wife. If I catch him in the act, no court in Indiana would question my sending him straight to hell.)

You claim it is not debatable that the people have a vested interest in the exercise of rights. I disagree. I debate it. Until the exercise of those rights affects them, as above, they have no say. Your example of the net or barrier is concerning. It sounds like you're saying that individuals must be "properly" corralled, fenced, and controlled from without like cattle, but that within those bounds, they may do what they wish. This sounds like giving a child a choice of "You can wear the yellow shirt or the blue one when the child wants to wear his Spider Man pajama top instead...while that's fitting for a parent to control and guide his/her own child, it is not fitting for government to do so to the citizens who create it and who it is supposed to serve.

Again, I reject the premise that rights exist where there are none. Unless and until rights heretofore nonexistent are found to exist, everything else is irrelevent.

See above question: Is it your contention that a right must be found by some authority (SCOTUS?), else it does not exist?

Insofar as your court case, let us suppose that you have a plane, license, insurance, yadda yadda... jumped through all the hoops. Last week, you forgot to pay the insurance on it, and the policy has been cancelled. Not realizing this, you take your plane up, God forbid, some mishap occurs, and it crashes into my home. Hypothetically, you do not survive. Your estate has some assets, but nowhere near enough to pay to rebuild my home. What good has all of the precaution and government assurance and safety and whatever done to guarantee me or anyone anything? I submit that all of the regulation is solely feel-good crapola that assures no one of anything. Since it does not do what it was designed to do, why do we keep it? Solely because that is the paradigm to which we're accustomed?

Again, the red herring flys overhead.

And again, no, no misdirections. The presence of licensure and the like does not do what it was expected to do, any more than any little piece of government paper in one's pocket has any real effect. Were I to allow my medic certification to lapse, I would not lose the knowledge I have, a fact people count on for SHTF planning. I would simply, per government rules, not be allowed to call myself a paramedic anymore. That rule would not be what stopped me from doing so.

I think we fundementally disagree on the definition of right. I believe declaring a right requires an analysis of impact to and on others. If there is no impact, the action or bevahior is a right. If there is potential that it can impact others, depending on the severity of the impact it may or may not be a right. It may be a privilige. It may necessitate some level of regulation by the people. It may be prohibited. These are all drawn out in analyzing the action and consequences.

I am not saying you have to prove something a right, but rather consider all aspects of the outcomes of engaing in a behavior before deciding so. You appear to declare everything a right and then place the burden of proof on others why they should enfringe your rights. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

The divergence in our positions make it interesting for debate.

We do differ on the definition. I believe, as our Founders specified, that our rights are unalienable; we have them. No equivocation, no conditions. We have them. They are basic human rights; a man in China may not be allowed to speak his mind without fear of repercussion; his exercise of his right is what is being interfered with, but he was born with that right. I do not believe that government has any business picking and choosing what rights they will allow us to have; to allow that camel's nose under the tent is to say that no right is safe, and IIRC, Justice Scalia made a statement to that effect. I can't find the exact quote but it's on the order of " A right subject to interpretation by judges is no right at all." I could be mistaken about the speaker and I am almost certainly about the exact words of the quote.

I do not have to consider the possible outcome that my carry of a firearm might result in an accidental or negligent discharge so long as my pistol remains safely in its holster, any more than I have to consider the possible outcome that my reciting of a prayer in Hebrew might cause someone to scream "Allahu Akbar!" and come running at me with murder in his eyes.

My contention is that others must prove a reason to infringe upon rights only to the extent that they must show an actual injury has occurred to them by someone's exercise of them. The much-used swinging of the fist in a circle comes to mind. My right to do that stops at the tip of your nose, but, seeing that I'm standing here swinging my fist around in a circle, if you approach and I don't see you stick your nose into the line of the swing, whose fault is it you got hurt, vs. if I'm walking toward you. You should not have to back up or get out of my way as long as it's obvious I can see you; it is my responsibility to take what steps I must to prevent striking you... or to compensate you for any injury or loss you incur.

I answered the other posts, forgetting I meant to come back to this one first.

What would be the incentive to create a radio business? I suppose, like any other matter, we can deal in persuasion or we can deal in force. If you and I each start a radio business and we both want a specific frequency, I suppose we could each come to the table and make a deal or we could share the channel like everyone else has to do or we could both change and instead of 92.7 mHz, you could you 92.9 and I, 92.5. This is what happens when people work together. Instead, we have force of government requiring this and mandating that.

We have government exerting authority to regulate an asset (radio waves) owned by the people. Would that it were as easy as let's all just get along. It isn't.

Ah, but it is that easy. Happens all the time.
Which people do you contend own the radio waves? Don't forget that HAM can reach worldwide with about 8 bucks worth of cable in a back yard and an AC powered transciever.

You said you're not a HAM operator, and this is evident. No insult in that, BTW. (I hold an Extra license, but my only transceiver is a little 2m handheld, so I don't consider myself an operator, either, though I'm familiar with the agreed-upon rules-of-the-road, so to speak.) On those frequencies, whoever is there first has priority; even if I have a weekly or even a daily "net" on a specific frequency, if someone else is there first, I can ask them to change or I can change... I have no ability to force them to do so, nor do they have the ability to force me. It's simple etiquette. For this reason, regular nets have multiple redundancies in place... "If we can't meet on this frequency, we'll be on that one. If not there, then here. If not here, then thus. Further, the band plan is not defined by government but rather by the amateur community. Is there anything stopping someone with a "technician" license from transmitting on "extra" frequencies? Nope. If he's caught doing so, the FCC can pull his license, but nothing is stopping him from doing it even then.

It's good that HAM operators tend to cooperate. What if they didn't? You rely on the goodness of others. Others who by the way have licenses to operate if I'm correct.

What if they didn't? Then people would move to other bands. Plenty of room for everyone. Yes, amateur operators all are licensed to the best of my knowledge. Is that the cause or the result of people complying and cooperating? (The various nations of the world have agreements, all of which were voluntary, in re: the band plans... it's not because of law that they comply.

In the final analysis, it's been said before that government is force. While there is a place (a small one) for force to be appropriate, I am of the belief that persuasion, etiquette, and common decency are preferable methods for people to interact.

I too am all for unicorns and cotton candy. That is not the world we live in. At some point we must acknowledge reality, if only for sanity's sake.

Blessings,
Bill

No unicorns, no cotton candy, no rainbow farts. The reality that you acknowledged as well is that we have too da*n much regulation, too much law, too much force. People do not need that. They have in some ways become dependent upon someone else stepping in, exercising authority, and forcing behavior or compliance. In other ways, people continue to prove that all of that is suited to Romper Room, but not to adult interactions.

And yes, the difference of opinions does make for good debate. Would that it would make a real difference somewhere. I keep hoping some folks will read it, wake up, and start ending the BS.

IMHO, the insanity you seem to fear exists in restrictions, bars, bans, qualifications and licenses far more than in individual liberty.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Is it your contention that a right does not exist until it is declared to exist by government? No equivocating. I'm not willing to say that flying a plane over property not your own or driving a car on public roads has been declared a right. To my knowledge, it has not. Very clear, no BS. My question stands, though. I am not of a belief that governmental (or for that matter, any) declaration is required to establish a right, as that would mean that it was from that source that the right sprung and unless the source is our Creator, it just ain't so.

Not at all. There are natural rights that come from God (or from your sheer existance if you like). Those rights cannot be infringed in any way, at any time. There are rights that inure over time. There are rights because the people guarantee them. Then there are rights that you create for yourself and exist only in your mind (of course I do not mean you or your personally). Unfortunately there are many, many more of the latter rights than the former.


My point was that just because you believe or want something to be a right does not make it so.


The Constitution enumerates a list of rights. It is not an exhaustive list. It is not a government grant of rights. It is a list of rights the government affirms are yours.

You have a right to self defense granted by God. The Constitution does not say you have a right to self defense. It does not have to. That right is inalienable. It cannot be taken from you.

So your rights only exist where some authority has not been established restricting them? I know that's not what you're intendint to say, but that is how its coming across. And no, I'm not sending up red herrings. I'm not diverting attention at all. The discussion here is on rights vs. privileges.

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ... That document established a collective. There are activities that in solitude are rights that when in the collective infringe on another's rights. It is an unfortunate byproduct of establishing the collective.

The use of travel or firearms vs. religion, speech, or housing of troops are mere examples of each. (We got onto the topic of flying one's own plane when I commented that doing so allowed you to avoid the whole TSA "security theater".) A right is something with which you are born. You have the right to travel. You have the right to use your personal property as you see fit. Concomitant with that (any) right is the responsibility for the results of your actions, whether it be the swinging of your fist, the firing of your pistol, or the shouting of "Fire" in the absence of one in a theater. You are responsible for the actions you undertake.

Except there are some behaviors that the collective through its representative government has determined necessitate an abrigation of rights. Yes you have a right to travel. Unless you are under arrest. Imprisoned. On parole or probation. Quarantined. You may travel by whatever conveyance you choose and can afford. That does not automatically facilitate the logical leap to operating a plane or automobile without restriction.

I shouldn't need to say this at this point, but regardless, I will. I believe in the Constitution. There are some clauses in it of which I'm not fond, but I believe in it overall. To clarify, I was not saying that the Constitution was wrong to use the word "power(s)" in the 10A specifically or in any other place, I was pointing out that government has the power (that is, the might) to do many things. It does not, according to the 10A, have the power (that is, the permission, the authority) to do most of them. This is a matter of semantics and I consider it a very minor point, more of a lament than a point of discussion.

I don't disagree. I was making a point, because it sure seemed like you were trying to substitute the two words interchangably when they are not.

You describe a top-down model, wherein the Constitution is a source of federal government power. I see it quite differently, wherein the source of that power is the people who created it and the Constitution is the "brakes", the limitation upon those very few specified, permitted federal powers.

The Constitution is the document that creates, defines and enables a collective. Yes the power of the Federal government derives from the document. What else would its purpose be?

The Constitution is logically the first step toward socialism. The "brakes" as you well put it are what exist to prevent the plunge into full-on Socialism. A safety switch if you will.

As above, I use the term power here in the sense of the authority to do something... That the fedgov has the might to do essentially anything is not in argument.

Further, I do not claim there should be NO restrictions, not at all. I claim that those actions a person undertakes that cause harm (actual, not potential) to another person carry with them the responsibility for those actions. I disagree with the concept of restricting and controlling because of what someone might do. (for example, I can't draw and shoot someone because I thought he might try to rape my wife. If I catch him in the act, no court in Indiana would question my sending him straight to hell.)

While I think it happens with far too much frequency, there is a valid place for the people to put in place restraints on behaviors. See below.

See above question: Is it your contention that a right must be found by some authority (SCOTUS?), else it does not exist? And again, no, no misdirections. The presence of licensure and the like does not do what it was expected to do, any more than any little piece of government paper in one's pocket has any real effect. Were I to allow my medic certification to lapse, I would not lose the knowledge I have, a fact people count on for SHTF planning. I would simply, per government rules, not be allowed to call myself a paramedic anymore. That rule would not be what stopped me from doing so.

Rights do not come from the collective. They do not come from the government. But again, just because you want something to be a right does not mean it is. If a behavior or action impacts another the action can be regulated.

So building on your example, should it be OK for anyone, regardless of training, education, or experience, to buy a van and run Bud's Ambulance company? To hold themselves out as a medical professional? Should there not be some level of certification that they have at least successfully completed some course of study and minimally passed a test indicating expertise? So that when they show up at your home you can be somewhat assured you are placing the life of a loved one in qualified hands? Unequivicably, my response is hell no to the first two questions and hell yes to all others.

We do differ on the definition. I believe, as our Founders specified, that our rights are unalienable; we have them. No equivocation, no conditions. We have them. They are basic human rights; a man in China may not be allowed to speak his mind without fear of repercussion; his exercise of his right is what is being interfered with, but he was born with that right. I do not believe that government has any business picking and choosing what rights they will allow us to have; to allow that camel's nose under the tent is to say that no right is safe, and IIRC, Justice Scalia made a statement to that effect. I can't find the exact quote but it's on the order of " A right subject to interpretation by judges is no right at all." I could be mistaken about the speaker and I am almost certainly about the exact words of the quote.

No, we differ on what constitutes a right. The current discussion is about flying an airplane. I do not believe that flying an airplane is a God given inalienable right.

I think the quote you are looking for is this: "If we now restrict or ban Medicaid funding for abortions, the government will accomplish for poor women indirectly what the 1973 [Supreme Court] opinion expressly forbade it to do directly…a right without access is no right at all". This quote is from Senator Edward Brooke during the debate of the Hyde Amendment in 1977. It has been repeated several times over the years, but this was the original context. It ironically fits into this discussion and begs the question: Why are the rights of an expectant mother greater than the rights of an unborn baby? Who protects the baby's rights? I digress.

I do not have to consider the possible outcome that my carry of a firearm might result in an accidental or negligent discharge so long as my pistol remains safely in its holster, any more than I have to consider the possible outcome that my reciting of a prayer in Hebrew might cause someone to scream "Allahu Akbar!" and come running at me with murder in his eyes.

I never said or implied you did. You also don't have to consider the possible outcome if your pistol leaves your holster and you kill an attacker screaming "Allahu Akbar" with murder in his eyes. It sucks to be stupid. It sucks more to die for being stupid.

My contention is that others must prove a reason to infringe upon rights only to the extent that they must show an actual injury has occurred to them by someone's exercise of them. The much-used swinging of the fist in a circle comes to mind. My right to do that stops at the tip of your nose, but, seeing that I'm standing here swinging my fist around in a circle, if you approach and I don't see you stick your nose into the line of the swing, whose fault is it you got hurt, vs. if I'm walking toward you. You should not have to back up or get out of my way as long as it's obvious I can see you; it is my responsibility to take what steps I must to prevent striking you... or to compensate you for any injury or loss you incur.

And here is where we differ. You take the position that actions are rights unless overwhelmingly proven otherwise. I take the position that actions are not necessarily rights if their exercise adversely impacts others. That does not mean that I believe that rights eminate from the collective. Rather, that membership in the collective, involuntary as it is, impacts what we may or may not freely do.

I acknowledge it sucks. There are things I would like to do that I cannot. Or should not. It is reality.

I guess in my late 40s I am more willing to live my life by the Serenity Prayer than I was in my 20s.

 

[Garb]

Under your logic, SemperFiUSMC, the income tax is completely Constitutional because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. On top of that, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would have been real happy to register their horse and acquire a license in order to ride them. It would be seen as tyranny back then, as it should be now.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Is it your contention that a right does not exist until it is declared to exist by government? No equivocating. I'm not willing to say that flying a plane over property not your own or driving a car on public roads has been declared a right. To my knowledge, it has not. Very clear, no BS. My question stands, though. I am not of a belief that governmental (or for that matter, any) declaration is required to establish a right, as that would mean that it was from that source that the right sprung and unless the source is our Creator, it just ain't so.

Not at all. There are natural rights that come from God (or from your sheer existance if you like). Those rights cannot be infringed in any way, at any time. There are rights that inure over time. There are rights because the people guarantee them. Then there are rights that you create for yourself and exist only in your mind (of course I do not mean you or your personally). Unfortunately there are many, many more of the latter rights than the former.

It's always been my understanding that the phrasing of the 9A and 10A was such that governmental powers were strictly limited both in quantity and breadth while individual rights, cherished as they were at the time, were given wide latitude in both measures.

My point was that just because you believe or want something to be a right does not make it so.


The Constitution enumerates a list of rights. It is not an exhaustive list. It is not a government grant of rights. It is a list of rights the government affirms are yours.

If I may amend that, it's a list the Constitution places beyond the reach of governmental action. It's not for government to affirm or certify or for that matter, even think about those rights. I've always viewed it as kind a a governmental "THOU SHALT NOT" document.

You have a right to self defense granted by God. The Constitution does not say you have a right to self defense. It does not have to. That right is inalienable. It cannot be taken from you.

So what makes any other right "alienable"? Understandably, as dburkhead used to often point out, as a result of due process, your liberty can be restricted, your property or even your life can be taken. Due process would involve a crime, though, and in our Founders' minds, such a crime as to warrant that kind of response would not have involved the refusal to carry some form of governmental permission slip to allow you the privilege of exercising your God-given rights, but rather something that caused an injury of person or property. True?

So your rights only exist where some authority has not been established restricting them? I know that's not what you're intending to say, but that is how its coming across. And no, I'm not sending up red herrings. I'm not diverting attention at all. The discussion here is on rights vs. privileges.

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ... That document established a collective. There are activities that in solitude are rights that when in the collective infringe on another's rights. It is an unfortunate byproduct of establishing the collective.

The use of travel or firearms vs. religion, speech, or housing of troops are mere examples of each. (We got onto the topic of flying one's own plane when I commented that doing so allowed you to avoid the whole TSA "security theater".) A right is something with which you are born. You have the right to travel. You have the right to use your personal property as you see fit. Concomitant with that (any) right is the responsibility for the results of your actions, whether it be the swinging of your fist, the firing of your pistol, or the shouting of "Fire" in the absence of one in a theater. You are responsible for the actions you undertake.

Except there are some behaviors that the collective through its representative government has determined necessitate an abrigation of rights. Yes you have a right to travel. Unless you are under arrest. Imprisoned. On parole or probation. Quarantined. You may travel by whatever conveyance you choose and can afford. That does not automatically facilitate the logical leap to operating a plane or automobile without restriction.

This is where you have me at a loss. I understand that the law has long called driving not a right but a privilege. I understand that this has to do with everyone being party, via taxes, to the building of those roads. I even see the parallel between operating this vehicle vs. that one, despite the fact that travel through the air over a property does not at all affect the property below (barring of course, collision) The point I'm seeing is that just because government says this form of travel is a privilege while walking is a right, does that make it so? I'm not sure I can embrace that logic.

Admittedly, this is a difficult paradigm. It demands that we cash in the notion of getting permission to do any and every little thing we do and instead be free men and women, responsible for our own actions for good or ill. To reach that point is far outside of anything under which any of us have ever lived.

I shouldn't need to say this at this point, but regardless, I will. I believe in the Constitution. There are some clauses in it of which I'm not fond, but I believe in it overall. To clarify, I was not saying that the Constitution was wrong to use the word "power(s)" in the 10A specifically or in any other place, I was pointing out that government has the power (that is, the might) to do many things. It does not, according to the 10A, have the power (that is, the permission, the authority) to do most of them. This is a matter of semantics and I consider it a very minor point, more of a lament than a point of discussion.

I don't disagree. I was making a point, because it sure seemed like you were trying to substitute the two words interchangably when they are not.

Nope. Just two separate definitions of the same word.

You describe a top-down model, wherein the Constitution is a source of federal government power. I see it quite differently, wherein the source of that power is the people who created it and the Constitution is the "brakes", the limitation upon those very few specified, permitted federal powers.

The Constitution is the document that creates, defines and enables a collective. Yes the power of the Federal government derives from the document. What else would its purpose be?

Ah! The original document did indeed specify the form of our government from President and Vice President to the bicameral legislature to the Judiciary, clarifying who may serve and in what capacity, but the form of specificity was not grants of power but limitations of it. Recall that the people wanted Washington to be King, probably in no small measure due to the fact of that being the form to which they were accustomed. Checks, balances, etc., these are not terms that cede power but that hedge it, and the Bill of Rights only did more of that. The concept was that the states would each be sovereign, yet still answerable to their people who originally were citizens primarily of those states (kind of an "oh yeah, and of the united States as well" kind of thing) The closer the government is to the people who created it, the more sovereignty and autonomy they have and the more answerable those who took positions of power remained. Recall the story (of questionable veracity) of Horatio Bunce and Col. David Crockett.... despite the fact that the details are almost certainly false, the concept of a man stumping in his district and meeting a man at his fence for an ear-bending was not so remote a thing. Move that story into today's world and see if you find anyone willing to believe that Dick Lugar was walking the streets of the state and met and listened (as in cared what you had to say) to you as you stopped mowing your grass and explained his faults as you saw them.

The Constitution is logically the first step toward socialism. The "brakes" as you well put it are what exist to prevent the plunge into full-on Socialism. A safety switch if you will.

The grant of power to representatives was the first step of socialism. The Constitution was the only thing holding it back by its inherent limitations on their power, limitations they long ago ignored and overstepped. I said earlier that there were some clauses in our Constitution with which I was displeased... One of those, I make no secret, is the Interstate Commerce Clause. Sure, on the surface, it makes sense to have some method in place of settling issues between the several states, but it's become the catch-all method of taking control of anything and everything, even those things that do not in any form travel in interstate commerce, but because they do not, they prevent interstate commerce and still therefore fall under Congress' purview. What a bloody racket! Obviously, I'm saying nothing new here and IIRC, you've said before you agree with this. I might be misremembering that, however. I trust you'll correct me if so.

As above, I use the term power here in the sense of the authority to do something... That the fedgov has the might to do essentially anything is not in argument.

Further, I do not claim there should be NO restrictions, not at all. I claim that those actions a person undertakes that cause harm (actual, not potential) to another person carry with them the responsibility for those actions. I disagree with the concept of restricting and controlling because of what someone might do. (for example, I can't draw and shoot someone because I thought he might try to rape my wife. If I catch him in the act, no court in Indiana would question my sending him straight to hell.)

While I think it happens with far too much frequency, there is a valid place for the people to put in place restraints on behaviors. See below.

See above question: Is it your contention that a right must be found by some authority (SCOTUS?), else it does not exist? And again, no, no misdirections. The presence of licensure and the like does not do what it was expected to do, any more than any little piece of government paper in one's pocket has any real effect. Were I to allow my medic certification to lapse, I would not lose the knowledge I have, a fact people count on for SHTF planning. I would simply, per government rules, not be allowed to call myself a paramedic anymore. That rule would not be what stopped me from doing so.

Rights do not come from the collective. They do not come from the government. But again, just because you want something to be a right does not mean it is. If a behavior or action impacts another the action can be regulated.

And because "no man is an island", everything we do impacts others. This sounds like the ICC writ small, but farther-reaching.

So building on your example, should it be OK for anyone, regardless of training, education, or experience, to buy a van and run Bud's Ambulance company? To hold themselves out as a medical professional? Should there not be some level of certification that they have at least successfully completed some course of study and minimally passed a test indicating expertise? So that when they show up at your home you can be somewhat assured you are placing the life of a loved one in qualified hands? Unequivicably, my response is hell no to the first two questions and hell yes to all others.

If such a person accepts the risks inherent with that, yes. You are responsible for your actions.

A co-worker of mine several years ago had the misfortune of being called to a local factory, where a man's arm had gotten caught in some enormous piece of machinery. Because of the location, neither radio nor cell phone worked. His partner was a basic EMT, the gentleman of whom I speak was and is a medic. It's a principle that you do not leave a patient with someone of a lower skill level when they need the skills you have. OK, so...

The patient is stuck here. There is no means of contact out with medical control. The medic cannot leave the patient. The patient is in agony and needs emergent transport. Among his other treatments, the medic removed his scissors and snipped the bit of tissue holding the arm and patient together, completing the amputation, and both allowing the transport to begin and the workers to begin dismantling the machine to remove the mangled arm. He exceeded his scope of practice, meaning he went beyond anything he was trained to do. (We do not do surgery.) He was quickly suspended and had to defend his actions in order to keep not only his job but his certification. He did successfully defend those actions, but it was somewhat harrowing for his friends, knowing he was so close to the chopping block.

To answer your question, should a responder know certain things? Yes. If they do not, should that bar them from responding? As hard as it is for me to say so, no, it should not. Their actions, if they exceed their knowledge, will eventually remove them from the group of people who respond and someone will make a boatload of money and have a new van that they'll have to repaint to remove the name of Bud's Ambulance from for use or sale. Word will get around that some companies are hiring good people, others.... not so good. How do I know this? Because it's exactly what happens even amongst the companies that exist now. Company X is great for convalescent transport and dialysis runs, but they don't get called for car wrecks and heart attacks. God forbid they happen upon one, you pray that they are too frizzed to get out of the truck so they don't do any more harm. The other EMS folks on here will know exactly to what I refer. Any argument, guys?

Didn't think so.

We do differ on the definition. I believe, as our Founders specified, that our rights are unalienable; we have them. No equivocation, no conditions. We have them. They are basic human rights; a man in China may not be allowed to speak his mind without fear of repercussion; his exercise of his right is what is being interfered with, but he was born with that right. I do not believe that government has any business picking and choosing what rights they will allow us to have; to allow that camel's nose under the tent is to say that no right is safe, and IIRC, Justice Scalia made a statement to that effect. I can't find the exact quote but it's on the order of " A right subject to interpretation by judges is no right at all." I could be mistaken about the speaker and I am almost certainly about the exact words of the quote.

No, we differ on what constitutes a right. The current discussion is about flying an airplane. I do not believe that flying an airplane is a God given inalienable right.

By that logic, neither is carrying a firearm, but travel is a right, as is self-defense.

I think the quote you are looking for is this: "If we now restrict or ban Medicaid funding for abortions, the government will accomplish for poor women indirectly what the 1973 [Supreme Court] opinion expressly forbade it to do directly…a right without access is no right at all". This quote is from Senator Edward Brooke during the debate of the Hyde Amendment in 1977. It has been repeated several times over the years, but this was the original context. It ironically fits into this discussion and begs the question: Why are the rights of an expectant mother greater than the rights of an unborn baby? Who protects the baby's rights? I digress.

No, that's not the quote. This was something far more recent.

I do not have to consider the possible outcome that my carry of a firearm might result in an accidental or negligent discharge so long as my pistol remains safely in its holster, any more than I have to consider the possible outcome that my reciting of a prayer in Hebrew might cause someone to scream "Allahu Akbar!" and come running at me with murder in his eyes.

I never said or implied you did. You also don't have to consider the possible outcome if your pistol leaves your holster and you kill an attacker screaming "Allahu Akbar" with murder in his eyes. It sucks to be stupid. It sucks more to die for being stupid.

My contention is that others must prove a reason to infringe upon rights only to the extent that they must show an actual injury has occurred to them by someone's exercise of them. The much-used swinging of the fist in a circle comes to mind. My right to do that stops at the tip of your nose, but, seeing that I'm standing here swinging my fist around in a circle, if you approach and I don't see you stick your nose into the line of the swing, whose fault is it you got hurt, vs. if I'm walking toward you. You should not have to back up or get out of my way as long as it's obvious I can see you; it is my responsibility to take what steps I must to prevent striking you... or to compensate you for any injury or loss you incur.

And here is where we differ. You take the position that actions are rights unless overwhelmingly proven otherwise. I take the position that actions are not necessarily rights if their exercise adversely impacts others. That does not mean that I believe that rights eminate from the collective. Rather, that membership in the collective, involuntary as it is, impacts what we may or may not freely do.

I acknowledge it sucks. There are things I would like to do that I cannot. Or should not. It is reality.

So who defines what is and is not a right? If the answer is government, what defense is the 2A against the tyranny it was written to prevent?
If my exercise of a right adversely impact or affect others, yes, there must be some limitation, but not because my exercise of a right could adversely impact or affect others, as you earlier claimed. The causing of adverse effect is the key; without it, no harm, no injury, no loss... and no restriction. What you cannot do is set by law. What you should not do, you define for yourself. Until people get used to the level of responsibility required, the time between when this paradigm begins and when we reach the point where people do that effectively... well, that time is gonna suck for a lot of people, no way around it. How much better off would we be, however, and would such a world not be worth the effort to get there?

I guess in my late 40s I am more willing to live my life by the Serenity Prayer than I was in my 20s.

You and I are less than 2 years apart. I always liked a slightly different version of it than the common one:

"Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change
The courage to change the things I can
And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the SOBs I had to snuff along the way because they p***ed me off!"

Have a nice night.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Under your logic, SemperFiUSMC, the income tax is completely Constitutional because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. On top of that, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would have been real happy to register their horse and acquire a license in order to ride them. It would be seen as tyranny back then, as it should be now.

Which logic is that?

An income text is Constitutional because the Constitution says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The rest of what you said made no sense.

 

[Garb]

Which logic is that?

An income text is Constitutional because the Constitution says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The rest of what you said made no sense.

Just because it is an amendment does not make it Constitutional.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

It's always been my understanding that the phrasing of the 9A and 10A was such that governmental powers were strictly limited both in quantity and breadth while individual rights, cherished as they were at the time, were given wide latitude in both measures.

That is certainly the populist view of what the 9th & 10th Amendments should mean.

In layman terms the 9th Amendment says that just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist.

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers to the States that are not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. It provides for the concept of State's Rights. While some interpret it to be nothing more than a truism (SCOTUS especially), I view it potentially somewhat more onerous. It gives the states ALL powers, unfettered, not granted to the federal government, or specifically prohibited to the states by the Constitution. Think about what that could mean in the wrong hands. Tyranny at the state level, without federal protections. It is because of the 10th Amendment that the 14th was "necessary".

If I may amend that, it's a list the Constitution places beyond the reach of governmental action. It's not for government to affirm or certify or for that matter, even think about those rights. I've always viewed it as kind a a governmental "THOU SHALT NOT" document.

You simply restated exactly what I said (or at least meant) in different words. The "THOU SHALT NOTS" is an affirmative enumerated list of rights held by the people.

So what makes any other right "alienable"? Understandably, as dburkhead used to often point out, as a result of due process, your liberty can be restricted, your property or even your life can be taken. Due process would involve a crime, though, and in our Founders' minds, such a crime as to warrant that kind of response would not have involved the refusal to carry some form of governmental permission slip to allow you the privilege of exercising your God-given rights, but rather something that caused an injury of person or property. True?

If it's alienable it's not a right. SCOTUS has dictated that no right is absolute. I have issues with this, because if it is subject ot regulation it is a privilege, not a right. I understand the fire exception. I'm not necessarily in favor of the prohibitions placed on the 2nd. I could keep going but this is about driving, flying and permission slips.

You and I are probably closer to agreement than you think.

This is where you have me at a loss. I understand that the law has long called driving not a right but a privilege. I understand that this has to do with everyone being party, via taxes, to the building of those roads. I even see the parallel between operating this vehicle vs. that one, despite the fact that travel through the air over a property does not at all affect the property below (barring of course, collision) The point I'm seeing is that just because government says this form of travel is a privilege while walking is a right, does that make it so? I'm not sure I can embrace that logic.

Yes it makes it so. No because it is necessarily right (correct) or wrong, but because it is reality. Reality makes it so. As I've said before, I don't often argue merits when there is a reality I cannot change. With reality, I can take one of three actions. Accept it. Change it. Complain about it. I rarely do number three. You can only change things that are within your capability. Many things I accept because there is no rational alternative.

Let's take driving. I believe it a privilege. You believe it a right. I got and maintain a driver's license to be able to to exercise the privilege of driving. Did you get a government permission slip, as you call it, to exercise your right? If so, and you believe driving to be an inalienable right, why? Would you consider yourself to be a hipocrite for compromising your principles? You wouldn't be. You probably got a permission slip because you accept that compliance is easier than fighting a fight you cannot win. Perhaps after you comply you work behind the scenes to change the law. That's fantastic. What makes you think that others, even me, don't do the same with this or other causes?

Admittedly, this is a difficult paradigm. It demands that we cash in the notion of getting permission to do any and every little thing we do and instead be free men and women, responsible for our own actions for good or ill. To reach that point is far outside of anything under which any of us have ever lived.Nope. Just two separate definitions of the same word.

The land of unicorns and lollipops. Would that everyone were reasonable and responsible. They aren't. It is beyond our reach.

Ah! The original document did indeed specify the form of our government from President and Vice President to the bicameral legislature to the Judiciary, clarifying who may serve and in what capacity, but the form of specificity was not grants of power but limitations of it. Recall that the people wanted Washington to be King, probably in no small measure due to the fact of that being the form to which they were accustomed. Checks, balances, etc., these are not terms that cede power but that hedge it, and the Bill of Rights only did more of that. The concept was that the states would each be sovereign, yet still answerable to their people who originally were citizens primarily of those states (kind of an "oh yeah, and of the united States as well" kind of thing) The closer the government is to the people who created it, the more sovereignty and autonomy they have and the more answerable those who took positions of power remained. Recall the story (of questionable veracity) of Horatio Bunce and Col. David Crockett.... despite the fact that the details are almost certainly false, the concept of a man stumping in his district and meeting a man at his fence for an ear-bending was not so remote a thing. Move that story into today's world and see if you find anyone willing to believe that Dick Lugar was walking the streets of the state and met and listened (as in cared what you had to say) to you as you stopped mowing your grass and explained his faults as you saw them.

The grant of power to representatives was the first step of socialism. The Constitution was the only thing holding it back by its inherent limitations on their power, limitations they long ago ignored and overstepped. I said earlier that there were some clauses in our Constitution with which I was displeased... One of those, I make no secret, is the Interstate Commerce Clause. Sure, on the surface, it makes sense to have some method in place of settling issues between the several states, but it's become the catch-all method of taking control of anything and everything, even those things that do not in any form travel in interstate commerce, but because they do not, they prevent interstate commerce and still therefore fall under Congress' purview. What a bloody racket! Obviously, I'm saying nothing new here and IIRC, you've said before you agree with this. I might be misremembering that, however. I trust you'll correct me if so.

I would reduce the amount of regulation surrounding the Commerce Clause to what could be written on the head of a pin. It IS abused. It is upsurd. It is also reality. I accept it because it is. Not because I like it. I certainly don't support it.

And because "no man is an island", everything we do impacts others. This sounds like the ICC writ small, but farther-reaching.
If such a person accepts the risks inherent with that, yes. You are responsible for your actions.

A co-worker of mine several years ago had the misfortune of being called to a local factory, where a man's arm had gotten caught in some enormous piece of machinery. Because of the location, neither radio nor cell phone worked. His partner was a basic EMT, the gentleman of whom I speak was and is a medic. It's a principle that you do not leave a patient with someone of a lower skill level when they need the skills you have. OK, so...

The patient is stuck here. There is no means of contact out with medical control. The medic cannot leave the patient. The patient is in agony and needs emergent transport. Among his other treatments, the medic removed his scissors and snipped the bit of tissue holding the arm and patient together, completing the amputation, and both allowing the transport to begin and the workers to begin dismantling the machine to remove the mangled arm. He exceeded his scope of practice, meaning he went beyond anything he was trained to do. (We do not do surgery.) He was quickly suspended and had to defend his actions in order to keep not only his job but his certification. He did successfully defend those actions, but it was somewhat harrowing for his friends, knowing he was so close to the chopping block.

To answer your question, should a responder know certain things? Yes. If they do not, should that bar them from responding? As hard as it is for me to say so, no, it should not. Their actions, if they exceed their knowledge, will eventually remove them from the group of people who respond and someone will make a boatload of money and have a new van that they'll have to repaint to remove the name of Bud's Ambulance from for use or sale. Word will get around that some companies are hiring good people, others.... not so good. How do I know this? Because it's exactly what happens even amongst the companies that exist now. Company X is great for convalescent transport and dialysis runs, but they don't get called for car wrecks and heart attacks. God forbid they happen upon one, you pray that they are too frizzed to get out of the truck so they don't do any more harm. The other EMS folks on here will know exactly to what I refer. Any argument, guys?

Didn't think so.

By that logic, neither is carrying a firearm, but travel is a right, as is self-defense.

No, that's not the quote. This was something far more recent.

So who defines what is and is not a right? If the answer is government, what defense is the 2A against the tyranny it was written to prevent?
If my exercise of a right adversely impact or affect others, yes, there must be some limitation, but not because my exercise of a right could adversely impact or affect others, as you earlier claimed. The causing of adverse effect is the key; without it, no harm, no injury, no loss... and no restriction. What you cannot do is set by law. What you should not do, you define for yourself. Until people get used to the level of responsibility required, the time between when this paradigm begins and when we reach the point where people do that effectively... well, that time is gonna suck for a lot of people, no way around it. How much better off would we be, however, and would such a world not be worth the effort to get there?

I don't have the answer to your question about who defines what is and isn't a right. If I did I could be King of the World. Alas, I'm not that smart, and I don't want the responsibility. I'm just a city boy trying to have fun on my ride around the rock, love my God, shoot stuff, be left alone, and die happy. Everything else is crap.

You and I are less than 2 years apart. I always liked a slightly different version of it than the common one:

"Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change
The courage to change the things I can
And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the SOBs I had to snuff along the way because they p***ed me off!"

That was the 20 year old's version. The 47 year old will stick with the original. I'll have a better chance of achieving my ultimate goal.

Have a nice night.

Blessings,
Bill

I think a lot gets lost in translation. I admit I'm not the easiest read. Especially when I pontificate. That's because I don't think or talk in sweeping generalities. When I say I don't believe it (whatever it is) applies in all cases, it is because I consider exceptions rather than generalizing. I went to one of those sissy Ivy League universities. They do teach you to think critically. It's a handicap.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Just because it is an amendment does not make it Constitutional.

What? Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't make it Constitutional? Are you kidding?

 

[Garb]

What? Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't make it Constitutional? Are you kidding?

Let me explain. The Constitution says nothing about the government regulating firearms, therefor, the government has no grounds to do so. The Founding Fathers specifically enacted the Second Amendment because they viewed it as one of the most important personal rights (rightly so) and because it was an issue that they knew would arise in an attempt to control the general population. The power to take money straight out of our paycheck, or to regulate how we travel is not granted to the federal government in the Constitution either, but an amendment was not made against it because they did not necessarily know the problem would arise in the future. On that note, it's all a slippery slope. If the government is granted the power to institute an income tax, then what is to stop them from taxing 75% of everyone's income? The sixteenth amendment grants that power to the federal government, yet places no sort of restrictions on that power. Thus, the government has unlimited power in that area. I don't know of any instance in which unlimited government power is Constitutional, regardless of whether it is an amendment in the Constitution or not.

 

[Bill of Rights]

BTW: Found the quote I was looking for:

Justice Scalia, in Heller, wrote, "A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Let me explain. The Constitution says nothing about the government regulating firearms, therefor, the government has no grounds to do so. The Founding Fathers specifically enacted the Second Amendment because they viewed it as one of the most important personal rights (rightly so) and because it was an issue that they knew would arise in an attempt to control the general population. The power to take money straight out of our paycheck, or to regulate how we travel is not granted to the federal government in the Constitution either, but an amendment was not made against it because they did not necessarily know the problem would arise in the future. On that note, it's all a slippery slope. If the government is granted the power to institute an income tax, then what is to stop them from taxing 75% of everyone's income? The sixteenth amendment grants that power to the federal government, yet places no sort of restrictions on that power. Thus, the government has unlimited power in that area. I don't know of any instance in which unlimited government power is Constitutional, regardless of whether it is an amendment in the Constitution or not.

I'm sorry but you make absolutely no sense at all. An amendment to the Constitution changes the Constitution from that day forward. There was an amendment that authorized an income tax. It is therefore Constitutional. There can be no other logical outcome.

Everything you said about no restrictions and unlimited power is irrelevent. Could the government tax 75% of everyones income? I'll bet that if you add up all the taxes you pay, in many cases they already do.

I'm going to round this off but you'll get the point. Say you make $100K a year. 28% is going to federal income tax. 7% to social security, 2% to Medicare. That's 37% off the top to the feds. Then the state gets another 3.5%. County 1%. That's 41.5% of your income off to taxes before you even get paid.

So you got $58.5K left. Got a mortgage? Most people pay about 3x their salary for a home. So that's $300K. Makes your property tax another 5% of your income. Then you have 8% sales tax. That should push you well over 50%. So maybe 75% is a stretch. But 50% is within reason.

 

[Garb]

I'm sorry but you make absolutely no sense at all. An amendment to the Constitution changes the Constitution from that day forward. There was an amendment that authorized an income tax. It is therefore Constitutional. There can be no other logical outcome.

Everything you said about no restrictions and unlimited power is irrelevent. Could the government tax 75% of everyones income? I'll bet that if you add up all the taxes you pay, in many cases they already do.

I'm going to round this off but you'll get the point. Say you make $100K a year. 28% is going to federal income tax. 7% to social security, 2% to Medicare. That's 37% off the top to the feds. Then the state gets another 3.5%. County 1%. That's 41.5% of your income off to taxes before you even get paid.

So you got $58.5K left. Got a mortgage? Most people pay about 3x their salary for a home. So that's $300K. Makes your property tax another 5% of your income. Then you have 8% sales tax. That should push you well over 50%. So maybe 75% is a stretch. But 50% is within reason.

Technically, yes the income tax is Constitutional. What I was getting at with the 75% is what if there was an amendment passed that authorized the government to actively practice all out socialism by taxing 100% of everyone's income and redistributing it at will? Technically, it would be Constitutional, but it doesn't follow the model that the Constitution was set up for at all. The Constitution was a limit on government power, not an advocate of it.

 

[machete]

Licensing is not an onerous restriction of any right since such rights do not exist.

My friend thats what they call a circular argument...

As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[2] On August 1, 1910, North America's first driver's licensing law went into effect in the U.S. state of New York, though it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs.[3] In July 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.[4]

but if driving is a privilege,,, and nobody gave them the privilege how were they driving??? Was the first driver out there illegally???

Are we supposed to ask permission before we do anything??? The simple truth is that governments cant grant priviliges because governments have no greater well of rights than the PEOPLE that they can dip into and give one person more freedom than another... Where did the government get this separate rights well??? How does the government come to get more rights than the PEOPLE??? No government has any authority that didnt come from an original right held by the PEOPLE!!! If a right wasnt originally with the PEOPLE no goverment can discharge authority regarding that right...

if you can find me a right of one person to limit another persons travel only then,,, you can find authority for a government to treat driving as a privilige!!!

 

[machete]

How are we punishing anyone by saying that before you fire a gun near people's homes, businesses, and with other shooters we would like to know that you know how to do it; that you are medically capable; that the gun you are firing is known to be safe and traceable; and that you have insurance in case there's an accident?

FIFY

any time you have to account for yourself to the government youve been punished.... There is no accounting to someone sle that doesnt carry some lessening of freedom or keep you from doing whatever else youd rather be doing...

ps,,,few words scare me more than reasonable!!!!!!! Pelosi thinks lots of crap is reasonable!!!

 

[SavageEagle]

Licensing is not an onerous restriction of any right since such rights do not exist. It is a required step in the process to securing the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

I just didn't want to let this one slip by.

You are saying that you also have no problem being licensed to carry a firearm out in public on a public street or sidewalk.

You just said that travel IS a right, but to travel on a public road in a 2000lbs vehicle is a privilege. Which, makes absolutely no sense to me because I know that you support the 2A and the abolishing of the LTCH.

I also find it odd that you ignored the idea of favoring judge and jury for the actions of the negligent instead of licensing, registering, and insuring everyone. This part from talking about the flying an airplane but it also translates to your feelings of driving a car.

I recall an argument we had on this subject a while back. You argued the same things. You even said that a 2000lbs car is more dangerous than a horse and wagon. That just simply is not true. Back then, a horse and wagon could EASILY take out a building made of lumber. Not just part of it, but if the wagon came loose and hit a building in the right spot, it would destroy the building. Nowadays, a normal average car traveling 50mph that strikes your average brick home will do little more than put a hole in the wall.

Granted, in both cases, the potential for lose of life is high. However, I would venture to say that controlling a horse and wagon is much more dangerous than controlling a car. While a vehicle is more... complicated with the higher possibility of something going wrong, a horse has a mind and soul of it's own and a wagon is made of simple wood and steel construction. The potential of the wood or steel to fail was very likely.

No here's the kicker: No one was required to be licensed or taxed to drive a horse or horse and wagon on the roads or off the roads. What little roads there were. So tell me... What's changed? More people on the roads? So what? If they do something dumb like have mechanical failure due to poor maintenance and kill someone, what has the license done to prevent that? They will still have to go to court. Criminal or Civil. The only thing that changed is that now people are heavily taxed in order to travel. Which brings us to this next post....

I'm sorry but you make absolutely no sense at all. An amendment to the Constitution changes the Constitution from that day forward. There was an amendment that authorized an income tax. It is therefore Constitutional. There can be no other logical outcome.

Everything you said about no restrictions and unlimited power is irrelevent. Could the government tax 75% of everyones income? I'll bet that if you add up all the taxes you pay, in many cases they already do.

I'm going to round this off but you'll get the point. Say you make $100K a year. 28% is going to federal income tax. 7% to social security, 2% to Medicare. That's 37% off the top to the feds. Then the state gets another 3.5%. County 1%. That's 41.5% of your income off to taxes before you even get paid.

So you got $58.5K left. Got a mortgage? Most people pay about 3x their salary for a home. So that's $300K. Makes your property tax another 5% of your income. Then you have 8% sales tax. That should push you well over 50%. So maybe 75% is a stretch. But 50% is within reason.

Here you are defending an amendment to the Constitution that the Founding Fathers were vehemently against. The theft of ones property by force. They even warned us about this kind of action.

I'd say you are right, that close to above 50% of our income goes to taxes. And look what bit our Founding Fathers fought a war over. Close to the same. Yes, they realized that taxes help a government function and even laid plans for taxes in the Constitution for the function of government. And when teh 16th Amend. was ratified, look how much government had already expanded beyond it's Constitutional limits.

And here you are defending that. Not that I think you mean to. I know you're against big government. But for you, how much is too much? How much of your life are you willing to let others control? I'm not willing to let them have ANY control over my life. I put up with it because one man can't stop millions.

And no, just because a bunch of greedy, power hungry mother ****ers put an Amendment into the Constitution under the pretense of funding a world war does NOT make that amendment Constitutional. It is the FORCEFUL THEFT of OUR property. That's what makes it unConstitutional. It is infringing on our RIGHTS to Property.

Just as a [STRIKE]license[/STRIKE] tax to drive a car to and from work is an infringement on our rights as well.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I just didn't want to let this one slip by.

You are saying that you also have no problem being licensed to carry a firearm out in public on a public street or sidewalk.

Would you PLEASE read what I say with out any bias. I was talking about OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE. When did I say I "have no problem being licensed to carry a firearm out in public on a public street or sidewalk"? I have said I comply with the LTCH because it's not worth the lost opportunity cost not to. That doesn't mean I have no problem. It means it's not worth going to prison for. You obviously have strong feelings that the LTCH is an infringment of your rights. Do you set your principles aside and get an LTCH?

You just said that travel IS a right, but to travel on a public road in a 2000lbs vehicle is a privilege. Which, makes absolutely no sense to me because I know that you support the 2A and the abolishing of the LTCH.

That's not what I said. No license is required to travel in any vehicle of any size. To OPERATE a 2000lb vehicle is a privilege predicated by receiving a license to do so. Is that not in fact the truth?

I also find it odd that you ignored the idea of favoring judge and jury for the actions of the negligent instead of licensing, registering, and insuring everyone. This part from talking about the flying an airplane but it also translates to your feelings of driving a car.

I didn't ignore it. I said the the people through their representative rejected it and demanded licensing. The political process was followed. Is that not in fact the truth?

I recall an argument we had on this subject a while back. You argued the same things. You even said that a 2000lbs car is more dangerous than a horse and wagon. That just simply is not true. Back then, a horse and wagon could EASILY take out a building made of lumber. Not just part of it, but if the wagon came loose and hit a building in the right spot, it would destroy the building. Nowadays, a normal average car traveling 50mph that strikes your average brick home will do little more than put a hole in the wall.

I'm not arguing for or against laws that have been passed. My personal opinion is that driving is a privilege, not a right. This based more on the current state of the law than anything else. If a law were passed tomorrow that made it a right I would be OK with that.

Granted, in both cases, the potential for lose of life is high. However, I would venture to say that controlling a horse and wagon is much more dangerous than controlling a car. While a vehicle is more... complicated with the higher possibility of something going wrong, a horse has a mind and soul of it's own and a wagon is made of simple wood and steel construction. The potential of the wood or steel to fail was very likely.

No here's the kicker: No one was required to be licensed or taxed to drive a horse or horse and wagon on the roads or off the roads. What little roads there were. So tell me... What's changed? More people on the roads? So what? If they do something dumb like have mechanical failure due to poor maintenance and kill someone, what has the license done to prevent that? They will still have to go to court. Criminal or Civil. The only thing that changed is that now people are heavily taxed in order to travel. Which brings us to this next post....

I don't disagree. However, I would have a hard time comparing dirt trails a hundred years ago with the interstate highways and other road we have today.

I haven't commented on the efficacy of licensing because I don't have any idea how effective licensing is. I endeavor to not make wild unsubstantiated statements.

Here you are defending an amendment to the Constitution that the Founding Fathers were vehemently against. The theft of ones property by force. They even warned us about this kind of action.

How the hell do you get that I am defending anything? I described the current state. Reality. The truth. That is not defending anything.

I'd say you are right, that close to above 50% of our income goes to taxes. And look what bit our Founding Fathers fought a war over. Close to the same. Yes, they realized that taxes help a government function and even laid plans for taxes in the Constitution for the function of government. And when teh 16th Amend. was ratified, look how much government had already expanded beyond it's Constitutional limits.

And?

And here you are defending that. Not that I think you mean to. I know you're against big government. But for you, how much is too much? How much of your life are you willing to let others control? I'm not willing to let them have ANY control over my life. I put up with it because one man can't stop millions.

Again, how what have I said that gives you any impression I am defending anything? How much is too much? A fraction of the government intrusion we have now is still too much. How much control am I willing to have? Enough that I am willing to say screw it and do something about it. I'm nowhere near that point yet. It's a Zen thing. They can control things in my life, but they control me only to the extent I allow them to. I let a lot roll off and hit the ground as I walk away never looking back.

It's like the TSA thing. I am unwilling to comply with the naked pictures or the groping. I'm voting with my feet. My choice is to not fly. If I have to fly I'll charter. If I have to travel internationally I'll fly out of Toronto where they don't have those silly rules. There's always a way around everything.

And no, just because a bunch of greedy, power hungry mother ****ers put an Amendment into the Constitution under the pretense of funding a world war does NOT make that amendment Constitutional. It is the FORCEFUL THEFT of OUR property. That's what makes it unConstitutional. It is infringing on our RIGHTS to Property.

BS. That is a load of . If it is in the Constitution it is by definition Constitutional. You may not like it. I don't like it. I didn't vote for it. I didn't for the guy who voted for it. But to say something is not Constitutional when it is in the Constitution is so void of logic and a grasp of reality I can't even respond to statements like that anymore.

Just as a [strike]license[/strike] tax to drive a car to and from work is an infringement on our rights as well.

So since it's an infringment do you exercise your right and opt out of compliance, or sacrificing your principles do you have a driver's license, license plates, insurance, and everything else you may believe infringes your rights? That's a rhetorical question. I don't expect a response.

Just because I spew a fact doesn't mean I support it. Please keep this in mind.

 

[SavageEagle]

I hate when people quote inside my quotes.

Would you PLEASE read what I say with out any bias. I was talking about OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE. When did I say I "have no problem being licensed to carry a firearm out in public on a public street or sidewalk"? I have said I comply with the LTCH because it's not worth the lost opportunity cost not to. That doesn't mean I have no problem. It means it's not worth going to prison for. You obviously have strong feelings that the LTCH is an infringment of your rights. Do you set your principles aside and get an LTCH?

Operating a vehicle, traveling in a vehicle, if you're going to nitpick I'm not going to try to converse with you again on this subject. AND I'm not the one being biased here. I'm calling it like i see it. You said you don't have a problem being required to carry a LTCH because you don't mind being required to have a DL.

Licensing is not an onerous restriction of any right since such rights do not exist. It is a required step in the process to securing the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

You posted that, right? You don't see that driving a car is a right, when in fact, it is. Travel, by any means that you control, is a right. You have no problem saying that driving is a privilege but some people see carrying a pistol as a privilege. You don't have to have a license for a bicycle, or a horse, or a 49cc moped, but you do for a car or truck. Licenses don't prevent deaths, they're only there for money. $17 + TAX x 300 million is a lot of money.

That's not what I said. No license is required to travel in any vehicle of any size. To OPERATE a 2000lb vehicle is a privilege predicated by receiving a license to do so. Is that not in fact the truth?

See? Nit picking. Your question may be truth, but it is a right that was taken from us long ago and people like you accept it and call it privilege. It is not. I own that vehicle outright so I have a RIGHT to drive it anywhere I please unless I'm violating someone's rights. Is my driving down the Highway violating your rights? I didn't say erratically or dangerously, but just DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD.

I didn't ignore it. I said the the people through their representative rejected it and demanded licensing. The political process was followed. Is that not in fact the truth?

So because people are willing to violate other people's rights, you're willing to go along with that? The political process was NOT followed because people decided to violate another person's rights.

I'm not arguing for or against laws that have been passed. My personal opinion is that driving is a privilege, not a right. This based more on the current state of the law than anything else. If a law were passed tomorrow that made it a right I would be OK with that.

So you are basing your [strike]infringements[/strike] beliefs on the current state of law instead of on what is right and wrong? So if a law were creating and passed tomorrow saying that it is a privilege to own property in general you would be ok with that because the Majority is ok with it? They call this system a Democracy, which fortunately we don't live with.


I haven't commented on the efficacy of licensing because I don't have any idea how effective licensing is. I endeavor to not make wild unsubstantiated statements.

I believe I can help you with this. Just as LTCHs don't stop criminals from killing people with guns, DLs don't stop people from killing other people. The whole license scheme is just that. A scheme. Worse, it's a direct infringement. Not only does it tell me I can't travel by means under my control without permission, it also makes my property (a vehicle) completely useless. Can you imagine what would happen if they required you to be licensed to own a home? It's not a right to own a house, so why not require a license to do so. Oh wait, it's just a tax. Property tax. So you really never own anything.



And now on to the second part....

How the hell do you get that I am defending anything? I described the current state. Reality. The truth. That is not defending anything.

You are defending the 16th by calling it Constitutional. Theft is NOT Constitutional which means the 16th is not either.

And?

This is WHY the 16th came about and another reason WHY it is unConstitutional. To fund a government that had grown beyond it's legal means.


Again, how what have I said that gives you any impression I am defending anything? How much is too much? A fraction of the government intrusion we have now is still too much. How much control am I willing to have? Enough that I am willing to say screw it and do something about it. I'm nowhere near that point yet. It's a Zen thing. They can control things in my life, but they control me only to the extent I allow them to. I let a lot roll off and hit the ground as I walk away never looking back.

I didn't ask how much control YOU were willing to have. I asked how much control are you willing to GIVE THEM? So far you're willing to give them over half your income and to register your property, be licensed to used your property, and to never truly own your property.


It's like the TSA thing. I am unwilling to comply with the naked pictures or the groping. I'm voting with my feet. My choice is to not fly. If I have to fly I'll charter. If I have to travel internationally I'll fly out of Toronto where they don't have those silly rules. There's always a way around everything.

So there's a way around a DL? A LTCH? Property and Income Tax? Sure. If you're willing to give up EVERYTHING. So, if you value your life, no, there's NOT a way around everything.

BS. That is a load of . If it is in the Constitution it is by definition Constitutional. You may not like it. I don't like it. I didn't vote for it. I didn't for the guy who voted for it. But to say something is not Constitutional when it is in the Constitution is so void of logic and a grasp of reality I can't even respond to statements like that anymore.

I'm sorry you have problems grasping reality. But it is reality. Income Tax is THEFT of your PROPERTY. The Founding Fathers warned against this. There was a REASON they didn't put this in the Constitution. Just as there was a REASON they put in the Constitution that half of Congress would be elected by STATE Legislature and not the PEOPLE. If you can't grasp that Income Tax is THEFT and a violation of our right, therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL then we really are done here. That would be you DEFENDING the Income Tax as Constitutional. It is not.

So since it's an infringment do you exercise your right and opt out of compliance, or sacrificing your principles do you have a driver's license, license plates, insurance, and everything else you may believe infringes your rights? That's a rhetorical question. I don't expect a response.

Just because I spew a fact doesn't mean I support it. Please keep this in mind.


Well I'm responding anyway because you assume too much. As I stated in my original post, I am only one man and cannot change the law or the mind of millions. Millions of complacent, brain washed people who have no interest in the rights of others at the expense of the beliefs of a few.

Also keep in mind that defending something illegal or that violates the rights of others IS supporting that something. You may not agree with it, but you are, in fact, defending it.

(See? I can nitpick too!)

 

[SavageEagle]

And for the record, not that it needs to be said, your comments in red, mine in default... whatever color this is.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's always been my understanding that the phrasing of the 9A and 10A was such that governmental powers were strictly limited both in quantity and breadth while individual rights, cherished as they were at the time, were given wide latitude in both measures.

That is certainly the populist view of what the 9th & 10th Amendments should mean.

In layman terms the 9th Amendment says that just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist.

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers to the States that are not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. It provides for the concept of State's Rights. While some interpret it to be nothing more than a truism (SCOTUS especially), I view it potentially somewhat more onerous. It gives the states ALL powers, unfettered, not granted to the federal government, or specifically prohibited to the states by the Constitution. Think about what that could mean in the wrong hands. Tyranny at the state level, without federal protections. It is because of the 10th Amendment that the 14th was "necessary".

You consistently remove "or to the people" from the 10A. I am of the belief that the 2A is a prime example of why that phrase must be included there... The power to infringe the RKBA is not granted to the federal government in any way, shape, or form. In the 2A, because it does not, as the 1A does, specify Congress, I am of the belief that that power is denied the states as well. Thus, in whom would be the power to restrict, to infringe upon, the RKBA? Governments have the powers granted them by the people, people therefore must have the powers to grant them, thus, that power remains with the people. The catch is that, as you recently pointed out, only governments can infringe upon rights. Thus, that power is denied to all, which fits the text of the 2A exactly: "...the right...shall not be infringed." The point is that the 10A DOES restrict those powers to the states, yes, but also/instead, to the people. If the people have the full complement of rights and powers, unfettered by excessive regulation as we both deplore, we have little to fear from a state gov that gets, for lack of a better term, "froggish". Should they choose to leap, an unfettered body politic would quickly quash the usurption. I'm sure the concept of a politician being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, being shot at the wall with a blindfold and a cigarette, or being hanged from the nearest tree when he violated his oath of office is not wholly abstract.

If I may amend that, it's a list the Constitution places beyond the reach of governmental action. It's not for government to affirm or certify or for that matter, even think about those rights. I've always viewed it as kind a a governmental "THOU SHALT NOT" document.

You simply restated exactly what I said (or at least meant) in different words. The "THOU SHALT NOTS" is an affirmative enumerated list of rights held by the people.

(handwaggle)

1. "Congress shall make no law..." (and oh, if only they'd stopped with those five words! )
2. "...shall not be infringed."
3. "No soldier shall..."

I read those not as affirmative listings but as denials of powers.
Likely a "tomayto"/"tomahto" thing, though. As for me, my glass is at 50% capacity.

So what makes any other right "alienable"? Understandably, as dburkhead used to often point out, as a result of due process, your liberty can be restricted, your property or even your life can be taken. Due process would involve a crime, though, and in our Founders' minds, such a crime as to warrant that kind of response would not have involved the refusal to carry some form of governmental permission slip to allow you the privilege of exercising your God-given rights, but rather something that caused an injury of person or property. True?

If it's alienable it's not a right. SCOTUS has dictated that no right is absolute. I have issues with this, because if it is subject ot regulation it is a privilege, not a right. I understand the fire exception. I'm not necessarily in favor of the prohibitions placed on the 2nd. I could keep going but this is about driving, flying and permission slips.

Fair enough. I still say it's about rights v. privileges generally, not specifically driving/flying and permission slips

You and I are probably closer to agreement than you think.

Likely so.

This is where you have me at a loss. I understand that the law has long called driving not a right but a privilege. I understand that this has to do with everyone being party, via taxes, to the building of those roads. I even see the parallel between operating this vehicle vs. that one, despite the fact that travel through the air over a property does not at all affect the property below (barring of course, collision) The point I'm seeing is that just because government says this form of travel is a privilege while walking is a right, does that make it so? I'm not sure I can embrace that logic.

Yes it makes it so. No because it is necessarily right (correct) or wrong, but because it is reality. Reality makes it so. As I've said before, I don't often argue merits when there is a reality I cannot change. With reality, I can take one of three actions. Accept it. Change it. Complain about it. I rarely do number three. You can only change things that are within your capability. Many things I accept because there is no rational alternative.

Dang, and we were doing so well, too! So, because you can't personally change it, you just accept it and shrug your shoulders? Gura could have done that when he saw what opposition he faced at Heller and at McDonald. I do not accept. I can't change all of it myself. But boy howdy, I can make a hell of a stink

about stuff that's wrong. A former boss of mine used to talk about the difference between complaining and b****ing, wherein the former involved putting it on paper so someone could do something about it. I believe in a healthy measure of both when it comes to things that are wrong.

Let's take driving. I believe it a privilege. You believe it a right. I got and maintain a driver's license to be able to to exercise the privilege of driving. Did you get a government permission slip, as you call it, to exercise your right? If so, and you believe driving to be an inalienable right, why? Would you consider yourself to be a hipocrite for compromising your principles? You wouldn't be. You probably got a permission slip because you accept that compliance is easier than fighting a fight you cannot win. Perhaps after you comply you work behind the scenes to change the law. That's fantastic. What makes you think that others, even me, don't do the same with this or other causes?

(handwaggles again) I don't know on that. I'm not sure I'd call it a right or a privilege at this point. I'm mulling the idea, but I'm leaning toward right.... not like that's any surprise, pun intentional. Did I get a license? Sure. Had it since I was 16. Yes, I could have not-renewed it in the interim, but man, I voted for Clinton in that time frame. TWICE! Yes, I was young and stupid. Some would claim I never grew out of one of those two. Which one, I leave to the reader's imagination. Compromise principles? On the subject of driving as a right vs. privilege, I have no quandary at present. Just giving it some strong thought. You are correct on your last point, though: It would be incorrect of me to assume (we know how to divide that word) that you don't fight for change, too.

Admittedly, this is a difficult paradigm. It demands that we cash in the notion of getting permission to do any and every little thing we do and instead be free men and women, responsible for our own actions for good or ill. To reach that point is far outside of anything under which any of us have ever lived.Nope. Just two separate definitions of the same word.

The land of unicorns and lollipops. Would that everyone were reasonable and responsible. They aren't. It is beyond our reach.

I hold no illusions that everyone will ever be reasonable and responsible. Even in colonial times, there was the concept of the village idiot. (We no longer have villages, so instead, we send those people to Washington. ) Seriously though, I'd just like to see the day when it was even 50% +1 in my lifetime. I'd like to know that in my daughter's lifetime, it would be a great majority. I don't expect either to come true, but I just keep setting those brushfires in minds.

Ah! The original document did indeed specify the form of our government from President and Vice President to the bicameral legislature to the Judiciary, clarifying who may serve and in what capacity, but the form of specificity was not grants of power but limitations of it. Recall that the people wanted Washington to be King, probably in no small measure due to the fact of that being the form to which they were accustomed. Checks, balances, etc., these are not terms that cede power but that hedge it, and the Bill of Rights only did more of that. The concept was that the states would each be sovereign, yet still answerable to their people who originally were citizens primarily of those states (kind of an "oh yeah, and of the united States as well" kind of thing) The closer the government is to the people who created it, the more sovereignty and autonomy they have and the more answerable those who took positions of power remained. Recall the story (of questionable veracity) of Horatio Bunce and Col. David Crockett.... despite the fact that the details are almost certainly false, the concept of a man stumping in his district and meeting a man at his fence for an ear-bending was not so remote a thing. Move that story into today's world and see if you find anyone willing to believe that Dick Lugar was walking the streets of the state and met and listened (as in cared what you had to say) to you as you stopped mowing your grass and explained his faults as you saw them.

The grant of power to representatives was the first step of socialism. The Constitution was the only thing holding it back by its inherent limitations on their power, limitations they long ago ignored and overstepped. I said earlier that there were some clauses in our Constitution with which I was displeased... One of those, I make no secret, is the Interstate Commerce Clause. Sure, on the surface, it makes sense to have some method in place of settling issues between the several states, but it's become the catch-all method of taking control of anything and everything, even those things that do not in any form travel in interstate commerce, but because they do not, they prevent interstate commerce and still therefore fall under Congress' purview. What a bloody racket! Obviously, I'm saying nothing new here and IIRC, you've said before you agree with this. I might be misremembering that, however. I trust you'll correct me if so.

I would reduce the amount of regulation surrounding the Commerce Clause to what could be written on the head of a pin. It IS abused. It is upsurd. It is also reality. I accept it because it is. Not because I like it. I certainly don't support it.

And it is for these reasons that while yes, we must accept it's presence as it is as a fact today, we must also keep working to get people in office who realize how totally wrong-headed that is and will work to reverse the abuses and absurdity.

...So who defines what is and is not a right? If the answer is government, what defense is the 2A against the tyranny it was written to prevent?
If my exercise of a right adversely impact or affect others, yes, there must be some limitation, but not because my exercise of a right could adversely impact or affect others, as you earlier claimed. The causing of adverse effect is the key; without it, no harm, no injury, no loss... and no restriction. What you cannot do is set by law. What you should not do, you define for yourself. Until people get used to the level of responsibility required, the time between when this paradigm begins and when we reach the point where people do that effectively... well, that time is gonna suck for a lot of people, no way around it. How much better off would we be, however, and would such a world not be worth the effort to get there?

I don't have the answer to your question about who defines what is and isn't a right. If I did I could be King of the World. Alas, I'm not that smart, and I don't want the responsibility. I'm just a city boy trying to have fun on my ride around the rock, love my God, shoot stuff, be left alone, and die happy. Everything else is crap.

I hold no delusions of grandeur. I do what I can to wake up those sleeping Americans... To get them up and aware and rebelling in the way our Founders fought for us to be able to rebel: civilly, at the polls and at the lecterns, speaking at meetings, voicing support for rollbacks of tyrannical laws, voicing opposition to whatever regulations the other side seems to continuously spout. And yes, mandatory plug here, I Appleseed.

You and I are less than 2 years apart. I always liked a slightly different version of it than the common one:

"Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change
The courage to change the things I can
And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the SOBs I had to snuff along the way because they p***ed me off!"

That was the 20 year old's version. The 47 year old will stick with the original. I'll have a better chance of achieving my ultimate goal.

Have a nice night.

Blessings,
Bill

I think a lot gets lost in translation. I admit I'm not the easiest read. Especially when I pontificate. That's because I don't think or talk in sweeping generalities. When I say I don't believe it (whatever it is) applies in all cases, it is because I consider exceptions rather than generalizing. I went to one of those sissy Ivy League universities. They do teach you to think critically. It's a handicap.

I'll take your comment about the 20 year old's "serenity prayer" as a compliment. You ever see anyone more zealous to change the world than a 20 year old? Couple that with a strong libertarian bent, find me a few more people like that, and man, we can make a difference!

As for readability... I didn't go to any Ivy League university. I spent a couple of years at Texas Tech and I finally got my degree a few years ago from Ivy Tech. Nonetheless, I think most of the time I understand you. A member upthread mentioned that your thinking was... utilitarian, I think he called it. it's almost 3 AM and I'm too lazy to look it up, but his point seemed to me to be that your principle changed depending on the subject. Maybe that method works for you in the meat world, I dunno. I doubt you would still be doing it at this point in your life if it didn't. My principles aren't set in stone... given a good reason, a rational explanation, I'm willing to consider that they could be improved, but I'll need a hell of a reason to do so.

That method works for me. I don't know about generalities, I think about broad effects of laws good and bad, but I think in terms of examples. You seem to interpret my examples as red herrings; they're not, they're attempts to better illustrate concepts that don't seem to be as well-conveyed as I'd thought by one example, so I look for another.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bunnykid68]

As far as the Tax part of where this conversation has gone I recommend everyone read Stanton V. Baltic Mining. A SCOTUS summary of the 16th Amendment.