Teen faces potential life sentence in prison for illegal brownie recipe

[steveh_131]

Maybe we're arguing about different things?

Do you think it is ok for Texas to have a potential life imprisonment for making a bunch of hash brownies?

No, I think it is unjust and tyrannical. I would encourage the constituents to vote out any idiots that find this acceptable.

I also support the right of the state of Texas to write their own laws, right or wrong, without federal interference.

 

[T.Lex]

No, I think it is unjust and tyrannical. I would encourage the constituents to vote out any idiots that find this acceptable.

I also support the right of the state of Texas to write their own laws, right or wrong, without federal interference.

Ok, then we are not really arguing. Except about the unjust and tyrannical part, although I think reasonable people can disagree on where to draw those lines. I think it is a harsh potentiality (he hasn't actually been sentenced yet), but not to the extreme of tyrannical.

 

[steveh_131]

Ok, then we are not really arguing. Except about the unjust and tyrannical part, although I think reasonable people can disagree on where to draw those lines. I think it is a harsh potentiality (he hasn't actually been sentenced yet), but not to the extreme of tyrannical.

I wasn't arguing with you.

Well, not yet anyways.

 

[MisterChester]

How dare you inject facts in a good conference room table run!

Don't you know that INGO is the only true Guardian of Liberty! Only a certain selected few Platonic Guardians of Liberty can tell everyone else what is best for Liberty.

Allowing the people of Texas, or another other state, to come to their own decisions is Tyranny!

Mob rule is tyranny!!!!!!

 

[88GT]

And pretty much all "public accommodation"-style laws as applied to private property.

Absolutely. The list is long. I just picked the "one" he requested off the top of my head.

Ok, like what is an example of what should be in an individual's sole purview? Speed limit? Marriage?

Whatever choices an individual would make for himself. Personal decisions.

Ok, just so I understand, landlords should be allowed to not rent to whomever they want, regardless of race, religion, gender, credit score, disability, height, weight, eye color, smell, or how they dress?

Yes. I gather from the underlying tone of your post that you disagree. Why is that?

FTR, I am already allowed to discriminate for the items that are bolded, along with the following: friends, associates, employment, income, cars driven, previous residence, smoking, drinking, criminal history, pets, attitude, education. And believe me I have.

 

[rambone]

Ok, then we are not really arguing. Except about the unjust and tyrannical part, although I think reasonable people can disagree on where to draw those lines. I think it is a harsh potentiality (he hasn't actually been sentenced yet), but not to the extreme of tyrannical.

Is tyranny such an abstract concept that it has no objective meaning? People can be picked out of the population and locked away for decades -- over plants and brownies -- and we aren't sure if this is oppressive or not?

One of the most famous arrests in history involved a woman spending 1 night in jail (Rosa Parks, mentioned earlier). Just one night and a few dollars in fines.

Who would argue that was an example of liberty and justice? Very few. It was oppression.

The kid being punished in this article did even LESS to disturb the public. He was minding his own business baking cookies in his home. His own neighbor had no idea he had broken a law.

And yet the best case scenario for this kid is 5 years in prison. Possibly a LOT more.

Is it oppressive? We aren't sure. "Reasonable" people can't decide.

 

[Fletch]

Is tyranny such an abstract concept that it has no objective meaning? People can be picked out of the population and locked away for decades -- over plants and brownies -- and we aren't sure if this is oppressive or not?

One of the most famous arrests in history involved a woman spending 1 night in jail (Rosa Parks, mentioned earlier). Just one night and a few dollars in fines.

Who would argue that was an example of liberty and justice? Very few. It was oppression.

The kid being punished in this article did even LESS to disturb the public. He was minding his own business baking cookies in his home. His own neighbor had no idea he had broken a law.

And yet the best case scenario for this kid is 5 years in prison. Possibly a LOT more.

Is it oppressive? We aren't sure. "Reasonable" people can't decide.

Trespass begins at the property line, not when the trespasser is sitting in your easy chair drinking your beer. The same goes for rights.

 

[T.Lex]

Whatever choices an individual would make for himself. Personal decisions.

Like what? It is kinda the role of gov't to draw that line. That is often harder than it sounds.

Yes. I gather from the underlying tone of your post that you disagree. Why is that?

The question is just a question - don't read anything about my personal beliefs into it. When I state what I believe, I tend to do so explicitly.

FTR, I am already allowed to discriminate for the items that are bolded, along with the following: friends, associates, employment, income, cars driven, previous residence, smoking, drinking, criminal history, pets, attitude, education. And believe me I have.

Right. So you would have no problem with someone doing the same to you? Such as, refusing you because you are pro-gun?

Is tyranny such an abstract concept that it has no objective meaning? People can be picked out of the population and locked away for decades -- over plants and brownies -- and we aren't sure if this is oppressive or not?

Clearly, a majority of Americans do not think it is.

And yet the best case scenario for this kid is 5 years in prison. Possibly a LOT more.

Is it oppressive? We aren't sure. "Reasonable" people can't decide.

Actually, the reasonable people of Texas did decide.

 

[rambone]

Clearly, a majority of Americans do not think it is.

Actually, the reasonable people of Texas did decide.

Its time to consider whether the majority of Americans are oppressive.

 

[T.Lex]

Trespass begins at the property line, not when the trespasser is sitting in your easy chair drinking your beer. The same goes for rights.

Got it. Property line. So if someone buys the house next to you and sets up mercury vapor lights into your windows 24/7 or builds a CAFO facility next door, no problem?

Its time to consider whether the majority of Americans are oppressive.

So your problem is more with representative democracy as system?

 

[steveh_131]

So your problem is more with representative democracy as system?

He didn't say that, did he?

If I say that Americans need to stop voting for Tyrants, does that mean that I think they shouldn't be allowed to vote?

If I say that Texas laws are tyrannical, does that mean that I don't think Texas should be allowed to write their own laws?

No, and no.

 

[T.Lex]

He didn't say that, did he?

Yeah, he kinda did.

In a system like ours, the majority will always be "oppressive" of the minority. That's the way voting works - and that's why the constitution has checks and balances to protect minority rights.

Politics is a game, in the sense that there are winners and losers. Losers (for the most part) don't like losing. But, they don't get to ignore the results.

Someday, I fully expect the drug issue to be reversed, with the majority of people allowing marijuana to be legal. But, until then, it doesn't mean the laws criminalizing it are tyrannical.

 

[steveh_131]

No. The majority doesn't have to 'oppress' the minority. If the majority would lean towards liberty, it would result in the exact opposite of 'oppression' for both sides.

And another "no": Wanting fellow voters to stop voting for the nanny state does not mean that I am against our system of government.

 

[T.Lex]

No. The majority doesn't have to 'oppress' the minority. If the majority would lean towards liberty, it would result in the exact opposite of 'oppression' for both sides.

Any decision by a majority is going to **** off some segment of the minority - even if the majority leans toward liberty. The law is all about drawing lines. If the line drawing is unanimous, no problem. But that is exceedingly rare, eh?

But again, we might be arguing in circles. Pick an example where either side is reasonable - we have to bridge a river in one of two places, both cost the exact same amount, and the owners of either site don't want it on their land. Some people want it in one place, maybe closer/further from them depending on their goals. Comes down to a vote. Even if the "losing" owner doesn't like it, the majority has to decide.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Mob rule is tyranny!!!!!!

I thought a democracy was mob rule

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

In a system like ours, the majority will always be "oppressive" of the minority. That's the way voting works - and that's why the constitution has checks and balances to protect minority rights.

Sometimes, maybe even more often than not, but not always.

Politics is a game, in the sense that there are winners and losers. Losers (for the most part) don't like losing. But, they don't get to ignore the results.

I ignore the results of many elections. I do it all the time with no repercussions.

Someday, I fully expect the drug issue to be reversed, with the majority of people allowing marijuana to be legal. But, until then, it doesn't mean the laws criminalizing it are tyrannical.

Sure it can. You can consider any law tyrannical any time that you want, again with no repercussions.

 

[T.Lex]

Considering something tyrannical does not make it so.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Considering something tyrannical does not make it so.

It is, tyranny of the mob

 

[88GT]

Like what? It is kinda the role of gov't to draw that line. That is often harder than it sounds.

What part of personal decisions did you not understand? What I eat. What I drink. What I inhale. What I medicate with. What I wear. Where I live. What I live in. How it's built. What I drive. What I read. How I raise my kids. What I believe.

The only laws that should ever be written as part of the criminal code are those that result in a victim through the use of force, fraud, or coercion against that victim. Stop trying to protect people from themselves.

The question is just a question - don't read anything about my personal beliefs into it. When I state what I believe, I tend to do so explicitly.

No use being coy. Your personal beliefs are as transparent as the air we breathe. Making them known isn't limited to what you believe is an explicit statement. No big deal. You're a statist. I just wondered why you had a problem with people being free to discriminate.

Right. So you would have no problem with someone doing the same to you? Such as, refusing you because you are pro-gun?

I believe down to my core that it should be his prerogative. I don't have to be happy about something to accept that it is the way it should be.

Clearly, a majority of Americans do not think it is.

So what? A majority of people once thought the earth was the center of the universe as well. Not a very convincing bit of logic to hang your point on. I would also submit that the "majority" of which you speak directly benefits from that tyranny. The majority of Americans are selfish pricks whose greatest concern in life is "how to get what's owed to me." The few of us who still operate on the antiquated "How to get what I can earn" are the ones who suffer under that majority tyranny you say doesn't exist.

Actually, the reasonable people of Texas did decide.

Reasonable people once thought minorities weren't human, that it was okay to bleed for health reasons, and that alcohol should be a banned substance. What changed? Either reasonable people were right, which means we are now unreasonable people. Or reasonable people were wrong, which means they weren't reasonable people.

Got it. Property line. So if someone buys the house next to you and sets up mercury vapor lights into your windows 24/7 or builds a CAFO facility next door, no problem?

In short, yes. The long answer acknowledges how that is put into practice to protect those that don't want it and those that don't care.

So your problem is more with representative democracy as system?

No, the mechanism isn't the problem. It's the corruption of the mechanism. Where is the protection for the minority of people who feel that the do-gooder, morality police are infringing on our rights? You don't think it's possible to have near-absolute tyranny at the state-level even though the process is the best possible one for a free, self-governing people?

And the Constitution has done little to stop the feds from enacting the tyranny the authors intended it to stop.

Yeah, he kinda did.

In a system like ours, the majority will always be "oppressive" of the minority. That's the way voting works - and that's why the constitution has checks and balances to protect minority rights.

Politics is a game, in the sense that there are winners and losers. Losers (for the most part) don't like losing. But, they don't get to ignore the results.

Someday, I fully expect the drug issue to be reversed, with the majority of people allowing marijuana to be legal. But, until then, it doesn't mean the laws criminalizing it are tyrannical.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Considering something tyrannical does not make it so.

If the consideration takes place in the minds of an adequate number of people, then there's a good chance that it will be so.