The_Dunedan

The very existence of laws against such is ridiculous. Prevention of such is a matter for the minor in question and their parents, not for an entity (the State) which has proven itself competent in regards to children only insofar as it is unusually adept at killing them.

The part where if you don't do what the State says, they can use violence against you. Or did you think all those guns were just for looking cool?

Since they are enforced by the threat of violence; ie "do as you're told or you'll be imprisoned or shot." This despite the fact that earning a fine and a date in court requires only that you be doing someone which some agent of the State finds personally distasteful (driving too fast, smoking the wrong herbs, or painting your house the wrong colour), an act in which nobody was harmed or defrauded.

Again, did you think all those guns were just for looks?

SecretMethod70

Dunedan, you live in a scary world. I'm glad it's not the world the rest of us live in.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

The_Dunedan

Me? Scary? What's scary to -me- is collectivists who are willing to accept violence against their neighbors, so long as that violence is popular enough. I suppose one can rationalise anything if one can convince enough racists, reactionaries, bigots, or simple everyday morons to agree.

I am perfectly willing to leave any and all of my neighbors alone and in peace, to live their lives and conduct their business as they wilt. So long as they do no harm to me or mine, I see no reason to interfere with their lives or livelihoods by so much as an inch. What scares -me- are the people out there who are -not- willing to "live and let live," who regard deploying unprovoked violence against people who have done them no harm as a legitimate and moral means by which to affect change. What scares -me- are the people who are perfectly willing to jam a gun in their neighbor's mouth in order to force them into compliance with whatever their own preferences or prejudices might be, despite the fact that said neighbor has done them neither physical nor financial harm.

Tell me, which is scarier: a dude like me who wants to leave everyone in peace, or a dude who wants the "right" to -make- everyone live his way by force of arms?

SecretMethod70

No, I said your world is scary, not you. The one where bar owners who allow smoking when it is banned are shot. Or, the world where every single person is only out for themselves and has no regard - or social obligation to have any regard - for their fellow countrymen. Thankfully, that world is only in your head.

And can we stop talking about "rights" this and "rights" that... none of these things are rights. In these kinds of discussions, rights are very specific things, and you do not have a right to smoke tobacco. If you want one, seek a constitutional amendment.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Baraka_Guru

Forget it, smeth, (or change your tactics) we are arguing against anarchy here, not simply the rejection of anti-smoking bylaws.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

Saying that violence is being used against those who break smoking violations is a huge jump in logic and reality. Sure, if someone breaks the smoking law AND continuously doesn't pay the fines or show up in court AND then fail to respond to additional pressure from lawyers AND then fail to comply with a personal visit from the authorities AND then resist arrest and/or decide to fight the police rather than pay your fined, THEN and ONLY THEN, might violence occur (and even then, you probably won't be shot)

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

pan6467

I Think you can but that then becomes a "CIVIL" lawsuit not a "CRIMINAL". One can sue the owner if they feel unjustly discriminated against and it is up to that person to prove it, not the owner. But it is NOT nor should it be "ILLEGAL". The same applies for signs that say "No Whites Served". A business has that right, legally. Ethically and morally I may detest it and not frequent such a place BUT, they have that right, legally.

And I believe I stated government's purpose is to protect consumers in the aspect that what they buy is safe.

If you are going to pick and choose what you want to argue about with me.... make sure you read ALL of what I write.

Post #45

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Baraka_Guru

I thought they overturned the Jim Crow laws.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

The_Dunedan

Oh bloody hell, I'm talking root issues here. The issue is not that uncompliant bar-owners get shot, it is that, on a fundamental level, every action of the State is backed up by the express threat of lethal violence. Whatever it is, however it occurs, it is reinforced by the simple fact that the State can summon every variety of destruction from 9mm sidearms on up the scale to, on a State-to-State level, the potential sterilisation of the surface area of the planet Earth. [Edited to add; this is why I personally believe that the State should only be involved in those activities which justly and precisely demand this type of capability: warfighting, if needed the defensive sealing of borders, and the pursuit of those who aggress against the persons, posessions, or rights of others.] Individuals, on the other hand, have a -very- difficult time summoning either enough voluntary followers or conscripts to even approach the destructive power of the State. Even the Aum Shinrikyo, the only terrorist organisation known to have deployed a Weapon of Mass Destruction, only managed to kill fewer than twenty people. Five thousand more were sickened, but such would have been considered a relatively light gas-attack casualty figure among green troops in WWI. Bar owners almost never get shot by the cops, but the simple fact is that in every interaction with the State one is coming face-to-face with naked lethal force backing up any number of invasive, intrusive, non-sensical and frequently contradictory demands. Individual assholes can act this way too, but random individuals don't have the luxury of being investigated by their friends* for acts which nobody involved believes were crimes against people who, let's face it, nobody likes anyway. "24" was popular for a reason, and if made during the Clinton (or maybe yet Obama) years, Jack Bauer would have been torturing mid-western militiamen instead of al-Qaida sleeper agents. The mere existence of such is equally frightening in any case.

On the contrary, IMO you have it backwards. In our system, it is the Federal Gov't which is the subject of carefully enumerated and constrained rights, not the people. IMO the 9th and 10th Amendment both establish the existence of Rights to be recognised in the future, and put those Rights correctly in the hands of the States (the least level of remove I consider tolerable for the development of free people) or the People. Specifically speaking, the BoR is a list of ways in which individuals are to be left alone. Their religion, speech, associations, lawful commerce, homes, privacy, persons, papers, posessions, means of discrete self-defense and rights of acting in their own interest at trial: these things were meant IMO to be sacrosanct and immovable except by significant majorities. As you said and as I have always said, amend the Constitution of you want to try these kinds of bans; that's what it took to take a crack at alcohol, and look what a mess that was. Lotsa dead bodies, lotsa rich crooks, and loads of people who had never previously been drinkers suddenly turning up blind/crippled/crazy from every variety of bad booze imaginable. Skirting this in the War On Some Drugs has been an even bigger disaster. What's your new plan, skirt the Constitution again and use all manner of further intrusion to drive the use of tobacco, a chemical more addictive that Heroin, underground? After -everything- Prohibition and the WOSD showed us?

If the definition of insanity truly -is- doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results, this sort of socio-chemical engineering has got to be the looniest idea since Lysenko was popular.

But as you say, is it not violence which one finds at the bottom of that long, deep, dark, ridiculously bumpy well? And the above has yet to establish that the above intrusion of the State into the personal conduct of consenting parties has any rational justification beyond "do what we say or we will destroy you."

If you don't mind, imagine an inverse of some of the things which have been suggested. Suppose a pub or sports-bar or pizza-joint or steakhouse opened up which featured a prominent sign on the door, and a reminder in the menu, that smoking, the open carry of sidearms, openly affectionate gay couples, and dogs were allowed. Suppose further that, before signing on, prospective employees read and signed a contract stating that they understood they would be working around such and expected to conduct themselves as professionals in all such regards. How would such a place sit with you? I and (I think) many of my friends and family would dearly love to patronise such an establishment; would you care to join us?

Derwood

Great, we agree. Banning smoking in restaurants and bars falls firmly under protecting the rights of workers.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

pan6467

Sorry I do HAVE the right to smoke tobacco. It is LEGAL and I am of age. I have that right. I do not have the right to smoke it in public buildings inside the state of Ohio. But it is a "RIGHT".

If we go by the definitions of only rights expressed in the Constitution... as it seems you want to, then we have no "right" to own land, businesses, cars, privacy, etc.

This is when I get fanatical. This is where the far left has gone to fucking far. Smoking, driving, being on the internet and so on are "RIGHTS" not privileges given to us by the state. It is bullshit to argue they are not "RIGHTS", to argue they aren't is to give government far, far too much power.

If I am of legal age and I passed my drivers test and I have my license, I have a RIGHT to drive, not a privilege. Can I lose my RIGHT? Yes, if I do not obey laws, I lose that RIGHT. Same as if I commit a crime, I lose my RIGHT to freedom outside prison walls.

The Constitution states in Amendment 9

John Addams stated:

Here is a link to the Libertarian Advocacy Groups argument on the 9th amendment.

The Bill of Rights: Unenumerated Rights

It contains this being one of the best written and IMHO best views of what the founders meant in writing the Constitution:



---------- Post added at 10:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

I disagree. The workers can be protected as can be the rights but compromise is needed. I stated 1 possible compromise above.... that again, people pick and choose what they want of mine but refuse to address all of what I say.

Last paragraph post #61.

The problem is that certain elements that seek power on both the right and left do not seek compromise and a protection of ALL RIGHTS, but what they deem as acceptable for their power hungry agendas.

If an owner of a private business has the funds and is wanting to build a room as I stated above, he should have that RIGHT. That choice, that RIGHT should NEVER be taken away from that owner, by legislature... by the public vote... I have issues and I would argue the Constitutionality and propose the above compromise to be put up on ballot, but as I have stated, I will abide by what the PEOPLE decide in their votes.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

silent_jay

Actually driving is a privilege, watch any episode of Canada's Worst Driver, the experts on the show say so all the time, no one has the right to drive, you seem to be confusing the two.

Derwood

i see we've digressed into pedantry, which means this thread is more or less done

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

pan6467

And these "experts" are governmental officials?

Again I stated:

If you quote me, quote all of the paragraph and address the WHOLE of it not just what suits you.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

silent_jay

One is/was an OPP Officer during the show, he was retired at the start of the latest season, the other is the head of drivers education for Young Drivers of Canada
Pardon? This became a rule when? I believe I can quote and address whatever part of your post that I see fit to quote and address, you have no power over that pan, it is my as you would say RIGHT.

Oh yeah, look up Heather Crowe, it will answer something you asked last page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Crowe
or
http://www.smoke-free.ca/heathercrowe/
this is what you asked last page.

dippin

What the fuck does the "far left" have to do with the internet, smoking, or driving? Other than being the boogieman of choice of everything you disagree with?

pan6467

So where exactly is the pedantry?

My pointing out the 9th Amendment or the argument for compromise to protect ALL RIGHTS?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Derwood

parsing the "right" to drive vs. the "privilege" is pedantry

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

pan6467

You're right, that should read "far right" also.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

rahl

Dunedan, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not the owner of a gunshop? If I am correct that you are, are you up in arms over the govn't requiring you to have a FFL in order to do business? Based on your posts so far in this thread, the govn't shouldn't be able to impose it's will on you or your store. Yet you clearly( I assume) have obtained said license in order to do business legally. How is this different than Bar owners having to follow the laws set forth by the state?

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dippin

It's not even a matter of the "far right" also. Where are all these far leftists trying to prevent people from driving, smoking and going on the internet?

I mean, other than the voters you started this thread defending, I don't see where that is coming from.

And I thought that you supported the ability of the majority to limit many of these rights, so this last page is a bit confusing.

pan6467

No, I believe it to be a "right" and I put forth Amendment 9 as a defense to my opinion. I do not believe it to be a "privilege" and I showed where I strongly disagree with calling what I believe to be rights as privileges.

It could be argued that it is semantics, but saying something is a privilege to me feels like it is something government can take away at its whim (a rightful belief or not it is my belief with that word). Whereas, to me a right as long as you are abiding by the laws that have been made to protect others (arguably a public smoking ban, without argument traffic laws), they cannot be taken away for any reason by government.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Derwood

then driving clearly IS a privilege. The number of rules, regulations and limitations you need to abide by in order to legally drive puts it in that category. Compare to that to, say, your right to freedom of religion, which has no such limitations and regulations

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

dksuddeth

say what?

are you seriously trying to intimate that the only rights we have guaranteed to us are the ones actually spelled out in the constitution and bill of rights?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Dunedan

Employee, not owner. But yes, I do work as a firearms retailer.

Up in arms? No. Frequently very annoyed, especially since ATF has and does send people to prison and fine them hundreds of thousands of dollars for spelling mistakes and missed dates on Form 4473? Yes. Very annoyed.

Correct.

Because not doing so is an excellent way to end up full of holes, having the holes one normally possesses subjected to nightly stretching by the cock of someone I won't like very much, or fined into bankruptcy.

It isn't; both cases are bullshit. Unfortunately, it's bullshit that one must swallow if one wishes to have Massa's permission to operate a business: just like one must swallow a lot of bullshit in order to obtain Massa's permission to get married, to expand or modify one's home, to build a new home or structure, plough one's fields, hunt one's own game, fish one's own streams, or peaceably assemble to request redress of a grievance. However, since being forced to swallow a ration of bullshit is not on the same moral level as being actively shot at or immediately and physically attacked, no: I am not "up in arms." Violence is a factor in both such instances, but only when violence is being actively employed against a person or nation does that person or nation have the right to retaliate and defend themselves with force.

roachboy

are we running into the natural law matter again in this thread?
if you imagine there is such a thing as natural law, it would give you something to appeal to in saying there are "rights" which pre-exist any given legal framework. what these are would of course be arbitrary outside a speech community (a group of folk who agreed amongst themselves based on social and likely historical reasons--which often are the same thing, with the former being operative and the latter the same but pushed into the past)....but no matter. you could perhaps imagine a natural "right" to smoke or a natural "right" to this or that.

if you don't buy the notion of natural law, then there's no basis for talking about "rights" except insofar as these are created within the existing legal framework, so by that framework.

i smoked for a while. now i don't (i think). i understood most smoking regulation bars etc. to be about worker health and so i didn't object to them. though i will say that the uk version was more consistent, which is that you can smoke in a pub (or could last i was there) but not within 50 feet or so of the bar because that's where the employees are more likely to congregate.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

something i find very interesting with this thread is the widely varying views of what rights people have and what rights people don't. Several people here think that since the majority wills it, it must be done. How is it then that the majority of people in california voted down the gay marriage amendment, yet that shouldn't apply?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

pan6467

Ah, but there are limitations and regulations to freedom of speech, press, to bear arms.

I cannot go into a movie theater and yell FIRE and incite panic and possibly riotous behavior. I cannot slander/libel or legally copy someone else's works for profit. I cannot carry a handgun unless I have a CCW license and obey the laws. There are limitations on religion, also. I cannot have the 10 Commandments hung in a courthouse or in my office. I cannot have my child pray or talk about prayer in school. Yet they are rights none the less.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

rahl

Pan I've forgoten exactly what your arguing in this thread, you have jumped all over the place. But for clarification, you can carry a handgun in Ohio without a CCW. It's called open carry, which is legal in Ohio.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Derwood

If I want to be a practicing Jew, I don't need to be of a certain age, I don't need a clean praying record, I don't need to carry religion insurance, and there aren't law enforcement personnel whose job is to make sure I am following the laws of Judaism.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

The_Dunedan

Try opening a house of worship, be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu...it matters not. You still need permission, and if you practice too much free speech inside said house of worship, you lose the various tax exemptions and licensures which make the existence of your Temple, Church, Mosque, etc. possible in our current legal framework.

Derwood

the restrictions aren't on your religion, it's on your tax status, which is not a Constitutional right. The government isn't saying "you can't say those things", they're saying "if you say those things, we're revoking your tax exemptions". Completely different things

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

The_Dunedan

What they're saying is;

"Certain speech is permissible within the context of religion. Certain speech is not. We will decide which is which, and if impermissible speech is spoken we will penalise the speaker (or their org.) by imposing penalties upon it/them which we will refrain from imposing upon those who speak only permissible speech."

Kiss the Gov't ass (or at least refrain from biting it too hard), and you're a Religion which gets left alone. Refuse to kiss aforementioned ass, or bite in ways it does not appreciate, and you're just another company or Corporation, no different from McDonalds. Which do you think will have an easier time staying open; a church which has to pay all the usual Corporate taxes (2nd highest in the world after Japan, BTW) because it speaks to specific political issues which the leaders of that faith community find relevant in a spiritual sense, or the Church which makes like a good lil' fiel'hand and keep'is mouth shut, thereby -avoiding- those taxes?

Correct, the Church which kisses the correct asses and pays no taxes will have a much easier time staying open than the one which refuses to kiss ass and pays taxes.

If you think any of this is accidental, you must not have been paying attention for the last decade or so. -Nothing- these jerkoffs do is accidental.

silent_jay

I'd stil llike pan to recognise that this proof he wanted has been presented, yet he picks and chooses what he responds to, and ignores those who have shown him proof.
Which has been answered by me twice now, this is the third time, still with pan turning a blind eye to the proof he requested, and going off on his emotional rants about 'driving is a right', which is just hilarious, hell even before I took drivers ed 17 years ago I knew the saying 'driving is a privilege not a right', I mean just look at the google results, http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&cl...ght%27&spell=1

Again pan, here's the proof you requested, not that I expect a response, but I'll post it from time to time so you don't forget it was done.

Derwood

But again, that's a different issue. Tax exemption is not a right granted by the Constitution. If the Government has decided it will give certain churches tax exemptions, why shouldn't it be able to dictate the parameters that qualify one for said exemption?

No freedom of religion has been infringed whatsoever

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

dippin

Actually, religious tax exemption is not a right, but a benefit. Personally, I would prefer that churches, priests and all that were taxed at the same rate as any non profit or any person who works for a non profit.

In any case, I have no problems with stating that for an organization to benefit from religious tax exemptions, it has to stick to religion, and not anything else. Otherwise, if religion can be just a side show, pretty much anyone can claim they are a church and demand that status. Oh, and churches can say quite a lot about who people should support, they just can't be partisan or overtly political about it. They can say "support pro life candidates," they just can't say "vote republican."

The_Dunedan

Irrelevant. What's at issue here is that the Federal Gov't is meddling in areas it oughtn't, as it hasn't the right, using financial blackmail to marginalise and destroy those whos speech or beliefs the Feds find unduly irritating or irreverent.

Because the use of such differences creates an economic distortion favoring certain outcomes designed for the maintainence of the State. The State exists to serve the People, not the other way around.

BS. When market distortions are weilded as a club to crush certain speech or religious belief while propping up others, the religious freedom of the group being distorted against has been infringed upon.

Derwood

then your beef should be that the State gives churches tax exemptions in the first place, not how those exemptions are managed

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

The_Dunedan

My beef is primarily that the State -levies- involuntary taxes, but you're correct. Absent getting rid of those, the discriminatory use of exemptions has to go. Either don't tax anybody or tax everybody by the same rubric and according to the same rules; that's my solution.

Derwood

so you're against tax exempt status for not-for-profit agencies?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel