| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
 Posted - 07/09/2010 : 1:55:51 PM
|
quote:
To your second statement, I would argue that the owner did have a say in the creation of the law or are you saying that the restaurants & bar assoc., the tobacco industry and any other lobbying groups that were against the law didn't do everything in their power to stop it's passing. They merely lost the battle. The same battle that they have been winning prior to the passing of the bill.
That is not a bad point. I am just keen on protecting the minority from the majority so that is what helps form my thinking on these types of issues. I still default to allowing people the right to choose their own path (or pursuit) to happiness but thats just me.
I think we are just going to see this differently so I am not sure there is much more to say on this subject.
quote:
I am surprised that you never came back with my biggest concern when you take the side of the argument that I have taken.
Slippery Slope.
I don't usually go there because my default way of thinking is that we are mid way down that slope and there is no turning back, at this point, anyway. The simple fact is that most people want the government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave and nothing but a complete system crash is going to change their minds. I pretty much just accept that so when it happens I will be ready for it. And if I am wrong I know that I have lived my life not trying to deprive others of their freedoms. So I am none the worse for it.
My hope is that after it is all said and done that, we as a society, learn something about Liberty and personal responsibility and that this relearned knowledge forms the way we live for many years after it happens (Our phoenix moment, so to speak).
quote:
If you accept the fact that it's not a bad thing for the government but more importantly society to decides what is good and bad for you, how far do you let that go. Okay killing is bad, going 75 in a 25 is bad, smoking is bad but what about sky diving, driving a motorcycle, leaving the toilet seat up or down.
You joke but I don't think their is any restriction on freedom that some government bureaucrat could come up with that I would actually be surprised at. I reached that limit years ago.
quote:
How far do you let the "Nanny State" control your life. It's easy to say it's okay to have laws against "clear and present dangers" like speeding but it is really easy to go too far. I've seen a least one republican advocate for controlling people's bad health habits as a way to control healthcare costs.
I don't think this is even a question of "if" but only a question of "when". It has already begun in other parts of the world and anyone who is going to live off the government health care system is soon going to find out that free health care can be very expensive.
quote:
Republicans also seem to be against legalizing drugs, assisted suicide, and gay marriage which are just as much a "Nanny State" issue as whether I smoke or not. It seems that whether you are for or against the government telling you what you can or can't do depends on what you are speaking about.
In general Republicans are only slightly less dangerous to Liberty then Democrats are. But when it comes down to it they both bend to the will of the majority, which apparently has accepted that comfort (safety over Liberty) is what a Representative Republic should be focused on.
For me, the thing that makes many democrats more dangerous then republicans is that too many of them argue against the merits of forcing people to take personal responsibility for themselves. I think we would cure many of the problems this country faces if we all had to deal and live with the choices we make everyday.
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
 |
|
|
tabletop
Frequent Poster
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2010 : 9:18:57 PM
|
A fairer though unreachable saying might be: "Liberty for EVERYONE first, then other things second"
It seems too many claiming to be for Liberty want no government or person to tell them what they can or cannot do. Then turn around and say: don't let my neighbors animals run loose, don't let kids next door make noise, don't let a woman decide what is best for her, don't let a couple you even suspect to be gay have a life, clean my street, send police, send fire, et. etc. As Shutsie says where does it stop. Civilized society must have reasonable limits. |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 01:47:03 AM
|
quote:
A fairer though unreachable saying might be: "Liberty for EVERYONE first, then other things second"
Sounds good to me.
quote:
It seems too many claiming to be for Liberty want no government or person to tell them what they can or cannot do.
I am not an anarchist. I am a strong proponent of law and order and I believe that some governing is absolutely necessary. I am just not very comfortable with the amount of control that some people think they need over other people's life. In a nut shell I believe that the purpose of government is to protect its citizens rights and property. I do believe that they should be responsible for public infrastructure and for the most part I don't mind paying for it. However I would prefer there be some accountability that goes with it but I think that may be asking too much.
quote:
Then turn around and say: don't let my neighbors animals run loose, don't let kids next door make noise, don't let a woman decide what is best for her, don't let a couple you even suspect to be gay have a life,
I don't know these people but they sound dangerous to Liberty and should be ignored. And what do I care if they speak of Liberty but then act against it. They are Hippocrates (and probably politicians).
quote:
clean my street, send police, send fire, et. etc.
I don't know about the etc. etc but streets, police and fire are (and should be) under the domain of governmental responsibilities.
quote:
As Shutsie says where does it stop.
It won't. It will just get worse and worse until the majority are all slaves to the state.
quote:
Civilized society must have reasonable limits.
First of all define reasonable. And then tell me where your reasonable limits reach their highest level. In other words at what point of nanny-ism do you say enough is enough?
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
|
|
|
Shutesie
Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 1:45:08 PM
|
So we are all in agreement.
The dilemma we face is one of how far do we go down any road.
Laws by definition violate or limit our right to do something. We all seem to believe they are necessary for a functioning society. The problem we have is in determining the limit on the limits of personal freedom. I think we all believe that your rights end when they conflict with my rights but I think there will always be grey area around that point in space. That means that we will always have difficulty writing the perfect law. The smoking ban being a perfect example.
Government is necessary for a functioning society. The level of involvement in our lives and what it is responsible for seem to be the issue.
"In a nut shell I believe that the purpose of government is to protect its citizens rights and property." - Buck
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - U.S. Constitution
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Declaration of Independence
We seem to again have a problem not with the existence of government involvement but with what degree it's involved.
Example
"promote the general Welfare"
What does that mean? Put up a poster!
promote (pr-mt)
tr.v. promoted, promoting, promotes
1.
a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.
welfare (wlfr)
n.
1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3.
a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare
I believe based on the dictionary definition that the Constitution actually requires the government to create a National HealthCare System or at least organize or regulate one. It's in the Constitution! But is that what they meant?
I could read the Constitution and see that it's suppose to promote my welfare by not creating laws that inhibit my ability to prosper as a business person and you can look at the Constitution and see that it's suppose to provide for a common defence that includes protecting me from people who in the interest of making a dollar don't care about my general welfare.
I could finish my thought but I feel the need to let you all run with this.. I think there's some good stuff here! Fire away
|
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 3:18:36 PM
|
If the founding Fathers intended for the government to nanny its people why didn't they set it up that way in the first place? It would have been much easier at that time then it is now more then 200 years later.
For the most part the Bill of Rights and the Constitution puts limits on what government can do to and for the people. It just seems that if they actualy thought that is was OK to forcibly take my property away from me and give it to others that they would have mentioned it a little more specificaly then with the general welfare clause.
Also if anything they would have left something like health care up to the individual states, which I am OK with as long as long as one states money pit doesn't suck the money out of another.
..... huh? .....
So let me get this straight. You believe that the Constitution actually requires the government to provide health care for its citizens when it is stated implicitly (using your example from above for the sake of argument). And at the same time you don't believe there is an individual right to arm ourselves, which is stated explicitly (in the Bill of Rights)?
Am I missing something or is that a little inconsistent?
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
|
|
|
tabletop
Frequent Poster
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 5:56:59 PM
|
| I can't speak for anyone else but other than a smoker blowing smoke my way I personally only question the need to wear a loaded concealed firearm to the Fair. Is this society getting that paranoid? Do you wear it to church? Can you state any GOOD reason to have it at the fair? |
|
|
|
Shutesie
Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 8:57:28 PM
|
"But is that what they meant?" - Shutesie
I don't believe that they meant for the government to create a Healthcare System but remember it wasn't until the 1800's that germs were discovered. The first vaccinations for small pox in 1796. Healthcare as we know it didn't exist. I would suggest that if we knew then what we know now about healthcare it might be treated more like having a police department or a fire department. They both protect the people but are in my view socialist in nature. They are government run industries that no one seems to have a problem with. In fact private industries have been created to support the government run ones. Healthcare could be viewed in a similar light as protecting the citizens from disease.
Again "I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THEY MEANT". I was just reading the constitution and making an observation based on definitions of the words used
promote meaning "To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing" and welfare meaning "health".
Eminent domain (ED) is an inherent attribute of sovereignty, and the Fifth Amendment's Taking or Just Compensation clause only imposes limitations on its exercise; i.e., the taking must be for public use and just compensation must be paid. Some historians have suggested that these limitations on the taking power were inspired by the need to permit the army to secure mounts, fodder and provisions from local ranchers and the perceived need to assure them compensation for such takings. Similarly, soldiers forcibly sought housing in whatever homes were near their military assignments. To address the latter problem, the 3rd Amendment was enacted in 1791 as part of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. It provided that the quartering of soldiers on private property could not take place in peacetime without the landowner's consent. It also required that, in wartime, established law had to be followed in housing troops on private property. Presumably, this would mandate "just compensation", a requirement for the exercise of eminent domain in general per the 5th Amendment to the Constitution [2] In addition, all US states have legislation specifying ED procedures within their respective territories - wikipedia
"So let me get this straight. You believe that the Constitution actually requires the government to provide health care for its citizens when it is stated implicitly (using your example from above for the sake of argument). And at the same time you don't believe there is an individual right to arm ourselves, which is stated explicitly (in the Bill of Rights)?"
When did I say that you couldn't bear arms?
Actually my reading of that particular right might seem a little paranoid to some people.
I have seen arguments made that the 2nd amendment was to allow people to have guns to hunt, protect from crime or so that they could be a militia available for the government when needed. My view is that the founders were very aware that past government had limited people's access to weapons as means of controlling the people. If you look at the original bill of rights they are all limits on government so why you have the second right be one were you are creating a militia to help the government seems odd to me. The real reason for the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" was for the protection FROM the federal government.
Find a label for me! Good luck. LOL
|
Edited by - Shutesie on 07/10/2010 11:03:29 PM |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 9:06:49 PM
|
quote:
I can't speak for anyone else but other than a smoker blowing smoke my way I personally only question the need to wear a loaded concealed firearm to the Fair.
Carrying a loaded weapon anywhere, for me, is like carrying insurance. I have it in the hope that I will never have to use it.
Essentially my philosophy can be summed up in two sentences, which are "I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it."
quote:
Is this society getting that paranoid?
I can't speak for society. All I can tell you is that I feel much better about my wife walking at Meyer Broadway park knowing that if she were ever attacked she would not have to pull out her phone and call for help and then wait for the police to get there. Instead she can pull out her 9 and make said attacker wish he had picked another career.
Does that make me paranoid? I don't think so.
quote:
Do you wear it to church?
I have a couple of times in the past. Church's are one place where you cannot conceal carry without explicit permission from the facilitator.
quote:
Can you state any GOOD reason to have it at the fair?
As I said it is an insurance policy. Can you state any GOOD reason that I shouldn't have it at the fair?
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
|
|
|
tabletop
Frequent Poster
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 9:33:55 PM
|
| I asked first. |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 11:27:41 PM
|
And I answered. It is my insurance policy, which covers my right to self protect at the fair grounds. Hypotheticaly of course because the fair board doesn't allow people to protect themselves.
Shutesie it is getting late and I want to think about your last post some more before responding. Although I have to say on first read I didn't have very much to disagree with.
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
|
|
|
silentTRobserver
Frequent Poster
770 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2010 : 10:31:08 PM
|
Oh dear, here we go again with the Constitution and how our forebears set up our government. Ok, if we want to return to the days when the Constitution was written, let's do away with all the things we've learned since then, and the improvement they've made in the lives of ordinary people, which means that about everyone who subscribes to this site would have been a farm worker or servant to someone much richer, with a lot fewer choices in how they lived their daily lives.
Let's throw out all the medical advances we've made; destroy all the cars and electronics; let's dismantle all the power stations; and national grids; do away with all the cars and trucks; and let's just stick to the Constitution as it was written and run government 'the way it was intended'!
Not what you want - thought not! While everyone carps on about the interference of government and rules, just remember, most of them have evolved because our society EVOLVED - and there was a need to put parameters on how we deal with that evolvement. (Think baby food and melamine!) AND, if people exercised moderation and self control a lot of those itty bitty detailed laws could've been curtailed.
That's pretty much what the Founding Fathers did when they set up the Constitution and Congress- they set it up to deal with the changes they were facing, and their way of life, and the future they wanted.
Like it or not - the world has moved on and we're either going to move with it and adjust some of our more archaic ideas, OR we're going to sit on our dignity and demand that we turn the clock back 3 centuries.
What we really need federally, is what we need in the state - a Constitutional Convention to revise forward our previous Constitution so that it is more in tune with today's world, and which also allows us to deal with present day problems in a present day way - not one that is tied to a century where those problems did not exist.
|
|
|
|
Shutesie
Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 3:46:54 PM
|
I don't think there is anything wrong with asking ourselves what they meant by their words. It gives us a starting point to make adjustments, which is how they set it up. If we understand them than we will be able to better understand ourselves.
I don't think that we would be living in the stone age if you were still following the constitution as written but I do think that we are better country by reading into some of the things they wrote. We also know that some of the things they allowed - slavery - were done just so we would have a country to begin with. That's one reason it bothers me the way the Republicans have been since Obama took office - voting no on almost everything. Nothing will happen if we expect to get everything we want and to never compromise. Our entire system of government is a lesson in compromise.
I think a Constitutional Convention at the federal level is a really bad idea. I think that 230+ years of relative success as a nation means they got it mostly right. I have no faith in anyone currently in government to do a better job than they did. I also believe that to many of the electorate are unable to look at the big picture and they focus too much on "me". I kind of like the simplicity of the original. It makes it easier to - how shall I say it 'rock the boat'. I imagine a constitution written today would read -
The party of the first part when speaking to the party of the second part as defined in paragraph 9 section a subsection 2
A too rigidly written document would I think be too difficult to live by |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2010 : 5:58:50 PM
|
I have been meaning to come back to this thread and post again but the more I thought about it the more I thought that that I didn't have anything more to add. So I am going to let it stand as it is and again I thank you for the back and forth on this one.
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
|
|
|
Shutesie
Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 4:59:33 PM
|
| Thank you too! |
|
|
|
cuzimrite
Frequent Poster
922 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 10:47:04 AM
|
| Da nada... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Legislation introduced to allow smoking in VFW
