- This topic has 102 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by .
-
Posts
-
“Again, individualism isn’t anti-rule and has nothing to do with government. It’s a philosophical school associated with people like Ralph Waldo Emmerson. It has no shaychus to anything you’re saying.”
We’ve been discussing this for over a month
In one of your first comments to me you wrote “Any crimes where the victims cannot functionally stick up for themselves (child abuse, animal abuse, elder abuse, poisoning a town’s water supply) are good arguments you could use against me”
I thought you were arguing that you oppose all government rulesI first brought up drunk driving 12/26, admittedly you never said otherwise. you did say “I’m b’klal anti-government …Probably because I’m not really a libertarian. They would concede to the “usefulness” of government a lot earlier than I would in this conversation” and that you were “Closer to an Anarchist…. but I have my priorities. Some parts of government more urgently need to be dissolved than others”
“If someone is willing to take the risk of killing himself and/or other people, it isn’t a traffic ticket that’s going to stop him…they’re punitive not preventative.”
Of course they’re preventative, if a person is driving drunk, they can (and often are) stoped BEFORE they harm someone .
and this is orne out by data*. And many drunk people think thye are “good drivers” even drunk , and arent afraid of accidents thye are more afraid of losing their license.I agree regarding your federal government distinction.
I’m fine getting rid of NASA, though the problem is who decides who the “bad guys “are
Some say those banning drunk driving are the bad guys ., well too bad on those unenlightened simpletons. Of course if they convince enough people that drunk driving is good (or that laws dont help) then well get rid of the laws
ditto for NASA*Kane, J. M., Wickizer, T. M., Sorensen, G., Boudreau, D., & Wells, K. (2019). Association of State Alcohol Laws With Motor Vehicle Crash Mortality in the United States, 2000-2015. JAMA Internal Medicine.
Neville > Because if I’m going to have a state that can coerce me into giving it money and being subjected to its will, then I want it to be as limited as possible. States are free to “compete” by giving us even more rights that what the Constitution guarantees, but I see no advantage to the consumer in them being able to give less.
Constitution gives certain rights to the Feds. The rest is between States and people (or towns). States can not give you _more_ rights. That is, if Feds can regulate interstate commerce, they have it whatever the States say. What happened from 14th Amendment and on, the rights of the states are minimal – both Feds and People got more. On a positive side, we live in a reasonably free country and enjoying a lot of rights. On the negative side, we lost the ability of individual states to implement different systems of government, whether in culture or in economics. I am calling your attention that a large portion of current political wars could be resolved by doing it differently in different states.
> That’s a cute way of justifying only using the parts of the Constitution that serve your shittah, but it’s a nonsensical distinction. You now have to also ignore the Constitution’s ability to be amended so that you can justify ignoring all amendments, but to do so would ignore part of what you call the “ikar.”
I am not calling for a revolution. I am suggesting using existing political process to favor restoration of state powers where possible, The fact that such system existed – and had certain flaws that led to civil war – makes it easier to analyze. If you consider original American idea a success, then you’d pay attention to the lessons and maybe go read federalist papers. If you follow modernishe view that the country was founded on aveiros only, then you’d advocate for a federal government that will solve all the problems. I don’t think this is your shitah.
Also NC
“I agree there should be rules against drunk driving (not sure why you keep saying I say otherwise)”
I keep saying otherwise because, 1)when ifirst brought it up (and the many times since) you never said you agree with me on that issue, so seems fair to assume you dont and 2) you are opposed to any restrictions on weapons including nuclear weapons it seems a bit funny to defend peron’s right to but a dirty bomb but not to drive drunk. I can come up with a few distictions, so definitly not a stirah or anything, just a bit funny
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.