RE: Dominance in other Countries?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Dominance in other Countries?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Dominance in other Countries?

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 9 [10]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/16/2008 6:56:36 AM

hardbodysub

Posts: 1654
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

Eight years of religious zealot conservatism in power has a lot of people nervous about being visited by men in black suits.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but it's the left which curtails your personal rights under the guise of helping you "do what's good for you" (anti-smoking laws, fast food laws, gun laws, etc.), and limiting your rights associated with private property (see Kelo vs. New London).

The truth of the matter is that we are not a sympathetic constituency to either side, and it's dangerous to think that one side, or the other, is our "friend". The best government is that which governs the least.

John

Not quite on the mark, Rover. The restrictions advocated by the left are of a public nature. Anti-smoking laws don't say you can't smoke, only where you can do it so that you don't harm someone else. Gun laws are also intended to protect the public, not impose restrictions on what you do in private. The right, on the other hand, tries to restrict private behavior, based on their own concept of morality. Big difference there.

As to "the best government is that which governs the least", it's a catchy phrase, and has a lot of merit, but if you interpret it literally, it doesn't stand up to hard scrutiny. Governing the least would be akin to anarchy. Not many people would agree that anarchy is best.

(in reply to Rover)

Profile

Post #: 181

RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/16/2008 7:00:24 AM

hardbodysub

Posts: 1654
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

Well, good. It would be interesting to read other opinions.

My opinion is that when Thomas Jefferson penned these words -

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State."-

that the wall he writes of is two-sided. A wall keeps things out as well as keeps them in. Government should not push itself into religion anymore than religion should push itself into Government.

Well said, BitaTruble!

(in reply to BitaTruble)

Profile

Post #: 182

RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/16/2008 11:45:33 AM

Rover

Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub

Not quite on the mark, Rover. The restrictions advocated by the left are of a public nature. Anti-smoking laws don't say you can't smoke, only where you can do it so that you don't harm someone else.

And that would be valid, if it were limited to public property (where the public has a vested interest). But they are not.

quote:

Gun laws are also intended to protect the public, not impose restrictions on what you do in private.

First, that is misguided "protection" as they prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and others. And gun laws in many areas (such as Washington, DC) do indeed restrict what you can do in private... it's not legal to own or possess a gun in DC... not publicly... or privately. Sorry, that explanation just isn't true.

quote:

The right, on the other hand, tries to restrict private behavior, based on their own concept of morality. Big difference there.

Both left and right restrict what we may do privately... in and on our privately owned property. If you read my statement to be an absolution of the right, you were mistaken, and did not read the entirety of this thread.

quote:

As to "the best government is that which governs the least", it's a catchy phrase, and has a lot of merit, but if you interpret it literally, it doesn't stand up to hard scrutiny. Governing the least would be akin to anarchy. Not many people would agree that anarchy is best.

Rest easy, my friend. We're in no danger of anarchy. Not by a long shot.

And the catchy phrase has plenty of merit... literally... without advocating anarchy. It just depends upon how you interpret "least". Most constitutionalists would say that it means the least amount of government to ensure our Constitutional rights and provide for our common defense. If it were intended to mean anarchy, they would not have set about to form a government at all.

By way of example, take a few moments to read our Constitution. It's amazing in its brevity and clarity. Now compare that to something as "simple" as your local leash laws and it becomes evident that we are overly governed and micromanaged. Is it any wonder that over 70 % of all the world's lawyers live in the US?

John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to hardbodysub)

Profile

Post #: 183