subbysubsubsub
Posts: 41
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
If you took my statement to mean that the right does not also curtain rights, allow me to disabuse you of that notion. I took issue with the curtailment of rights as being exclusively assigned to the right, and provided a few examples thereof. Government curtails our rights... politicians curtail our rights... regardless of their party... because they want to be perceived as "doing something" even if that something turns out to be the wrong thing. It is a product of having convinced people to look to the government to cure all the ills of society.
Read carefully. Never did I say the left does not also curtail personal rights. In fact, I'm surprised that you missed my 2nd sentence stating quite clearly that "both the left and right curtail personal rights." The rest of your response contradicts your first statement. Previously, you stated quite matter of factly: "it's the left which curtails your personal right." Now I see you've broadened that to the "government...regardless of their party." Hmm...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
None of us chooses to have our rights curtailed. Unfortunately, a sizeable number of us does not object to having someone else's rights curtailed. And sooner or later, their own ox is gored.
People who vote for politicians seeking to limit choices concerning our bodies, our personal beliefs, etc implicitly choose to have their rights curtailed concerning these matters.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
Please don't tell me that we needed government to tell us that eating ten Big Macs a day was bad for our health. There were always a proliferation of healthier choices. What you're advocating is that government should tip the scale in favor of choices that it thinks are better for you. And that's fine so long as you agree.
But how about when the government decides that abortions are bad for you. I think you'll take issue with that. Or if government decides that prayer in school is good for you. I bet you won't like that.
And that's the point... once you advocate and justify government to do things you agree with, you've already set the stage and justified its use of governmental influence to do things you don't agree with. You cannot have one without the other.
I cannot speak for everyone, but I don't want government making any of those decisions for me. I'll decide for myself what is good for me, and what is not.
Again, please read carefully. How does making available more information and choices for the public to see and decide on for themselves equate to the government deciding what's good or bad for you?? I'm concerned about your sweeping generalizations and assumptions. Where is the support for this?
In terms of school prayer and abortion, I'm going to stick with my point that you missed (again), and state that there should be choices. Parents/children should be able to choose between options. Some schools have a "moment of silence" in which students can CHOOSE to do anything from homework, pray, sleep, etc. That's what I'm advocating for --choices!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
Yes, they do. They infringe upon the property rights of American citizens. The folks who own bars and restaurants are no longer free to do what they want in the confines of their own property. It's no different than telling you what you can and can't do inside your own home. And that's coming... because you've already established the precendent for it.
You may think you're "doing good", but the unintended consequences, although not unforseeable, do more harm than good.
It's not as simple as you might think. There are issues concerning employee's rights and whether they have a right to work in a healthy environment where they're not exposed to secondhand smoke.
Another issue: if you establish a place of business that's open to the general public, there are liability issues concerning their safety and well-being. For instance, if someone injures themselves in your place of business and it's reasonable that an injury could have occurred, you may face liability issues.
Yet another issue: your place of business is NOT equal to your own home as your reply suggests. Your place of business is subject to a much higher degree of scrutiny than your own home. For instance, if your place of business is a place of public accommodation or a place of entertainment, you are subject to laws that don't apply in your own home. Restaurants, bars, and nightclubs apply. Property rights do not apply across the board for all properties.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
You do not have a right to be in a privately owned property. You have no right to be in a restaurant or bar. An owner can refuse you entry for any reason at all, or no reason, and you have no recourse. It is their property to do with as they please, and you have no more right of entry or use at their place of business than you do in their home.
You could not be more wrong. I have every right to be in a restaurant or bar thanks to the good old Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prevents owners from refusing "[me] entry for any reason at all" according to you. See U. S. v. DeRosier, 473 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1973).
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
As it relates to publicly owned property, I agree. As it relates to privately owned property, you are under no obligation to enter if the environment does not suit you.
As long as it's not a public place of business.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
You are asking the government to elevate one person's choice not to smoke over another person's choice to smoke in property the government does not own. That necessitates the removal of that smoker's rights. Even if that smoker is the property owner.
See my earlier responses.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
And non-smokers can choose to go where owners allow smoking, or they can choose to go where owners do not allow smoking. How are they denied choice? The only choice you want to deny is that of the smoker... you want to ensure that there is no place that allows smoking.
Please don't put words into my mouth. "you want to ensure that there is no place that allows smoking." Again, sweeping generalizations. I never uttered such a thing.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
And that's fine in public places. But what gives you the right to do so on private property? Just because you don't like the other choices people make? Heck, you've now justified the idiots that want to deny Leather folk the right to engage in BDSM... because they don't like it... because it's not good for us... for whatever reason they like. You are no different... no better than... the Moral Majority. Nice company you keep.
Okay, it's quite clear to me that you're basing most, if not all of your arguments under the fallacy that owners of private property can do whatever they please on their property. This does not apply to places of public accommodation or places of entertainment. Since, we're talking about anti-smoking laws, which regulate bars, restaurants, clubs, nightclubs, etc, (all of which apply under places of public accommodation/entertainment) what you say has no merit. We're not talking about a person's place of residence.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
In the Kelo vs. New London case (and countless cases since the precedent was set) the court affirmed New London, CT in their right to take a private home and give it to a private developer. It wasn't used for a highway, or ballpark. They took one person's property and gave it to another. Please tell me how you justify that.
Again, read carefully. I did not say I validate eminent domain in all cases. I said it depends on what it's used for, whom it will benefit, and to what extent. If the conveyance resulted in a greater good for the neighborhood in terms of generating revenue, increasing property value, etc, then yes, maybe the court was justified. BUT this is a blurred line because it's hard to estimate the future benefit before it actually occurs, and it's always easy to go back and validate or dismiss what you once believed was right.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
I sense no understanding or agreement of Libertarian views in your post.
John
My response was not about libertarianism which probably explains the confusion. It doesn't bother me that you don't agree with my views. But it's clear that you didn't read my response carefully.
< Message edited by subbysubsubsub -- 10/29/2008 7:03:26 PM >
|
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 
Profile
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread