Page 8 of 8 [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

luanqibazao
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner

14 Mar 2014, 7:23 am

sonofghandi wrote:
By your definition, there is no one in the DC political arena advocating a rule of law.


Sad but true.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

15 Mar 2014, 5:45 pm

luanqibazao wrote:
Limits based on the principle of individual rights = rule of law.
Limits based on arbitrary whims and primitive superstitions = rule of men.

What, you think "law" is some sort of divine code that exists independent of humanity?
:roll:
Quote:
The onus is on you to explain exactly how private behavior such as we are discussing poses a threat to anybody else.

It's not just private behavior. Why set up toilets in private stalls? Why not set out urinals in public? Who is harmed when a man flashes people, or for that matter masturbates in public?
There are codes of behavior in any civilization, and that's a part of what makes civilization possible. There are things that are acceptable in the country (letting your dog poop on public property without picking it up) that are not acceptable in urban areas, because the press of people (and dogs) makes the cumulative consequences greater.

Quote:
Can you think in principles? Once you grant the State the power to control private, non-rights-violating behavior, where do you draw the line, and on what principle?

Can you think in principles? Once you deny society the right to regulate disturbing but not directly, individually harmful behavior, where do you draw the line, and on what principle?
Quote:
I said 'force or fraud,' but arguably fraud also involves the indirect use of force. So, no.

See above. So, the people who urinate next to my dojo's doorway aren't committing a crime, as far as you're concerned?
Quote:
If inflicted by the State, name one.
Fines or behavioral prohibitions (revocation of licenses, etc), without the theoretical threat of force behind them.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,047
Location: Reading, England

15 Mar 2014, 6:35 pm

LKL, I think you probably need to take a step back. You disagree with luanqi, fair enough, but now you are equating soft drugs, gay marriage and Sunday trading with public masturbation. I am fairly sure you support decriminalising soft drugs and legalising gay marriage, and I would be surprised if you are a vocal supporter of Sunday trading laws. Essentially, I get the impression you're arguing on ideological grounds, rather than what you actually believe in.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

15 Mar 2014, 8:11 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
. . . conservative stereotypes are just more inherently dislikable than the liberal ones and that accounts for some of the hate gap. The other prong of my argument is that I don't think a lot of liberals give conservatives the good faith that they should, e.g. presuming that someone who opposes a particular welfare program does so because they hate the poor rather than they think it's inefficient or fosters dependency;


A lesson in irony for liberals.

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."

Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

We aren't wild animals, we are domesticated. We created a system where it's no longer viable in most places to hunt and gather your own food. It's clearly hate for the poor, since conservatives think nothing of wasting billions on the military, redundant spy agencies, tax breaks for their rich cronies, and laws that enable money to be sheltered from taxes. They demonize the poor by pointing to unrepresentative example of people abusing the system. So what if a tiny minority of people are dependent? Is that such a bad thing? Forget minimum wage, everyone should get a minimum salary from the government, so that poverty is eliminated. If we don't have to worry about getting basic needs met, we can spend more time on creative endeavors, and making the world a better place. We have the money to do this. A freaking High School in one state was able to raise 60 million dollars from the public to build a football stadium. Imagine if we really cared about education, we could eliminate a big cause of poverty. But we aren't interested in doing that, just blaming the victims.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

15 Mar 2014, 8:23 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
LKL, I think you probably need to take a step back. You disagree with luanqi, fair enough, but now you are equating soft drugs, gay marriage and Sunday trading with public masturbation. I am fairly sure you support decriminalising soft drugs and legalising gay marriage, and I would be surprised if you are a vocal supporter of Sunday trading laws. Essentially, I get the impression you're arguing on ideological grounds, rather than what you actually believe in.

you are absolutely correct about what I support, but luanqi has made this about the concept of what laws can and cannot regulate, rather than about the specific issues. It is not about the specific issues, but about whether or not the state has a right to regulate "private behavior."
My point is that what the state legitimately regulates is not always just about harming other people or about whether they're only doing something to their own body.