Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
There are laws against endangering others such as driving under the influence laws. A person can get drunk off their ass so long as they don't drive or create a public nuisance. There are laws against speeding but a person can drive 200 mph on a race track. There are laws against flying an airplane too low over a city but you can skip the grass when flying over the country.
The government has the duty to legislate reasonable laws that protect the public from the acts of the individual but we don't ban alcohol or automobiles or airplanes.
|
Reasonable laws? So am I to understand that other laws are unreasonable? Well once again, this is all as stated by
your terms, but that doesn't make them so. That's the whole idea. Your individualistic interpretation does not equate what is best for this society, Shiva. This is not "every man for himself land" so people don't get to do whatever they want without consequence. I believe that's called
anarchy... Yeah... It's no fun. This nation's government was created with an establish balance between the government and the governed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
This was probably the stupidest statement made by Kennedy and maybe of all time. The government is the servant of the People, the People are not the servants of the government.
|
No, Kennedy was a patriot, and just like the framers of the Constitution who fought for this nation, Kennedy also fought for this nation. Kennedy knew exactly what he was saying, but it seems you don't understand that a society cannot exist without a government, Shiva. Likewise, a government cannot exist without the governed populace. Without the other factor, each becomes useless and no longer retains any value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
The prohibition of any action that does not directly infringe upon the rights of others violates the liberty of the people. Social engineering, such as the banning of drugs is not only unconstitutional but a violation of the liberty of the people to pursue life as they see fit.
|
I've already addressed this. It's no different than speeding in an automobile. It's illegal because it's unnecessarily risky. The government makes decisions like these because as the central authority and the only true preventative against
anarchy, the government is also the only thing that can enforce and protect your "unalienable" rights. Shiva, without government authority, your "unalienable rights" mean nothing because there's no one to enforce them but
you. Likewise there would be no one to enforce the "unalienable rights" of anyone else without a government. Therefore what would "unalienable rights" be? Nothing more than two meaningless words that people would trample over. That's the root of anarchy and that's not how this society works. If that's what you're looking for, frankly you're in the wrong country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
I can assure you of this fact, I am a far better judge of what is good for me and you are a far better judge of what is good for you than the federal government.
|
I can assure you that as long as you live in this American society, you must give authority to the government or else your rights will not be enforceable anyway... That's one of the primary purposes of government. So you may disagree with the government's ideas, you may balk at their legislative decision on simple selfish indulgences that have no major effect on life (by definition), but unless you have the desire and finances to start your own commune, or unless you wish to start living a very anarchical and blatantly illegal life, you're going to have to accept--just like the rest of us--that the balance between the government's authority to protect the people's rights and to determine what the people
have as rights must be maintained, or else there will be nothing to prevent chaos--in which case your "rights" won't mean anything anyway. Shiva, this is something you will not be able to win. We do not need drugs for survival. Drugs negatively impact the lives of those around those who use them--therefore violating their
rights as given to them by this government, and by the context of this society, that's
more than enough to make a firm case against them.