How Libertarians Win Friends And Influence People With Their Positions on the Civil War - Page 144 - Politics and Economics

I respect that you believe this, but I disagree. We have different ideas of what a "right" is. Also, the people who wrote the Constitution did not believe what you believe, and the Constitution must be interpreted based on their beliefs in what they were writing, not yours.

The people who wrote the Constitution believed all sorts of stupid **** that doesn't apply to 21st century society. Adapting our lives to their ideals just because they wrote something down 200 years ago is idiotic.

07-17-2013 , 05:35 PM

#3577

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

I agree?

But the Constitution is the law, and it is a law that we have the power to change. Allowing the government to ignore the law because you don't like what the law says is unacceptable when you can change the law, especially when the entire point of that law is to prevent the government from tyrannizing and trampling over the people. If you don't like it, make an amendment. If people agree with you, it will change.

07-17-2013 , 05:53 PM

#3578

MissileDog

a good little dog

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 5,581

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexM

I agree?

But the Constitution is the law, and it is a law that we have the power to change... If you don't like it, make an amendment. If people agree with you, it will change.

So IYO... people who are in favor of state level secession should attempt to make an amendment legalizing such. Until such time the Constitution is the law, and state level secession is illegal... amirite?

07-17-2013 , 06:00 PM

#3579

JimAfternoon

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 6,903

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

There is no such thing as an inherent right. Rights only exist when they are granted by other people.

lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

lol

I hope you're trolling.

07-17-2013 , 06:20 PM

#3580

mpethybridge

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 16,997

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

There's no Constitutional right to secession.

So we can **** can abortion rights then? You just made a huge number of friends on the Christian right, imo.

Last edited by mpethybridge; 07-17-2013 at 06:27 PM.

07-17-2013 , 06:41 PM

#3581

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimAfternoon

lol

lol

I hope you're trolling.

Feel free to describe any inherent rights you think you have that do not rely on being granted by others (specifically governments) to be meaningful. You may not appeal to religion in the completion of this exercise.

07-17-2013 , 06:50 PM

#3582

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

So we can **** can abortion rights then? You just made a huge number of friends on the Christian right, imo.

Pretty terrible argument, imo. There can be an unwritten right to privacy while there are other things that are unwritten and not rights.

07-17-2013 , 06:51 PM

#3583

mpethybridge

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 16,997

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

Feel free to describe any inherent rights you think you have that do not rely on being granted by others (specifically governments) to be meaningful. You may not appeal to religion in the completion of this exercise.

lol, the existence of God, and his grant to people of inherent rights, is a predicate of the United States' system of government. You may disagree, and that's fine, but it is THE assumption on which our government is based.

07-17-2013 , 06:57 PM

#3584

mpethybridge

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 16,997

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Pretty terrible argument, imo. There can be an unwritten right to privacy while there are other things that are unwritten and not rights.

Nope.

If your argument against secession is that it is not a right granted by the constitution, then your argument implicitly assumes the Constitution contains a list of all rights, and privacy is not one of them.

If your argument is that some things not in the text are rights, but others are not, then saying "it's not in the Constitution" is not instructive at all about whether there is a right of secession.

07-17-2013 , 07:02 PM

#3585

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

They seemed to rely more on natural rights than god, but that doesn't make them any more real. If your argument is that the US system of government was built on a faulty philosophical premise in an ad hoc manner, I agree. But if we take that step, arguments to Constitutional originalism or whatever lose a whole lot of strength.

07-17-2013 , 07:03 PM

#3586

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

Where does the constitution mention god?

07-17-2013 , 07:09 PM

#3587

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Where does the constitution mention god?

With the right to secession.

07-17-2013 , 07:11 PM

#3588

mpethybridge

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 16,997

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Where does the constitution mention god?

straw man. try again?

07-17-2013 , 07:14 PM

#3589

mpethybridge

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 16,997

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

With the right to secession.

This is actually correct. They are both absent for the same reason; because they are underlying assumptions.

If you think the Constitution needs to contain a right of secession in order for one to exist (or a right to abortion for that matter) then you don't understand the structure of our federal system.

07-17-2013 , 07:14 PM

#3590

JimAfternoon

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 6,903

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

Wow, so you're serious.

I suggest reading Locke, I'/m not going to rehash all his stuff and I wouldn't do as good of a job anyway.

I take it you support slavery? Murder? Do you have a right not to be murdered on a desert island?

07-17-2013 , 07:15 PM

#3591

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Err, how can it be a straw man?

The constitution is the foundation of the system of government in the United States so if the existence of god and the rights that god bestows onto people is a fundamental part of the system of government you would assume they may have mentioned god at some point in it.

07-17-2013 , 07:16 PM

#3592

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

This, of course, sells short the reasoning underlying the Roe decision.

07-17-2013 , 07:19 PM

#3593

JimAfternoon

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 6,903

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

lol

07-17-2013 , 07:20 PM

#3594

mpethybridge

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 16,997

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

You say this because you don't understand the purpose of the US Constitution.

The sole purpose of the US Constitution was for the states to make a limited grant of their inherent sovereignty as independent nation states to a new organization being created to receive that limited grant of power. There was no reason to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of their beliefs. lol.

07-17-2013 , 07:26 PM

#3595

mpethybridge

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 16,997

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

This, of course, sells short the reasoning underlying the Roe decision.

Either you're a strict constructionist or you're not. I can find an emanating penumbra supporting secession much more easily than the Roe Court found one for privacy, to-wit: every single word of the constitution implies or states explicitly that in areas not specifically mentioned in the constitution, such as secession, the states retain their full sovereignty.

Last edited by mpethybridge; 07-17-2013 at 07:38 PM.

07-17-2013 , 07:58 PM

#3596

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimAfternoon

Wow, so you're serious.

I suggest reading Locke, I'/m not going to rehash all his stuff and I wouldn't do as good of a job anyway.

Why should I accept a 17th century philosopher's take as the end of the discussion? Are you not aware that the field has progressed in subsequent centuries? ffs, alchemy was still a thing when Locke wrote that stuff. Libertarians do themselves no favors at all when they appeal to philosophy while demonstrating total ignorance of the field after ~1850.

Quote:

I take it you support slavery? Murder? Do you have a right not to be murdered on a desert island?

No, no, and not really. I don't need the concept of natural rights to find the first two wrong, and an inalienable right to life has never been accepted by any society in the history of history.

07-17-2013 , 08:15 PM

#3597

JimAfternoon

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 6,903

So what has replaced Locke's theory since 1850, iyo?

07-17-2013 , 08:17 PM

#3598

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

I'm not going to teach you philosophy. Do your own homework.

07-17-2013 , 08:26 PM

#3599

JimAfternoon

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 6,903

That's what I figured.

07-17-2013 , 08:45 PM

#3600

mpethybridge

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 16,997

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

Why should I accept a 17th century philosopher's take as the end of the discussion?

Because it ended the discussion?

Heh, that's a little smart ass, but for constitutional purposes, it pretty much did.

However influential later philosophers might be in academia, the fact remains that you'd need a constitutional convention to jettison Locke in the US.

Page 144 of 150

First

44 94 124 134 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

Last

...

Page 144 of 150

First

44 94 124 134 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

Last