Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Si modo, Aug 3, 2012.
I agree there is a subjective root to the fundamentals of our Founding Principles. Personally, I intended the discussion to be based on the assumption that our inherent rights guaranteed to us all in the Constitution are given laws, then examine what laws we pass from that point on.
I do see what your saying, but it is a bit more ethereal than I intended.
It only stifles the business that it affect. There is a qualifier though; some businesses have nothing to do with each other so that a regulation that hurts a number of businesses does not mean that it is picking winners and losers though many times it is the case. There is also the fact that not allowing a business to dump toxic waste in a river might affect who wins and loses but it is not the regulation that has caused this. The regulation is just preventing others from paying the price of that particular businesses winning.
I would add here that you are misusing the term picking winners and losers in this instance though as I would understand it. When I rail against this concept (and I believe most here see it the same way as I do) it is when regulations are written or money is given to the benefit of one business specifically but denied others. A good example of this is the bailouts when large banks were given billions and smaller ones simply allowed to fail. Why the big ones were given that treatment: they have more to donate
I was not trying to accuse you of any derailment, I just wanted to know if you were making a greater point here that I had missed.
All exist regardless of regulation, do they not?
While I agree with every part of my being that murder and theft are inherently bad - a truth, not subjective - I'm trying to move the discussion beyond that.
Again, a bit off topic, in almost every culture and even almost all micro-societies, there are common taboos. Some things are just inherently bad.
We can't really get beyond it. You state it as your hypothesis.
The simplest way to do that, I think is concede that the basis for our law (the constitution) and all the rights contained therein might well be subjective. That is meaningless to the original point IMHO. If we take law as based off that then the law is NOT subjective beyond the original basis. IOW, the right to life might be subjective BUT laws against murder are not if we take the original right as a given.
"Oddball", is a name, subjective? NO? Could therefore be considered name calling
Again I would disagree. The right as a given is still a value based concept thus subjective.
I would say that to get beyond it, the hypothesis should accept that laws are subjective but application of law can be and should be objective.
There will always be conflict between governments efforts to enact legislation both necessary and proper and the individual's right to liberty; and for the most part this is a desirable aspect of a free society.
It is incumbent upon government to enact legislation it believes in good faith to be Constitutional, and it is presumed to be such until determined otherwise in a court of law.
It is likewise incumbent upon each citizen to push back against government excess and compel the state to justify a given measure, that an actual and legitimate governmental interest exists, and require the state to objectively document its rationale.
The legislation passed concerning military funerals, for example, was as much political pandering as feel good legislation, if not more so.
The government isnt seizing the business, the CPSC, part of the Executive Branch, filed an administrative complaint seeking the product not be sold because of possible health risks:
Nor is the CPSC violating the Constitution, as the complaint was filed pursuant to Federal law, as cited. The company in question will have ample opportunity to defend its position during the complaint process.
Separate names with a comma.