The Not So Gradual Erosion of the 4th Amendment at the Hands of Well Intentioned Laws

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know that all those 'rules' can be blamed solely on the left, but blame whoever you wish. There is a BIG difference between authoritarianism and consumer protection and laws that protect humans from carcinogens ...it is called DEATH you moron.

"My hero is St. Francis of Assisi because he understood the connection between spirituality and the environment. He understood the way God communicates to us most forcefully is through the fish, the birds and the trees and that it is a sin to destroy those things."
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Consumer protection is another name for liberal authoritarianism.

I do not need to be protected from my decisions and choices, and the authoritarians who think I do are all liberals.

WOW, are you THAT self absorbed, narcissistic and obtuse...REALLY? This world exists just for YOU at your convenience? Guess what pea brain, YOU are the authoritarian. Maybe you don't need protection, but what gives YOU the right to make choices for others? If you want to smoke 10 packs of cigarettes every hour, go for it, but WHO is responsible if your second hand smoke kills some kid that is forced to accept YOUR inconvenience as THEIR death sentence. Even if you commit suicide it would not bring back that other person, whose right you violated.

You've got to be kidding me...

Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.
Thomas Jefferson

Nothing, which is why I don't make them. I allow everyone to make whatever choices they want to, until those choices start impacting my ability to choose. Laws that are designed to protect people from their choices by restricting those choices are, and always will be, authoritarian. If people do not want to be around people who smoke, then stay away from places where people smoke.

An interesting aspect of this whole thing is I do not smoke. I hate being around people who smoke, and always have. I am also smart enough to think that I do not have the right to tell people that they do not have the right to smoke on their own property, even if they want to run a business. Before the liberal authoritarians ran around outlawing smoking I spent my money at businesses that accommodated my preferences, and allowed smokers to spend theirs at places that accommodated theirs. That is the real difference between a liberal and an authoritarian, a liberal lets people make their own choices.

The collective is never, repeat never, about liberty. If you really understood what Jefferson meant by that quote you posted you would have been ashamed to use it in an attempt to justify collectivism.

 

[Bfgrn]

Consumer protection is another name for liberal authoritarianism.

I do not need to be protected from my decisions and choices, and the authoritarians who think I do are all liberals.

WOW, are you THAT self absorbed, narcissistic and obtuse...REALLY? This world exists just for YOU at your convenience? Guess what pea brain, YOU are the authoritarian. Maybe you don't need protection, but what gives YOU the right to make choices for others? If you want to smoke 10 packs of cigarettes every hour, go for it, but WHO is responsible if your second hand smoke kills some kid that is forced to accept YOUR inconvenience as THEIR death sentence. Even if you commit suicide it would not bring back that other person, whose right you violated.

You've got to be kidding me...

Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.
Thomas Jefferson

Nothing, which is why I don't make them. I allow everyone to make whatever choices they want to, until those choices start impacting my ability to choose. Laws that are designed to protect people from their choices by restricting those choices are, and always will be, authoritarian. If people do not want to be around people who smoke, then stay away from places where people smoke.

An interesting aspect of this whole thing is I do not smoke. I hate being around people who smoke, and always have. I am also smart enough to think that I do not have the right to tell people that they do not have the right to smoke on their own property, even if they want to run a business. Before the liberal authoritarians ran around outlawing smoking I spent my money at businesses that accommodated my preferences, and allowed smokers to spend theirs at places that accommodated theirs. That is the real difference between a liberal and an authoritarian, a liberal lets people make their own choices.

The collective is never, repeat never, about liberty. If you really understood what Jefferson meant by that quote you posted you would have been ashamed to use it in an attempt to justify collectivism.

I am not justifying collectivism. I'm calling you an asshole. You can't claim it is YOUR right to violate the rights of others. There ARE things in life where what you do is harmful to others. If I drive down your street at 100 mph and kill your family crossing the street, are they just interfering with my 'preference' to go 100?

What about a kid in a stroller, should he or she crawl out of the room to get away from the smoke? What about a fellow worker, should he or she quit their job to get away from your self centered narcissism?

If you were my next-door neighbor and I started a home business, and to save costs I pumped PCB's into your back yard, would you defend MY right to make that choice?

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

 

[Oddball]

Your entire raison d'être here is justifying collectivism, dickweed.

Do us all a favor and get over yourself, eh?

 

[Bfgrn]

Your entire raison d'être here is justifying collectivism, dickweed.

Do us all a favor and get over yourself, eh?

Are you really THAT fucking stupid DUD? You can't claim that endangering others is an individual right.

If you were my next-door neighbor and I pumped PCB's into your back yard, would you defend MY right to make that choice?

 

[Oddball]

Your misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and idiotic strawmen don't work on me anymore, you collectivist authoritarian dickweed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WOW, are you THAT self absorbed, narcissistic and obtuse...REALLY? This world exists just for YOU at your convenience? Guess what pea brain, YOU are the authoritarian. Maybe you don't need protection, but what gives YOU the right to make choices for others? If you want to smoke 10 packs of cigarettes every hour, go for it, but WHO is responsible if your second hand smoke kills some kid that is forced to accept YOUR inconvenience as THEIR death sentence. Even if you commit suicide it would not bring back that other person, whose right you violated.

You've got to be kidding me...

Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.
Thomas Jefferson

Nothing, which is why I don't make them. I allow everyone to make whatever choices they want to, until those choices start impacting my ability to choose. Laws that are designed to protect people from their choices by restricting those choices are, and always will be, authoritarian. If people do not want to be around people who smoke, then stay away from places where people smoke.

An interesting aspect of this whole thing is I do not smoke. I hate being around people who smoke, and always have. I am also smart enough to think that I do not have the right to tell people that they do not have the right to smoke on their own property, even if they want to run a business. Before the liberal authoritarians ran around outlawing smoking I spent my money at businesses that accommodated my preferences, and allowed smokers to spend theirs at places that accommodated theirs. That is the real difference between a liberal and an authoritarian, a liberal lets people make their own choices.

The collective is never, repeat never, about liberty. If you really understood what Jefferson meant by that quote you posted you would have been ashamed to use it in an attempt to justify collectivism.

I am not justifying collectivism. I'm calling you an asshole. You can't claim it is YOUR right to violate the rights of others. There ARE things in life where what you do is harmful to others. If I drive down your street at 100 mph and kill your family crossing the street, are they just interfering with my 'preference' to go 100?

What about a kid in a stroller, should he or she crawl out of the room to get away from the smoke? What about a fellow worker, should he or she quit their job to get away from your self centered narcissism?

If you were my next-door neighbor and I started a home business, and to save costs I pumped PCB's into your back yard, would you defend MY right to make that choice?

Please point out where I am violating anyone's rights. I bet you can't.

Like all authoritarian statists you fall back on false analogies in order to justify your position.

No one has a right to drive at 100 miles an hour whenever they want to because, by doing so, they violate my right to live on a street that is safe for my children. If they want to drive that fast they can find a safe place to do so, a place where I keep my children out of their way.

Dumping PCBs in my yard violates my yard, and I would defend my property with whatever force I deemed appropriate. If I decide lethal force was necessary to stop you from doing so, I would employ it, and not rely on the state to stop you.

If you don't want your children around people who smoke, leave them at home. Forcing other people not to smoke to protect your children from their smoke is lazy and shows that, as a parent, you are irresponsible.

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

Take a good look at the person in the mirror.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and idiotic strawmen don't work on me anymore, you collectivist authoritarian dickweed.

There is no misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and idiotic strawmen...you won't answer for one reason...because you can't say you would defend polluting your property as my individual right.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Your entire raison d'être here is justifying collectivism, dickweed.

Do us all a favor and get over yourself, eh?

Are you really THAT fucking stupid DUD? You can't claim that endangering others is an individual right.

If you were my next-door neighbor and I pumped PCB's into your back yard, would you defend MY right to make that choice?

Smoking in a restaurant (it appears smoking is being discussed) isn't violating anyone's rights or persons in and of itself. If you don't want to be around smoke, go eat somewhere else. Lots of restaurants in my area are assigning NO SMOKING statues...by their own personal edict! The city governments didn't have to do it for them!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your entire raison d'être here is justifying collectivism, dickweed.

Do us all a favor and get over yourself, eh?

Are you really THAT fucking stupid DUD? You can't claim that endangering others is an individual right.

If you were my next-door neighbor and I pumped PCB's into your back yard, would you defend MY right to make that choice?

Smoking in a restaurant (it appears smoking is being discussed) isn't violating anyone's rights or persons in and of itself. If you don't want to be around smoke, go eat somewhere else. Lots of restaurants in my area are assigning NO SMOKING statues...by their own personal edict! The city governments didn't have to do it for them!

Which is how it is supposed to work.

 

[George Costanza]

If people do not want to be around people who smoke, then stay away from places where people smoke.

It is difficult to imagine a more authoritarian statement than this one. I see this argument quite often on boards such as this - always in justification for some bullying, authoritarian policy which the speaker is attempting to defend. "America - Love It Or Leave It" shouted the Right Wing bumper stickers of the 60's and 70's. Translation? We're gonna do it OUR way, friend - and if you don't like it, TOO BAD.

Why should I have to go from restaurant to restaurant until I find one where people aren't smoking? What if people are smoking in the ONE restaurant I really want to go to? "Too bad"? I don't think so.

The real issue here is: is smoking an obnoxious and dangerous enough activity for society to step in and enact a law banning it in public places? THAT is the only issue. Once it has been decided that it is, game over. You don't resolve an issue such as that by saying, "Hey, if you don't like it, just go somewhere else." There is a logical fallacy in such a response: begging the question, i.e., providing an answer that does not address the real issue.

The best illustration I know of this fallacy concerns the resident of a German town in 1943, who wandered out into the countryside and chanced upon a concentration camp. Horrified by what he saw, he hurried back to his town to inform the local SS office of the situation. An SS officer listened to what the man had to say and then responded: "If you do not like what you saw, I would suggest that, in the future, you not go out into the countryside."

Now, before some deflection-minded moron jumps on my analogy here and starts deriding my intelligence for comparing Nazi concentration camps to smoking, be aware that I am not attempting to liken smoking to concentration camps, OK? This is merely an example - an ANALOGY, OK?

The point is, that the SS officer's response begged the question as to the morality of concentration camps. Your suggestion that if I don't like smoking, I should stay away from places where people smoke, also begs the question of whether or not smoking should be banned in public places.

Both positions are classic authoritarian positions.

 

[Oddball]

Why should I have to go from restaurant to restaurant until I find one where people aren't smoking? What if people are smoking in the ONE restaurant I really want to go to? "Too bad"?

Yes, too bad....If you don't like it, buy the restaurant.

Nothing authoritarian or fascistic about that.

 

[George Costanza]

Why should I have to go from restaurant to restaurant until I find one where people aren't smoking? What if people are smoking in the ONE restaurant I really want to go to? "Too bad"?

Yes, too bad....If you don't like it, buy the restaurant.

Nothing authoritarian or fascistic about that.

Exactly.

 

[Foxfyre]

George has presented a fascinating topic here that has pushed a lot of my buttons as I read through the OP and subsequent comments. Probably different buttons for me than him or some of the rest of you though.

For me, there is always tension between laws necessary to secure our rights and prevent us from doing violence to each other and those laws that intrude on our rights 'for our own good'. Speed limits for instance secure rights by not allowing motorists to unreasonably endanger others. Seat belt laws, however, are 'for our own good'. So are seat belt laws overreaching when it comes to our rights?

I have no problem with government declaring all buildings that must be used by the general public being smoke free zones. I do, however, have a huge problem with government saying that a private business occupying its own property being required to be a smoke free zone. To me that is overreaching.

Then George opens a whole new can of worms what seems like a reasonable law gives government license to do other things that it otherwise wouldn't be able to legally do. And now I'm back to the drawing board thinking about that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is difficult to imagine a more authoritarian statement than this one. I see this argument quite often on boards such as this - always in justification for some bullying, authoritarian policy which the speaker is attempting to defend. "America - Love It Or Leave It" shouted the Right Wing bumper stickers of the 60's and 70's. Translation? We're gonna do it OUR way, friend - and if you don't like it, TOO BAD.

Why should I have to go from restaurant to restaurant until I find one where people aren't smoking? What if people are smoking in the ONE restaurant I really want to go to? "Too bad"? I don't think so.

The real issue here is: is smoking an obnoxious and dangerous enough activity for society to step in and enact a law banning it in public places? THAT is the only issue. Once it has been decided that it is, game over. You don't resolve an issue such as that by saying, "Hey, if you don't like it, just go somewhere else." There is a logical fallacy in such a response: begging the question, i.e., providing an answer that does not address the real issue.

The best illustration I know of this fallacy concerns the resident of a German town in 1943, who wandered out into the countryside and chanced upon a concentration camp. Horrified by what he saw, he hurried back to his town to inform the local SS office of the situation. An SS officer listened to what the man had to say and then responded: "If you do not like what you saw, I would suggest that, in the future, you not go out into the countryside."

Now, before some deflection-minded moron jumps on my analogy here and starts deriding my intelligence for comparing Nazi concentration camps to smoking, be aware that I am not attempting to liken smoking to concentration camps, OK? This is merely an example - an ANALOGY, OK?

The point is, that the SS officer's response begged the question as to the morality of concentration camps. Your suggestion that if I don't like smoking, I should stay away from places where people smoke, also begs the question of whether or not smoking should be banned in public places.

Both positions are classic authoritarian positions.

I am talking about their private property George. If they own property they should be able to decide if they can smoke their, even if it is a business. Since I don't like to be around people who smoke, I avoid their property. "Liberals," on the other hand, prefer to force their values on everyone, and force businesses to cater to them by force of law.

You complain about being forced to go from restaurant to restaurant looking for a place that caters to non smokers. The truth of the matter is that it works the other way, even in communities that do not prohibit smoking in restaurants. Social pressure has changed the dynamics because education has taught us the dangers of smoking, for the smoker and those around them.

There are efforts underway to prevent people from smoking in apartments and hotel rooms. "Experts" have created a new danger out of thin air, and we now have to worry about, third hand smoke. This will be the wedge they use to ban smoking in private homes, which I am pretty sure would amount to an illegal seizure.

Wait a minute, isn't that what this thread is all about, the erosion of our 4th amendment rights?

I do everything I can to keep smokers away from me, and even fantasize about banning smoking in public so I do not have to walk down the street and smell it. Then I realize that if I do this it just makes it easier for people who do not like what I do to come after my habits. In other words, my common sense kicks in and I realize that I really do need to accept their right to be obnoxious, filthy, and disgusting, so that others who do not like the fact that I like salt and sugar do not get to come after the stuff I like because they think it is all of the things I think smoking is.

I am not telling you to love it or leave it George, I am telling you that to protect your own freedoms you must be willing to accept the fact that others have theirs. You do not have the right to interfere with those freedoms, no matter how disgusting you think they are. If you love America, help keep it the country you love, and do not try to turn it into the country you want it to be. That never works out, just ask the people that fought alongside Castro.

Think about it, seriously consider all the implications of your support of a law that curbs legal behavior in the name of good intentions, and protecting others from that habit. Look at what happened when we did that with alcohol, or even take a good look at the drug war. All those schedule 1 drugs used to be legal, and doctors could hand out just about anything they thought a patient needed, now we have a war going on in Mexico as a direct result of the well intentioned laws that were intended to protect people from themselves, and protect us from the dangers of apathy caused by drug use.

How is that working out again? Other than keeping you loaded down in a massive case load.

 

[George Costanza]

It is difficult to imagine a more authoritarian statement than this one. I see this argument quite often on boards such as this - always in justification for some bullying, authoritarian policy which the speaker is attempting to defend. "America - Love It Or Leave It" shouted the Right Wing bumper stickers of the 60's and 70's. Translation? We're gonna do it OUR way, friend - and if you don't like it, TOO BAD.

Why should I have to go from restaurant to restaurant until I find one where people aren't smoking? What if people are smoking in the ONE restaurant I really want to go to? "Too bad"? I don't think so.

The real issue here is: is smoking an obnoxious and dangerous enough activity for society to step in and enact a law banning it in public places? THAT is the only issue. Once it has been decided that it is, game over. You don't resolve an issue such as that by saying, "Hey, if you don't like it, just go somewhere else." There is a logical fallacy in such a response: begging the question, i.e., providing an answer that does not address the real issue.

The best illustration I know of this fallacy concerns the resident of a German town in 1943, who wandered out into the countryside and chanced upon a concentration camp. Horrified by what he saw, he hurried back to his town to inform the local SS office of the situation. An SS officer listened to what the man had to say and then responded: "If you do not like what you saw, I would suggest that, in the future, you not go out into the countryside."

Now, before some deflection-minded moron jumps on my analogy here and starts deriding my intelligence for comparing Nazi concentration camps to smoking, be aware that I am not attempting to liken smoking to concentration camps, OK? This is merely an example - an ANALOGY, OK?

The point is, that the SS officer's response begged the question as to the morality of concentration camps. Your suggestion that if I don't like smoking, I should stay away from places where people smoke, also begs the question of whether or not smoking should be banned in public places.

Both positions are classic authoritarian positions.

I am talking about their private property George. If they own property they should be able to decide if they can smoke their, even if it is a business. Since I don't like to be around people who smoke, I avoid their property. "Liberals," on the other hand, prefer to force their values on everyone, and force businesses to cater to them by force of law.

You complain about being forced to go from restaurant to restaurant looking for a place that caters to non smokers. The truth of the matter is that it works the other way, even in communities that do not prohibit smoking in restaurants. Social pressure has changed the dynamics because education has taught us the dangers of smoking, for the smoker and those around them.

There are efforts underway to prevent people from smoking in apartments and hotel rooms. "Experts" have created a new danger out of thin air, and we now have to worry about, third hand smoke. This will be the wedge they use to ban smoking in private homes, which I am pretty sure would amount to an illegal seizure.

Wait a minute, isn't that what this thread is all about, the erosion of our 4th amendment rights?

I do everything I can to keep smokers away from me, and even fantasize about banning smoking in public so I do not have to walk down the street and smell it. Then I realize that if I do this it just makes it easier for people who do not like what I do to come after my habits. In other words, my common sense kicks in and I realize that I really do need to accept their right to be obnoxious, filthy, and disgusting, so that others who do not like the fact that I like salt and sugar do not get to come after the stuff I like because they think it is all of the things I think smoking is.

I am not telling you to love it or leave it George, I am telling you that to protect your own freedoms you must be willing to accept the fact that others have theirs. You do not have the right to interfere with those freedoms, no matter how disgusting you think they are. If you love America, help keep it the country you love, and do not try to turn it into the country you want it to be. That never works out, just ask the people that fought alongside Castro.

Think about it, seriously consider all the implications of your support of a law that curbs legal behavior in the name of good intentions, and protecting others from that habit. Look at what happened when we did that with alcohol, or even take a good look at the drug war. All those schedule 1 drugs used to be legal, and doctors could hand out just about anything they thought a patient needed, now we have a war going on in Mexico as a direct result of the well intentioned laws that were intended to protect people from themselves, and protect us from the dangers of apathy caused by drug use.

How is that working out again? Other than keeping you loaded down in a massive case load.

I think we are on the same page when it comes to laws that legislate morals or personal habits.

The only thing I was objecting to was your "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" statement. Let's not get off track here - the main point of argument had to do with authoritarianism. And I repeat - "if you don't like it, go somewhere else," is an authoritarian statement.

 

[Foxfyre]

How can it be an authoritarian statement if said by somebody who has no authority to enforce it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think we are on the same page when it comes to laws that legislate morals or personal habits.

The only thing I was objecting to was your "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" statement. Let's not get off track here - the main point of argument had to do with authoritarianism. And I repeat - "if you don't like it, go somewhere else," is an authoritarian statement.

I will admit it can be.

 

[George Costanza]

I think we are on the same page when it comes to laws that legislate morals or personal habits.

The only thing I was objecting to was your "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" statement. Let's not get off track here - the main point of argument had to do with authoritarianism. And I repeat - "if you don't like it, go somewhere else," is an authoritarian statement.

I will admit it can be.

Also, let's not forget the theme of this thread - which is the erosion of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against illegal search and seizure, by laws and policies such as check points, cell phone restriction laws, search and seizure conditions of probation regardless of the triggering offense, etc.

Anti-smoking laws have little or nothing to do with this theme. Whether or not anti-smoking laws are a good thing or a bad thing is an issue, but not an issue appropriate to this thread. How did we get off on that one anyway?

Oh, I think I remember - someone brought up "authoritarianism." Now THERE's an excellent topic for its own thread. I ran one on that topic on another board. It was violently ripped apart by conservatives who claimed they weren't the least bit authoritarian.

 

[Big Fitz]

There really is no such thing as a liberal authoritarian.

Absolutely. The terms are mutually exclusive.



Cons don't like Robert Altmeyer, Bf. That's because he's got their number, COLD.

Yea, fascist are always the last to know they ARE fascists, because self righteous dogma overrides self examination...like Big Fitz...

You pontificate and moralize how executing 'some' innocent human beings is just the cost of justice for society and the victim's families. But IS IT? What comfort would it be to a family having to live with the death of their loved one, an innocent victim of crime AND the death of another family's innocent loved one? What about the ability to 'sleep at night' for the jurors that sent an innocent person to their death?

AND what about the consequences Fitz. You are BIG on punishment and swift justice. Killing an innocent human being is murder. WHO pays for that crime when the State murders an innocent person, you?...the Governor? What about the families of THOSE innocent victims YOU have created? If one of my family members murdered someone, I could find a way to accept their consequences. But if my family member were innocent and executed, I would now be a victim you righteously say you are protecting.

No system of justice is perfect. Secondly, executing the wrong person is an accident. Not murder. Executions are a punishment for a crime.

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.
Thomas Jefferson

The tailor called, your brown pants and armbands are ready. They had to let it out a few inches in the ass because you're retaining too much bullshit.

 

[Big Fitz]

Your misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and idiotic strawmen don't work on me anymore, you collectivist authoritarian dickweed.

There is no misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and idiotic strawmen...you won't answer for one reason...because you can't say you would defend polluting your property as my individual right.

Jebus H Rice... You just don't get it. When discussing the 4th Amendment, and then to go off with the equivalent of demanding to know the airspeed velocity of an unladen Swallow, African OR European, you are not engaging in debate, but distraction. To ignore the question is not only polite but the intelligent thing to do. No matter how many graphs, sources and quotes you find about whether a swallow is unladen or burdened by a coconut is irrelevant.