Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[kaz]

Drug use is a problem for family and friends of the afflicted as well. Not to mention the surrounding community who has the economic costs and social costs of drug addiction placed on it(less productivity, more poverty, more welfare, more crime). Drug abuse isn't merely an individual issue.

OK, you convinced me. Let's jail all teenage black boys from crime ridden areas. Committing a crime would harm their family and friends and community. We can't allow that to happen even if it hasn't. It could happen, and we have to stop it before it does.

 

[Steinlight]

Yes, at a certain level, people need to be protected by the state, both internally and externally. So unless you are against the idea of a state and policing powers on principle, I don't see why you are so offended by my notion the government should at some level contain and restrict harmful vices.

Anything in this other than government using force to compel us to follow morality laws when we have not and are not harming anyone is a strawman.

The problem with Libertarianism is they view humans beings as atomistic individuals who actions have no effect on the greater community, whether it be socially or economically. Some don't recognize this, others accept it and don't care. So either they are ignorant or nihilistic. So I simply disagree with them on this point.

Bull. We are responsible for what we do to the community. What I specifically argued is we are not responsible to the community for what we do to ourselves and the community has no right to make our choices for us because some people will do it in a way that affects the community. Someone harms the community? Hold them accountable. Can we jail teenage black boys from certain neighborhoods because we can show statistically they are highly likely to commit a crime? Or are they responsible once they commit a crime? I'd argue the latter.

I think they make good points on decentralization of power but their hyper-individualism and materialism disgusts me.

Yet again, what a load. That we don't think others should use force to makes our choices that don't effect others by force makes us those things is ridiculous.

Our government isn't moral at the moment because the people aren't moral. John Adams even said our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.

And the power that John Adams and friends left us was virtually identical to what small government libertarians support today. So he's a bad example for your morality police arguments.

I am not against the government using force, governments cant exist without it. The purpose of a state is the create a monopoly on force so as to prohibit chaos and lawlessness.

I simply disagree, I think we have duties and responsibilities to our community. And your choices almost never just affect you, as I have outlined with drugs, prostitution, and gambling. So you can't just view things from a purely atomized perspective. I don't know where you are getting this idea of arresting people before they commit crimes. I only think people should be arrested if they commit crimes. This post at that particular point like a rant, not a coherent point.

As far as the Founders go, they designed a system of government that specifically empowered local communities with quite a bit of authority to regulate as they see fit. Most gambling, drug, and prostitution laws are at the state and local level and within the purview of the Constitution. Gambling or Drug Trafficking only gets federal when one crosses state or international lines where authority is granted through the commerce clause. I am not for a "morality" police of any kind.

 

[Steinlight]

Drug use is a problem for family and friends of the afflicted as well. Not to mention the surrounding community who has the economic costs and social costs of drug addiction placed on it(less productivity, more poverty, more welfare, more crime). Drug abuse isn't merely an individual issue.

OK, you convinced me. Let's jail all teenage black boys from crime ridden areas. Committing a crime would harm their family and friends and community. We can't allow that to happen even if it hasn't. It could happen, and we have to stop it before it does.

I'm not for arresting people who haven't committed a crime, so I don't know where you are getting this from.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

National Socialism = BIG GOVERNMENT. That's liberal.Nazi Germany had huge swaths of its economy and culture controlled by government. That's liberal. Communism = BIG GOVERNMENT that too is liberal. Total command economy. A Democrats wet dream.

Thanks so much for sharing, your opinions are filled with evidence which is appreciated, since the evidence supports my opinion of the reactionary echo chamber.

LOL!

"Reactionary"... uttered in reaction.

ROFLMNAO! I will NEVER get my fill of that one.

It's so plastic banana, the "Homophobe" or olde... .

Talk about OLD SCHOOL COMMUNIST!

Wouldn't Robespierre be proud?

The coolest part is that it was a profound concession to the point it had SO hoped to contest ... noted and accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am not for a "morality" police of any kind.

So you're against the Legal Code?

I have never caught an anarchist vibe from you. Are you sure you're against the enforcement of soundly reasoned morality?

Help a brother out here... will ya?

 

[francoHFW]

You'd make a great Nazi. lol

ProggDuppe thinks McCarthy was in the House of Representatives running the HUAC a decade before he became Senator

Link to my mistake, liar?

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Democracy is all about majority rule, and I am personally in favor of that. ... .

So you favor Majority Rules?

Naturally then you're a proponent of the majority recognition that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman?

Yep, if put to a poular vote, and that's how people feel.[sic]

Oh it's been put to many popular votes... with the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the States having elected the vast majority of the representatives who voted to recognize Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. Most of those majorities, in the majority of states went to the trouble of setting that recognition in their Constitution.

Now you said that you believe in "Majority Rules"... and your ideology is busy over-ruling those majorities through their plants in the judiciary, manipulating the 'honor system'.

Now you dam' well know this... yet when you had the chance to condemn your comrades who were working ot overturn 'Majority Rule', you chose to NOT do so.

Demonstrating that you're a hypocrite and a liar.

Pretty cool, huh?

 

[Steinlight]

I am not for a "morality" police of any kind.

So you're against the Legal Code?

I have never caught an anarchist vibe from you. Are you sure you're against the enforcement of soundly reasoned morality?

Help a brother out here... will ya?

Now you are just being snarky and daft. You know what I mean by the term "morality police"(that means something like the religious police in Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled territory that enforces religious edicts), obviously I am for a legal code. If only options are the extremes like being a morally nihilistic anarchist or being like the Taliban than you are an socially autistic person that cant understand the concept of degree.

 

[Skylar]

Oh it's been put to many popular votes... with the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the States having elected the vast majority of the representatives who voted to recognize Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. Most of those majorities, in the majority of states went to the trouble of setting that recognition in their Constitution.

Now you said that you believe in "Majority Rules"... and your ideology is busy over-ruling those majorities through their plants in the judiciary, manipulating the 'honor system'.

We're a republic. Which means that the majority doesn't possess the ability to strip the individual of rights. The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex. But that didn't stop the federal judiciary from protecting the rights of Richard and Mildred Loving and overturning the law that stripped them of their constitutional rights.

See how that worked? Works like that today too. If the majority vote to say, strip individuals of gun rights in Chicago, the federal judiciary intervenes. If the majority vote to say, strip gays of their constitutional right to marry, the federal judiciary intervenes.

Rights generally trump powers. If you're going to deny rights you need a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage simply don't have one.

 

[kaz]

Drug use is a problem for family and friends of the afflicted as well. Not to mention the surrounding community who has the economic costs and social costs of drug addiction placed on it(less productivity, more poverty, more welfare, more crime). Drug abuse isn't merely an individual issue.

OK, you convinced me. Let's jail all teenage black boys from crime ridden areas. Committing a crime would harm their family and friends and community. We can't allow that to happen even if it hasn't. It could happen, and we have to stop it before it does.

I'm not for arresting people who haven't committed a crime, so I don't know where you are getting this from.

Seriously? Arguing with socons is no different than arguing with liberals.

Your argument on vices is that people who commit vices ...may ... affect others. They don't have to harm anyone yet you're willing to use force to make their decisions for them to prevent the possibility of their harming someone.

What is the difference between that and preemptively arresting people who demographically are likely to commit crimes? You are saying people don't have to harm to be arrested.

 

[kaz]

The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex

LOL, you don't know what that means...

 

[Steinlight]

Oh it's been put to many popular votes... with the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the States having elected the vast majority of the representatives who voted to recognize Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. Most of those majorities, in the majority of states went to the trouble of setting that recognition in their Constitution.

Now you said that you believe in "Majority Rules"... and your ideology is busy over-ruling those majorities through their plants in the judiciary, manipulating the 'honor system'.

We're a republic. Which means that the majority doesn't possess the ability to strip the individual of rights. The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex. But that didn't stop the federal judiciary from protecting the rights of Richard and Mildred Loving and overturning the law that stripped them of their constitutional rights.

See how that worked? Works like that today too. If the majority vote to say, strip individuals of gun rights in Chicago, the federal judiciary intervenes. If the majority vote to say, strip gays of their constitutional right to marry, the federal judiciary intervenes.

Rights generally trump powers. If you're going to deny rights you need a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage simply don't have one.

Where is the right to interracial sex in the Constitution? I'm curious.

 

[Skylar]

The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex

LOL, you don't know what that means...

What part, specifically?

 

[Skylar]

Oh it's been put to many popular votes... with the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the States having elected the vast majority of the representatives who voted to recognize Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. Most of those majorities, in the majority of states went to the trouble of setting that recognition in their Constitution.

Now you said that you believe in "Majority Rules"... and your ideology is busy over-ruling those majorities through their plants in the judiciary, manipulating the 'honor system'.

We're a republic. Which means that the majority doesn't possess the ability to strip the individual of rights. The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex. But that didn't stop the federal judiciary from protecting the rights of Richard and Mildred Loving and overturning the law that stripped them of their constitutional rights.

See how that worked? Works like that today too. If the majority vote to say, strip individuals of gun rights in Chicago, the federal judiciary intervenes. If the majority vote to say, strip gays of their constitutional right to marry, the federal judiciary intervenes.

Rights generally trump powers. If you're going to deny rights you need a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage simply don't have one.

Where is the right to interracial sex in the Constitution? I'm curious.

9th amendment. A right need not be enumerated to exist, as the constitution makes ridiculously clear.

 

[francoHFW]

You notice how the Progs defend the Communists even more voraciously than do member of the old Politboro.

Have to give their master credit for training them so well

No evidence, ignorant chump of the greedy idiot rich.

Embrace your Inner Mao

No evidence, no charges, brainwashed functional moron.

 

[kaz]

The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex

LOL, you don't know what that means...

What part, specifically?

Criminalized. I cut it down to seven words, that wasn't enough?

 

[Steinlight]

Drug use is a problem for family and friends of the afflicted as well. Not to mention the surrounding community who has the economic costs and social costs of drug addiction placed on it(less productivity, more poverty, more welfare, more crime). Drug abuse isn't merely an individual issue.

OK, you convinced me. Let's jail all teenage black boys from crime ridden areas. Committing a crime would harm their family and friends and community. We can't allow that to happen even if it hasn't. It could happen, and we have to stop it before it does.

I'm not for arresting people who haven't committed a crime, so I don't know where you are getting this from.

Seriously? Arguing with socons is no different than arguing with liberals.

Your argument on vices is that people who commit vices ...may ... affect others. They don't have to harm anyone yet you're willing to use force to make their decisions for them to prevent the possibility of their harming someone.

What is the difference between that and preemptively arresting people who demographically are likely to commit crimes? You are saying people don't have to harm to be arrested.

I don't know what to tell you, but Libertarians are Liberals(Libertarianism was born of classic liberalism). I don't know what to tell you if you don't understand that libertarianism is merely a school of liberal thought. Open a history book I guess to start, go to wiki, or whatever...

The point I am making is that those vices do harm others, and often oneself. And on that point, today we seem to live in a society based on the faulty "harm principle". We always emphasize, "don't hurt others" or "as long as it is consensual"; but we have lost sight of the affect our actions have not only on others but how otherwise "consensual acts" harm ourselves. Our society has forgotten to teach us how not to harm ourselves. Part of the reason is the atomization and the growing moral nihilism of society, partially due to hyper-individualism, but also to scale, technology, multiculturalism, and the dominance of secular ideology in the West.

I guess you are to obtuse to recognize the difference. The point is, you can't help being black, being black isn't a crime. You can chose whether or not to take drugs, and possessing or selling drugs is a crime.

 

[Skylar]

The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex

LOL, you don't know what that means...

What part, specifically?

Criminalized

And where is the misunderstanding? When the police raided the home of Richard and Mildred Loving they did so in the early hours of the night in hopes of catching them having sex....as interracial sex was a felony.

Are you saying that felonies aren't crimes? Or that this law didn't enjoy majority support in Virginia...where it passed easily?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You'd make a great Nazi. lol

ProggDuppe thinks McCarthy was in the House of Representatives running the HUAC a decade before he became Senator

Link to my mistake, liar?

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

That had NOTHING to do with Joe McCarthy!

NOTHING, you ProgDuppe!

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Steinlight]

Oh it's been put to many popular votes... with the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the States having elected the vast majority of the representatives who voted to recognize Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. Most of those majorities, in the majority of states went to the trouble of setting that recognition in their Constitution.

Now you said that you believe in "Majority Rules"... and your ideology is busy over-ruling those majorities through their plants in the judiciary, manipulating the 'honor system'.

We're a republic. Which means that the majority doesn't possess the ability to strip the individual of rights. The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex. But that didn't stop the federal judiciary from protecting the rights of Richard and Mildred Loving and overturning the law that stripped them of their constitutional rights.

See how that worked? Works like that today too. If the majority vote to say, strip individuals of gun rights in Chicago, the federal judiciary intervenes. If the majority vote to say, strip gays of their constitutional right to marry, the federal judiciary intervenes.

Rights generally trump powers. If you're going to deny rights you need a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage simply don't have one.

Where is the right to interracial sex in the Constitution? I'm curious.

9th amendment. A right need not be enumerated to exist, as the constitution makes ridiculously clear.

That simply isn't true and most definitely wasn't the argument made in the Loving V. Virginia decision. No such right exists or was argued for. You need to do your research and clearly don't understand the 9th Amendment.