Nosmo King
Gold Member
If shouting "FIRE!" in a theater is unlawful and not protected by the First amendment due to the havoc it causes, why should it be that high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic weapons be legal? Don't they cause havoc too? Isn't their design more suited to a well regulated militia than the streets?Does limited government mean doing away with consumer protection?
Not at all. In order to promote the general welfare, the federal government is exercising its responsibility by doing what it reasonably can to keep people from unknowingly ingesting or using harmful or potentially lethal products. The federal government, however, oversteps its constitutional responsibility and authority by dictating what foods or products the people will be allowed to use despite any warnings of harmfulness.If we find frying potatoes in lard is a health risk, should the government issue warnings about lard? If it is found that say marijuana poses no more a risk to health than bourbon, should the government continue to keep marijuana on a list of prohibited substances?
Does freedom and liberty mean the freedom to move your factory to Asia and then get a tax break for doing so?
Yes, A free people lives and works anywhere it wants to so long as the rights of others are not infringed. You have no right for me to provide you a job. As for tax policy, if it promotes the general welfare; i.e. generates opportunity, jobs, prosperity for Americans, it is the prerogative of free people. It must be available to all. If it is targeted at rewarding or benefitting the friends of those making tax policy, it is unethical, corrupting, and should be illegal.How can tax policy ever promote job creation while rewarding job outsourcing?
Yes. Equal rights means everybody gets the same shot to try. It does not mean that everybody starts out on the same footing or will achieve the same outcome.Does that mean that banning same sex marriage is an affront to civil liberties? Outcome in a marriage is not protected nor guaranteed. I don't understand why limiting the right to access contract law to some Americans is a good thing.
Corporations should be held accountable to the law. The law should ensure that Corporations (and everybody else) does not infringe on the unalienable, legal, constitutional, or civil rights of others. And then they should be left alone to do what they do. Whether government or corporations are trusted more is a non sequitur and irrelevent.Should corporations have a significant voice in the electoral process? Some on the right would actually have us believe that money equals speech. Since corporations have more money than the average individual, does that make the corporation more free to use its "speech" (money) to influence an outcome?
The First Amendment denies government the legal ability to reward or punish any individual or group for their religious views. Protection of unalienable rights prevent repression of any individual or group for anything legal.Should it be legal then to display Judeo-Christian iconography in a court of law? Isn't that promoting one religion over another?
Are property rights more precious than civil rights?
Yes, because if property rights are not inviolable, there are no civil rights.Chicken and the egg time here, foxy. If people aren't free and secure, why should their possessions matter?
If some speech is too dangerous to be expressed, are some guns too dangerous to be fired?
You'll have to be more specific here. The only speech that should ever be illegal is that which compromises or violates the unalienable rights of others. It should be illegal to fire guns indiscriminately at property or people as all are dangerous in such a case. But if you or I or those we love are being threatened, I don't care what kind of gun is used to protect our unalienable rights.