Debate Now I'm Leaving! Who Is With Me?

[Derideo_Te]

I don't believe that weapons designed for a battlefield have any place on the streets of a civilized nation. They serve no purpose but to create an arms race among citizens.

We can have all the bolt action rifles, revolvers and shot guns we absolutely need for sport and home defense. But rapid fire weapons have wrought more tragedy than benefit.

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns therefore you have just conceded that there is no need for the BCSA at all.

While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere, we are not discussing what the current U.S. Constitution does or does not allow.

This discussion is how we want a new nation to be and the authority we want a new government to have.

You raised the current US Constitution when you referenced the 10th Amendment. I also never said that the federal government had authority to regulate local zoning laws. Please refrain from distorting what I actually posted.

Your OP specifically asked for advantages/disadvantages to your proposed BCSA. You tried to claim that local zoning would be a "liberty" that you are currently "denied" by the existing Federal government. It has been established that is fallacious.

What other "liberties" do you believe your BCSA will have that don't already exist?

 

[Foxfyre]

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns therefore you have just conceded that there is no need for the BCSA at all.

While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere, we are not discussing what the current U.S. Constitution does or does not allow.

This discussion is how we want a new nation to be and the authority we want a new government to have.

You raised the current US Constitution when you referenced the 10th Amendment. I also never said that the federal government had authority to regulate local zoning laws. Please refrain from distorting what I actually posted.

Your OP specifically asked for advantages/disadvantages to your proposed BCSA. You tried to claim that local zoning would be a "liberty" that you are currently "denied" by the existing Federal government. It has been established that is fallacious.

What other "liberties" do you believe your BCSA will have that don't already exist?

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

 

[BULLDOG]

I agree. It's a long walk to the beach from central Kansas, and the lobster bisque there has got to suck.

I'd go if there was a chance our new 2nd amendment excluded rapid fire weapons.

Well can I put you down to represent your state then Nosmo? I don't see why anything would necessarily have to be off the table for discussion, though I think those who are leaning toward the new Declaration of Independence probably would not agree to federal control of rapid fire weapons, but would not interfere with a state that chose to regulate that.

I don't believe that weapons designed for a battlefield have any place on the streets of a civilized nation. They serve no purpose but to create an arms race among citizens.

We can have all the bolt action rifles, revolvers and shot guns we absolutely need for sport and home defense. But rapid fire weapons have wrought more tragedy than benefit.

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

What if your town or area is mostly pig farmers who don't really mind the smell, but the next town over, which also has to smell it, hates it. Whose liberty should be restricted?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns therefore you have just conceded that there is no need for the BCSA at all.

While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere, we are not discussing what the current U.S. Constitution does or does not allow.

This discussion is how we want a new nation to be and the authority we want a new government to have.

You raised the current US Constitution when you referenced the 10th Amendment. I also never said that the federal government had authority to regulate local zoning laws. Please refrain from distorting what I actually posted.

Your OP specifically asked for advantages/disadvantages to your proposed BCSA. You tried to claim that local zoning would be a "liberty" that you are currently "denied" by the existing Federal government. It has been established that is fallacious.

What other "liberties" do you believe your BCSA will have that don't already exist?

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well can I put you down to represent your state then Nosmo? I don't see why anything would necessarily have to be off the table for discussion, though I think those who are leaning toward the new Declaration of Independence probably would not agree to federal control of rapid fire weapons, but would not interfere with a state that chose to regulate that.

I don't believe that weapons designed for a battlefield have any place on the streets of a civilized nation. They serve no purpose but to create an arms race among citizens.

We can have all the bolt action rifles, revolvers and shot guns we absolutely need for sport and home defense. But rapid fire weapons have wrought more tragedy than benefit.

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

What if your town or area is mostly pig farmers who don't really mind the smell, but the next town over, which also has to smell it, hates it. Whose liberty should be restricted?

That would be and actually has been an issue. It isn't a matter of 'rights'--nobody has a 'right to infringe on anybody else's rights. So the two groups can get together and work out something or the town that is bothered can file suit against what they deem a public nuisance that violates their ability and right to enjoy their own property. But it should not be a federal matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns therefore you have just conceded that there is no need for the BCSA at all.

While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere, we are not discussing what the current U.S. Constitution does or does not allow.

This discussion is how we want a new nation to be and the authority we want a new government to have.

You raised the current US Constitution when you referenced the 10th Amendment. I also never said that the federal government had authority to regulate local zoning laws. Please refrain from distorting what I actually posted.

Your OP specifically asked for advantages/disadvantages to your proposed BCSA. You tried to claim that local zoning would be a "liberty" that you are currently "denied" by the existing Federal government. It has been established that is fallacious.

What other "liberties" do you believe your BCSA will have that don't already exist?

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't believe that weapons designed for a battlefield have any place on the streets of a civilized nation. They serve no purpose but to create an arms race among citizens.

We can have all the bolt action rifles, revolvers and shot guns we absolutely need for sport and home defense. But rapid fire weapons have wrought more tragedy than benefit.

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

What if your town or area is mostly pig farmers who don't really mind the smell, but the next town over, which also has to smell it, hates it. Whose liberty should be restricted?

That would be and actually has been an issue. It isn't a matter of 'rights'--nobody has a 'right to infringe on anybody else's rights. So the two groups can get together and work out something or the town that is bothered can file suit against what they deem a public nuisance that violates their ability and right to enjoy their own property. But it should not be a federal matter.

If not federal, then who? Filing suit in the town with pig farms probably wouldn't be fair to the other towns, just like filing in one of the other towns probably wouldn't be fair to the pig farmers. Sounds like they would need an authority agreed upon by all parties to decide. The only way I know to do that is for each town to elect representatives to be part of that agreed on authority. Of course those elected people probably wouldn't be experts in wind distribution of smell and exactly which part of the smell is harm full, so they have to hire someone that is. There....It's already starting to look like the EPA. You got a better fair way to handle it?

 

[Foxfyre]

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

What if your town or area is mostly pig farmers who don't really mind the smell, but the next town over, which also has to smell it, hates it. Whose liberty should be restricted?

That would be and actually has been an issue. It isn't a matter of 'rights'--nobody has a 'right to infringe on anybody else's rights. So the two groups can get together and work out something or the town that is bothered can file suit against what they deem a public nuisance that violates their ability and right to enjoy their own property. But it should not be a federal matter.

If not federal, then who? Filing suit in the town with pig farms probably wouldn't be fair to the other towns, just like filing in one of the other towns probably wouldn't be fair to the pig farmers. Sounds like they would need an authority agreed upon by all parties to decide. The only way I know to do that is for each town to elect representatives to be part of that agreed on authority. Of course those elected people probably wouldn't be experts in wind distribution of smell and exactly which part of the smell is harm full, so they have to hire someone that is. There....It's already starting to look like the EPA. You got a better fair way to handle it?

When you file suit you leave it up to a judge, and sometimes a jury, to determine whether any party has been injured or whether there are damages. That can be handled quite nicely at the local level.

Even better the folks from both the towns can get together and work out something that is satisfactory to both without getting the courts involved.

As a representative of my state I will work hard to see that New America restores that kind of power to the people to work out and keep the federal government out of it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns therefore you have just conceded that there is no need for the BCSA at all.

While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere, we are not discussing what the current U.S. Constitution does or does not allow.

This discussion is how we want a new nation to be and the authority we want a new government to have.

You raised the current US Constitution when you referenced the 10th Amendment. I also never said that the federal government had authority to regulate local zoning laws. Please refrain from distorting what I actually posted.

Your OP specifically asked for advantages/disadvantages to your proposed BCSA. You tried to claim that local zoning would be a "liberty" that you are currently "denied" by the existing Federal government. It has been established that is fallacious.

What other "liberties" do you believe your BCSA will have that don't already exist?

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

 

[Foxfyre]

While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere, we are not discussing what the current U.S. Constitution does or does not allow.

This discussion is how we want a new nation to be and the authority we want a new government to have.

You raised the current US Constitution when you referenced the 10th Amendment. I also never said that the federal government had authority to regulate local zoning laws. Please refrain from distorting what I actually posted.

Your OP specifically asked for advantages/disadvantages to your proposed BCSA. You tried to claim that local zoning would be a "liberty" that you are currently "denied" by the existing Federal government. It has been established that is fallacious.

What other "liberties" do you believe your BCSA will have that don't already exist?

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

 

[Faun]

You raised the current US Constitution when you referenced the 10th Amendment. I also never said that the federal government had authority to regulate local zoning laws. Please refrain from distorting what I actually posted.

Your OP specifically asked for advantages/disadvantages to your proposed BCSA. You tried to claim that local zoning would be a "liberty" that you are currently "denied" by the existing Federal government. It has been established that is fallacious.

What other "liberties" do you believe your BCSA will have that don't already exist?

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

Who's gonna decide what goes into your new Constitution?

 

[Foxfyre]

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

Who's gonna decide what goes into your new Constitution?

The folks who want to participate in that. Did you read the OP?

 

[BULLDOG]

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

What if your town or area is mostly pig farmers who don't really mind the smell, but the next town over, which also has to smell it, hates it. Whose liberty should be restricted?

That would be and actually has been an issue. It isn't a matter of 'rights'--nobody has a 'right to infringe on anybody else's rights. So the two groups can get together and work out something or the town that is bothered can file suit against what they deem a public nuisance that violates their ability and right to enjoy their own property. But it should not be a federal matter.

If not federal, then who? Filing suit in the town with pig farms probably wouldn't be fair to the other towns, just like filing in one of the other towns probably wouldn't be fair to the pig farmers. Sounds like they would need an authority agreed upon by all parties to decide. The only way I know to do that is for each town to elect representatives to be part of that agreed on authority. Of course those elected people probably wouldn't be experts in wind distribution of smell and exactly which part of the smell is harm full, so they have to hire someone that is. There....It's already starting to look like the EPA. You got a better fair way to handle it?

When you file suit you leave it up to a judge, and sometimes a jury, to determine whether any party has been injured or whether there are damages. That can be handled quite nicely at the local level.

Even better the folks from both the towns can get together and work out something that is satisfactory to both without getting the courts involved.

As a representative of my state I will work hard to see that New America restores that kind of power to the people to work out and keep the federal government out of it.

There was never a question of whether there should be some sort of "judge", I wasn't aware that you had instituted a court system in your country yet. The question is about jurisdiction. How big an area does this judge cover, and is each judge totally autonomous, or do they answer to a centralized set of laws that fairly apply to the entire country?

 

[Derideo_Te]

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all.

Assumes facts not in evidence. How does protecting an endangered species mean that you have no rights at all? Are you prevented from speaking out about it? Are you prevented from voting? Are you denied the right bear arms, assemble, lobby?

Which rights have you lost?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

What if your town or area is mostly pig farmers who don't really mind the smell, but the next town over, which also has to smell it, hates it. Whose liberty should be restricted?

That would be and actually has been an issue. It isn't a matter of 'rights'--nobody has a 'right to infringe on anybody else's rights. So the two groups can get together and work out something or the town that is bothered can file suit against what they deem a public nuisance that violates their ability and right to enjoy their own property. But it should not be a federal matter.

If not federal, then who? Filing suit in the town with pig farms probably wouldn't be fair to the other towns, just like filing in one of the other towns probably wouldn't be fair to the pig farmers. Sounds like they would need an authority agreed upon by all parties to decide. The only way I know to do that is for each town to elect representatives to be part of that agreed on authority. Of course those elected people probably wouldn't be experts in wind distribution of smell and exactly which part of the smell is harm full, so they have to hire someone that is. There....It's already starting to look like the EPA. You got a better fair way to handle it?

When you file suit you leave it up to a judge, and sometimes a jury, to determine whether any party has been injured or whether there are damages. That can be handled quite nicely at the local level.

Even better the folks from both the towns can get together and work out something that is satisfactory to both without getting the courts involved.

As a representative of my state I will work hard to see that New America restores that kind of power to the people to work out and keep the federal government out of it.

There was never a question of whether there should be some sort of "judge", I wasn't aware that you had instituted a court system in your country yet. The question is about jurisdiction. How big an area does this judge cover, and is each judge totally autonomous, or do they answer to a centralized set of laws that fairly apply to the entire country?

It is my hope for New America that centralized laws will be extremely limited, far and few between. If that is not the case, then there really won't be much reason to secede.

 

[Nosmo King]

You raised the current US Constitution when you referenced the 10th Amendment. I also never said that the federal government had authority to regulate local zoning laws. Please refrain from distorting what I actually posted.

Your OP specifically asked for advantages/disadvantages to your proposed BCSA. You tried to claim that local zoning would be a "liberty" that you are currently "denied" by the existing Federal government. It has been established that is fallacious.

What other "liberties" do you believe your BCSA will have that don't already exist?

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

If property rights trumps all other rights, those who seek to exploit their property for immediate financial gain will, in fact, ruin the property value of others. Someone decides to allow strip mining on their property for their individual financial gain. But abutting properties suffer a loss of value as a result. Someone else wants to divert a stream to water a pasture, but those downstream who rely on that water suffer.

I'm wondering if this "New America" is a good idea or not. Was it born from a fear and mistrust of our current system? Does it improve on it by recognizing a paramount position of property rights over the sustainability, even viability of other's property?

Sometimes, and more often than not, government is a good thing as it provides justice and reason over suspicion and greed.

 

[Foxfyre]

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all.

Assumes facts not in evidence. How does protecting an endangered species mean that you have no rights at all? Are you prevented from speaking out about it? Are you prevented from voting? Are you denied the right bear arms, assemble, lobby?

Which rights have you lost?

Don't you get tired of saying 'assumes facts not in evidence' most especially when it is totally non sequitur to the point being made?

What part of being denied the right to use my property for the purpose it was legally acquired do you not understand? And both of us can find many facts in evidence in which that has been the case using the most cursory of Google searches. THAT is the issue I have been discussing. What have you been discussing?

 

[Foxfyre]

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

If property rights trumps all other rights, those who seek to exploit their property for immediate financial gain will, in fact, ruin the property value of others. Someone decides to allow strip mining on their property for their individual financial gain. But abutting properties suffer a loss of value as a result. Someone else wants to divert a stream to water a pasture, but those downstream who rely on that water suffer.

I'm wondering if this "New America" is a good idea or not. Was it born from a fear and mistrust of our current system? Does it improve on it by recognizing a paramount position of property rights over the sustainability, even viability of other's property?

Wrong because again my right to the use and enjoyment of my property end when that use and enjoyment infringes on the rights of others. When it comes to zoning laws or shared resources, those things have to be worked out via social contract among those who will be affected by whatever laws and regulation are agreed upon.

The issue is not what the social contract will be. The people will work that out.

The issue is whether the central government will be allowed authority to dictate those laws and regulations. I say no. My vision of New America would leave it to the local people to work out.

 

[BULLDOG]

You raised the current US Constitution when you referenced the 10th Amendment. I also never said that the federal government had authority to regulate local zoning laws. Please refrain from distorting what I actually posted.

Your OP specifically asked for advantages/disadvantages to your proposed BCSA. You tried to claim that local zoning would be a "liberty" that you are currently "denied" by the existing Federal government. It has been established that is fallacious.

What other "liberties" do you believe your BCSA will have that don't already exist?

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

There are proven reasons why the extinction of species is detrimental to humanity as a whole. That's why the US and much of the world has an endangered species list. Should those that don't see all species as necessary to our ecosystem be allowed to harm that entire ecosystem because it is on their land? How is that different from the pig farmer whose smell is harming the people in the next town. Both can show where harm is being done.

 

[Nosmo King]

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

If property rights trumps all other rights, those who seek to exploit their property for immediate financial gain will, in fact, ruin the property value of others. Someone decides to allow strip mining on their property for their individual financial gain. But abutting properties suffer a loss of value as a result. Someone else wants to divert a stream to water a pasture, but those downstream who rely on that water suffer.

I'm wondering if this "New America" is a good idea or not. Was it born from a fear and mistrust of our current system? Does it improve on it by recognizing a paramount position of property rights over the sustainability, even viability of other's property?

Wrong because again my right to the use and enjoyment of my property end when that use and enjoyment infringes on the rights of others. When it comes to zoning laws or shared resources, those things have to be worked out via social contract among those who will be affected by whatever laws and regulation are agreed upon.

The issue is not what the social contract will be. The people will work that out.

The issue is whether the central government will be allowed authority to dictate those laws and regulations. I say no. My vision of New America would leave it to the local people to work out.

There is a township in Western Pennsylvania that has been trying to get zoning regulations for twenty years now. If you drive through the township, you will see a massive junk yard. Surrounding it, folks have bought up lots upon which some have built their 'dream homes' only to find that the junk yard owner has blunted their dreams by expanding his enterprise. No social contract at play there, no governmental authority to restrict the junk yard owner either.

There, there is only one winner. The guy with the most cash.