Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wonder if you would agree to passing an ironclad law, or preferably a Constitutional amendment, that would forbid anyone in the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit everybody else regardless of political affliliation or socioeconomic status?
That is the only way I see that we will ever return to a Constitutionally limited government.
Wasn't that what the politicians claimed 'Affirmative action' was supposed to achieve?
No, we would have to deal with Affirmative Action on another front. But the Founders did not allow the federal government to collect or expend any monies that were outside the constitutionally mandated functions of government. At the same time, they warned us that the Constitution would be a jeopardy as soon as somebody figured out how to vote themselves money from the public treasury. Why they didn't plug that hole at the time is anybody's guess, but my best guess is that at the time, modern American liberalism was something even those great minds could not conceive as ever being possible.
I can't find much to disagree with here. I'll just reiterate that agreement on the purpose of government is great, but that and bag of chips at best might cure the munchies (that seems to be a common ailment among my 'libertarian' friends
On the contrary, agreement on the purpose of government gets us a lot more than a bag of chips. It's what created the Constitution, which still stands as a bulwark against intrusive and expansive government - even as the original consensus has dissipated.
It is fair to point out we've lost much of that agreement, which is why I raise the issue so often here. I think the key to saving libertarian government is to reaffirm that fundamental agreement on the purpose of government. We need charismatic leaders who will remind us why constitutionally limited government is important, even to teach us what it means in the first place. Much of the discord we experience in politics is due to disagreement, or ignorance, on the basic principals of our government.
I wonder if you would agree to passing an ironclad law, or preferably a Constitutional amendment, that would forbid anyone in the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit everybody else regardless of political affliliation or socioeconomic status?
That is the only way I see that we will ever return to a Constitutionally limited government.
Does second hand smoke infringe on a person's health and well being?
At what point does smoke stack and automobile emissions infringe on a person's health and well being?
False equivalence, dude.At what point does smoke stack and automobile emissions infringe on a person's health and well being?
Does second hand smoke infringe on a person's health and well being?
False equivalence, dude.
Does second hand smoke infringe on a person's health and well being?
No opinions?
Does second hand smoke infringe on a person's health and well being?
Statism has that effect too...
Is that a yes or a no?
Does second hand smoke infringe on a person's health and well being?
No opinions?
Well, it's not a question of principle. It's an empirical fact based on the particulars of a given case. Certainly there are cases where second-hand smoke is damaging.
In any case, when it comes to legislation, the issue is whether the person exposed themselves to the second hand smoke by choice or not. I'm in favor of smoking bans in all publicly owned buildings, but businesses and places of employment are private concerns. As long as there's no deception involved, smoking policies should be up to the people involved.
At what point does smoke stack and automobile emissions infringe on a person's health and well being?
No opinions?
Well, it's not a question of principle. It's an empirical fact based on the particulars of a given case. Certainly there are cases where second-hand smoke is damaging.
In any case, when it comes to legislation, the issue is whether the person exposed themselves to the second hand smoke by choice or not. I'm in favor of smoking bans in all publicly owned buildings, but businesses and places of employment are private concerns. As long as there's no deception involved, smoking policies should be up to the people involved.
What about a guy smoking on his back patio and the smoke is choking his asthmatic neighbor who's patio is only 10 feet away?
Well, it's not a question of principle. It's an empirical fact based on the particulars of a given case. Certainly there are cases where second-hand smoke is damaging.
In any case, when it comes to legislation, the issue is whether the person exposed themselves to the second hand smoke by choice or not. I'm in favor of smoking bans in all publicly owned buildings, but businesses and places of employment are private concerns. As long as there's no deception involved, smoking policies should be up to the people involved.
What about a guy smoking on his back patio and the smoke is choking his asthmatic neighbor who's patio is only 10 feet away?
Sure. That's a violation of the neighbor's right to breathable air. It's also a situation that easy to resolve without invoking a regulatory regime.
Nobody forces you to patronize a business that allows smoking.False equivalence, dude.At what point does smoke stack and automobile emissions infringe on a person's health and well being?
I'm obviously not smart enough to get what you're saying here.
Could you dumb it down just bit?
