re good neighbor political hypocrisy test in article apr gordian com mike gordian com michael a thomas writes in article c qk t qk voder nsc com matt galaxy nsc com matt freivald x writes in article apr gordian com mike gordian com michael a thomas writes as far as set the moral tone is concerned if a community does not collectively want to put up with prostitution going on in front of their kids why should they have to if a community does not want to see proliferation of drugs among their kids why should they have to by what right and do tell from the standpoint of the drug dealer or prostitute what is the difference if the gun is pointed by the local hick city council or the feds if something is wrong it is wrong period if it is not sustainable at a federal level why should it be ok just because the geographical unit is smaller peter nelson posted a very eloquent response to this point in talk politics misc so i need not consume more bandwidth here the problem with the egalitarian view is that it tries to deny the fundamental dilemma of democratic government the people have a right to exercise a voice in their community yet individuals have the right to be left to themselves this is a serious dilemma precisely because there is not much that takes place in a vacuum you are seriously misusing the word egalitarian you should look the word up before you use it there is a vast difference between equal justice under the law and egalitarianism what i meant if it was not clear was the intersection set of liberal and libertarian philosophies of natural rights and how the government and constitutional interpretation in particular fits into that philosophy this philosophy engages in the very serious practical error of endowing the nine lawyers on the supreme court with an almost totalitarian authority completely outside of the consent or consensus of the people this is why supreme court nominations are such amazing political fist fights these days because he who controls the court rules the country the people on the court may well be trying to do the best job they can but they are at best a benevolent oligarch even if you approve of every supreme court decision ever eventually an oligarch will arise that will decimate that which you hold dear try supreme court cases by jury and the problem would be mitigated a great deal those who would create broad non enumerated government powers at any level as in european parlamentary democracies and the current de facto standard in the u s have essentially engaged in the same fundamental mistake except that it is some different body that has the totalitarian virtually unchecked except by plurality election death or retirement government power and why should your community be allowed to stop my activities when i m not picking your pocket or defrauding you just because you don t like it because you find it morally repugnant this is like asking why the wind blows unless you can prove that the fact of your engaging in certain activities has absolutely no effect whatsoever on any other human being who has not consented to your engagement in those activities very few human activities indeed fit into this category even for those few that do who would you empower to make the judgement of what is and is not a fully autonomous activity who defines picking my pocket and defrauding are economic assets a person s only assets or are peace of mind stability confidence in a child s emotional environment security and many other things not also a part of a person s assets what gives you the right to create a moral environment that a parent strongly objects to what gives you the right to create an environment of social unrest and instability if you say that what you do does not have those effects by what authority do you say that who is empowered to make these value judgements how would you feel if i got a gang together and found xtianity or insert your favorite cause here morally repugnant and passed laws to outlaw its free exercise all at a local level since that seems to be a ok with you if the federal constitution explicitly prohibited you from doing so the federal government would prevent you from doing so if it did not and you could muster enough local support to pass an amendment to the local constitution by say a majority empowering the local government to do so then i would have to vote with my feet and move to a neighborhood more friendly to my own system of values this is not an ideal situation but it is far better than the mess we are mired in right now as to the gang of pitchfork and torch wielding friends there are very few restrictive local laws that i personally would advocate or vote for since i am of the view that exercising government power over your neighbors should be done with extreme care and only when absolutely necessary but i do believe in protecting children from victimization by people who have callous disregard for the effects they have on others i would certainly leave a well behaved massage parlor alone so long as it had no detrimental effects on the neighborhood you just don t get it the debate is not whether you or a communitity would or would not vote away my rights it is the propriety of whether that should even be an option when you define rights very broadly there is no practical choice about whether people will or will not infringe upon your rights since these rights overlap even when rights are defined very narrowly the government has been empowered to prevent others from infringing on your rights the fundamental question is by whose authority is that power created if you support the current situation with a natural rights supreme court rather than an original understanding supreme court or even better supreme court by jury you are consenting to having nine lawyers in washington d c create those powers out of the air in my fractal federalism scenario it is a broad consensus of the people i e the amendment process that creates those powers certainly not the only cause mike but people in a local neighborhood should have a voice in what goes on in that neighborhood to deny this is to create another concentrated centralized power to keep the locality from abusing its power you mean that horrific centralized power the individual no i mean the federal government that comes trucking in with guns to tell the locals how to run their neighborhood waco tx is a nice example in essence using a pit bull to keep a toy poodle from biting your leg chances are the pit bull is going to turn on you some day and you have much less defense against it than you do against the toy poodle ideally everyone would leave everyone else alone and no government coercive power of any kind would be necessary this will never work because people are different and by their nature they will always want to force their views on others if this were not the case nobody would try to force their view that murder is wrong on anyone else fine when they force their views on others prosecute them until then leave them alone this is such a simple concept how do you feel about speech codes hate speech certainly could be considered an indication that the pit bull is going to turn some day should the community be allowed to limit it too if not why not if you create a community where public masturbation is permitted in the cause of personal autonomy have you done anything different what precisely are these autonomous activities you are referring to if you list them perhaps we can get enough people to agree that they are truly autonomous and pass a constitutional amendment protecting them and how do you feel about david koresh did he deserve it should the batf or a local version of same be allowed to toss him in jail just because they think he s off his rocker the koresh incident appears to be a horrendous abuse of government power power possibly illegitimately obtained through a means i would abolish the constitutionality of no knock warrants seems very dubious to me not to mention the mere existence of batf and the government s propensity to ignore the word infringe in the second amendment this power is upheld by the same body with its incredible concentration of power in the hands of nine people that has upheld much so called civil rights read affirmative action legislation despite the fourteenth amendment who said anything about the public till get rid of it and get out of my face i agree about getting rid of the public till are you still sure you don t want to come over for coffee you might not especially like my neighborhood and i might not especially like yours but at least we can agree to let each other live the kind of life we want to at the point you get rid of the public till you lose all credibility as to why you should have a say about my private affairs are you sure you are ready for that money is certainly not the only asset i have in this world if it were this would be a bleak existence indeed michael thomas mike gordian com matt freivald liborgalism thinking is irrelevant integrity is irrelevant free speech is irrelevant private property is irrelevant personal responsibility is irrelevant conservativism is futile you will be assimilated these are my opinions only and not those of my employer
