Focus on practical, logical thought process.....

[Osborn F Enready]

I think all of us, as libertarians need to try to reach more people through common sense.

Almost any problem that comes up in law today, that is valid, can be tied in some way to property rights. By breaking down each example to the most basic form of Constitutional process, I think people can read and understand better the need and importance of our Supreme Law of the Land.

The cross burning thread is a prime example.

By breaking this down to basic property rights, it makes it simple to see where the law has been broken by examining the actual rights violated, and whose rights are at stake in the situation.

Emminent domain is another prime example.

Many can superficially see the hypothetical good of a piece of individual private property being used for the benefit of the public, but once they understand the overall wrongness of the government FORCING a private owner to surrender his land solely on the basis of the "its best for society" argument by theoretically putting themselves in the victims shoes, it becomes a whole different passion that the person in question feels.

I truly think a call to common sense, as Thomas Paine once put forth, is in order again.

Let me know your thoughts and opinions.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The cross burning thread is a prime example.

Would you care to elablorate on that one? What common sense would you offer related to burning a cross on someone's lawn?

[Thunder Wave]

I think if it is someone else's lawn than you would be invading their privacy.

Not the fact that the cross was burnt but the invading someone's owned land, If it's being paid for or is paid for, than that is there private property.

If it was your own than I would see no legal issue their unless the Fire burning in yards is against city code.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thunderwave hit that exactly on the head.

I was trying to illustrate that virtually any legal argument that has merit can be reduced to the most common constitutional rights. It is in this form, it is easiest to understand the direct link to where the laws originated from and how they relate to the rights and the Constitution.

The burning cross thread is a simple matter of property rights and the possible violation thereof.

Its much clearer when reduced to its simplest, root form.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Thunderwave hit that exactly on the head. I was trying to illustrate that virtually any legal argument that has merit can be reduced to the most common constitutional rights. It is in this form, it is easiest to understand the direct link to where the laws originated from and how they relate to the rights and the Constitution. The burning cross thread is a simple matter of property rights and the possible violation thereof. Its much clearer when reduced to its simplest, root form.

Yes, but one shouldn't, at least in this case, ignore the cultural context. Burning a cross on a lawn in some Southern towns is the rough equivalent of a death threat.

As a political group well out of the mainstream, I think it is important to pick and choose our battles carefully. There are many theoretically sound, but really, really stupid issues that some Libertarians have chosen to champion.

[Osborn F Enready]

Look Rick, the Libertarians support the Constitution, not the Bible.

Some believe in the Bible, some the Quaran, some the Torah, some the Talmud.

All have the right, under Libertarian platforms, to believe as THEY THEMSELVES see fit.

People are not guaranteed a right to not be offended.

It is all about the rights Rick.

[Thunder Wave]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Look Rick, the Libertarians support the Constitution, not the Bible. Some believe in the Bible, some the Quaran, some the Torah, some the Talmud. All have the right, under Libertarian platforms, to believe as THEY THEMSELVES see fit. People are not guaranteed a right to not be offended. It is all about the rights Rick.

That makes complete sense to me. I agree fully.

People are constantly taking their personal differences to court and trying to force their feelings into law for others to abide by. This is not good. This takes a lot of personal rights away. It should be their responsibility to overcome their personal differences. Not the Governments.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Look Rick, the Libertarians support the Constitution, not the Bible. Some believe in the Bible, some the Quaran, some the Torah, some the Talmud. All have the right, under Libertarian platforms, to believe as THEY THEMSELVES see fit. People are not guaranteed a right to not be offended. It is all about the rights Rick.

Its all about the marketing. No, I am not talking about compromising one's principles, just not being stupid about it. Offending people, boring them or giving them a negative impression about libertarian ideas isn't very smart.

[Thunder Wave]

No its not smart. It's unfortunate that we live in a society based on pride and to an extent, extreme moral values. This creates the most intertaining debates but also makes people with different values systems difficult to keep everyone's individual stipulated rights.

So how does one bring liberty to all when the majority wants it their way?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Yes, but one shouldn't, at least in this case, ignore the cultural context. Burning a cross on a lawn in some Southern towns is the rough equivalent of a death threat.

This is a good reason to keep laws local.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman This is a good reason to keep laws local.

Nope. Not unless you want rights to extend no farther than the end of county sheriff's billy club. There was a good chance that the local sherif was the one who burned the cross or failing that, he was a klansman.

Local laws are usually more restrictive and intrusive than state or federal laws. Or if you look back during the civil rights era the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission and the Alabama State Sovereignty Commissions were state funded, secret organizations that used what has been termed a Stazi-like network of informers. The Commissions were explicitly segregationist and were set up specifically to oppose the Brown vs the Board of Education ruling by any means necessary.

Government can't be trusted whether it is in Washington or down the block in City Hall.

[Morgan_Freeman]

The point is, if the policy is local, it can be easily avoided by voting with your feet. If a small community wants to live in a Stalinesque dictatorship, I respect their right to do so.

In any event, you have to appreciate the culture argument. Culture plays a large role in determining torte law, so what's appropriate in Mississippi may not be appropraite in Washington.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman The point is, if the policy is local, it can be easily avoided by voting with your feet. If a small community wants to live in a Stalinesque dictatorship, I respect their right to do so. In any event, you have to appreciate the culture argument. Culture plays a large role in determining torte law, so what's appropriate in Mississippi may not be appropraite in Washington.

If a small community wants to live in a repressive dictatorship I still respect the right of any citizen to demand their basic rights. Community standards have no standing if they deny basic rights. Several million black folks did vote with their feet and move out of the Jim Crow South in the first half of the last century. It was their only alternative at the time, but it didn't make it right.

[Morgan_Freeman]

I guess by local, I mean city by city.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman I guess by local, I mean city by city.

It took 41 years but at least there is a measure more of justice today in Philadelphia Mississippi.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: RickSp It took 41 years but at least there is a measure more of justice today in Philadelphia Mississippi.

Isolated, local laws allow room for dissent. The Federal ban route on everything leads only to bitterness in the affacted, or disenfranchised populace.


Besides, the Federal ban route is unconstitutional on every level. We refer back once again to the War, and Emergency Powers Act which supposedly authorizes such actions by the President. I would think this line of reasoning was fundamental to being a Libertarian. The constitution must remain rule one in order for the Republic to function as intended.

[RickSp]

As a libertarian I have never been a constitutionalist, as much as I admire parts of the document. The constitution was a flawed document from its inception. Some of its worst, most terrible flaws have been corrected while new ones have been appended.

Local, isolated laws can be far uglier than Federal statues and their administration even more tyrannical.

[Osborn F Enready]

Local laws are much easier to stop from becoming tyranical, than federal laws.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Local laws are much easier to stop from becoming tyranical, than federal laws.

The opposite is true.

Local tyranny is easy. A small group can control local politics by corruption and force and get away with it for decades. Federal tyranny is destructive to a greater number but can be resisted locally and fought by a larger and more diverse constituency than that of a single town or city.

[leftcider]

Repressive state and local laws are no better than federal ones because the result is the same. Sovereignty for states should not be the rallying cry of people against governmental power, individual rights should be. Anything less than that is the same brand of collectivism on a smaller scale. A huge amount of anti-libertarian laws (especially in the social sphere) are done on state or local levels.