Libertarian Constitution.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: GAms Why would the government need to pay for a 999 service? If health services are run privately, a consortium of private hospitals, clinics and insurance providers would no doubt create one.

Yes, they would create several of them though. One for each hospital. Otherwise, it would technically be anti-trust.

The military should have more force available than any one individual. However, collectively it should be feasible that the government can be overthrown should it expand beyond it's it's rightful duties and become tyrannical. In order to do that, citizens should be able to procure firearms and peaceably train and organise with them if they wish (private militias).

OK, so one man with more power then the army is bad, but the army should have less power then the people as a collection.

If you ask me, that's a restriction of liberties. I agree it is necessary, but it is still a restriction. So this is not an absolute right. It is a conditional right.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Winter wind ...One for each hospital. Otherwise, it would technically be anti-trust.

That doesn't make sense.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Winter wind Yes, they would create several of them though. One for each hospital. Otherwise, it would technically be anti-trust. OK, so one man with more power then the army is bad, but the army should have less power then the people as a collection. If you ask me, that's a restriction of liberties. I agree it is necessary, but it is still a restriction. So this is not an absolute right. It is a conditional right.

The 999 service operated by the group would simply send out ambulances that drop you off at their nearest hospital. Anyone outside of the 999 grouping could set up their own phone line to send you to theirs. Such competition may well improve service, although I must say the paramedics are one group whose abilities I can only praise.

Or, I don't know if you have them abroad, you can use the St. John's ambulance service which is a free, volunteer based paramedics group.

I don't understand your final point, unless you see not being allowed access to nuclear weapons as a restriction of liberties. In that case, it's a restriction of total freedom, but not liberty, as liberty is how we all maximise our freedom without intruding on others equal freedom. And an individual bveing allowed nuclear weapons would be in line with maximised freedom, but not liberty. This is because the power an individual with a nuclear weapon has is greater than that of government over that one individual, which makes him an unrestrainable force, endangering others liberty.

[Kamehameha34]

Right, that would be the Supreme Court. But Libertairians aren't so down with that when the court rules in ways they do not agree with.

Only when their interpretation is in direct violation of the actual document.

If the supreme court ruled that the federal government could break up peaceful protests on alotted private land, they would be ruling against the constitution.

And the founders built within the Constitution the means of altering it.

No. That is not a reason to disregard the constitution.

If the document was inflexible and had no amendment process, we would have thrown it out as soon as it needed a change. The fact that it has one doesn't mean that it can change at a whim and that we should chuck it.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Only when their interpretation is in direct violation of the actual document. If the supreme court ruled that the federal government could break up peaceful protests on alotted private land, they would be ruling against the constitution. No. That is not a reason to disregard the constitution. If the document was inflexible and had no amendment process, we would have thrown it out as soon as it needed a change. The fact that it has one doesn't mean that it can change at a whim and that we should chuck it.

But they have not ruled that you can not protest, they have ruled that those protests can be rightly limited in scope. I can not camp out on the grounds of the statehouse, but I can assemble at certain times and wave my sign.

As to your 2nd point, that was my point in essence. We have not chucked it, we have no need to chuck it. But it does not change on a whim. The process is very complicated and difficult to set in motion. I have worked for a company that helped lawyers with the process, I know of which I speak.

And in responce to the bias of the judges...there is no way around human bias. Humans run the system. That is why there are 9 justices and they do not pick their own replacements.

[Kamehameha34]

But they have not ruled that you can not protest, they have ruled that those protests can be rightly limited in scope.

Completely beside the point.

You're saying that if they did, it would be constitutional.

As to your 2nd point, that was my point in essence. We have not chucked it, we have no need to chuck it. But it does not change on a whim. The process is very complicated and difficult to set in motion. I have worked for a company that helped lawyers with the process, I know of which I speak.

No, you're point was "Oh, we don't need to pay that much attention to what it says now, it can be changed any time."

[Winter wind]

Quote by: compug That doesn't make sense.

Wouldn't it be illegal because the cooperations weren't competing, but rather working together to make a monopoly on 911 or something.

I'm no expert so don't slam me if I'm wrong.

Quote by: GAdams Such competition may well improve service, although I must say the paramedics are one group whose abilities I can only praise.

Competition may improve service, but in an absolute emergency, it is better to have one universal phone number. Rather then ten different ones for each company. This also makes this that much more complex (believe it or not, more so without government), and in an emergency, you don't need complexity.

Or, I don't know if you have them abroad, you can use the St. John's ambulance service which is a free, volunteer based paramedics group.

...differing from the government's how?

Quote by: GAdams I don't understand your final point, unless you see not being allowed access to nuclear weapons as a restriction of liberties. In that case, it's a restriction of total freedom, but not liberty, as liberty is how we all maximise our freedom without intruding on others equal freedom. And an individual bveing allowed nuclear weapons would be in line with maximised freedom, but not liberty. This is because the power an individual with a nuclear weapon has is greater than that of government over that one individual, which makes him an unrestrainable force, endangering others liberty.

Now they tell me. However, couldn't the same be said about a gun. A man with a gun, or hell, with a his fists, could endanger other's liberties (you'd say they do it with legislation) so where do we draw the line between what we can out law and what we can't.

Quote by: Kame Only when their interpretation is in direct violation of the actual document. If the supreme court ruled that the federal government could break up peaceful protests on alotted private land, they would be ruling against the constitution.

See, we agree, but they don't.
We say it infringes on "Right to free speech" and "Right to assembly."
They say, "Clear and present danger" (I might be able to do better if you show me the case)

Now like it or not, they have a point. I disagree, but not with their Constitutional argument, because that is valid. (I think).

However that Constitution gave them that power, so I don't have a choice. I must abide by that decision.

Quote by: kame No. That is not a reason to disregard the constitution. If the document was inflexible and had no amendment process, we would have thrown it out as soon as it needed a change. The fact that it has one doesn't mean that it can change at a whim and that we should chuck it.

You make it sound like five guys and their dog decide this process. It take immeasurable amounts of bureaucracy to change the Constitution. But there should be this method of change, unless you disagree with the amendments.

No, you're point was "Oh, we don't need to pay that much attention to what it says now, it can be changed any time."

Come on Kame. His point is what he says it is.

[Morality Games]

My personal view is that the U.S. Constitution was written to serve as the framework for the sound functioning of American society, and as long as the functioning remains sound, then it does not matter much if interpretations are narrow or broad -- whichever approach yields the most effective results (serves the interests of the largest number of citizens / most deserving number of citizens / most talented number of citizens) is the 'ideal' approach.

When you ask which one of the above three the Constitution should serve, then hopefully it will be all three at once, but if there are conflicts, then the favored side is never one all the time, but rather it depends on the situation -- in order for the functioning to remain sound, sometimes it must be the many, other times the deserving, and every once in awhile the best who benefit.

[Kamehameha34]

See, we agree, but they don't. We say it infringes on "Right to free speech" and "Right to assembly." They say, "Clear and present danger" (I might be able to do better if you show me the case)

The supreme court has not and never will rule "Peaceful protests can not occur because of a clear and present danger.."

That's a contradiction in terms.

You make it sound like five guys and their dog decide this process. It take immeasurable amounts of bureaucracy to change the Constitution. But there should be this method of change, unless you disagree with the amendments.

What? You misunderstood.

It was implied by someone other than you that, because the constitution is amendable, that it contains no truth.

Come on Kame. His point is what he says it is.

It's not my fault he's contradicting himself.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Completely beside the point. You're saying that if they did, it would be constitutional..

No, I was saying that they have not done anything close to what you are whipping fear up about. I am saying that they always support their decisions with opinions that cite what aspect or provision of Constitutional law has guided their decisions and that the likelyhood that you could get 5 of 9 sitting Justices to COMPLETELY IGNORE the document that guides their existence is pretty must nill.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, you're point was "Oh, we don't need to pay that much attention to what it says now, it can be changed any time."

That is SO NOT MY POINT, I am embarassed for you that you would even think it.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Winter wind Wouldn't it be illegal because the cooperations weren't competing, but rather working together to make a monopoly on 911 or something.

There are legal monopolies created by Congress. But I don't think it is the same thing. It's more like an emergency service, like the fire department. Paying for fire protection has lead to corruption where fire companies let your house burn down if you don't pay them first, or you don't live within the area they cover. I suspect 911 works the same way.

[Domino]

The various hospitals could organize the creation of a new corporation for the purpose of emergency calls, in which all the hospitals invest. The new entity would be legally independent, but the hospitals would be its shareholders, and its governing body could well be made of officials from the various hospitals.

It's only antitrust if the hospitals try to prevent another service from competing by, for example, accepting patients only from the company they helped form. There are other ways as well, which are probably more subtle.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Winter wind Competition may improve service, but in an absolute emergency, it is better to have one universal phone number. Rather then ten different ones for each company. This also makes this that much more complex (believe it or not, more so without government), and in an emergency, you don't need complexity. ...differing from the government's how? Now they tell me. However, couldn't the same be said about a gun. A man with a gun, or hell, with a his fists, could endanger other's liberties (you'd say they do it with legislation) so where do we draw the line between what we can out law and what we can't.

In an emergency you would phone the number you knew best. Where is the problem? Hell, put it on speeddial 1, so you can push 2 buttons instead of 3 if you have a problem remembering numbers.

St. John's ambulance differs from the governments because the paramedics arn't paid, the cost of the service i sered by voluntary, charitable donations.

One guy with a gun can be stopped by shooting him. Military and police forces are trained to deal with such people, and individual armed civilians can also counter one person with a gun. One person with a nuke can't reasonably be countered unlike one person with a gun. I can't believe you can seriously be comparing firearm ownership to nuclear weapons ownership even in theory.

There is also a question of what a government is reasonably able to achieve. A government might be able to counter a foreign states malicious intentions towards it's citizens, but it cannot protect you from the criminals within your society very well. If someone comes up to you and tries to rape you, are you gonna call the cops on him there and then? He'd beat the shit out of if you were lucky, kill you if your were not. Oh it can deter them and perhaps even create an environment where there are fewer rapists, but it can never stop them completely. This is where your ability to protect yourself is paramount. If your a small woman on an empty street at night, no ones gonna be there to help you, and your likely not strong enough to be able to fend him off (although I do reccomend everyone in society knows unarmed self-defense). The only thing that might get you out of their unharmed is a weapon. A knife, a taser, mace, a baton or a gun would all be good here. And if every rapist knew that every woman in town had a gun, do you think he's going to commit rape? So yeah, you might say he might bring a gun of his own. So what, he probably brought one anyway. And if you say you should just allow the rape and hope the cops catch him, you've just virtually sanctioned rape.