Can government attack non law breaking businesses just like that?

Hammered hippie

Apart from the discussion whether head shops are bad or good I am utterly surprised by the remarks of the Taoiseach, Dermot Ahern and Pat Carey.
They openly stated they hoped head shops would close down, comparing them to moving targets that were in their sight.
They have been doing this from the moment Joe D. started his campaign of slander some months ago.
Head Shops were not breaking any law and sought cooperation with the government to regulate them selves.
Instead the government started openly attacking them and made it known they wanted them to close down.
Can democratic elected government officials do this? Make legislation that will destroy a business that is not breaking any law. Especially as it is quite clear it was done in hope to gain some votes over the whole process and as a media excercise in order to appear though.
Isn't that power abuse in order to further their own career.
Isn't destroying someones lifelihood as a government official power abuse non-stop!

Does anyone know any rules that government officials have to life by to stop them scapegoating and destroying anything they see fit to destroy for their own political gain?

ardmacha

Of course they can, all illegal activities were legal until they passed a law prohibiting them. And as for hoping to win votes, that is how democracies work.

jimmycrackcorm

with reports in the news how people are being affected by new and improved headshop drugs, it can hardly be expected that the government should turn round and say: "too bad - they're legal".

Liam Byrne

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

with reports in the news how people are being affected by new and improved headshop drugs, it can hardly be expected that the government should turn round and say: "too bad - they're legal".

They say the same about their ridiculous expenses, so I doubt public opinion has much to do with it.

Basically they saw that they like as suits their mood and agenda at that moment.

goose2005

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They say the same about their ridiculous expenses, so I doubt public opinion has much to do with it.

They also say the same about their 5-year term of office.

Hammered hippie

@Ardmacha

In most democracies there has to be a reason other than: 'I as politician think I can further my career by destroying this sector of society' or ' my neighbour and friend is annoyed by this and that so I feel I can pass a law against it'

If politicians are allowed to make everything they don't like illegal by passing a law against it without a good scientifically/statistically backed up reason then there is no difference with a dictator ship because:

In a dictator ship people are outlawed and criminalized just like that and with no furter reason issued.
In this 'democracy' people are outlawed and criminalized by decree with no further reason issued.
The only technical difference is that in the second version a law has to be made. But as the mechanisms in place to stop and verify a law are not respected there is no difference in reality.

So what is the difference..can anyone tell me. What sets Ireland apart from an ordinary dictatorship if laws are passed to polish away that what is not sightly, without any form of input or way to stop it or have it verified.
Mind you...the national ombudsman has called Ireland a non-constitutional country for this very same reason.

The_Minister

Hammered hippie wrote: »

@Ardmacha

In most democracies there has to be a reason other than: 'I as politician think I can further my career by destroying this sector of society' or ' my neighbour and friend is annoyed by this and that so I feel I can pass a law against it'

If politicians are allowed to make everything they don't like illegal by passing a law against it without a good scientifically/statistically backed up reason then there is no difference with a dictator ship because:

In a dictator ship people are outlawed and criminalized just like that and with no furter reason issued.
In this 'democracy' people are outlawed and criminalized by decree with no further reason issued.
The only technical difference is that in the second version a law has to be made. But as the mechanisms in place to stop and verify a law are not respected there is no difference in reality.

So what is the difference..can anyone tell me. What sets Ireland apart from an ordinary dictatorship if laws are passed to polish away that what is not sightly, without any form of input or way to stop it or have it verified.
Mind you...the national ombudsman has called Ireland a non-constitutional country for this very same reason.

We elect people to make laws - they are making laws.
Who do you think should get to judge whether or not they are 'allowed' pass a law? Who decides if the evidence is strong enough?

smokin ace

they have to do something about them my sister went totally bonkers from the siht out of the head shops just imagine going into you mothers house seeing you younger sister in her room totally paranoid out of her head thinking there was people coming to get her she was talking to herself and hearing voices in her head did not sleep for nearly a week and did not eat either along with a raft of other things believe me its scary siht no one held her down and forced her to take the stuff and i was no saint when i was younger and have experience with street drugs but the stuff out the headshops is very bad siht i know many lads and ladies in my area that have lost the plot over headshop drugs so the sooner they close the better because if they stay open they will destroy all the young people brains that take the stuff out of it

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nijmegen

We empower our politicians to make decisions in the hopes that they will be wise... But they often are not.

In the US there's a parallel at the moment with BP: The administration of President Obama is easing up the rethoric against them as they are driving the share price down to a point where a takeover or a breakup of BP could happen. That would ultimately damage their efforts to stop the leaking oil.

A politician or an influential leader can make or break things by their expressed opinions, and they can make laws about it.

We trust that they won't go making lots of trouble for lots of people because they want to get re-elected. But the Greens, for example, are waging big debates with another niche set of niche industries which, agree with them or not, can be wiped out by the stroke of a pen.

That's the system we have.

Banned Account

Hammered hippie wrote: »

If politicians are allowed to make everything they don't like illegal by passing a law against it without a good scientifically/statistically backed up reason then there is no difference with a dictator ship:

There is a safeguard in the Irish Constitution. A law can be challeneged on the grounds that it is un-constitutional so it would be inaccurate to say that the government can pass any law they feel like. All laws passed have to fit with the Constitution.

If you and others of the same mindset are sufficiently outraged at the clampdown on headshops then why not find a legal basis to maount a constitutional challenge to the legislation. That is the beauty of living in a democracy - this option is open to you. If on the other hand, you are not so inclined, then I suggest that you accept the fact and move on.

On an unrelated note, I am quite taken by the idea of a dictator ship - I could be the true ruler of the seven seas and say things like "yarrrrrrrrrrr squiddy" whenever I wanted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And would such a system have no regulation on the wearing of seatbelts? Because back when it was voluntary, nobody did it and more people died. Why did nobody do it? 1. because people aren't rational and they dont think 'it'll happen to them' and 2. because we learn through instrumental trial and error and the type of error that'd make you appreciate your seatbelt is the type of error you dont walk away from.

Should governments not intervene in cases of self harm, depression, addiction? There is a line, a line that governments should maintain for the well-being of society, they shouldn't act as a conduit for a slippery slope argument. There is a line, it is currently debatable where that line should be. Libertarians (and hammered hippies I assume) want the line completely removed. For shame

I read about a new laser gadget today with the following disclaimer

Warning: Extremely dangerous is an understatement to the power of 1W of laser power. It will blind permanently and instantly and set fire quickly to skin and other body parts, use with extreme caution and only when using the included eye protection. Customers will be required to completely read and agree to our Class IV Laser Hazard Acknowledgment Form.

This is available to buy over the internet.

I then read a few comments on it

Some idiots said the following

"Real lasers that resemble Star Wars lightsabres, that can burn skin, cut through plastic and ignite matches - yes please."
"The fact that it looks like a lightsabre is even cooler."
I must have this. Birthday present anyone? I will KILL things, with FIRE."


Someone suggested

"It's guaranteed someone somewhere will get blinded by it.. you should need a license to buy these things, like you do for firearms.."


Some libertarians weighed in with the typical

"Last thing we need is more governmental regulations. One of these days you are going to need a permit too buy toenail clippers."
"License? No. More bull**** bureacracy and wasted tax money."


To which there was a retort

"Say that to a friend of mine who was almost blinded by a laser prank. Yes there are some dumbass sick people out there."


After which there was the usual libertarian inability to differenciate and hence came the slippery slope argument, an argument for the removal of the line by giving ridiculous examples from far beyond the line.

"Tell that to my friend who was almost blinded by a fork prank. You should need a license to by those things!"


Finally someone made some sense in the face of libertarian non-sensical line moving.

"Come on...Are you telling me you think you're retarded neighbor down the street who thinks wrestling is real and that kicking his unsuspecting friends in the nuts is funny as hell, should be able to buy one of these without at least some checks? Comparing an eating utensil to a weapon that could be deadly at range (e.g. shining one at a plane or cars on a freeway) is pretty stupid.

We license gun owners.
We license motorists.

If some jackass can spend $200 and blind people a mile away, disrupt air traffic, and burn flesh then it should probably be at least monitored.

No one is saying you need to license forks. Or bread. We are saying that dangerous objects like these should be monitored or maybe even require a license. It's not a slippery slope. We didn't license bread after we required licenses for cars or guns. We won't "slip" to licensing your underwear once these require licenses."


Quite frankly I couldnt care less if someone with the self administered moniker of 'hammered hippie' is worried about where they'll get their nose candy from.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What part of 'there is a line' did you not get?? Governments should not always intervene. I'm saying they should intervene on certain issues, you are saying they should never intervene. Now I know from debating you that you find it easier to strawman an opponent so you can argue with the fictional posisiton of 'governments should be superman and always intervene' but quite clearly thats not what I'm saying.

And quite clearly you (as a libertarian) are saying governments should never intervene

Very quickly (a yes or no) so as not to drag the thread off-topic, should we be required by law to wear seatbelts?

gandalf

Anything that puts more strain on our Health Service needs to be dealt with.

Of course there is populist politics at work here but for once it for the benefit of society.

Eliot Rosewater

gandalf wrote: »

Of course there is populist politics at work here but for once it for the benefit of society.

No, it's not. The drug consumption that fueled the head shops hasn't gone away; it's merely been transferred to illegal drug dealers.

The real winners here are rocket launcher wielding gangsters. They are unaccountable and cannot be regulated, unlike head shops. The problem goes on...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Private sexual acts between consenting adults

Now, should seatbelt wearing be required by law?
If you say yes then you accept there is a line. I'd presume you'll say no and reveal the flipside of libertarianism. Everyone loves the idea of live and let live, you like to hide the idea of die and let die

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bryanw

Well this shows us the problem with this country.

There are those who think that everything should be regulated. This is the view proffered by those who think they know better than everyone else, and therefore want to tell everyone else what to do, i.e. "The Nanny State".

The problem is allowing the Government to regulate some of the more dangerous things will inevitably lead to wishing to regulate everything, as was mentioned previously: "which sector of society can I destroy to further my career"?

The problem in Ireland is that there is a lack of any concept of personal responsibility. People are not prepared to take responsibility for their own actions. Such as the seat belt argument. It should be the responsibility of the person to wear their own seat belt. If there is a car crash and the driver is wearing his seat belt and the passenger is not, tough, the passenger is responsible for his own safety. The current situation as I gather, is where the driver is not open to prosecution if the passenger is not wearing the seat belt, but the driver can get a penalty if either he or children in the car are not wearing. I've no problem with children wearing a seat belt by regulation, but for the driver it is again a matter of personal responsibility.

I'm completely fine with allowing people to use headshops. Their actions do not affect me, and no harm will come to my body by others using drugs. Where I draw the line is when the actions of one person infringes upon mine. For this reason I support the smoking ban. For instance if A shoots B, the Nanny Stater believes that it is the guns fault and therefore we should ban guns. In reality, it is A's fault and A should now be punished because A has encroached upon B's right not to be shot.

And it is correct to say that allowing Governments to regulate one thing will lead to regulation of a lot more things. Books, films, songs, sunbeds, alcohol, food. These are examples of things government wishes to regulate when you have someone sitting in an office who thinks he knows what's good for everyone else.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Irish Constitution (which is more defined and much less open-ended than Constitutions like the United States)
European Union Treaties/ECJ
International treaties and conventions.

Our government is far from having a blank cheque to legislate on whatever it wants.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Private consenting incest is not my cup of tea but its nobodies business, hence PRIVATE

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

bryanw wrote: »

The problem in Ireland is that there is a lack of any concept of personal responsibility. People are not prepared to take responsibility for their own actions. Such as the seat belt argument. It should be the responsibility of the person to wear their own seat belt. If there is a car crash and the driver is wearing his seat belt and the passenger is not, tough, the passenger is responsible for his own safety. The current situation as I gather, is where the driver is not open to prosecution if the passenger is not wearing the seat belt, but the driver can get a penalty if either he or children in the car are not wearing. I've no problem with children wearing a seat belt by regulation, but for the driver it is again a matter of personal responsibility.

The regulations dont remove personal responsibility, they heighten it. You are still personally responsible for wearing a seatbelt and if others are travelling with you you are responsible for them too. People didnt wear seatbelts when it was voluntary because the likelihood of crashing was not tangible to them, they never saw it as salient. The likelihood of getting a fine and penalty points is nore salient. You still have freedom to not wear a seatbelt, its just the the consequence has changed. Your argument seems to be if people are too careless/stupid/forgetful that they kill themselves, so be it. Libertarians like to expand that to people who are vulnerable/poor/disabled etc and say tough luck if they also fail. Proper regulation heightens the consequence of misbehaviour which is not on its own tangible enough to moderate the behaviour.

Fuhrer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And who defines what an adult is?

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm sure the incest would have to become public for any criminal proceedings to take place and I dont condone public incest so I wont call for any such repeal. You on the other hand condone incest and sexual harrassment and domestic abuse and horrific car crashes and private education and health and the deregulation of all spheres that would allow the mass exploitation of most of the population by the wealthy few

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're honestly saying that the Irish Constitution has few checks on government power? The High Court has jurisdiction to strike down unconstitutional legislation, either you can do bring this forward yourself (provided that you have sufficient personal interest in the legislation) or the President can inititate it.

Ditto for the ECJ, they have been more than willing to strike down statutes which go against EU law (although national courts have been adept at avoiding a clash between the EU and national Constitutions)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What in particular do you deem to be unconstitutional/against European legislation then?

Laminations

Fuhrer wrote: »

And who defines what an adult is?

The state, with a mandate from its citizens. Are you saying the state now shouldnt intervene with child abuse because an individual has decided he disagrees with what constitutes adulthood?

Banned Account

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would have to disagree with this to be honest. If you are to take the blasphemy bill for example, this was enacted in order to ensure that the law was constitutional, there was an anomally without it.

If you are to browse through our body of constitutional law, you will see many cases where laws have been either dropped after an Article 26 reference or struck down at a later stage for being contrary to the constitution.

If you are to look similarly at some of the ECJ case law, you will find similar examples from all over Europe. I think the crux of the matter is making sure that we have an adequate and enforcible system of checks an balances.

The seperation of powers exists to prevent the state from holding a monopoly of power, however, the fact that we live in a system where the structure exists does not necessarily ensure that the system will function correctly without constant monitoring.

A proper Judicial appointment system, a second house with the power tp stike down proposed amendments and a more accountable legislative body would be optimal, but in the meantime, the present system is workable if sufficient attention is paid to it.

Fuhrer

Laminations wrote: »

The state, with a mandate from its citizens. Are you saying the state now shouldnt intervene with child abuse because an individual has decided he disagrees with what constitutes adulthood?

No, I say the state should intervene


And It should also intervene in cases of incest and such

Laminations

Fuhrer wrote: »

No, I say the state should intervene


And It should also intervene in cases of incest and such

I agree. The state should definitely not condone consentual incest. I suppose DF managed to find 'the line' in my example of private consenting sexual acts between adults. But rather than acknowledge lines can be drawn he insists all lines should be abandoned

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bryanw

Laminations wrote: »

The regulations dont remove personal responsibility, they heighten it. You are still personally responsible for wearing a seatbelt and if others are travelling with you you are responsible for them too. People didnt wear seatbelts when it was voluntary because the likelihood of crashing was not tangible to them, they never saw it as salient. The likelihood of getting a fine and penalty points is nore salient. You still have freedom to not wear a seatbelt, its just the the consequence has changed. Your argument seems to be if people are too careless/stupid/forgetful that they kill themselves, so be it. Libertarians like to expand that to people who are vulnerable/poor/disabled etc and say tough luck if they also fail. Proper regulation heightens the consequence of misbehaviour which is not on its own tangible enough to moderate the behaviour.

Coercion into being responsible is not personal responsibility. If you don't wear your seatbelt as a driver, you have committed an offense and are as such liable to penalty points and a fine.

And yes, I would agree that if someone is too careless/stupid/forgetful to wear a seat belt it is their fault and must deal with the consequences. And I would extend this to the use of drugs. I do not take drugs or smoke but I do not wish to take away the freedom of another to do so. Saying that, such a person must deal with the consequences of such actions. Therefore they should be liable for any costs of treatment that they may seek as a result of engaging in such behavior.

Contrasting this with the assertion that I am saying that its tough luck for anybody vulnerable or disabled - it is not necessarily the fault of such a person that they are in the situation they are and as such it is reasonable to offer them assistance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Banned Account

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Bit of a stretch there methinks.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The wording of a constitution has to be broad to allow for the fact that social norms change over time. What you are taking issue with here is a matter of interpretation, this interpretation is open to challenge through the courts. If you do not like the interpretation that our judiciary adopt, it can be challenged in Europe.

For example, you are choosing to equate domestic needs with home ownership - whilst many would see this as apt, others would see it as going outside that which is needed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Like any Constitution then really. It's a lot more explicit than, for example, the American Constitution which contains vague provisions like providing for general welfare.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe you're not noting the 'savings clause';"while preserving their rightful liberty of expression".
The point being, the State is permitted to pass legislation that limits freedom of speech, providing that it is to achieve a legitmate aim and it is in proportion to what it is trying to achieve. For example, freedom of speech can be limited to prevent someone leaking military secrets or to protect a person's good name (as under Article 40.3(2)).

This is pretty uniform with liberal democratic societies in general; freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Unless you can find me a society that has unrestricted freedom of expression rights?

donegalfella wrote: »

Article 45.2 of the constitution states that "The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing ... that the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs." But from the late 1990s onward, the State directed its policy not toward accommodating people's domestic needs, but to fuelling a huge bubble in property prices that militated against many families buying a home, and that left thousands of other families deep in negative equity. Constitutional use of state policy?

Owning your own house is not a Constitutional right. "Domestic needs" is to ensure a minimum standard of living and I honestly doubt you really believe that home ownership counts as a "domestic need".

So while you and I would agree that the State's actions were bad, they were not inherently unconstitutional.
Or you could bring the case to the Courts yourself.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, a debatable point. You and I would both agree that NAMA is abhorrent, however, the Constitution does not mandate a particular action. While NAMA is obviously a bad outcome, it provides for the welfare in a basic sense; preventing banks from failing or bank runs.

Giving the courts the ability to declare a debatable point unconstitutional based on economics amounts to giving them an disproportionate handle on monetary policy and would in itself be unconstitutional (tyranny of the judicary would be presumable outcome here)

Banned Account

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, firstly I might point out that this is a seperate issue to the one which you raised and which I commented on - namely that a provision which prohibits an organisation from undermining the authority of the state places us in the same boat as Cuba - this is the stretch I was referring to.

As regards the poit above (which I see as a seperate argument) I think the main issue is not with the sentiment of the text itself, but rather with the interpretation which may be given to it by society at a given time. What was blasphemous or seditious in the 40's and 50's may not be so now.

It is up to society to choose which norms it is willing to accept, our part in this process is to select the representatives who will give effect to our wishes - it may be the case that you are unhappy with how this is currently being implemented but that is an argument against process - not against sentiment.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well done, you are starting to see that there are lines that can be debated in all sorts of government intervention. That is the complexity of things. Public incest is getting caught for private incest, I suppose.

Last week in Scotland, a 44-year-old father and his 26-year-old daughter were both jailed for 16 months for carrying on an incestuous affair. Their relationship was uncovered after the father's wife discovered sexually explicit messages on his mobile phone, and notified the police.

Is this "public incest"?

Do you believe that these two should have been charged and sent to prison?

Its public in so far as any criminal offence uncovered is public. You cant very well be charged with something that nobody knows you did. I dont necessariy agree with a prison sentence, thats a separate argument on whether sentences are too harsh/lenient/inappropriate. But you are painting a lovely picture of libertarian life.

Fvck your sister
Fvck your child
Fvck your seatbelt
Fvck yourself up

bryanw wrote: »

And yes, I would agree that if someone is too careless/stupid/forgetful to wear a seat belt it is their fault and must deal with the consequences. And I would extend this to the use of drugs. I do not take drugs or smoke but I do not wish to take away the freedom of another to do so. Saying that, such a person must deal with the consequences of such actions. Therefore they should be liable for any costs of treatment that they may seek as a result of engaging in such behavior.

So if you have an accident where you drill into your hand or saw your finger off, what then? Thats stupidity right? Like most accidents are caused by stupidity, human error? So what then? Tough luck, sh1t happens? Look at the stupidhead with the stump? We have forms of social insurance to protect ourselves and each other from our silly behaviour, we have laws and regulation to curb our engagement in extremely silly behaviour. The line between silly and extremely silly is debatable but I'd rather live in a society with some ill-defined line rather than no line at all.

Contrasting this with the assertion that I am saying that its tough luck for anybody vulnerable or disabled - it is not necessarily the fault of such a person that they are in the situation they are and as such it is reasonable to offer them assistance.

So what if someone becomes disabled after a car crash where they hadn't been wearing a seatbelt? Tough luck stupidhead? If someone becomes addicted to, and psychotically effected by drugs (not that I agree with the current drug treatment regimes)? Tough luck junkie?

Laminations

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Again, a debatable point. You and I would both agree that NAMA is abhorrent, however, the Constitution does not mandate a particular action. While NAMA is obviously a bad outcome, it provides for the welfare in a basic sense; preventing banks from failing or bank runs.

Giving the courts the ability to declare a debatable point unconstitutional based on economics amounts to giving them an disproportionate handle on monetary policy and would in itself be unconstitutional (tyranny of the judicary would be presumable outcome here)

Point well made. NAMA is an aberration of this government, not the result of government in general.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

"Personal responsibility" is, in my opinion, voluntarily assuming responsibility over your own person and taking actions to effect that. Putting on your seatbelt because you'll get fined is not personal responsibility. You're not doing it because you've judged that that's the best way to live, but because a fine awaits you if you don't.

Anyway, I see we've all gone off on the libertarian tangent again. *sigh*

bryanw wrote: »

Well this shows us the problem with this country...

I agree with what you said, but within the head shop debate it's not even necessary to bring in personal responsibility. The drugs demand will always be there. We have a choice of allocating this demand to legitimate businesses who can be regulated for health and safety etc, or illegal drug dealers, who cannot be. It's a choice between the owners of head shops, and the kind of people that burn down head shops.

donegalfella wrote: »

In the past, efforts to stamp out such objectionable material have turned into campaigns of relatively indiscriminate censorship that saw literary works such as Hemingway's A Farewell To Arms, Huxley's Brave New World, and Steinbeck's Grapes Of Wrath banned in this country. In the 1950s, poet Robert Graves described Ireland as having "the fiercest literary censorship this side of the Iron Curtain."

:eek: That's actually an embarrassment.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll admit, I didnt explain myself well. Incest is ilegal and if it is brought to the attention of the state then it should be prosecuted, but the state shouldn't bother trying to identify consenting incest, unlike road traffic violations, child abuse, assault etc. I'd have the same views for recreational drug use in the home. Illegal but not so much on their radar of importance.

Yet again, you display your exceedingly poor understanding of libertarian thinking. Libertarians would happily acknowledge that children are unable to give informed consent, and would consider it perfectly legitimate to prosecute an adult for carrying on sexual activity with a child.

And who decides the age of an adult? Who would prosecute on who's behalf?

If adult siblings chose to have sex with each other, that would be their own private business. I would not encourage such an activity, which I admit to finding rather creepy, but I don't expect the State to put a stop to everything that I personally (or society in general) find objectionable. Liberalism often involves tolerating things that one finds personally abhorrent—and this is a finer point that you seem incapable of grasping. Tolerating something is not the same as endorsing it.

The reason the state does not tolerate incest is because it often involves abuses of power between parent and child (that may begin when the child is below the age of consent, without the grooming being detectable or necessarily illegal) and secondly incest can result in genetic deformaties. I'd not tolerate it (like you would) if I happened to find out about its practice, but I wouldn't be prying into peoples bedrooms to establish whether incest was being committed.

More to the point, libertarians do not believe in prosecuting "victimless crimes." In the case quoted above, a father in his forties and a daughter in her twenties have been sent to prison for having sex with each other. Two adults have been imprisoned for doing something that they both wanted, and that harmed nobody. What's the rationale for the punishment?

Prison may be harsh but no punishment (namely legalising something) is a type of endorsement by the state.
I'll repeat my question on seatbelts. Should the government be requiring people to wear them? If not, please quantify how many deaths would result from your extra feeling of freedom?

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

"Personal responsibility" is, in my opinion, voluntarily assuming responsibility over your own person and taking actions to effect that. Putting on your seatbelt because you'll get fined is not personal responsibility. You're not doing it because you've judged that that's the best way to live, but because a fine awaits you if you don't.

The problem with libertarians is that either they think we are all equally capable of judging whats the best way to live or they dont care that some (in many cases all) of us are ill-equiped to rationally judge alternatives and outcomes.

Anyway, I see we've all gone off on the libertarian tangent again. *sigh*

I inverted commas sighed too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which is why we have a Supreme Court made up of learned judges to ensure that the appropriate weighting is given to each term.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, you were the one who brought up negative equity and families being unable to buy homes, I really doubt a reasonable outsider would claim that home ownership is a "domestic need". Noone was forced into buying these homes so I'm not sure how bad policies are automatically unconstitutional or are against providing for domestic needs.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh I completely agree, however, when a term is as vague as "general welfare" you will have a hard time bringing forward a case. Bring forward an issue where one your personal rights was affected and you'll stand a much better chance of succeeding in your claim.
Where economics is concerned, you'll have a tough time bringing forward a case unless it involves some form of extremism, to protect diversity of political process (it would also set a horrible precedent)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The realm of the Constitution is to do with the law, not economics. What the Constitution is saying is underlining the government's constitutional ability to determine credit and that this must be done with some measure of the public good in mind.
When it comes to such things, the Constitution is interpreted quite broadly so as not to infringe the seperation of powers and prevent the judiciary from rigidly enforcing a particular doctrine.

FOr example, it would be almost certainly deemed constitutional for the Government to raise/lower the interest rates to certain levels provided these were moderate. For the government to take this to an extreme and use monetary policy to completely abolish

It's similar when it comes to personal rights, the government can penalise me for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded public building but it cannot take this to an extreme.

Banned Account

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But the constitution has to be framed as a living document, a guiding hand as it were to prevent us being ruled by the tyranny of the few. I never suggested that the ink text of the constitution protects us from anything, whilst the pen may be mightier than the sword, both need a hand to hold them.

The text is designed to provide us with a structure which the courts can construe according to the prevailing social norms of the time - could the pendulum swing back in the future - yes it could. If that is the prevailing will of the masses then we need to accept it or move out.

The alternatives are:

1) Anarchy
2) Specific Legislation covering every aspect of our lives

To my mind, neither is desireable nor workable

Laminations

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The realm of the Constitution is to do with the law, not economics. What the Constitution is saying is underlining the government's constitutional ability to determine credit and that this must be done with some measure of the public good in mind.
When it comes to such things, the Constitution is interpreted quite broadly so as not to infringe the seperation of powers and prevent the judiciary from rigidly enforcing a particular doctrine.

FOr example, it would be almost certainly deemed constitutional for the Government to raise/lower the interest rates to certain levels provided these were moderate. For the government to take this to an extreme and use monetary policy to completely abolish

It's similar when it comes to personal rights, the government can penalise me for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded public building but it cannot take this to an extreme.

Exactly, there are lines (possibly ill defined in areas) but they exist so as to define when and where and what government has a say in. Libertarians like to use examples from the unencroached side of the line to slippery slope regulation and claim those who believe in moderate and sensible government intervention want to see everything regulated. Like the example I gave of someone stating that high powered lasers are dangerous enough to warrant regulation, you got a retort from someone claiming forks can be dangerous and asking if the government should licence fork ownership. Rather than debating the complex issue of drawing appropriate lines and gaining a sensible balance between personal liberty and collective rights, libertarians want to scrap all lines, scrap all intervention and regulation and scrap the government.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.