From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Fri Nov 20 1998 - 10:23:57 MST
Patrick Wilken wrote:
> >My apologies.
>
> Apology happily accepted. Do you really think that the States are much
> better in terms of libertarian ideals that Australia? I've travelled a fair
> bit in the States and its hard for me to really pin down the differences.
Well, it depends on what state you are in. There are a number of states here
which I consider to border on fascism/socialism. While there is relatively
little repression of politically accepted minorities, there is a rather serious
amount of tyranny of the majority, as well as tyranny of special interests,
especially to the point of enforcing laws that any rational person would
recognise as unconstitutional. While I have a personal interest in the 2nd
Amendment and the heinous amount of violations against it in the statutes, I
also see this with regards to many other parts of the Consitution.
For example, the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech, free association,
and bans the forced membership in a National Religion. It does not say that
anyone can be forced to listen to another person's free speech, and it does not
say that a person must speak.
The federal government has little to no respect for the 9th or 10th Amendment
rights (which is all rights that are not specifically enumerated in the
Constitution), which belong to the People (as individuals), or to the States as
delegated by the People in those States. The Congress and the Executive branch
are constantly passing laws and creating regulations which violate these
amendments. However, these are also the loophole by which the States are able
to become little fascist tyrannies in and of themselves. The People in each
State can vote and pass Amendments to the State Constitutions which can limit
any right not specifically addressed in the US Constitution. This is how the
States are able to, for example, restrict the right to choose an abortion. As
long as the People properly delegate their rights to the State in their State
Constitution, they can make their own state as bad and oppressive as they want
to make it, so long as they do not violate the US Constitution. This is how
States like Massachusetts, New York, California, etc. do not seem to be much
different from other english speaking socialist countries like England, Canada,
or Australia in the way their government treats their citizens. However, come
up to new Hampshire, or try New Mexico, or some other more conservative state.
I think you'll find a marked difference.
There is also the farce of double jeopardy. A person cannot be tried twice for
the same crime, yet feds have won the right in the Supreme court to try drug
users, growers, and traffickers both in civil and criminal courts, winning two
convictions for the same crime.
By comparison, the 2nd Amendment should be rather simple. It says "A militia
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Any idiot can tell that it means
that no local, state or federal law or regulation can limit how the People, as
individuals, can posess and use their weapons of choice. Many liberal
revisionists have claimed that the word "People" means the community or society
as a whole, however, in all Constitutional Law, when you have the capitalized
People, you are referring to the people AS INDIVIDUALS, so the right to keep
and bear arms is an individual right, not a community or group right.
This is why the US has historically not kept a large standing army when it was
not at war, up until WWII. If the liberal's argument is right, that it is a
group right, and only for the purpose of maintaining a citizens militia, then
the only guns which should be allowed are those which fall into the category of
'Assault Weapons'. Also, a militia has NEVER been considered to be a full time
professional army. It is a part time volunteer organization made up of free
citizens in each state. The militia here in the US is defined in the federal
regulations as, I beleive: 'all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and
40'. Under this, if you use the liberal group interpretation, this means that
only able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 40 have the right to keep and
bear arms. I'm sure the feminists that aren't already anti-gun would not like
this. This reg may have been degenderized lately. Anyone know?
Since then, as the acknowledged #1 Power in the world, we 'had' to take on the
mantle of Empire to oppose the remaining totalitarian governments, some of
which are still in power. Since the two oceans no longer are effective means of
isolating ourselves from the rest of the screwed up world, we are in the
position of using our technology to either shut everyone out, or to conform the
rest of the world to the American image in order to preserve our own freedoms.
An interesting problem....
>
> One plus is the relative lack of litigation: I remember being shocked when
> I heard how much car insurance was, let alone insurance if you were a
> doctor. To my Southern way of thinking constant litigation (even alimony is
> far different here) strikes me as a far greater infringement of freedom
> then loss of the ability to legally own guns.
Depends. While frivolous lawsuits are a burden, being subject to risk of
litigation does have the effect of enforcing a quality of service in the
individual which is not usually seen in government bureaucracies elsewhere. A
doctor in Canada, for example, can get away with serious malpractice much
easier than they can in the US, as the government is always gonna pick up the
bill. While the government might get off its butt and keeps track of the
malpracticing physicians and revoke their licenses, the victims usually are not
justly compensated for their losses in a government insured system. We do have
a problem here of doctors moving to a different state after they have been
nailed for malpractice, as its harder to keep track of them and easier for them
to gain a new license in another state, even if they lose the one in their
original state. Civil litigation seems to be more effective as a means of
enforcing personal responsibility than supporting a huge government bureaucracy
to babysit everyon from birth to death.
> At least you are allow to read whatever you like in the States. Not
> something understood down here.
Yes, I've wondered about that. Is that a carryover from being subjects under
the British Commonwealth, or merely because the original founders were mostly
prisoners?
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:49 MST