Is there a right to privacy?

[Joe3113]

Originally Posted by furface

What you're getting at is reasonable in a common sense level.

It is logical, yes. Pity common sense, isn't so common.

However, constitutionally it's not entirely sound.

That's because the Constitution is a flawed document.

At least you have acknowledge common sense > consitution. Or are you suggesting it is the other way around? Haha.

There are arguments that the 5th Amendment's "due process" clause contains a ban on victimless crimes, but a strict constructionist would probably argue otherwise.

And the Supreme Court judges selected by the President, argue in favour on the political elite and an expansion of state power. Always have, always will. Why did you think they got the job?

Judges can interpret the law, anyway they want. And no, don't try refute this - in that they apply 'principles' and 'methods', please get your hand of it and wake up and smell the roses.

There is no explicit ban on victimless crimes in the Constitution.

Back in the day, ala the US Constitution - it was a crime to be black...

I take the position that States should have the right to pass laws like this.

I don't. So what happens to me? By what right do they govern? Why are they allowed to initiate violence against me? I have done nothing to no-one.

If you want to have a Southern Baptist government in Mississippi, by all means do it. Just move out of Mississippi if you don't like it.

Take it or leave fallacy.

Why, in effect, tell the victim of assault-by-taxation "if you don't like it you can leave"? That position simply affirms that opposition to the violence of taxation will beget more violence. Why not say the things to victims of physical and sexual assault?

State rights are so very important because the alternative to them is massively oppressive federal government like we have.

The states had more rights under the articles of confederation. Do you support than over the U.S Constitution? Bear in mind, there were massive amounts of people who were against it. Anti Federalists.

My view is that if states were given more leeway to do the things that people wanted to do, people would tend to congregate in the States they felt comfortable in, and state governments would become much more consensual in turn.

They can. They can secede. Oh wait! They tried that... and it resulted in a Civil War. Lincoln "saved" the Union... with the blood of 600,000 peoples lives. Was it worth 1 life? No. Well.. maybe Lincolns.

[furface]

I agree the Constitution is a flawed document. I'm not one to view it as some sort of supernatural incarnation like the Bible or the Quran.

However, I don't agree that local communities shouldn't have the right to create laws and interpret things in a way they see fit. The "we need to protect people from themselves" concept is a common argument used for invading places like Iraq & Afghanistan. In America the Constitution requires republican forms of government for the states anyway.

People should have the right to vote in fascism if they want. What business is it of yours if they do? Again, if they don't like it they can leave. The Constitution also guarantees that, at least at this point it does. It didn't before the 14th Amendment, or at least the Supreme Court claimed it didn't with Dred Scot, at least partially.

[Joe3113]

Originally Posted by furface

I agree the Constitution is a flawed document. I'm not one to view it as some sort of supernatural incarnation like the Bible or the Quran.

However, I don't agree that local communities shouldn't have the right to create laws and interpret things in a way they see fit. The "we need to protect people from themselves" concept is a common argument used for invading places like Iraq & Afghanistan. In America the Constitution requires republican forms of government for the states anyway.

People should have the right to vote in fascism if they want. What business is it of yours if they do? Again, if they don't like it they can leave. The Constitution also guarantees that, at least at this point it does. It didn't before the 14th Amendment, or at least the Supreme Court claimed it didn't with Dred Scot, at least partially.

You avoided answering my questions, and arguments. You continued to use the exact same fallacies. These are invalid arguments. This is unfortunate.

[furface]

Maybe you can state your questions in a clearer manner and state exactly what your evidence for something being fallacious is. Merely claiming something is a fallacy does not make it a fallacy. I have almost zero patience for purely rhetorical arguments, so I might not even respond to you, but if you can present me with some true objectively logical constructions I will gladly engage with you.

[Joe3113]

Originally Posted by furface

Maybe you can state your questions in a clearer manner and state exactly what your evidence for something being fallacious is. Merely claiming something is a fallacy does not make it a fallacy. I have almost zero patience for purely rhetorical arguments, so I might not even respond to you, but if you can present me with some true objectively logical constructions I will gladly engage with you.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...5&postcount=12

What is not clear? Please highlight the responses you do not understand.

Maybe you should originally asked for more clarification / elaboration, instead of ignoring it and continuing to commit the same errors.