- Joined
- Feb 26, 2019
- Messages
- 37,270
- Reaction score
- 15,847
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You tried to refute something by posting the direct opposite of what was requested.Actually you didn't.
You tried to refute something by posting the direct opposite of what was requested.Actually you didn't.
It is highly debatable that Congress' power to ratify treaties with foreign governments, was EVER intended to limit the liberty of US citizens, or cause US citizens to be incarcerated, in America, for breaking some foreign law.
It's more than that, it's a treaty agreed on by congress within their power granted by the constitution
That's ridiculous, citizens had very little liberty when the constitution was created. Personal freedoms wernt recognized until 1925.
Face palm all you want but you are ignoring history. Even if the federal govt was prohibited from limiting some right, state and local governments were not. There was no recognized personal rights until Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Well if you expand citizens to mean everyone in the US at it's inception and not just White landowning men...then that's about an objectively correct statement as one can make."citizens had little liberty when the constitution was first created"
True enough. The place where I part company with extreme libertarianism: to really have functional freedom, you need *just the right amount of government*. Too little can be as bad as too much.
Too little and you're afraid to go to the grocery store.
Face palm all you want but you are ignoring history. Even if the federal govt was prohibited from limiting some right, state and local governments were not. There was no recognized personal rights until Gitlow v. New York (1925)
You said, quote, "citizens had little liberty when the constitution was first created".
The implications of that statement, as written, are colossally and utterly wrong. I could go into pages of detail but I can't be arsed to bother.
If you don't want to be misunderstood then be more precise. The recognition to which you refer is very different from the reality of individual liberty in 1789.
Police could be considered socialism in the regard that everyone pays for it whether you use them or not, there is no choice in the payment, and they are government controlled imo.I just saw a TV commercial with Mike Huckabee (a former POTUS candidate) for a book or something about fighting socialism for kids. One of the examples it had was defunding the police & this strikes me as odd, because I consider police to be a form of socialism.
The reason I consider police to be a form of socialism is because it takes law enforcement away from WE THE PEOPLE - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and creates a monopoly out of it consisting of un-elected career professionals; it turns society into a prison, where police are the prison guards.
We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts, so I'm not interested in any nonsense claims that without police society would crumble. The way I see things happening, society is crumbing with and probably because of police.
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961)
Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971)
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988)
With the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, Congress began in earnest to regulate the domestic trade in narcotic drugs. The Harrison Act imposed federal oversight of the legal trade in narcotic drugs and imposed criminal penalties for illicit trafficking in narcotics. Over the course of the 20th century, the list of drugs subject to federal control expanded beyond narcotic drugs to include marijuana, depressants, stimulants, and hallucinogens.
OK, but federal controlled substances laws predated those treaties.
1. You should probably look up the definition of "socialism". That last time I looked, there wasn't a private police industry.I just saw a TV commercial with Mike Huckabee (a former POTUS candidate) for a book or something about fighting socialism for kids. One of the examples it had was defunding the police & this strikes me as odd, because I consider police to be a form of socialism.
The reason I consider police to be a form of socialism is because it takes law enforcement away from WE THE PEOPLE - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and creates a monopoly out of it consisting of un-elected career professionals; it turns society into a prison, where police are the prison guards.
We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts, so I'm not interested in any nonsense claims that without police society would crumble. The way I see things happening, society is crumbing with and probably because of police.
I should report you for hurting my eyes.
Plus sheriffs are elected with police are appointed.1. You should probably look up the definition of "socialism". That last time I looked, there wasn't a private police industry.
2. We did have police in colonial days...they just went by a different title, like Sheriff. But they then, like today, were law enforcement and they were controlled by the government and the courts.
THE EARLY DAYS OF AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT - Jefferson County Sheriff's Foundation
The Watch More than 350 years ago, America’s first known system of law enforcement was established in Boston. As soon… Read Morewww.jeffersoncountysheriffsfoundation.org
Policing Colonial America
Many European law enforcement institutions were transplanted in the colonies. The county sheriff The most important law enforcement official in colonial Amerwww.cliffsnotes.com
So...the correct answer to your poll is, of course, no.
Actually I think the definition has expanded over time due to the socialism's usual accompanying totalitarian regime. But police are not socialism the way they traditionally operate in America.No. Socialism is government ownership or control of the means of production. Laws would be useless without an enforcement mechanism - resulting in mob rule or total anarchy.
BTW, you are wrong about not having police (law enforcement personnel) when the US was founded.
Police: History - Early Policing In Colonial America
law.jrank.org
I just saw a TV commercial with Mike Huckabee (a former POTUS candidate) for a book or something about fighting socialism for kids. One of the examples it had was defunding the police & this strikes me as odd, because I consider police to be a form of socialism.
The reason I consider police to be a form of socialism is because it takes law enforcement away from WE THE PEOPLE - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and creates a monopoly out of it consisting of un-elected career professionals; it turns society into a prison, where police are the prison guards.
We didn't have police when US was founded, and we had law enforcement and courts, so I'm not interested in any nonsense claims that without police society would crumble. The way I see things happening, society is crumbing with and probably because of police.
But it quickly diverged from his solution to those problems.Early 19th century London, with a population of nearly a million and a half people, was policed by 450 constables and 4,500 night watchmen. Their effectiveness was weakened because they belonged to different organisations, all jealous of their own powers.
Attempts by the government to deal with the situation by setting up a police force for London met with lots of opposition:
- People were suspicious of a large force, possibly armed. They feared it could be used to suppress protest and support military dictatorship.
- Paris had the best-known, best-organised, paid police force. Britain was at war with France from 1793 to 1815, so many people hated the idea of anything French on principle.
- People did not think it was the job of the government to set up and control a police force; it should be under local control.
- The Mayor and Corporation of the City of London refused to be part of a London-wide force.
Where as american police are armed and they do sport a military look with uniforms. You have an army not a police force.When Sir Robert Peel became Home Secretary, he was determined to deal with London's policing problems.......The government was anxious to avoid any suggestion that the police was a military force, so they were not armed. Nor was their uniform anything like military uniform.
.... The only alternative might be to move out to a rural area, and surround myself with a bunch of acres I own, where I can independently control my immediate surroundings in entirety (I have considered this). Otherwise, if we need to interact with others in close proximity, we have to have a regulated structure to ensure our freedoms. Sad, but true. It took me some time to realize this! (hint: I'm no longer a Libertarian!)
You just described my choice of living arrangements.
I toy with the idea, but never get 'actionable' serious.
Obviously, there are a lot of trade-offs.
However, that day may occur.
And good for you, having accomplished the lifestyle you prefer. I definitely see the appeal!
Wash's Stegosaurus: Yes. Yes, this is a fertile land, and we will thrive. We will rule over all this land, and we will call it... "This Land.".I was fortunate, in that I came from a line of farmers who still owned a substantial acreage.
I did try city living as a young man, and determined that it was not for me. When the question of inheritance arose, I asked to have the old farm and let my sisters inherit the more-easily-resold houses, which was agreeable to all.
I likes my elbow room.