Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » How Libertarian are you? (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: How Libertarian are you?
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Where Society promotes an action, the law will promote it.
Where Society condones an action, the law may promote it within specific boundaries.
Where Society tolerates an action, the law may condemn it within specific boundaries.
Where Society condemns an action, the law will condemn it.

What's interesting is that I agree completely with this, but think it shows perfectly well the distinctions between tolerance and promotion -- AND emphasizes that the purpose of the law is to recognize shades of grey, not merely force everything into black and white. The mere presence of the clause "within specific boundaries" admits to and emphasizes the purpose of the law: to identify grey areas, define them, and work within them to recognize legal distinctions where social distinctions exist.

If the purpose of the law were to make everything either black or white, we would not have lawyers or juries. It's precisely because the purpose of the law is to define the grey areas that we do. [Smile]

[ January 06, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would argue that the Law does not and should not condemn every action that "Society" condemns (whatever "society" is). If society means "a large majority of the population", this is exactly why there is a bill of rights. I am sure that US "society" condemns the worship of Satan, but the law neither comdemns nor promotes it.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tolerance is accepting something you cannot change without winning a phyrric victory.

Nodding with a smile and a slightly disapproving cluck as you and your daughter find a couple in flagrante delicto is at worst condoning.

Offering suggestions or making a joke is promoting it.

Yelling at the couple or telling your daughter they are doing a naughty thing is tolerating it.

Calling a cop, trying to take the law into your own hands, or calling a Marge Simpson town meeting is prohibiting it.


Tom,

I am not a mormon. Are you suggesting that kids do have judgement? That is the whole point of parenthood, civilizing kids.

JL

Different shades of lipsticks on different girls and every boy has a canvas. Do I need to be clearer? Tom says it's false, a lady I know and someone on the forum says it's not. Believe who you will. I still have problems thinking of thirteen year olds doing such things AT ALL, much less so artistically and en mass.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed -

I disagree. Law does not make 'grey' shades of anything; society does that on it's own. An example would be alcohol use. While it is legal for anyone over 21, there is a social stigma against overindulgence in some parts of society. This leads to tolerance, but not outright condemnation. In other parts of society (specifically some colleges), alcohol use is viewed as a good thing - promotion if you will. Despite this promotion, even college students tend to impose some social limits on alcohol use. It is good to drink at parties, bad to drink alone, bad to drink to excess during weekdays.

A law prohibiting drinking on campus would remove all those shades of grey - if enforced. However, those shades of grey would, while not as obvious, still exist.

The main reason prohibition failed is people believing that anything which is not specifically allowed must be condemned. The law did not institute 'shades of grey', but instead acted as a damper across the entire sphere of influence. This backfired because society tended not to view drinking as bad, merely drinking to excess as bad.

Society itself acts to add 'shades of grey'. The law acts to make black and white within its sphere of influence. Murder, for example is bad. However, murder in self defense is good. Therefore the scope of murder legislation was limited to a large degree - removing prosecution from those who kill in self-defense.

Legislation makes everything within its sphere of influence a binary event. You're either a 1 or a 0. Guilty or not guilty. The moment we involve government, we remove the responsibility from ourselves and place it on the shoulders of government. The less responsibility a citizen takes for his/her own actions, the less power those citizens will ultimately have.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Yelling at the couple or telling your daughter they are doing a naughty thing is tolerating it."

Hm. I would actually consider this condemnation. Toleration is, in fact, walking by silently.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The former is condemnation, the latter tolerance.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ TomDavidson

Close, Tom, but no cigar...

Law, _the written law,_ clearly defines issues as black and white. Lawyers, juries, and judges exist only to determine if the case in question fits within those legal boundaries, and, therefore, to render it into black and white.

As to "specific boundaries" those are only the clearly defined areas where something may be considered to be black or white.

I'll expound further in my points to Firedrake.

You're absolutely right in that law must recognize shades of grey, I never said otherwise. What I did say is that in order to _render judgement,_ it must define legal issues as black and white, and that must include knowing where the grey areas are.


@ FiredrakeRAGE

Consider your point about drinking. When a law defines alcohol as illegal, it becomes black and white. If you drink, black. If you don't white. Now, add drinking under the age of 21. If you drink, grey. If you don't, white. If you drink and are over 21, white. If you aren't, black.

Now, let's add the operation of a vehicle. If you are drinking, black -- age is irrelevent.

Without making these kind of determinations, the law cannot render punishment. And, in order to make those determinations, it must clearly define the issues in no uncertain terms; it must be made black and white.

It's that simple.

quote:
Murder, for example is bad. However, murder in self defense is good. Therefore the scope of murder legislation was limited to a large degree - removing prosecution from those who kill in self-defense
Except that there is no such thing as "murder in self defense." Murder, by definition, does not include self defense.

To look at it properly, you must look at it this way: Have you killed? Grey. Was it self defense? Yes, white. No, grey. Did you intend to kill the person (malice)? Yes, guilty of murder. No, grey. Could the killing have been prevented? No, white - it was an accident. Yes, black - guilty of manslaughter, you should have behaved more responsibly.

The legal process does not stop at grey. It continues until it concludes black or white. Once you enter the legally defined realms of Self Defence or accidental death, this issue is rendered white. If Manslaugher or Murder, it is black and you will be punished accordingly.


@ All

Now, let's consider the promotion of alcohol towards the underaged. Black, black and black. And this INCLUDES tolerating or condoning. If you have a party, and teenagers are drinking the beer that they brought, YOU will be in trouble because you are, by virtue of effect, promoting alcohol; you did not condemn its use. And arguing that they brought the alcohol will not save your butt.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Law, _the written law,_ clearly defines issues as black and white. Lawyers, juries, and judges exist only to determine if the case in question fits within those legal boundaries, and, therefore, to render it into black and white."

Nope. You have clearly never heard of sentencing. [Smile]

The whole reason that mandatory sentencing is so disliked by sensible people is that it attempts to turn the law -- which is completely preoccupied with meticulously identifying the thin boundaries of thousands of shades of grey -- into something that only sees in black and white.

Again, the role of law is NOT to establish black and white; it's to establish exactly what types of grey are out there. Once those types are identified, the law only then becomes binary -- in that it finally classifies an action as either being of that shade or not. But the action being criminalized is almost never a black/white choice, but rather a specific shading of some sort.

---------

"If you have a party, and teenagers are drinking the beer that they brought, YOU will be in trouble because you are, by virtue of effect, promoting alcohol; you did not condemn its use."

Your use of this example actually proves my case for me, because it was necessary for lawmakers to specifically criminalize the toleration of alcohol use by minors in the presence of an adult before adults could be tried for anything but negligence. Ergo, society considers alcohol use by minors so bad that it even considers the tolerance of alcohol use to be an action that is, independently of the first act, itself deserving of punishment.

This doesn't mean that toleration is promotion; it means that toleration is, in this case, considered criminal in itself. (If you would doubt this, note that buying alcohol for a minor, offering alcohol to a minor, and even advertising alcohol to minors are all crimes punishable with OTHER punishments; allowing a minor to drink alcohol in your house receives a completely dfferent -- and less serious -- treatment.)

[ January 08, 2005, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
EDanall -

With regard to drinking - The law states that drinking under 21 is bad. The law states nothing about drinking over 21. Society and societal standards make drinking over 21 bad (or drinking to excess at least) - the law has nothing to do with it.

With regard to murder - When I say 'scope', I mean 'area which is addressed by the law'. In the case of self-defense, it is not murder, and is not addressed by the law. This puts it firmly in the 'white' area. Societal standards can (in some cases) put it in the grey area. An example would be a police officer killing someone that he felt might harm him, but was in fact harmless. While the law defines him as 'not guilty', a great many of the people in his community feel that he committed a wrong. Others might feel he acted with prudence.

A porn store might be 'ok' by the law, but it is very 'grey' by community standards. The law does not address these porn shops. The moment the law does address them, the law tries to force a porn store into either 'white' (within the law), or 'black' (outside the law). There is no grey area.

To summarize, the law creates black and white - guilty or not guilty, with innocence presumed for those unaddressed by the law. Societal standards make a 'grey' area.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TomDavidson -

I disagree with your thoughts on the party and alcohol issue. The law does not address tolerance or promotion. The law, in that case, makes a present adult responsible for the actions of the minors. The minors broke a law for drinking, but because the adult was responsible for them, the adult is charged with the crime.

I personally believe that law is some Senator's reelection hobby. Children are the responsibility of the parent. When the parent places them under the protection of another individual, they become, to a degree, the responsbility of that individual. In this case an adult merely has to be present to be responsible for the actions of a minor. That does not strike me as either right or fair.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Danzig
Member
Member # 1358

 - posted      Profile for Danzig         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome to drug laws!
Posts: 495 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I personally believe that law is some Senator's reelection hobby."

Oh, I agree completely that it's a bad law. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ TomDavidson

Three points.

First.

I'm not talking about sentencing, you are. I was talking about "Legal Definitions," specifically:
quote:
The act of making clear and distinct: a definition of one's intentions.
AKA, "making black and white."

Second.

quote:
Again, the role of law is NOT to establish black and white; it's to establish exactly what types of grey are out there. Once those types are identified, the law only then becomes binary -- in that it finally classifies an action as either being of that shade or not.
You are saying exactly what I am saying.

But you are misinterpreting it by putting the cart before the horse. That grey exists is why the law exists: to render that grey into black and white for the purposes of resolving the issue.

You think I'm wrong? Then show me how a legal definition does not "make clear and distinct" a grey issue.

I've already illustrated how it does in my points to Firedrake, so that should be easy. Just show me how those points are wrong.

Third.

I did not say that tolerating is promoting. I said that tolerating can be _viewed_ as a form of promotion, as it does nothing to stop a particular action. I added some qualifiers, which you seem to be ignoring. In fact, as best I can tell, you seem to be a little "black and white" in your interpretation of that point.


@ FiredrakeRAGE

I'm afraid we are talking about two different things here, and, unfortunately, your position is not taking a critical point into account: the LAW IS AN EXTENSION OF what SOCIETY wishes.

First comes society, then comes the law.

Your distinction that society sees it as grey, does nothing to counter the point that the law must then resolve it.

That some members of society are not satisfied with the outcome does not change the fact that the law has rendered the issue into black and white: damno or absolvo; guilty or innocent.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You are saying exactly what I am saying.
But you are misinterpreting it by putting the cart before the horse."

I would say exactly the same thing. [Smile] The difference is that you define the process of codifying states of grey as defining new versions of black and white -- which, while correct for each specific instance, is incorrect as part of the bigger picture. This is specifically why, for example, tolerance is not promotion: because the law recognizes that those shades of grey are in fact two distinct states.

"I said that tolerating can be _viewed_ as a form of promotion, as it does nothing to stop a particular action."

Ah. But that is not the definition of promotion. It is, in fact, a definition of toleration. Toleration is, as you point out, doing nothing to stop an action. Promotion, then, can -- if we're being very generous -- be seen as a very small subset of toleration, if we're not going to create our own set of actions designed to encourage other actions.

[ January 10, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'Fraid that doesn't make sense to me, Tom - whether I agree with the whole point or not, it seems abundantly clear that the decision is guilty or not guilty - whether you broke the law or not. The punishment gets to determine the degree that you broke the law (if guilty), but you are either 0 or 1, black or white, guilty or innocent. I don't see why this is confusing.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point is this: law exists to codify shades of grey and turn them into semi-binary decisions. And even then, thanks to the grey area of the sentencing process, being found guilty is not a binary sentence; you can be found guilty and still "get off" with a lesser sentence, or no sentence at all, depending on circumstances. Every American legal structure is designed to make shades of grey possible at every possible step in the legal process, with the notable exception of mandatory sentencing guidelines. Notice how well they work.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I agree about mandatory sentencing guidelines, but at this point, you and EDannall are just arguing past each other - ya'all seem to be trying to argue about completely different things - EDannall is talking about guilty/not guilty, and you are talking about sentencing.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"EDannall is talking about guilty/not guilty, and you are talking about sentencing."

*nod* But he is only talking about guilty/not guilty within the context of a conversation about whether permitting an action is the same thing as promoting an action. [Smile]

My point is that the law, by distinguishing between those two categories, makes it possible for us to be found guilty of tolerating something without also being found guilty of promoting it. And, in fact, that it can even assign varying penalties depending upon how much or in what way we "tolerated" or "promoted" it.

ED was looking to make this a black and white issue based on an appeal to law; my point was that an appeal to law as an arbiter of black and white was misguided, as the institution of law specifically exists to make it possible for society to officially recognize shades of grey. From plea bargains to commuted sentences to jury trials to the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors to the increasingly severe penalties for different "degrees" of murder to the mere existence of lawyers, the establishment of law is not to rigidly enforce black and white rules of behavior but rather to serve as a razor dividing the delicate shadings of an individual case.

[ January 10, 2005, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, hopefully that will clear up the issue for both sides so we can move forward - I look forward to lurking some more, watching ya'all duke it out [Wink]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would say that even sentencing could be looked at as a logic gate.

Person dead, y/n

Mitigating factor y/n

Murder y/n

first degree y/n

second degree y/n

third degree y/n

manslaughter y/n

Where is the gray?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the sex in public.

Tolerance is accepting things you DON'T agree with. Person A condems sex acts in public. He teaches his daughter such values. But he also cautions her that it is legal in Berkley California, thus something they must "tolerate".

To make your displeasure known at their broadening the mind of six year old is purely free speech, a very libertarian idea.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ TomDavidson
quote:
I would say exactly the same thing. [Smile] The difference is that you define the process of codifying states of grey as defining new versions of black and white -- which, while correct for each specific instance, is incorrect as part of the bigger picture. This is specifically why, for example, tolerance is not promotion: because the law recognizes that those shades of grey are in fact two distinct states.
Then please demonstrate that the following is not true:
quote:
Have you killed? Grey. Was it self defense? Yes, white. No, grey. Did you intend to kill the person (malice)? Yes, guilty of murder. No, grey. Could the killing have been prevented? No, white - it was an accident. Yes, black - guilty of manslaughter, you should have behaved more responsibly.
Which comes first here, Tom? The sentencing? Or the legal definition? In order to be sentenced, you must first be condemned.

quote:
Ah. But that is not the definition of promotion. It is, in fact, a definition of toleration. Toleration is, as you point out, doing nothing to stop an action. Promotion, then, can -- if we're being very generous -- be seen as a very small subset of toleration, if we're not going to create our own set of actions designed to encourage other actions.
Once more, please demonstrate that this is not true:
  • Where Society promotes an action, the law will promote it.
  • Where Society condones an action, the law may promote it within specific boundaries.
  • Where Society tolerates an action, the law may condemn it within specific boundaries.
  • Where Society condemns an action, the law will condemn it.

Specifically, the last point. Please show us where the law would treat the toleration of child alcohol use any different from promoting child alcohol use. Do tell us what those mitigating factors might be.

As Flydye points points out, even sentencing can be binary as it uses the facts learned in the trial phase to determine sentence.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Which comes first here, Tom? The sentencing? Or the legal definition? In order to be sentenced, you must first be condemned."

And yet, as you point out, the grey area here is the distinction between manslaughter and the condemnation of killing in general. The law makes a black/white distinction only at the second-to-last last step -- deciding whether someone is or is not guilty of manslaughter -- and even then leaves a grey area for the sentencing itself.

The point, then, is not whether "did you or did you not commit manslaughter" is a binary decision, but that "killing is wrong" is a general statement which, through the application of law, is subdivided into numerous grey areas and points of distinction.

"Where Society condemns an action, the law will condemn it."

I would argue that our Constitution specifically defends against all applications of this argument, precisely due to the difficulty of defining "society" for these purposes.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ TomDavidson
quote:
And yet, as you point out, the grey area here is the distinction between manslaughter and the condemnation of killing in general. The law makes a black/white distinction only at the second-to-last last step -- deciding whether someone is or is not guilty of manslaughter -- and even then leaves a grey area for the sentencing itself.
And yet... The law does not apply sentence when it reaches a grey area, it does so when it reaches a black area and a black area only.

Furthermore, your point about second-to-last step is just flat out wrong. We've had this discussion before, perhaps you don't remember it, but before a person can even be charged, he has to meet the Prima Facie Burden of Evidence in order to go to trial. Guess what? This is a black and white argument. It asks, quite simply, is there enough evidence here to meet the minimal legal definition of the crime.

And sentencing does not occur until after that legal definition has been fully met. So, the law begins with a black and white decision, and it ends with a black and white decision. Sentencing is only the clean up phase of the law: the decision has been made, here is what we are going to do about it.

quote:
The point, then, is not whether "did you or did you not commit manslaughter" is a binary decision, but that "killing is wrong" is a general statement which, through the application of law, is subdivided into numerous grey areas and points of distinction.
This point does nothing to counter the argument I made earlier that the legal process does not stop until it crosses a black and white boundary. And that sentencing does not occur until it crosses a black boundary. Recognizing a grey boundary only serves to keep the process going or to conclude that there is no sufficient legal definition.

quote:
I would argue that our Constitution specifically defends against all applications of this argument, precisely due to the difficulty of defining "society" for these purposes.
And you'd be wrong.

The correct statement is "The Constitution exists to defend against _some_ applications of Societal will."

Which does nothing to counter the assertion that, where Society condemns something, the law will condemn it. It only redefines the statement to be, "Where Society condemns something, the law may condemn it within certain boundaries."

So, all the Constitution does is define those things that we will tolerate. Since the Constitution does not define child alcohol use and since Society condemns it. My statement remains true, "Where Society condemns something, the Law will condemn it."

You still have not risen to the challenge I gave you. You have not demonstrated that the law does not use legal definitions to render black and white and that the law is an extension of society's wishes.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You have not demonstrated that the law does not use legal definitions to render black and white and that the law is an extension of society's wishes."

But this isn't your point, ED, or at least not the point I'm arguing about. [Smile] If that's what YOU'RE arguing about, you're arguing with yourself about something completely irrelevant to this topic.

I have already rather thoroughly addressed the flaws in applying an appeal to law to the distinction between tolerance and condemnation, which was the topic of this digression.

If you would like to concede that you're discussing irrelevancies, I'll happily agree with you. [Smile]

[ January 11, 2005, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This particular digression started when you made this argument: "*laugh* So you're saying that there's no such thing as a shade of gray on your planet? That if we aren't actively pushing to make something illegal, we're effectively promoting it?"

You introduced the topic, not me. It was, BTW, an argument I wasn't even making.

In the eyes of the law, if you tolerate or condone alcohol use towards children, you will be punished no differently than if you promoted it. It makes no exceptions. None. It is black and white; there is no grey here.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In the eyes of the law, if you tolerate or condone alcohol use towards children, you will be punished no differently than if you promoted it."

And as I pointed out, this is SPECIFICALLY wrong. The penalties for promoting alcohol use by children are in fact considerably different than the penalties for tolerating alcohol use in children. And, in fact, there WOULD be no penalties for merely tolerating alcohol use in children if we had not specifically criminalized the toleration itself, thus making the mere act of tolerance in this case something that we refuse to tolerate.

My point is not that you introduced a digression; it's that I introduced a digression to contradict a false claim of yours, and you have since misunderstood the point of the digression. [Smile]

[ January 11, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Examples, please?

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robespierre
New Member
Member # 1313

 - posted      Profile for Robespierre   Email Robespierre   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Full on individualist, anarcho-libertarian.

I believe there exists a natural right to total ownerships of one's own body and labors. From this, basic property rights can be divised, which can describe all the moral conditions necessary for a complex society. Note that I do not include specific values, only the aknowledgement that all individuals have a unique subjective valuation of all things.

Posts: 4 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Followup...

I looked up the [url= http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/4/00241.htm&Title=4&DocType=ARS] Arizona Statutes on Drinking[/url] and found the following:
quote:

G. A person who knowingly influences the sale, giving or serving of spirituous liquor to a person under the legal drinking age by misrepresenting the age of such person or who orders, requests, receives or procures spirituous liquor from any licensee, employee or other person with the intent of selling, giving or serving it to a person under the legal drinking age is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

H. A person who is of legal drinking age and who is an occupant of unlicensed premises is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor if both of the following apply:
  1. Such person knowingly allows a gathering on such unlicensed premises of two or more persons who are under the legal drinking age and who are neither:
    1. Members of the immediate family of such person.
    2. Permanently residing with such person.
  2. Such person knows or should know that one or more of the persons under the legal drinking age is in possession of or consuming spirituous liquor on the unlicensed premises.

I. For purposes of subsection H of this section, "occupant" means a person who has legal possession or the legal right to exclude others from the unlicensed premises.

So, in other words, anyone who sells or gives (promotes) alcohol AND anyone who knowingly allows (tolerates or condones) the use by a minor, that they are not directly responsible for, are guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

There is one other exception, not covered in this statute: drinking for religious services, although I expect that if such services were "abused" charges would be brought. Just as I expect a guardian to be charged if they abuse the privilege.

Ed.

Edit: Tried to fix URL. Not working.

[ January 14, 2005, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So, in other words, anyone who sells or gives (promotes) alcohol AND anyone who knowingly allows (tolerates or condones) the use by a minor, that they are not directly responsible for, are guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor."

*nod* Although not all states maintain equivalent punishments for these two offenses, you make my point for me by illustrating that, even in a state which DOES do so, it is necessary for them to make the distinction between the two. That they list toleration and promotion as two separate conditions -- even in a state which explicitly chooses to punish them in the same way -- helps to prove, IMO, that they are two separate conditions. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I ask for examples from you. You produce none.

I produce an example which supports my argument, and YOU'RE still right.

Whatever you say, Tom.

[Roll Eyes]

Ed.

I met my burden. I'm still waiting for you to meet yours...

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We need Tom Bailey back... now.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I produce an example which supports my argument, and YOU'RE still right."

Because you continue to misunderstand my argument.

My argument is and has always been that tolerance is not the same thing as promotion.

To claim that it is, you cite a law which SPECIFICALLY applies the same penalty to tolerance that it applies to promotion. The law would not do that if it were unnecessary -- if, in other words, those two actions were already morally equivalent and/or synonymous.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
EDanaII,

I haven't followed this thread since early on, but looking over the last several posts I would have to say that TomDavidson is correct about something that you are either obtuse to or trying to obfuscate. tolerance of an activity and promotion of an activity are two seperate things.

You provided an example in an effort to show that they are the same, but your example clearly shows that they are separate things which have the same penalty. Paragraph G describes someone who promotes underage drinking by providing or facilitating the provision of alchohol to a minor, while paragraph H describes someone who tolerates underage drinking by knowingly allowing the underage drinking to occur. Paragraph I further modifies the liability of the person described in paragraph H to persons who have legal possession or the legal right to exclude others from the unlicensed premises. Therefore only certain types of tolerance are subject to this law. This law clearly treats promotion and tolerance of underage drinking as seperate, though related, things even though the punishment is the same.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WarrsawPact -

You should look up his e-mail on his campaign site and invite him back.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Danzig
Member
Member # 1358

 - posted      Profile for Danzig         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No Ed, you gave an example which supports Tom's argument. So for that and other reasons, he is still right.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ummm... Guys?

My assertion was that "Tolerating or condoning may be viewed as a from of promotion." I even pointed to a specific example of law, where tolerating and promoting would be punished equally, ergo, it is viewed by law as the same thing.

Tom was arguing that they could not be viewed as the same because the law punishes them differntly.

And here is an example of Az law where the law punishes both equally.

Furthermore, I did not say Tom was wrong. I was challenging how he could assert himself to be right without backing himself up with say... An example of Indiana law, which he did assert earlier, was different.

That Az law defines both seperately is not the point. The point is that, since the both are punished equally, both can be viewed, by virtue of their effect, as the same.

Ed.

P.S. I'm done arguing the point, comfortable in my assertion that the law will punish you equally for tolerating or promoting where society condemns an action.

[ January 15, 2005, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm done arguing the point, comfortable in my assertion that the law will punish you equally for tolerating or promoting where society condemns an action."

Except that this is not universally true. Society will punish you equally for tolerating and promoting an action only when toleration itself is seen as something harmful. As I pointed out, the mere fact that the AZ law makes the distinction despite imposing the same penalty suggests that society recognizes the distinction and, in this unique case, has gone to the unusual extreme of passing a law to criminalize both.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Revel
Member
Member # 2257

 - posted      Profile for Revel   Email Revel       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And back to the idea of, 'How Libertarian are you?" we've determined that...
Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1