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 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: How Libertarian are you?
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK. I lied. [Wink]

@ TomDavidson:
quote:
Except that this is not universally true.
I never said otherwise.

quote:
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.
Tom? You really gotta stop walking into these things.

Indiana Law - Aiding unlawful possesion:
quote:
IC 7.1-5-7-15
Sec. 15. A person twenty-one (21) years of age or older who knowingly or intentionally encourages, aids, or induces a minor to unlawfully possess an alcoholic beverage commits a Class C infraction.

In this statute, Indiana makes _no distinction_ between the two. So all you have pointed out is a difference in the structure of Arizona vs. Indiana law.


@ Revel

Yea, but that whole "How Libertarian are you?" thing was getting boring anyway. [Wink]

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 this statute, Indiana makes _no distinction_ between the two."

Except that the cited statute doesn't apply to toleration at all. Notice the wording: "encourages, aids, or induces." These are all forms of promotion.

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 
quote:
Except that the cited statute (Indiana's)doesn't apply to toleration at all. – TomDavidson
In the minds of the Arizona legislature, their statute probably applies to promotion, not toleration, as well. By providing a safe haven for the illegal activity, the occupant arguably promotes the activity. This is significantly different from simply being present at the party as a guest and tolerating the activity. “Providing” in this case is not a passive act. Regardless of whether you consider providing safe haven to be promotion, note that as per the Arizona statute, tolerating underage drinking as a guest is specifically excluded and is not illegal.

Note the previous sentence: Toleration <> Promotion.

This is completely irrelevant to the secondary (tertiary?) digression anyway, which I believe was crystallized when Ed requested of Tom
quote:
Once more, please demonstrate that this is not true:
  • Where Society condemns an action, the law will condemn it.
… Please show us where the law would treat the toleration of child alcohol use any different from promoting child alcohol use.
Firstly, even if Ed’s example was correct and convincing, it would do nothing to prove his point: namely, that when society condemns specific actions, its laws also condemn universally. An example could be used to illustrate or disprove a theory, but only by universally exhausting the complete set of possible examples could examples be used to prove the theory. Any example, (not necessarily child drinking) could be used for the purpose of disproving.

Secondly, the example has nothing to do with the thesis. The thesis talks about Society and law, whereas the example goes to proving the equivalence of two words, or possibly of two articles within a law.

In this case, Ed, how do you define “Society”?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  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