Can government attack non law breaking businesses just like that?

Laminations · 16-06-2010 4:44pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exaggerate much? Care to give some examples? Not from the 1940s or 50s but from modern day interpretation

Permabear · 16-06-2010 4:52pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 16-06-2010 5:02pm

Laminations wrote: »

Exactly, there are lines (possibly ill defined in areas) but they exist so as to define when and where and what government has a say in. Libertarians like to use examples from the unencroached side of the line to slippery slope regulation and claim those who believe in moderate and sensible government intervention want to see everything regulated. Like the example I gave of someone stating that high powered lasers are dangerous enough to warrant regulation, you got a retort from someone claiming forks can be dangerous and asking if the government should licence fork ownership. Rather than debating the complex issue of drawing appropriate lines and gaining a sensible balance between personal liberty and collective rights, libertarians want to scrap all lines, scrap all intervention and regulation and scrap the government.

Aye, the basic premise behind the restrictions are that of the "objective outsider"; what would a reasonable person view as an objectively decent standard?

Essentially used to provide lines that allow debate and prevent uniformity, while ensuring that nothing drastic is done.

Lockstep · 16-06-2010 5:11pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just like the US Constitution then;
I could go through it picking out numerous offenders (definition of aiding and comforting the enemy or to what extent the state may regulate commerce) but I'll suffice with the two "Elastic Clauses" of the 1st Article;

The Congress shall have Power-
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

-To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

maggy_thatcher · 16-06-2010 5:31pm

Laminations wrote: »

The problem with libertarians is that either they think we are all equally capable of judging whats the best way to live or they dont care that some (in many cases all) of us are ill-equiped to rationally judge alternatives and outcomes.

The solution is that of education. If, after being informed of the risks involved, you still want to do a particular action, and it doesn't harm anybody else other than you, then I believe you should be fully entitled to do it.

If, after being properly informed, you still don't know whether or not it's a good way to live, you should probably hand in your voting card, as if you can't make decisions for yourself, why should you be let make decisions for everybody else?

Take your example of seatbelts. If all the money spent enforcing that people wore seatbelts 100% of the time that they're in a car going forwards was instead spent on educating the masses of the results from not wearing a seatbelt, do you think people would still not wear them? Alternatively you could argue quite sensibly that wearing a seatbelt is optional if you're the only person in the car, but as soon as there's more than one person wearing a seatbelt is mandatory to protect the rest of the people in it.

bryanw · 16-06-2010 6:15pm

Laminations wrote: »

So if you have an accident where you drill into your hand or saw your finger off, what then? Thats stupidity right? Like most accidents are caused by stupidity, human error? So what then? Tough luck, sh1t happens? Look at the stupidhead with the stump? We have forms of social insurance to protect ourselves and each other from our silly behaviour, we have laws and regulation to curb our engagement in extremely silly behaviour. The line between silly and extremely silly is debatable but I'd rather live in a society with some ill-defined line rather than no line at all.

If I saw off my hand by accident, yes, that is down to my own stupidity or clumsiness. It's my fault and I must deal with the consequences. Maybe I didn't take adequate safety precautions or I wasn't paying attention. If I call for an ambulance, the onus should be on me to organise and pay for the service, or claim from my health insurance or whatever, because I am trying to rectify the result of my own actions.

Laminations wrote: »

So what if someone becomes disabled after a car crash where they hadn't been wearing a seatbelt? Tough luck stupidhead? If someone becomes addicted to, and psychotically effected by drugs (not that I agree with the current drug treatment regimes)? Tough luck junkie?

Again, same as above. If you drive in a car without wearing a seatbelt and have an accident, tough, you should've worn your seatbelt. It's quite well known, and should be well communicated, that not wearing your seatbelt will increase your risk of injury. If somebody is say, born disabled, or injured as a result of someone else's wreckless driving, then that is different and the person at fault must be held accountable (not to say its someone's fault for disability at birth).

With regards to drugs, again, it should be the case that the person purchasing the drugs is made aware of the consequences of their actions. If they still decide to take them, they must deal with the results. Why should I have to pay for their behaviour?

Laminations · 16-06-2010 6:28pm

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

The solution is that of education. If, after being informed of the risks involved, you still want to do a particular action, and it doesn't harm anybody else other than you, then I believe you should be fully entitled to do it.

If, after being properly informed, you still don't know whether or not it's a good way to live, you should probably hand in your voting card, as if you can't make decisions for yourself, why should you be let make decisions for everybody else?

Take your example of seatbelts. If all the money spent enforcing that people wore seatbelts 100% of the time that they're in a car going forwards was instead spent on educating the masses of the results from not wearing a seatbelt, do you think people would still not wear them? Alternatively you could argue quite sensibly that wearing a seatbelt is optional if you're the only person in the car, but as soon as there's more than one person wearing a seatbelt is mandatory to protect the rest of the people in it.

You assume that everyone is, or can be, educated equally and that with education comes rationality. Many very clver and knowledgable people take dangerous drugs, everyone knows the possible consequences of drink driving or dangerous driving but some people persist, many people don't save or contribute to a pension even though there is plenty of information out there to educate yourself with. People make mistakes, while I disagree with the welfare state and creating dependancy upon it, I think we owe each other help as we live together in a society and we should have a governmental safety net, not that I agree with waste.
And who pays for this education in a libertarian society where no one pays tax or pays it voluntarily?
Like DF I find discussing libertarianism tedious

maggy_thatcher · 16-06-2010 6:35pm

Laminations wrote: »

You assume that everyone is, or can be educated equally and that with education comes rationality.

No, I assume that if you are told "don't do this, its dangerous" and if you still do it, you should be presumed to be responsible for your own actions.

Laminations wrote: »

Many very clver and knowledgable people take dangerous drugs, everyone knows the possible consequences of drink driving or dangerous driving but some people persist

If those drugs were regulated so that the contents were clearly defined with the side-effects well documented, and the "clver and knowledgable"[sic] person still wanted to do it, then let them. Drink driving is different - you put other road users at risk, so obviously there should be controls in place to stop people doing that.

Laminations wrote: »

many people don't save or contribute to a pension even though there is plenty of information out there to educate yourself with.
People make mistakes, while I disagree with the welfare state and creating dependancy upon it, I think we owe each other help as we live together in a society and we should have a governmental safety net, not that I agree with waste.

There's a difference between "helping the less well off" in society (e.g. state pensions, universal health care, etc.) and nanny-state (you can't buy that, it might hurt you; you can't read that, it might distort your fragile little mind, etc.). Banning head-shops is leaning well into the second-half of this list.

Valmont · 16-06-2010 10:23pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The Irish Constitution (which is more defined and much less open-ended than Constitutions like the United States)

Our government is far from having a blank cheque to legislate on whatever it wants.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The Congress shall have Power-
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...

Not so fast.

Despite the actions of the American government and the supreme court giving their constitution the verisimilitude of being open ended, it is quite specific and this was the intention of its creators. Jefferson said: "Our Peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution...Let us not make it a blank paper by construction".

James Madison had this to say about the general welfare clause: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators".

Sorry for all of the quotes but it just goes to show you that the American constitution was created to be specific and that Bunreacht na hEireann has given us 90 years of populism and nationalism. A populism that the U.S.A is sliding towards by pretending that their constitution either doesn't exist or is a "living document".

Valmont · 16-06-2010 10:33pm

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

But the constitution has to be framed as a living document, a guiding hand as it were to prevent us being ruled by the tyranny of the few. I never suggested that the ink text of the constitution protects us from anything, whilst the pen may be mightier than the sword, both need a hand to hold them.

The United States constitution is not supposed to be a living document. James Madison, in 1817, reminded Congress of the amendment clause.

"marked out in the Constitution itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest"

The president and congress seem to regularly ignore the amendment process, preferring to use the constitution in direct contravention of the intentions of those who wrote and ratified it. Just because it is in vogue to ignore the constitution does not mean it is open ended. The American government is simply breaking the rules.

Lockstep · 16-06-2010 11:33pm

Valmont wrote: »

Not so fast.

Despite the actions of the American government and the supreme court giving their constitution the verisimilitude of being open ended, it is quite specific and this was the intention of its creators. Jefferson said: "Our Peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution...Let us not make it a blank paper by construction".

Jefferson's views mark him as an Anti-Federalist so I'm not sure as to how you can use him as an example of the creators as a whole.

Valmont wrote: »

James Madison had this to say about the general welfare clause: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators".

What you are doing above is using the views of two anti-federalists and claiming that this represented the creators of the Constitution as a whole,

Valmont wrote: »

Sorry for all of the quotes but it just goes to show you that the American constitution was created to be specific and that Bunreacht na hEireann has given us 90 years of populism and nationalism. A populism that the U.S.A is sliding towards by pretending that their constitution either doesn't exist or is a "living document".

Why the intent of the Founding Father's keeps getting brought up in these debates is beyond me. This was a group of men going on about liberty while keeping slaves and who decided that 'unfree persons' and Indians should only counted as 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of determining representation.

Plus, if the Founding Father's were so about unenumerated federal powers coming up then they had only themselves to blame for their choice of language.
If you can find me a modern Constitution that is *not* filled with open ended references and flexible language then +10 internets to you sir.

Valmont wrote: »

The United States constitution is not supposed to be a living document. James Madison, in 1817, reminded Congress of the amendment clause.

"marked out in the Constitution itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest"

The president and congress seem to regularly ignore the amendment process, preferring to use the constitution in direct contravention of the intentions of those who wrote and ratified it. Just because it is in vogue to ignore the constitution does not mean it is open ended. The American government is simply breaking the rules.

See above.
If you don't see the US Constitution as a living document then you're in pretty dodgy territory. I sure as hell would hate to be in a nation which abided by their intent.

Manic Moran · 17-06-2010 12:21am

Can democratic elected government officials do this? Make legislation that will destroy a business that is not breaking any law

Just ask Ireland's firearms dealers. Logic, analysis, rationality have no bearing on what a politician does. The only thing going through his mind is "Will this get me more votes?"

NTM

Banned Account · 17-06-2010 9:16am

Valmont wrote: »

The United States constitution is not supposed to be a living document. James Madison, in 1817, reminded Congress of the amendment clause.

"marked out in the Constitution itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest"

The president and congress seem to regularly ignore the amendment process, preferring to use the constitution in direct contravention of the intentions of those who wrote and ratified it. Just because it is in vogue to ignore the constitution does not mean it is open ended. The American government is simply breaking the rules.

The constitution of any country is what its people determine it to be - at any given stage. The original drafters may have intended it to be a rigid structure however if, as society evolves, the populous choose to view and use it as a reference document, then that is what it becomes.

The crux of the issue lies with judicial interpretation - if an incoming government disagrees with a flexible approach, then they appoint judges who will use a doctrine of strict construction. If, on the other hand, they take issue with the notion of having to live according to the social norms of bygone times, then they simply apply a more liberal interpretation.

The latter does not mean that the constitution and its underlying spirit are simply discarded as there is the small matter of judicial precedent which still needs to be addressed. To my mind, it would be more contrary to the will of the original drafters to keep ammending the constitution untils such time as it ceases to bear any resemblence to the original text.

Elevator · 17-06-2010 9:51am

The_Minister wrote:

We elect people to make laws - they are making laws.
Who do you think should get to judge whether or not they are 'allowed' pass a law? Who decides if the evidence is strong enough?

where was their evidence? they kept saying how dangerous these new drugs were so they banned them, as far as i know they didn't produce one shred of evidence to back up their claims.

now we got the head shop drugs still for sale if ya know the right people, have heard reports that the market is flooding with quality xtc from eu,

what they did has done nothing but win them a couple of good weeks press but they're up to their necks in **** now so what was the point??!!?

Elevator · 17-06-2010 9:56am

smokin ace wrote:

they have to do something about them my sister went totally bonkers from the siht out of the head shops just imagine going into you mothers house seeing you younger sister in her room totally paranoid out of her head thinking there was people coming to get her she was talking to herself and hearing voices in her head did not sleep for nearly a week and did not eat either along with a raft of other things believe me its scary siht no one held her down and forced her to take the stuff and i was no saint when i was younger and have experience with street drugs but the stuff out the headshops is very bad siht i know many lads and ladies in my area that have lost the plot over headshop drugs so the sooner they close the better because if they stay open they will destroy all the young people brains that take the stuff out of it

your sister can't take drugs then, I drank too much last week after drinking pints, nobody forced them down me neck but they were served to me all the same, there is a shocking amount of evidence out there to show alcohol isca killer,

BAN PUBS NOW for my good and the good of everybody in the country

Elevator · 17-06-2010 10:07am

gandalf wrote:

Anything that puts more strain on our Health Service needs to be dealt with.

Of course there is populist politics at work here but for once it for the benefit of society.

so when are we going to wake up to an all out ban on alcohol and cigarettes then? I am hopelessly addicted to cogs and I've known a few that had trouble with the drink for years. that enough real evidence for me!!

Permabear · 17-06-2010 10:46am

This post has been deleted.

Banned Account · 17-06-2010 11:01am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would tend to disagree with you here. At any given stage in a country's history, the interpretation applied by the courts in constitutional matters are a reflection of the attitudes of the judiciary, who are appointed by the government who are elected by the people. There has never been, to the best of my knowledge, any notable period of sustained strict constructionism employed by the courts here.

The 'facts' of constitutional interpretation are bourne out by case law - whilst personal views may differ, the 'facts' of law are those which are laid down by the courts.

Permabear · 17-06-2010 11:12am

This post has been deleted.

Banned Account · 17-06-2010 11:16am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, I am disagreeing with this part;

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I acknowledge your point but would reply that as one cannot have a tied judiciary in matters constitutional, one view always prevails - this is the view of the majority of the judiciary. So at any point in time, it is always possible to say which docterine of judicial interpretation prevails.

Manic Moran · 17-06-2010 3:57pm

what they did has done nothing but win them a couple of good weeks press

Welcome to our world, sorry you had to join us.

NTM

Hammered hippie · 21-06-2010 5:46pm

For everyone that thinks my name means I am concerned about my supply of goods from a head shop. Sorry to dissapoint you but I love a good glass of wine and haven't really smoked anything for years and I buy my bath salts by the kilo in a supermarket.

I am just worried that it's ok for politicians in say Ennis to organise rallies against shops that are not even breaking the law, and then have them ransacked and forced out of town. That kind of **** hasn't happened for a long time in Europe. Hysteria and populism are rife and no one is even willing to look at the consequences for the future of our civil liberties.

Bear in mind that head shops are not breaking the law and are willing to cooperate with any form of decent regulation...at least that is the impression I get.

Now look at some remarks of the minister for Justice.
-Head shops are moving targets
-The days of head shops are numbered.
WTF!!!!!
Since when is it OK for an elected government official to go and verbally threaten that what he or she doesn't like..(again mind you..Head Shops still aren't breaking the law). The fact that he gets away with it and is encouraged to make up laws that will turn head shops into law breakers just for the sake of criminalizing them created a precendent for the future where I cannot see any civilian having any rights to do anything the government doesn't like....or Joe Duffy doesn't like

If you want the law to change as a minister because you have good grounds to believe that something needs regulation or even bannning..fine go ahead. But to utter threatening language in the process because it makes you appear tough for the media...come on! That has nothing to do with democracy at all.

RandomName2 · 22-06-2010 10:14am

Hammered hippie wrote: »

For everyone that thinks my name means I am concerned about my supply of goods from a head shop. Sorry to dissapoint you but I love a good glass of wine and haven't really smoked anything for years and I buy my bath salts by the kilo in a supermarket.

I am just worried that it's ok for politicians in say Ennis to organise rallies against shops that are not even breaking the law, and then have them ransacked and forced out of town. That kind of **** hasn't happened for a long time in Europe. Hysteria and populism are rife and no one is even willing to look at the consequences for the future of our civil liberties.

Bear in mind that head shops are not breaking the law and are willing to cooperate with any form of decent regulation...at least that is the impression I get.

Now look at some remarks of the minister for Justice.
-Head shops are moving targets
-The days of head shops are numbered.
WTF!!!!!
Since when is it OK for an elected government official to go and verbally threaten that what he or she doesn't like..(again mind you..Head Shops still aren't breaking the law). The fact that he gets away with it and is encouraged to make up laws that will turn head shops into law breakers just for the sake of criminalizing them created a precendent for the future where I cannot see any civilian having any rights to do anything the government doesn't like....or Joe Duffy doesn't like

If you want the law to change as a minister because you have good grounds to believe that something needs regulation or even bannning..fine go ahead. But to utter threatening language in the process because it makes you appear tough for the media...come on! That has nothing to do with democracy at all.

The Minister doesn't give a damn about head-shops, Ahern is just running scared from the Joe Duffy pose and IRA arsonists. Also he thinks that harping on in this manner will be endearing to the general public. His colleagues would seem to agree with him.

On these grounds it would be impossible to fnd a politician who would come out as pro-head-shop as it would seem to be politically disastrous. Even if the public would back such a politician, which he has no firm grounds for believing, his own party would not. An independent candidate would have no influence either way.

We do not elect politicians, we elect people who are token figures of different political parties which are almost entirely identical; distinguished mainly in terms of their coalition preferences. These parties attempt to get elected on various promises concerning money which tend to be very flexible when actually put to the test. The only major criteria, then, is in terms of who we most trust with our money. Whilst the economy is good we judge that the parties that are in power have done a good job and can be reelected. When economy is bad we want 'the others'.

Small stuff like individual laws do not come into this. Thankfully (for me) I don't care about head-shops.:D

Bob Z · 22-06-2010 2:05pm

Hammered hippie wrote: »

@Ardmacha

In most democracies there has to be a reason other than: 'I as politician think I can further my career by destroying this sector of society' or ' my neighbour and friend is annoyed by this and that so I feel I can pass a law against it'

If politicians are allowed to make everything they don't like illegal by passing a law against it without a good scientifically/statistically backed up reason then there is no difference with a dictator ship because:

In a dictator ship people are outlawed and criminalized just like that and with no furter reason issued.
In this 'democracy' people are outlawed and criminalized by decree with no further reason issued.
The only technical difference is that in the second version a law has to be made. But as the mechanisms in place to stop and verify a law are not respected there is no difference in reality.

So what is the difference..can anyone tell me. What sets Ireland apart from an ordinary dictatorship if laws are passed to polish away that what is not sightly, without any form of input or way to stop it or have it verified.
Mind you...the national ombudsman has called Ireland a non-constitutional country for this very same reason.

The politicians pass laws that the public (influenced by the media) want to in order to be popular and get re-elected. A dictactor in this instance wouldn't have this problem he would to please him or herself not to please the media or public

Can government attack non law breaking businesses just like that?

Comments