Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Can government attack non law breaking businesses just like that?
Options
Comments
-
No, I say the state should intervene
And It should also intervene in cases of incest and such
I agree. The state should definitely not condone consentual incest. I suppose DF managed to find 'the line' in my example of private consenting sexual acts between adults. But rather than acknowledge lines can be drawn he insists all lines should be abandoned0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Laminations wrote: »The regulations dont remove personal responsibility, they heighten it. You are still personally responsible for wearing a seatbelt and if others are travelling with you you are responsible for them too. People didnt wear seatbelts when it was voluntary because the likelihood of crashing was not tangible to them, they never saw it as salient. The likelihood of getting a fine and penalty points is nore salient. You still have freedom to not wear a seatbelt, its just the the consequence has changed. Your argument seems to be if people are too careless/stupid/forgetful that they kill themselves, so be it. Libertarians like to expand that to people who are vulnerable/poor/disabled etc and say tough luck if they also fail. Proper regulation heightens the consequence of misbehaviour which is not on its own tangible enough to moderate the behaviour.
Coercion into being responsible is not personal responsibility. If you don't wear your seatbelt as a driver, you have committed an offense and are as such liable to penalty points and a fine.
And yes, I would agree that if someone is too careless/stupid/forgetful to wear a seat belt it is their fault and must deal with the consequences. And I would extend this to the use of drugs. I do not take drugs or smoke but I do not wish to take away the freedom of another to do so. Saying that, such a person must deal with the consequences of such actions. Therefore they should be liable for any costs of treatment that they may seek as a result of engaging in such behavior.
Contrasting this with the assertion that I am saying that its tough luck for anybody vulnerable or disabled - it is not necessarily the fault of such a person that they are in the situation they are and as such it is reasonable to offer them assistance.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Bit of a stretch there methinks.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
The wording of a constitution has to be broad to allow for the fact that social norms change over time. What you are taking issue with here is a matter of interpretation, this interpretation is open to challenge through the courts. If you do not like the interpretation that our judiciary adopt, it can be challenged in Europe.
For example, you are choosing to equate domestic needs with home ownership - whilst many would see this as apt, others would see it as going outside that which is needed.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Like any Constitution then really. It's a lot more explicit than, for example, the American Constitution which contains vague provisions like providing for general welfare.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Maybe you're not noting the 'savings clause';"while preserving their rightful liberty of expression".donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
The point being, the State is permitted to pass legislation that limits freedom of speech, providing that it is to achieve a legitmate aim and it is in proportion to what it is trying to achieve. For example, freedom of speech can be limited to prevent someone leaking military secrets or to protect a person's good name (as under Article 40.3(2)).
This is pretty uniform with liberal democratic societies in general; freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Unless you can find me a society that has unrestricted freedom of expression rights?
Owning your own house is not a Constitutional right. "Domestic needs" is to ensure a minimum standard of living and I honestly doubt you really believe that home ownership counts as a "domestic need".donegalfella wrote: »Article 45.2 of the constitution states that "The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing ... that the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs." But from the late 1990s onward, the State directed its policy not toward accommodating people's domestic needs, but to fuelling a huge bubble in property prices that militated against many families buying a home, and that left thousands of other families deep in negative equity. Constitutional use of state policy?
So while you and I would agree that the State's actions were bad, they were not inherently unconstitutional.
Or you could bring the case to the Courts yourself.
Again, a debatable point. You and I would both agree that NAMA is abhorrent, however, the Constitution does not mandate a particular action. While NAMA is obviously a bad outcome, it provides for the welfare in a basic sense; preventing banks from failing or bank runs.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Giving the courts the ability to declare a debatable point unconstitutional based on economics amounts to giving them an disproportionate handle on monetary policy and would in itself be unconstitutional (tyranny of the judicary would be presumable outcome here)0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Well, firstly I might point out that this is a seperate issue to the one which you raised and which I commented on - namely that a provision which prohibits an organisation from undermining the authority of the state places us in the same boat as Cuba - this is the stretch I was referring to.
As regards the poit above (which I see as a seperate argument) I think the main issue is not with the sentiment of the text itself, but rather with the interpretation which may be given to it by society at a given time. What was blasphemous or seditious in the 40's and 50's may not be so now.
It is up to society to choose which norms it is willing to accept, our part in this process is to select the representatives who will give effect to our wishes - it may be the case that you are unhappy with how this is currently being implemented but that is an argument against process - not against sentiment.0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Well done, you are starting to see that there are lines that can be debated in all sorts of government intervention. That is the complexity of things. Public incest is getting caught for private incest, I suppose.Last week in Scotland, a 44-year-old father and his 26-year-old daughter were both jailed for 16 months for carrying on an incestuous affair. Their relationship was uncovered after the father's wife discovered sexually explicit messages on his mobile phone, and notified the police.
Is this "public incest"?
Do you believe that these two should have been charged and sent to prison?
Its public in so far as any criminal offence uncovered is public. You cant very well be charged with something that nobody knows you did. I dont necessariy agree with a prison sentence, thats a separate argument on whether sentences are too harsh/lenient/inappropriate. But you are painting a lovely picture of libertarian life.
Fvck your sister
Fvck your child
Fvck your seatbelt
Fvck yourself upAnd yes, I would agree that if someone is too careless/stupid/forgetful to wear a seat belt it is their fault and must deal with the consequences. And I would extend this to the use of drugs. I do not take drugs or smoke but I do not wish to take away the freedom of another to do so. Saying that, such a person must deal with the consequences of such actions. Therefore they should be liable for any costs of treatment that they may seek as a result of engaging in such behavior.
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.Contrasting this with the assertion that I am saying that its tough luck for anybody vulnerable or disabled - it is not necessarily the fault of such a person that they are in the situation they are and as such it is reasonable to offer them assistance.
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
kickoutthejams wrote: »Again, a debatable point. You and I would both agree that NAMA is abhorrent, however, the Constitution does not mandate a particular action. While NAMA is obviously a bad outcome, it provides for the welfare in a basic sense; preventing banks from failing or bank runs.
Giving the courts the ability to declare a debatable point unconstitutional based on economics amounts to giving them an disproportionate handle on monetary policy and would in itself be unconstitutional (tyranny of the judicary would be presumable outcome here)
Point well made. NAMA is an aberration of this government, not the result of government in general.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
"Personal responsibility" is, in my opinion, voluntarily assuming responsibility over your own person and taking actions to effect that. Putting on your seatbelt because you'll get fined is not personal responsibility. You're not doing it because you've judged that that's the best way to live, but because a fine awaits you if you don't.
Anyway, I see we've all gone off on the libertarian tangent again. *sigh*Well this shows us the problem with this country...
I agree with what you said, but within the head shop debate it's not even necessary to bring in personal responsibility. The drugs demand will always be there. We have a choice of allocating this demand to legitimate businesses who can be regulated for health and safety etc, or illegal drug dealers, who cannot be. It's a choice between the owners of head shops, and the kind of people that burn down head shops.donegalfella wrote: »In the past, efforts to stamp out such objectionable material have turned into campaigns of relatively indiscriminate censorship that saw literary works such as Hemingway's A Farewell To Arms, Huxley's Brave New World, and Steinbeck's Grapes Of Wrath banned in this country. In the 1950s, poet Robert Graves described Ireland as having "the fiercest literary censorship this side of the Iron Curtain."
:eek: That's actually an embarrassment.0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
I'll admit, I didnt explain myself well. Incest is ilegal and if it is brought to the attention of the state then it should be prosecuted, but the state shouldn't bother trying to identify consenting incest, unlike road traffic violations, child abuse, assault etc. I'd have the same views for recreational drug use in the home. Illegal but not so much on their radar of importance.Yet again, you display your exceedingly poor understanding of libertarian thinking. Libertarians would happily acknowledge that children are unable to give informed consent, and would consider it perfectly legitimate to prosecute an adult for carrying on sexual activity with a child.
And who decides the age of an adult? Who would prosecute on who's behalf?If adult siblings chose to have sex with each other, that would be their own private business. I would not encourage such an activity, which I admit to finding rather creepy, but I don't expect the State to put a stop to everything that I personally (or society in general) find objectionable. Liberalism often involves tolerating things that one finds personally abhorrent—and this is a finer point that you seem incapable of grasping. Tolerating something is not the same as endorsing it.
The reason the state does not tolerate incest is because it often involves abuses of power between parent and child (that may begin when the child is below the age of consent, without the grooming being detectable or necessarily illegal) and secondly incest can result in genetic deformaties. I'd not tolerate it (like you would) if I happened to find out about its practice, but I wouldn't be prying into peoples bedrooms to establish whether incest was being committed.More to the point, libertarians do not believe in prosecuting "victimless crimes." In the case quoted above, a father in his forties and a daughter in her twenties have been sent to prison for having sex with each other. Two adults have been imprisoned for doing something that they both wanted, and that harmed nobody. What's the rationale for the punishment?
Prison may be harsh but no punishment (namely legalising something) is a type of endorsement by the state.
I'll repeat my question on seatbelts. Should the government be requiring people to wear them? If not, please quantify how many deaths would result from your extra feeling of freedom?0 -
Eliot Rosewater wrote: »"Personal responsibility" is, in my opinion, voluntarily assuming responsibility over your own person and taking actions to effect that. Putting on your seatbelt because you'll get fined is not personal responsibility. You're not doing it because you've judged that that's the best way to live, but because a fine awaits you if you don't.
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.Anyway, I see we've all gone off on the libertarian tangent again. *sigh*
I inverted commas sighed too.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Which is why we have a Supreme Court made up of learned judges to ensure that the appropriate weighting is given to each term.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Well, you were the one who brought up negative equity and families being unable to buy homes, I really doubt a reasonable outsider would claim that home ownership is a "domestic need". Noone was forced into buying these homes so I'm not sure how bad policies are automatically unconstitutional or are against providing for domestic needs.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Oh I completely agree, however, when a term is as vague as "general welfare" you will have a hard time bringing forward a case. Bring forward an issue where one your personal rights was affected and you'll stand a much better chance of succeeding in your claim.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Where economics is concerned, you'll have a tough time bringing forward a case unless it involves some form of extremism, to protect diversity of political process (it would also set a horrible precedent)
The realm of the Constitution is to do with the law, not economics. What the Constitution is saying is underlining the government's constitutional ability to determine credit and that this must be done with some measure of the public good in mind.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
When it comes to such things, the Constitution is interpreted quite broadly so as not to infringe the seperation of powers and prevent the judiciary from rigidly enforcing a particular doctrine.
FOr example, it would be almost certainly deemed constitutional for the Government to raise/lower the interest rates to certain levels provided these were moderate. For the government to take this to an extreme and use monetary policy to completely abolish
It's similar when it comes to personal rights, the government can penalise me for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded public building but it cannot take this to an extreme.0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
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 text is designed to provide us with a structure which the courts can construe according to the prevailing social norms of the time - could the pendulum swing back in the future - yes it could. If that is the prevailing will of the masses then we need to accept it or move out.
The alternatives are:
1) Anarchy
2) Specific Legislation covering every aspect of our lives
To my mind, neither is desireable nor workable0 -
kickoutthejams wrote: »The realm of the Constitution is to do with the law, not economics. What the Constitution is saying is underlining the government's constitutional ability to determine credit and that this must be done with some measure of the public good in mind.
When it comes to such things, the Constitution is interpreted quite broadly so as not to infringe the seperation of powers and prevent the judiciary from rigidly enforcing a particular doctrine.
FOr example, it would be almost certainly deemed constitutional for the Government to raise/lower the interest rates to certain levels provided these were moderate. For the government to take this to an extreme and use monetary policy to completely abolish
It's similar when it comes to personal rights, the government can penalise me for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded public building but it cannot take this to an extreme.
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.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Exaggerate much? Care to give some examples? Not from the 1940s or 50s but from modern day interpretation0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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 tedious0 -
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: »You assume that everyone is, or can be educated equally and that with education comes rationality.
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 very clver and knowledgable people take dangerous drugs, everyone knows the possible consequences of drink driving or dangerous driving but some people persist
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.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.0 -
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.
Not so fast.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;...
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".0 -
Advertisement
-
The United States constitution is not supposed to be a living document. James Madison, in 1817, reminded Congress of the amendment clause.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.
"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.0
Advertisement