Re: DOES THE 9th AMENDMENT PROTECT RESPONSIBLE REC DRUG USE?

On 2 Dec 2003 08:03:21 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William C Colley)
wrote:

>Greetings All,
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
>PROTECTED]>...
>> On 1 Dec 2003 12:46:21 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William C Colley)
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Greetings All,
>> >
>> >George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
>> >PROTECTED]>...
>> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:09:01 GMT, brian bennett
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > 
>> >> >> Great idea. That the govt would dare interfere with my right is
>> >> >> absurd.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Once such a right did exist in the top lord in an area - he had a
>> >> >> right to first have sex with new brides.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Doesn't that right still exist?
>> >> >
>> >> >i honestly can't tell if you're being facetious or just stupid.  your "rights"
>> >> >extend only to the point that anothers' rights are not violated.  you only have
>> >> >the "right" to have sex with those adults who grant their bodies to you.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> That view is the view of libertarians.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >It is the fundamental view that as long as you don't actively harm
>> >other people or their property agaisnt their consent, you can do as
>> >you please.
>> 
>> Yes. So what?
>>
>
>Do you agree with this premis or not?

Of course not. Such a view would lead to a world in which our lives
would be nasty and short.

No one, with few exceptions, would agree with your premise.

What people would generally agree with is that liberty is good, and
should be encouraged, but not without limit.

For instance, I do not believe that people should be permitted to
sully the good name of our nation by using the phrase "American
cheese" to refer to that vile product.

I don't think you should be able to be cruel to dogs.

I don't think that you should be able to avoid tax.

I mean - these are pretty basic ideas accepted by just about
everybody, inconsistent with your premise.

Except the American cheese. Why peolpe permit that is beyond me.

 If you do you basically act as a
>libertarian. If you don't then you are prone to act in ways that
>actively harm other people against their will.

False dichotomy. If you said - harm SOME other people against their
will, than I would agree.

Clearly it harms sadists to prohibit their torture of animals.

But clearly government support of medical research actively helps
other people against the will of some.

But that is not really our topic - whether we should have a world
where liberty is the trump card. Our topic is whether the Ninth
Amendment has sufficient meaning to work as "law."




>
>
>> >
>> >Who am I  that I should be so empowered to tell you how to live your
>> >life, so long as you are harming me or mine? And vice-versa?
>> >
>> A person living with others, I suppose.
>>
>
>So you will grant me power to tell you how to live your life then Mr.
>Tyrebiter? Why would you ever do something so immature?

Because collective action is sometimes a good thing, and your approach
would lead to selfish assholes using libertarianism as a lame excuse
to hide their selfish desire to not have to chip in their fair share.

So there is the free rider problem.

And other problems. But that's again off our topic. We are not talking
about preferred Utopias, but instead are talking about what the Ninth
Amendment IS, and whether it can work as law.
>
>> 
>> Thus we limit your right to drive on the left side of the road for the
>> common good.
>>
>
>Ah, but my right to drive on the left side of the road is only
>infringed upon on public roads or private roads that I don't own. If I
>drive on my own road I can drive any way I please.

I prefer a world where we need not each build our own road.
>
>> 
>> But that's not relevant.
>>
>
>There is a difference between private behaviour and public behaviour,
>you don't find that relevant? Well, it was your own statement you are
>calling irrelevant, so do continue.

My own comment was irrelevant.

Because it referred to your irrelevant comments.

>> 
>> You are talking about what should be, and I am talking about what the
>> Ninth Amendment IS - not what it SHOULD BE.
>>
>
>No need for confusion, just read it again. As with all statements it
>is self-evidently clear.

I do not think all statements are self-evidently clear.

Different folks read the Ninth Amendment different ways.

One essential aspect of "law" is that there is a predictable
relationship between behavior and the actions of law.

The lack of consensus on the Ninth Amendment means it can't work as
law.




> 
>> 
>> 
>> >It's really that simple Mr. Tyrebiter. So simple in fact that it can
>> >be used as a self-contained Turing test.
>> 
>> Who cares?
>>
>
>Anyone who wishes to be considered a rational, intelligent, individual
>capable of learning I suppose.
>
>> 
>> A turing test box could have four legs beneath it or six.
>>
>
>A turing test is not defined by the number of appendeges Mr.
>Tyrebiter, but rather by its ability to convince another intelligent
>entity that it too is intelligent.
>
>Or didn't you  know this?
>
>> 
>> That it is a turing test box does not tell me the number of legs.
>>
>
>Shall I post the definition of a Turing test for you Mr. Tyrebiter? It
>has nothing to do with legs or boxes, just as the Nineth amendment has
>nothing to do with lists.
>
>> 
>> How many legs in the Ninth, what are they like?
>>
>
>Ah, so you really are incapable of parsing English. My apologies Mr.
>Tyrebiter, I thougt I was conversing with someone who could make
>sense.
>
>> 
>> That's the question.
>>
>
>But only you are interested in the answer. Go figure.
> 
>> 
>> >
>> >>
>> >> There are more folks in the world than libertarians.
>> >>
>> >
>> >True but irrelevant. However, if everyone behaved as a libertarian
>> >then there would be far more justice in the world.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> For instance, our  Founding Fathers were not libertarians.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Really? By what strange definition of libertarian do you base this
>> >statement on? The founding fathers didn't believe in free-will? What
>> >part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do you disagree
>> >with? Or would you rather have a government that was authoritarian,
>> >autocratic, communistic, despotic, dictatorial, intolerant, and
>> >totalitarian instead?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So they did not mean to adopt its views.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >The US Declaration and US Constitution are written is simple English
>> >Mr. Tyrebiter. What parts of them do not sound libertarian to you?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thus the Ninth Amendment can't mean that govt must follow libertarian
>> >> principles.
>> >>
>> >
>> >No Ninth amendment does not contain the word libertarian, correct. It
>> >merely states that rights are not something to be taken away merely
>> >because they are not ennumerated.
>> > 
>> >>
>> >> So what does the thing mean?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Exactly what it says Mr. Tyrebiter. Please read it again..."The
>> >enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>> >construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
>> >
>> >What words are confusing you? If the ignorance you are demonstrating
>> >isn't deliberate you can overcome it.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Beats me. 
>> >>
>> >
>> >But not me. Keep trying Mr. Tyrebiter, you can figure it out. 
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Far as I can tell, no one knows what it means.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Then you tell wrong Mr. Tyrebiter. Anyone who can read English at a
>> >10th grade comprehension level is able to understand the simple
>> >sentence "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
>> >shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
>> >people. ". Use a dictionary if there are any words you don't
>> >understand.
>> >
>> > 
>> >> 
>> >> You have a consistent logical theory - which surely is not what was
>> >> intended.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The only thing intended by the 9th Amendment was to make it
>> >unambiguous that the Constitution does not restrict any rights of the
>> >people even though several specific rights are explicitly defined.
>> >
>> >Keep at that reading comprehension Mr. Tyrebiter, given what I read of
>> >your words on usenet I shall not disparage you the ability to construe
>> >its meaning and retain it long enough to figure it out.
>> >
>> >William C Colley
>
>William C Colley