Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues Smoking in Public and Whose Rights are they?

Well, first of all, someone will have to explain to Mr. Peasant and Mr. Worker that they are just pack animals, and the pack collective must inform them that their lives are their "gift" to the world and that their rights are exactly what the collective says they are and that they are subject to change without notice.

Then the pack collective can assemble in camera to draft the rules, codes and regulations by which Mr. Peasant and Mr. Worker must live, and create the courts and police force to make sure that they do not forget their duty to the state and to society.

While this is going on, Mr. Peasant and Mr. Worker will - while publicly smoking some dried plant leaves - cut down a few trees, catch and salt some fish, dry some fruit, kill and cure the meat of a large, quadripedal animal, make a boat from the trees. Then, provisioned by their own work, they will escape from an Erewhon where none of the statues are hollow and find the first island mentioned.

Emerging from their session of inspired bureaucracy, the pack collective will face the crisis by passing the Peasant Reauthorization, Improvement, Control and Keying act of 2007 (PRICK), the Worker Advancement, Normalization, Keying, Education and Restructuring act of 2007 (WANKER), granting themselves a COLA, carry out fact-finding missions on the Riviera, and an extensive internal investigation as to why only one of the pack leadership is "of color", only one is female, and the representation of the gay, lesbian and transgendered community cannot be ascertained.

I assumed that there is a difference between a family team and that of the force of the government. I see this individual rights starting with a level of authority that used to start with the head of the household. Our schools offer another level of authority and so forth up the chain to our elected City, County, State and Federal officials.

I was under the impression that being the head of the household was to teach the family members to think for themselves and understand the system of government of the nation. It is only my generation that saw this as part of our survival training?

Yes, Ron, I have read Desmond Morris and understood the meaning of the naked ape. But I thought we were discussing the government of a Constitutional Republic not just a huge over abundant government giving no respect to individual rights.

America was an experiment in individual freedoms and failed. Every input from our churches, to our desire to be told what to do, screwed it up. For years many of us tried to sell this limited government over the people but we were overcome by people who figured we were nothing but animals and needed herding.

It is a subject to be discussed seriously but I fear not here. It may no longer be possible in any nation that needs to be herded.

There is no doubt in my mind that religion has tried to herd us all into one mind of fear of the hereafter. The heads of the household and every level of authority up to and including the President of the United States has used this fear and even terrorism to hold us in our place and never question authority.

I'm tired of this fight and will continue working for American freedoms but not where herding can be justified. We are too weak to stand on our two feet as individuals and we are doomed to be sheep until we are blown off the face of the earth. We cannot even elect the right calibre of leaders to help us out from under this weight of guilt.

Do we even think of ourselves as individuals? Is this why we end up voting for parties, not individuals?

The American People, in their infinite wisdom, decided by referendum that the best way to deal with adult illegal aliens who have been identified through due process as being in the USA illegally, is to auction them off to the highest bidder. Therefore slavery, which has thousands of years of history worldwide to back it, has been decriminalized in the USA. Owners would, of course, be required to treat their slaves as humanely as they would any other livestock.

Can anyone make a moral argument against this action?
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos, you are way offtopic. If we have finished this topic I will shortly close it.

I disagree.

I believe that his response is germane to the question of rights and especially as to their origin.

Ron, it is both my topic (the creator of any topic has considerable say on what is on or off topic) and as a Moderator I am responsible to keep things on topic.

Rather than keep going further off topic, I am willing to discuss this in a PM if you wish.

As you said much earlier in this thread "fortunately I have more power than you."

But I still disagree with the notion of Issodhos's post being off-topic. However, at the risk of being blunt and rude, I'll say that it offers you the exit strategy you've needed.

In this case, I do not think it ethical to hold a PM session on what has heretofore a reasonable and lively public discussion.

It is a lively public discussion and it has taken a turn to widen the discussion to include more rights than just smoking. I agree that Ron disagrees that Phil agrees to calling a halt to the discussion.....I think.

It is not a stretch to expect the government to approve of ownerswhip of others rather than give them the natural rights of being Citizens of America. The rights under discussion need desperately to be debated before they get to the point when they are beyond debate. Please Phil, please tell me we have not reached the point beyond debate.

Ron, I replied before I read your last post and I love the PRICK, WANKER AND COLA references and feel they should be listed in Wickiopedia or what ever it is called. My last name is so close to the first one that often I get called Sandy Prick which I feel is certainly a typo.....maybe not

Gentlemen, please continue I wait with bated or is it baited breath.

What about public flatulating? Comparing smoking with fertin' seems fair enough. I'm a former smoker and a practicing pooter, and my experience is that the latter is as enjoyable as the former. I know of no rules or ordinances banning public off-peelin' of nasties, but isn't the norm to only draw attention to oneself with a cloud when there is no option (audible or nasal attributability or no dog to kick)?

I once watched a drunk guy ask a woman if she would mind if he smoked. She spat tobacco juice on his shirt and told him, "be my guest." God, she was hot!

I can only conclude that you don't know how to smoke, or I don't know how to fart!