No shame at all. I'm 100% consistent:

"I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or
libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. I think business should have
minimal regulation. I believe in well defined and vigorously
enforced
property rights. I believe in the Constitution.
You are a wacko Neo-Con. All you can comprehend is far right religious
wackoism or the opposite extreme, far left wackoism. If you choose to drive
down the highway of life with your right tires constantly rubbing the curb,
go ahead. You wacko!

Gilligan, who proudly voted Republican by writing in Goldwater."

All the problems you have mentioned exist because of ill defined property
rights.

Pollution, shooting dog = destroying some elses property.

Victim = someone who has had their unalienable rights violated.

Unalienable rights = life, liberty, property (the fruits of your labor)

Victimless crime = a "crime" created by the state where two or more enter
into a non coercive mutual agreement to the benefit of both parties,
including individual action. The state defines the behavior (even of a
single individual) or outcome of the agreement as a crime. Examples:
prostitution, reading certain material, consuming certain substances,
gambling, smoking, displaying the Declaration of Independence in schools,
hanging the ten commandments in a public place, saying things that may be
"offensive", travel to Cuba, etc. No one's unalienable rights are violated
by these actions.



"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
But, how does one define a 'victim'?

Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would
not be a crime to kill endangered species. It would
not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment.
You could just dump your crap anywhere. And what
about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not
human.

Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use
the term 'victimless crime'.

Can the environment be a victim? Can a fetus be a victim?
Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim?

"Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak.

Shame on Gilligan and any others for using the term, let
alone advocating for it.

CN


"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap:

Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal
or
libertarian. I think drugs should be legal.


You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on
coke.


So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such.


You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely
different.


BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver
sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a
head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of
scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8
stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked on
his own vomit while on smack, he drowned.

But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they
will get it and take it.

Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not control
thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone
should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an
adult and be responsiable for your own actions.

BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi
million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no
problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when to
say when while drinking.

It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug.
Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And
the people that do victimise others should pay to the max.


Joe








Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

We are talking about the term 'victimless crime' and I fail
to see that is exclusively to do with property rights.

Simply not so! Allow me to give you some examples.
Certain things such the very air we breath cannot be
defined as property rights yet laws have been passed
that make it illegal for people to smoke in enclosed
spaces. This is because smoking is not a victimless
crime. Smokers force others to breathe their smoke.
They take away an unalienable right - to breath air
that is clean and does not smell or harm one's health.

There is property such one's lawn, house, dog etc.
You are correct with respect to that. Where your
argument breaks down is on things such as air,
freedom of movement, freedom to think and say
what one wishes. These have nothing whatsoever
to do with property yet they come under the
term unalienable rights.

Let's take abortion. In spite of what liberal Supreme
Court Judges ruled in Roe v. Wade, a woman's right
to choose is NOT an unalienable right. Rather, it is
a legal right conferred by the Court. Why is it not
a victimless crime? It is not a victimless crime because
there is a victim - the aborted baby. Yet it is legal.

Confused? You should be. It proves that the term
victimless crime is too vague to ever expect consideration
when you argue "all victimless crimes should be legal".

What occurs is a prolonged argument of what comprises
a victimless crime and no progress is ever made toward
the goal of legalizing that which cannot be defined
either by property rights or unalienable rights.

A smart libertarian would argue that all unalienable rights
are protected by the Constitution and that to grow and
smoke ones own herb is protected by the Constitution.
Don't call smoking your own homegrown weed
a victimless crime as it is not a crime of any type
according to the Constitution. You already have
one foot in the jailhouse simply because you
admit it is a crime. Adding the word victimless
to the word crime does not negate the fact that
it's still a crime.

Get it.? In words even a mountain man from the liberal
state of Colorado would understand, don't get down
in the mud and wrestle with the pigs - you will find
they like it.

CN




"Gilligan" wrote in message ink.net...
No shame at all. I'm 100% consistent:

"I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or
libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. I think business should have
minimal regulation. I believe in well defined and vigorously
enforced
property rights. I believe in the Constitution.
You are a wacko Neo-Con. All you can comprehend is far right religious
wackoism or the opposite extreme, far left wackoism. If you choose to drive
down the highway of life with your right tires constantly rubbing the curb,
go ahead. You wacko!

Gilligan, who proudly voted Republican by writing in Goldwater."

All the problems you have mentioned exist because of ill defined property
rights.

Pollution, shooting dog = destroying some elses property.

Victim = someone who has had their unalienable rights violated.

Unalienable rights = life, liberty, property (the fruits of your labor)

Victimless crime = a "crime" created by the state where two or more enter
into a non coercive mutual agreement to the benefit of both parties,
including individual action. The state defines the behavior (even of a
single individual) or outcome of the agreement as a crime. Examples:
prostitution, reading certain material, consuming certain substances,
gambling, smoking, displaying the Declaration of Independence in schools,
hanging the ten commandments in a public place, saying things that may be
"offensive", travel to Cuba, etc. No one's unalienable rights are violated
by these actions.



"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
But, how does one define a 'victim'?

Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would
not be a crime to kill endangered species. It would
not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment.
You could just dump your crap anywhere. And what
about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not
human.

Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use
the term 'victimless crime'.

Can the environment be a victim? Can a fetus be a victim?
Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim?

"Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak.

Shame on Gilligan and any others for using the term, let
alone advocating for it.

CN


"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap:

Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal
or
libertarian. I think drugs should be legal.


You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on
coke.


So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such.


You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely
different.


BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver
sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a
head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of
scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8
stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked on
his own vomit while on smack, he drowned.

But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they
will get it and take it.

Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not control
thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone
should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an
adult and be responsiable for your own actions.

BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi
million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no
problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when to
say when while drinking.

It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug.
Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And
the people that do victimise others should pay to the max.


Joe








Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

A well thought out reply. Comments within:

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
We are talking about the term 'victimless crime' and I fail
to see that is exclusively to do with property rights.

First thing: you life is your exclusive property. From this all other
non-conflicting rights are derived.


Simply not so! Allow me to give you some examples.
Certain things such the very air we breath cannot be
defined as property rights yet laws have been passed
that make it illegal for people to smoke in enclosed
spaces. This is because smoking is not a victimless
crime. Smokers force others to breathe their smoke.
They take away an unalienable right - to breath air
that is clean and does not smell or harm one's health.

Breathing polluted air negatively affects one's life.


There is property such one's lawn, house, dog etc.
You are correct with respect to that. Where your
argument breaks down is on things such as air,
freedom of movement, freedom to think and say
what one wishes. These have nothing whatsoever
to do with property yet they come under the
term unalienable rights.

In order to own your life, you have the unalienable right to sustain it, as
long as you don't violate the same rights as others. If you have no right to
sustain your life, then you have no right to life (this argument can be used
against abortion). You can travel freely, work, grow food, develop land,
whatever.


Let's take abortion. In spite of what liberal Supreme
Court Judges ruled in Roe v. Wade, a woman's right
to choose is NOT an unalienable right. Rather, it is
a legal right conferred by the Court. Why is it not
a victimless crime? It is not a victimless crime because
there is a victim - the aborted baby. Yet it is legal.

It's a crime with a victim if one regards the baby as a human being. There
is also an argument that the fetus is a parasite (up to a certain stage of
development) and hence, the mother has a right to terminate the pregnancy.


Confused? You should be. It proves that the term
victimless crime is too vague to ever expect consideration
when you argue "all victimless crimes should be legal".

I'm not confused, in fact things are simple with a few basic principles and
definitions.


What occurs is a prolonged argument of what comprises
a victimless crime and no progress is ever made toward
the goal of legalizing that which cannot be defined
either by property rights or unalienable rights.

Victimless crime = no injured party.


A smart libertarian would argue that all unalienable rights
are protected by the Constitution and that to grow and
smoke ones own herb is protected by the Constitution.

That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People and
the States respectively.

Don't call smoking your own homegrown weed
a victimless crime as it is not a crime of any type
according to the Constitution. You already have
one foot in the jailhouse simply because you
admit it is a crime. Adding the word victimless
to the word crime does not negate the fact that
it's still a crime.

The government has made it a crime, a crime without an injured party.


Get it.? In words even a mountain man from the liberal
state of Colorado would understand, don't get down
in the mud and wrestle with the pigs - you will find
they like it.

Colorado is the second most economically free state in the nation. For the
most part, the Democrats here are pretty conservative. The liberals are
confined to four areas.


CN




"Gilligan" wrote in message
ink.net...
No shame at all. I'm 100% consistent:

"I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or
libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. I think business should
have
minimal regulation. I believe in well defined and vigorously
enforced
property rights. I believe in the Constitution.
You are a wacko Neo-Con. All you can comprehend is far right religious
wackoism or the opposite extreme, far left wackoism. If you choose to
drive
down the highway of life with your right tires constantly rubbing the
curb,
go ahead. You wacko!

Gilligan, who proudly voted Republican by writing in Goldwater."

All the problems you have mentioned exist because of ill defined
property
rights.

Pollution, shooting dog = destroying some elses property.

Victim = someone who has had their unalienable rights violated.

Unalienable rights = life, liberty, property (the fruits of your labor)

Victimless crime = a "crime" created by the state where two or more
enter
into a non coercive mutual agreement to the benefit of both parties,
including individual action. The state defines the behavior (even of a
single individual) or outcome of the agreement as a crime. Examples:
prostitution, reading certain material, consuming certain substances,
gambling, smoking, displaying the Declaration of Independence in
schools,
hanging the ten commandments in a public place, saying things that may
be
"offensive", travel to Cuba, etc. No one's unalienable rights are
violated
by these actions.



"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
But, how does one define a 'victim'?

Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would
not be a crime to kill endangered species. It would
not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment.
You could just dump your crap anywhere. And what
about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not
human.

Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use
the term 'victimless crime'.

Can the environment be a victim? Can a fetus be a victim?
Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim?

"Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak.

Shame on Gilligan and any others for using the term, let
alone advocating for it.

CN


"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap:

Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic
liberal
or
libertarian. I think drugs should be legal.


You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out
on
coke.


So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such.


You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely
different.


BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver
sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a
head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of
scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8
stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked
on
his own vomit while on smack, he drowned.

But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they
will get it and take it.

Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not
control
thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone
should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an
adult and be responsiable for your own actions.

BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi
million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no
problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when
to
say when while drinking.

It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug.
Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And
the people that do victimise others should pay to the max.


Joe








Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers
to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People
and
the States respectively.


Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has
been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many
decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in
compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. The
states have no power whatsoever and in point of fact serve no useful
function anymore. They are leftover and for that matter highly inefficient
historical curiousities. What you are refering to is the way things used to
be before the checks and balances system was dismantled. The portion of the
Constitution you refer to was amended about 90 years ago. The word state is
now splled with a small 's'.

Think I'm wrong? HOW then would a state, such as colorado compel the
Federal Government to do anything?

What exactly caused this? Name the legislation and I'll certainly look into
it.

Gilligan

"Michael" wrote in message
...
That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers
to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People
and
the States respectively.


Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has
been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many
decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in
compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. The
states have no power whatsoever and in point of fact serve no useful
function anymore. They are leftover and for that matter highly
inefficient
historical curiousities. What you are refering to is the way things used
to
be before the checks and balances system was dismantled. The portion of
the
Constitution you refer to was amended about 90 years ago. The word state
is
now splled with a small 's'.

Think I'm wrong? HOW then would a state, such as colorado compel the
Federal Government to do anything?

The amendment to the Constitution that turned Senators into
Congressmen-At-Large. Prior to that idiotic move they were selected by
their home State governments who in turn were elected by the population. As
Senators they were responsible primarily to the home State and represented
that State directly while the House of Representatives represented the local
areas and the citizens directly. The States at that time had effective
legislative power over the federal government since their were only two
Senators per State. Absent that power to check the federal government the
states lost control and the wisdome of the Federalist Papers came true.
Completely constitutional all the way. The second thing the federal
government did to assume complete control was gather up the purse strings.
Not just the obvious income tax but over time control over all financial
issues, banking laws, insurance, you name it. The third point is regulatory
powers over everything, no exceptions. One Senator even stated it didn't
matter what state he was from, he was part of the federal government. And
last that I'll mention but not finally, the ability to ignore the 10th
Amendment derived from this same fundamental change AS DID the curious
notion that a Supreme Court ruling is the final say so. Under the old checks
and balances system no single part nor all parts of the federal government
could rule within themselves or over the states. A little applied
gradualism and a lot of red herrings, presto! One day you wake up and find
it ain't the party of Roosevelt anymore. Not hard when there are zero
checks and balances in place.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
news
What exactly caused this? Name the legislation and I'll certainly look
into
it.

Gilligan

"Michael" wrote in message
...
That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates
powers
to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The
People
and
the States respectively.


Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That
has
been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many
decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in
compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government.
The
states have no power whatsoever and in point of fact serve no useful
function anymore. They are leftover and for that matter highly
inefficient
historical curiousities. What you are refering to is the way things
used
to
be before the checks and balances system was dismantled. The portion of
the
Constitution you refer to was amended about 90 years ago. The word
state
is
now splled with a small 's'.

Think I'm wrong? HOW then would a state, such as colorado compel the
Federal Government to do anything?

"Michael" wrote
That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers
to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People
and
the States respectively.


Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has
been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many
decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in
compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. ....

This is only true because the federal government is a treasonous criminal.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:32:25 -0500, "Vito" wrote:

"Michael" wrote
That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers
to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People
and
the States respectively.


Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has
been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many
decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in
compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. ....

This is only true because the federal government is a treasonous criminal.

yep, and because after the civil war states were made aware of the
consequences of opposing the government usurpation of their powers.

add to that the ignorance of most of my fellow countrymen about the
appropriate role of government in a constitutional republic.