Your idea of rights as natural law is not so much pedantic as ridiculous. Natural law isn't something you can apply to the domain of rights. Rights arise from an exercise of power; to actually have a right, one has to either be able to enforce it oneself, or else have it enforced by a power outside oneself, or else have it respected by the power(s) outside oneself. Once they arise, they need to be codified through a process that strains what the idea means through a social filter that accounts for how the relevant society will see them. Finally, some continuous force must apply for them to be even remotely meaningful.
For a specific example, in the US, some rights are defined by the constitution, which in turn was written by a power group. Further changes to these rights are made by other power groups (more recent congress, constitutional conventions, etc.) It may make you happy to think that rights devolve from nothing, but they in fact devolve from reason and from power and sadly, from expediency.
For another specific example, in North Korea, most of these "rights" are nonexistent; the idea that a citizen has the right to speak freely is outright absurd. And you can't apply our idea of rights to North Korea; they are not us, and we are not them. If you think you have the "right" to say what rights North Koreans have, then you are simply trying to exercise power over them, a power they might in fact disagree with. Or not; but the point is, you just think your way is better than their way. Wars begin upon such acts of hubris.
When you imagine "rights" as natural law, you can no longer determine what you're looking at. In one society, the right to buy land may be fundamental. In another, the right to receive land by royal decree may be fundamental. In one society, the right to have first sex with one's children may be fundamental. In another, the right to be free of sexual advances from one's parents may be just as fundamental. In another, the right to eat one's parents when they die may be fundamental. In another, the right to have their corpses remain unmasticated may be fundamental. This proves that rights are socially relative, which in turn proves that they are not "natural."
Sure, it would be nice if we could actually define "human rights" so that it would means something outside of political rhetoric and academia, but the fact is, we cannot, and for very practical reasons.
Heck, here in the USA, we can't even hold onto the rights we were assigned by our own constitution. On the one hand, we've got politicians trying to usurp those rights in favor of not trusting the citizens; and on the other, we've got a whole bunch of citizens accommodated to the idea that the government exists to protect them from themselves -- and they seem to like it that way.
The bottom line is that rights are, and always will be, an intellectual construct. Nature favors the strong; not the high-minded. The luxury of being high-minded is only afforded to the strong. This is why rights only arise as a consequence of power.
Search and replace "athiest" for "religious" in all your musings and see if you still like your [historically accurate assessment of constitutional intention]
Yes, I still like it just fine. It is not the government's business to deal out religious viewpoints, and that certainly includes atheism. They don't have the right to tell you to believe, and they don't have the right to tell you what not to believe. It's not their domain. No matter which side you come at it from. That domain belongs to the individual citizen. Not the country, not the party, not the community. Understand now?
I wasn't attacking religion. Or lack of it. Try to get a grip.
Do you really think that if a private citizen leaves something alongside the road, that it is a government endorsement?
I think if the private citizen simply leaves something alongside the road without government approval, that citizen is littering and should be punished.
If the government supports that citizen leaving something alongside the road, then the government is endorsing that action, and consequently, any meanings that come along with it.
In that case, we need to examine what kind of message is being passed. If the message is religious, then it is inappropriate, the government is out of line, and the "something" should be immediately removed at the expense of the person who put it there in the first place.
Religious "decorations", as you call them, amount to a tacit endorsement of the religion they represent, by the government, and that is a bad thing on every level.
I firmly believe that my community has the right to decorate its public spaces in any way it chooses
Then again, you have missed the point. The ideas that underlie the constitution are designed to protect the individual first, not power-wielding groups such as your local, state and federal governments. Your courthouse is intended to be a venue for justice for all; not justice for Voodooists. So no matter what your religious symbol(s) your community might prefer to erect in front of the building, none are appropriate. Every citizen that walks up to that building must feel that they will get an equal and fair hearing in court, equal and fair treatment when it comes to property, matters of record, and matters of disagreement with other citizens.
If the lawn is littered with voodoo artifacts, and a Christian is to face a Voodooist in court, what do you think the message to the participants is? If the Christian is asked to swear on a pile of chicken bones, what is the message then? If one faces a judge, arguing the merits of keeping one's hardware store open on Sunday, and the ten commandments are on a plaque right behind the judge's head, what is the message then?
Religion does not belong in government at any level, in any form. No matter how much the majority might want it to be there. Because it will crush the freedom of the minority, and avoiding that is exactly the rationale that was used to found this country.
You have the freedom to express yourself on your own land and your own time. Public property is owned by everyone, not just by "the majority." That is where the error creeps into your outlook. The implication is that any citizen can say anything on such land unfettered by the preconceptions of other citizens; but that the land itself cannot be used to buttress the ideas of any one, or any group, of citizens because in so doing, it eliminates the former ability. Hence, no statues, no plaques, no symbols, no belief-based agitprop of any kind.
Government — by definition, everyone's servant, not the servant of the majority — belongs squarely in the land of facts, it has no legitimate role endorsing the religious views of any particular group, no matter how large a majority they might command. For example, a statue of a serving public figure, with name, date and office, is appropriate. It is a statement of fact, of record, of history. Statements of precisely why the edifice exists ("justice for all", the blind figure of justice, tax payments accepted at this window, recycle your batteries here, etc.) also are appropriate. A statue of Bon Dieu, on the other hand, is a statement of fractional belief and does not belong there, even if your community as a whole supports the idea.
It all comes down to apparent endorsement. If I see a flag on your porch, I assume you are a patriot. If I see a cross on your lawn, I assume you are a Christian. If I see a marijuana leaf sticker on your car, I assume you are pro-marijuana.
If I see these same things on your courthouse, why would I assume anything different? They are, in the most basic sense, endorsements of one set of views over another. It is critical that such endorsements not be undertaken by any level of government, lest others become the targets of government repression or coercion based on those ideas.
The bottom line? You can't have "justice for all" when you only have "endorsement for some."
Until the farmer decides to light them on fire. Then it's a hate crime.
It seems to me that any reasonable reading of the constitution supports the erecting of a (cross | flag | other symbol or structure) that you paid for on your own land, and subsequently lighting it afire or otherwise treating it harshly (or coddling it), as constitutionally protected free expression. You don't want to let a fire get out of control, is all, because then you're risking your neighbor's property, which has its own protections. At that point, the government not only has the duty to put out your fire, but the duty to bill you for the job. After all, why should the people have to pay for your inability to plan through their taxes?
Now, erecting a cross (much less lighting it afire) on someone else's land might get you shot, and I don't have much of a problem with that, either. You really shouldn't mess with other people's property. Two kinds of property are available to you. First, there is property you own; here, anything you do that doesn't physically affect others (like pollute the aquifer, for instance) should be available to you. Second, there is property you share, such as public property. Here, I think you need to refrain from any destructive act unless you have the agreement of the other owner(s) of the property, unless you own the item being destroyed (eg, a flag you are burning) and you can ensure that what you are doing does not compromise the property itself, or any other unrelated property, of course.
As for "hate speech", that idea is a terribly insidious infection of our principles, and as such deserves to be quashed. There is no "right not to be offended", and in fact, that idea contradicts the first amendment in such a way as to be a huge detriment to the liberty to speak freely. It is an insidious way for political correctness to serve as the ultimate arbiter of the things one can express. That's bad enough; but that's not the only negative.
One of the things that I value about freedom of speech is the ability of the person who has opinions that are significantly disjoint from mine to let me know that this is the case, such that I can avoid that person in my private life insofar as that I feel such action is practical, and likewise, to use this knowledge to arbitrate my selections for public office, if and when I feel I need to make such a choice. If you say to the racist or the religionist or the secessionist or the sexually repressed that they may not speak of (fill in the blank), then it becomes more difficult for me as a private citizen to recognize these people and avoid association or inadvertent support of them. I wholly support the right of all citizens to speak as they will, of that which they feel most strongly, in any way they please, and I would deny any level of government any degree of exerting control over such speech. No matter who is being hated or loved, no matter what words are called into service regardless of how palatable they may or may not be, no matter what figure, historical or imaginary, is named, no matter what vile imprecations may be put forth. I value everyone's right to speak far above the insidious idea that some speech might be uncomfortable for some people and as such, should be suppressed.
I do support the idea of appropriate venue, however. It seems to me that it is critical that when one speaks to the public, that the property involved either be owned by the speaker, or that the owner is well aware of what purpose their land is about to be used and has given permission, endorsement, or a formal statement of disassociation. This prevents the views of the speaker from being mistakenly associated with the landowner's views.
Government-owned property (really, we're saying, "property owned by the people") should always be a venue for free speech by the people, to the government, and often, for the people, to the people, but not, of course, for the government to the people. Governmen
The ban on assassinating leaders is just one more way that line animals and citizens take the brunt for the decisions made by those who do not have to sully their hands with the direct consequences of war, and as such, I think it serves as a condemnation of the system, not a point of honor.
If a person is "commander in chief" (or some kind of intermediate officer) of the armed forces, then he is a legitimate, and high priority, military target. If a senator votes on funding the military, then they are legitimate military targets as well. In fact, as far as I am concerned, if you go so far as to put a sticker on your car that says "I support our troops", then you are a legitimate military target.
The problem is that displays of crosses on the right of way of the road, which is government owned land, and the display of religious artifacts such as monuments to the ten commandments amount to an apparent endorsement, by the government, of religion, said religion almost always being Christianity. For example, I do not recall a single instance of seeing Shiva in a house of legislature, a voodoo altar at an accident site, or a monument to Ayn Rand on a courthouse lawn. When we talk about the US government's sponsorship of religion, It is Christianity first, last, and always.
Now, if some farmer wants to put up crosses in his field, or a church wants to put up religious monuments on church property, or any private citizen wants to erect a shrine to whomever, these are all examples of free expression by the citizens and as such, they are what the constitution seems to be worded to protect. It would be very difficult, I think, to read the first amendment as anything but encouraging the citizen and discouraging the government with regard to religious expression.
Remember the times: This country was founded by people who had been ruthlessly suppressed by the British government because the religion they followed was not that of the state. In 1789, when James Madison introduced the first tentative bill of rights, feelings were very strong that one religious sect or another must not gain religious control of the people through the mechanism of the government.
Madison's suggestion regarding religion read as follows:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
That was whittled down to this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This final version of this idea prevents the establishment of a national religion, and also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-exclusive basis, or so the courts have said until very recently.
Now, there are state constitutions that read slightly differently; however, the supreme court has interpreted the due process clause of the 14th amendment to mean that states may not override this particular section of the bill of rights (the 1st amendment is part of the bill of rights.)
So this means that states shouldn't be putting religious symbols on road right of ways, either, nor should they be erecting monuments to any particular religion's artifacts, creeds, or personalities.
Remember: The bill of rights assigns rights to the people. It takes them away from the government. So you can't really argue that telling the government it can't erect religious artifacts suppressed the speech of the people based on the 1st amendment. It suppresses the ability of the government to tacitly or directly sponsor religion, and that is clearly what the intent of the framers was, not to mention the authors of the bill of rights. The problem, as always, is that when a government expresses a preference for a religion, those who do not follow that religion either are, or feel they are, being marginalized. This is a situation that it is very important to avoid, specifically so that no citizen's expression of religion is likely to be curtailed by concerns about how the government might react to that expression.
Finally, as the government's support of religion is almost exclusively Christian — crosses at the roadside, the ten commandments, Christmas displays, creches, etc. — it is clear that the current situation serves to discommode anyone who isn't a Christian. Therefore it would seem obvious, at least to me, that we have arrived at precisely the birthing of religious sponsorship the 1st amendment was designed to prevent us from getting to.
No, because as an employer, I don't want to have to hire someone that won't be able to do his job properly because he just got done smoking a joint (etc.)
That is ridiculous. Simply set a company rule, no intoxication at work. Coming to work drunk is already a firing offense, which is perfectly reasonable. As an employer, I'm sure you already have this in place, do you not? I do — I run a software company, a literary agency, a martial arts studio, a recording studio and a lingerie outlet. I have lots of employees that run the gamut from scientists to artists to kids still in high school. I know for a fact there are numerous drug users in the bunch, with a strong bias towards drinkers, but there are quite a few stoners as well. No one is allowed to come to work high, drunk, or hung over, with the single exception of the musicians who hire the recording studio, and who are not, technically speaking, my employees, but rather my clients. Such a compromise is a firing offense, and I have zero tolerance for it. I've never had to exercise the rule, and I've never experienced degraded work product I could attribute to drugs. In other words, I have reasonable policies, and I obtain reasonable performance, all without having to act as arbiter of anyone's pursuit of happiness which strictly impinges on their own time.
Today, people drink legally. There is no "registration" for these people, and "as an employer", there is little doubt that you have hired people who drink (unless your business is so small that you basically have no turnover.) As alcohol has far more deleterious effects than most drugs, particularly with regard to medical care costs, I'd say your concerns about medical care are misplaced when you try to use them as justification to lock out pot smokers, for instance. Especially if said pot smokers are forbidden to indulge while working, or work while high.
The proper respect for liberty demands that we, in our interactions with other citizens, cease our activities where those activities begin to materially step on someone else's toes. In the case of work and work product, an exchange has been agreed upon. Make it clear that what you are offering money for does not include work or work product strained through intoxication of any kind, and there are no ethical problems for you.
As for medical care, if you aren't willing to offer it, then don't. It's as simple as that. Your offer of care (or insurance) is part of the exchange. If you choose to devalue the exchange, you'll generally cut down the ranks of who might be willing to work for you, same as if you drop your monetary compensation. Your choice.
If drugs are so great and safe..why should this be a problem?
Exactly. It's not a problem. It's a hypothetical situation you made up. It has not been demonstrated to be a problem, nor would I expect it to be, any more than we have to commonly replace alcoholic's livers today. I addressed it as a hypothetical. I doubt it would ever be a significant problem. It is a lot worse problem to lose an employee to overzealous legal action when that employee was a perfectly effective and useful part of your organization. Now that is a real, current problem.
hmm..now who's pulling figures out of his ass. Care to back this up?
Oh, please. Are you telling me that you think people don't drive cars stoned? What planet do you live on? Do you even know what pot smells like? Do you even drive? Please — try not to be absurd. The fact is, being stoned isn't much of an impediment to driving. I'm not saying it is advisable, any more than talking on a cell phone is advisable, but it certainly isn't a compromise on the same order as driving while drunk. In terms of personal experience, I've only observed perhaps a few tens of drunk drivers, but I couldn't even begin to count the number of times my schoolmates were out driv
It is entirely possible to have a right and not have it recognized by the state.
Of course, if they exist, but are not recognized by the state, they have no function other than as a call to action. And, as is the case in the USA, if there is no means for said call to action to have any effect once the judicial arm (supreme court) has ruled that those rights are illusory, superseded by some state "interest" or otherwise to be ignored... then I rather think that any such existence is moot.
Many things codified by the constitution have been abandoned, either in "special" cases or outright. For instance, ex post facto law, punishment and judicial proceedings are all SOP, and have all been through the supreme court and "validated", meaning, no one can turn them around now. There is no recourse whatsoever. So while I take your point that it can be said that such a right exists, but has been trampled, I'm fairly convinced that this is the proverbial distinction without a difference.
You (or some other reader) may be thinking that revolution is an available remedy; however, I don't think that is actually the case. The US isn't structured in such a way as to make revolution possible. Way back when revolution was more common, the revolutionaries had weapons at least on par with the authorities. This is no longer true; in fact, the authorities have such a devastating advantage in both firepower and tactical control of the air, that I do not think a "revolution" would accomplish anything more than getting the revolutionaries dead or incarcerated in very short order indeed.
Then there's the issue of complacent citizens who support the government because they do not (perhaps cannot) understand that the government is operating illegitimately. My impression is that such people make up a decisive majority of Americans. Viva la revolucion? No. La revolucion es muerte.
Just go here and dig your own for free. Take your sweetheart. It's more fun to hunt, and if you find something worthwhile, you'll actually have a reason to cherish the stone, as you nursed it right from rock to gem. Check out the exceptional (though very rare) stones that have been found there.
...my theory is that the current ice age began when women started wearing pants instead of dresses and skirts. Clearly, the interaction with the weather has changed. A good stiff breeze... and nothing. Then pantyhose replaced stockings, and all the garter snakes died. Putting your mind in the gutter no longer results in something to look up at. Er, to. Yeah.
Read your links, got it, I think. Northern Ireland is literally a different nation, with the British making a mess out the last vestiges of their colonial mucking about and the acceptance of this split along religious lines, probably because Protestants are more represented in the English population and Catholics in the Northern Irish population, I'm guessing.
Ireland, on the other hand, is a bonny (though rainy) land which, probably because the English are not involved, is not directly or obviously embroiled in any such conflict.
You were stumping for bonny Ireland. Not war-weary Northern Ireland.
Yes, but that's not what he wrote. He wrote "spoiled" with quotes, using a very, very common written device to indicate that it is highly doubtful that these ballots were, in fact, spoiled. This changes the entire meaning of the sentence. He is asserting that these ballots were thrown out for false reasons. Not because they were actually spoiled.
If I say: 'Sure, you're an "expert" ' then I am being derisive, and I am not using the word expert in a direct manner; it is used as sarcasm, which is what the atypical placement of the quotes are telling you. If I say: 'I accept that you are an expert on these matters', then I am conventionally indicating acceptance of your stance.
In all seriousness, this is a very common literary device. Do you not recognize it now that it has been pointed out to you? Honestly, I'm having trouble believing I really should have to explain any of this.
I hand you both practical and spiritual *and* science and medical based sources and you choose the one you disagree with and ignore that I suggested the other as well.
I disagreed with the (cough) "spiritual source" because I think it is a harmful suggestion. It would be somewhat silly for me to disagree with the AMA, and sure enough, I didn't.
I could say "well, you could go to a voodoo man or a doctor to get your cold cured", and I would expect derisive laughs at (a) the suggestion to go to a voodoo man, (b) the stupidity of holding them up as solutions of apparently equal value, at least equal enough that I felt it warranted mention without further qualification (like, select voodoo if you aren't the least interested in being cured), (c) the very mention of voodoo.
How does this apply in your case? This way: You brought up AlAnon. I'm laughing at you, because you were clueless to do so, IMHO. The only relevance of the AMA in this context is that you thought to juxtapose them as if they were actually comparable, and yes, I'm laughing at you for that as well. Oh yeah, and because you mentioned AlAnon.
By the way, why did you leave out the voodoo man? I'm just asking.:)
...does pointing out several venues with various backgrounds now count against a point?
No, not at all. Pointing out superstitious venues counts against you. You could have said "AMA or your local doctor" and I wouldn't have thought to make a remark at all.
I do read newspapers. They only carry bad news, because that's what sells. I presume this is good news. Why be reticent in that case? Out with it! Have you people stopped bombing each other over whose imaginary friend is better, or whatever silliness was going on? I confess, I don't know the whys and wherefores, I just remember the pictures of dead people lying in the streets and the clear implication the cause was religious in some way, shape or form.
Don't get mad at me for not knowing; I didn't start that mess.
This is true, but legalizing drugs doesn't just effect the people that are going to use them. It will effect(sic) society as a whole.
Certainly it will; because the law being in place has raised the crime level hugely, removing it will drop the crime level the same degree, if not more. Because the law has raised the prices, drug users spend more on drugs than they would otherwise, and those of limited funds tend to steal, which they would have to do less if drugs were priced like any other commodity. Cops would lose a lot of justification for their jobs and have to do real work, like patrolling the neighborhood, the DEA and several other TLA's would have to be disbanded, taxpayers would save billions of dollars in taxes (and drug prices), jails would be relieved of a huge burden of inmates... yes, legalizing drugs will certainly have an effect on society, I agree.:/
On the other hand, responding to the argument that society should have the right to regulate drug use, I would say that it does not as a clear matter of personal liberty. However, should I stipulate that this was a reasonable thing to regulate (I reiterate, it is not), this does not produce any possible rationale that it is also reasonable to regulate glassware that has other uses besides drug use, even if the only other uses might be artistic. If drug use is to be banned, then ban it. Don't ban speech about drugs, don't ban bags that could carry drugs, glassware that could prepare or route drugs, don't ban research into drugs. These things are perversions of liberty brought about by... irrationality. Today, drug use is already illegal. That's enough (it's too flipping much, in point of fact.) There is no need to go on a rampage and make peripheral law. If someone uses drugs, bust them. Done. End of story. You've already trampled on their liberties, punished them for their pursuit of happiness, why not be satisfied with that? Why go and litter the legal landscape with ridiculous peripheral activities that are not punishment for drug use?
If anyone can start taking something like cocaine or heroine (even in small doses), addiction will climb and so will the care of the people addicted, which will mean higher prices for health care for us.
Anyone can start taking heroin. Which completely destroys your argument. I'm about 3 minutes from a dealer I know I can get heroin from. It isn't the law that prevents me from going there; it is a personal choice.
Additionally: Drug laws don't (can't!) stop such behaviors. They punish them, which is something else entirely. Regardless, the taking of heroin is no reason to outlaw the use of needles, the purchase of spoons, matches, plastic tubing, and band-aids. Taking heroin is already illegal. Be satisfied with that. You can punish the poor sap for exercising his pursuit of happiness. That's what you wanted, and you surely do have it. Leave the rest of society alone, would you?
As for the "higher prices for health care for the rest of us", if you elect to pay for said poor sap's addiction, then you are a fool, frankly. I would never, ever support such an idea.
Self-inflicted injuries are clearly one's own responsibility. If you stab yourself with a rusty nail, cut your finger off by hacking at it repeatedly with a knife, or dive into an empty swimming pool, I would simply laugh and let you expire, or otherwise suffer. If you can pay for your care, that's fine. But I would not attempt to legislate knives, pools, or nails out of the realm of legal to possess items just because you are an idiot. Again, we're back to the problems with a mommy government. If mommy insists on fixing every injury, no matter how it is acquired, by stealing our allowance, as it were (taxes) then she is forcing us to either glue everyone to a backboard so they cannot under exercise of free will injure themselves or even take a chance of
competent adults have certain absolute rights, including self-defense, controlling their own bodies, freedom of belief, etcetera.
Not in America, they don't. Did you mean to say, "competent adults should have certain absolute rights, including self-defense, controlling their own bodies, freedom of belief, etcetera." ?
Because in that case, I'm with the program. Otherwise, you're simply not paying attention.
Yeah, because we know they're entirely fact based, considering that they run with that imaginary freind in the sky as a base principle.
I would no more get advice on addiction from Al-Anon than I would get advice on sex from a priest.
If you want to know what addiction is, ask a scientist who specializes in the chemistry of the human body. Not some ragged wag in what amounts to a prayer meeting with what can at best be described as rah-rah mutual support for (and by) the feeble-minded. And whatever you do, don't ask a psycho-babbler; they represent fad-based ideas that swing in and out of fashion even faster than hemlines. You'll end up in a primal scream session or filling out a questionnaire detailing your relationship with your mother before you even know what hit you. Psychology isn't a science. It's highly unstable religion.
That's not for others to judge. What you do on your own time with your own money should be your business, not mine. Arguments about what you may do to your financial standing are specious. You can wreck yourself simply by using a credit card in specific ways, or re-financing your house without understanding what you're doing or even by doing all the right things in unfortunate circumstances.
As for "addiction", some people get into compulsive behaviors, some get out again, some don't, some don't get into compulsive behaviors. And I'm not talking about gambling -- I'm talking about everything. There is no underlying rationale that can sensibly be used to erode the liberties of everyone based upon the shortcomings of the few. Of course, using the term "sensibly" along with the concept of legislation is a bit of a cognitive disconnect, for which I apologize.
Liberty is what we are really talking about here, and liberty is on a steep, steep decline in America, subsumed by the "mommy" government's continual attempt to pre-empt anything it wants to one or more levels from it actually occurring, because the underlying rationale these days is that you, an un-indited, non-felon, stand-up citizen, can't be trusted with: guns | votes | free speech | habeus corpus | glassware | drugs | motorcycles | cars | your sexuality | disciplining your children | etc...
Well, as one wag famously put it, you're getting the government you deserve. Good and hard.
In America, candidates can't buy votes, and voters can't sell their votes. Some guy recently tried this on eBay. It's not only a felony (ie can't vote any more in a lot of states), but it gets you up to 5 years in jail.
Here's what you are missing. America is a "mommy mommy" country. Here, we have laws that don't deal with the problem, they deal with any behavior that some loony thinks might, under some circumstance, possibly, lead to the problem. So it doesn't matter that vote buying is illegal; if they think that accountability leads to vote buying, that's going to be illegal as well.
Other examples abound.
The famous yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Consider: The guy who yells fire didn't cause any harm, and speech is supposed to be protected. The people who stay put, ignoring him, don't cause any harm. The people who file out rationally, like they were taught in school, don't cause any harm. But the guy who panics and tramples someone else commits assault. We have laws against assault, and you would think any laws that subsequently trigger should obviously smack the guy who did the trampling (while the guy who yelled fire should get a community commendation for (a) running a fire drill, (b) keeping us all on our toes, and (c) locating this brain-dead clown who doesn't know how to act when there is a fire, before there is actually a fire and he could cause harm by jamming up the exodus.) But what do we do? We blame the guy who yells fire, of course, and absolve the idiot who trampled his fellow citizen(s). Mommies are like that.
There are laws against smoking the evil killer weed, mari-harmless-juana. So, you'd think that you'd get busted for smoking, and that'd be the legal tipping point, as it were. But no, we have to have laws that forbid the selling of "paraphanalia", laws that incidentally sent Tommy Chong (of Cheech and Chong) to jail for some time because he ran an online store that sold some pretty fabulous glassware, some of which I collected and own (and I do not smoke weed, btw.) Mommy's here to protect me from... glassware. Mommy is a fucking idiot, frankly. I can't wait till I grow up and can make my own decisions. Oh, wait.
Pre-emptive strikes by mommy, ladies and gentlemen, because you cannot be trusted to do the right thing, even though you are an un-indited, non-felon, no-record-having, upstanding citizen.
Every time you suffer those ass clowns (sorry, I mean, legislators) to pass laws like these, you retreat from liberty and snuggle ever-tighter to mommy's comforting bosom. Where you proceed to get blinder by the minute. That's the nipple of repression poking out your eye of liberty, Charlie.
So, no, they're not going to let you have a paper trail on votes. You can't handle a paper trail for your vote, and besides, why should they want to make the voting process accountable? If it were, most likely, we wouldn't have Bush for a president right now. And as for the upcoming election... I highly doubt the Democrats will see the victory they plan on. I think it'll be just like last time, where solidly democratic areas that exit-polled as overwhelmingly NOT for Bush, somehow turned out to be for Bush, even though (a) exit-polling had never been wrong before, (b) the area had never voted republican before, (c) hardly anyone could be located who would admit having voted for Bush.
Ah, legislators. Can't get rid of 'em, can't elect anyone who isn't part of the gamed system, can't shoot 'em.
Slashdot Mirror
Your idea of rights as natural law is not so much pedantic as ridiculous. Natural law isn't something you can apply to the domain of rights. Rights arise from an exercise of power; to actually have a right, one has to either be able to enforce it oneself, or else have it enforced by a power outside oneself, or else have it respected by the power(s) outside oneself. Once they arise, they need to be codified through a process that strains what the idea means through a social filter that accounts for how the relevant society will see them. Finally, some continuous force must apply for them to be even remotely meaningful.
For a specific example, in the US, some rights are defined by the constitution, which in turn was written by a power group. Further changes to these rights are made by other power groups (more recent congress, constitutional conventions, etc.) It may make you happy to think that rights devolve from nothing, but they in fact devolve from reason and from power and sadly, from expediency.
For another specific example, in North Korea, most of these "rights" are nonexistent; the idea that a citizen has the right to speak freely is outright absurd. And you can't apply our idea of rights to North Korea; they are not us, and we are not them. If you think you have the "right" to say what rights North Koreans have, then you are simply trying to exercise power over them, a power they might in fact disagree with. Or not; but the point is, you just think your way is better than their way. Wars begin upon such acts of hubris.
When you imagine "rights" as natural law, you can no longer determine what you're looking at. In one society, the right to buy land may be fundamental. In another, the right to receive land by royal decree may be fundamental. In one society, the right to have first sex with one's children may be fundamental. In another, the right to be free of sexual advances from one's parents may be just as fundamental. In another, the right to eat one's parents when they die may be fundamental. In another, the right to have their corpses remain unmasticated may be fundamental. This proves that rights are socially relative, which in turn proves that they are not "natural."
Sure, it would be nice if we could actually define "human rights" so that it would means something outside of political rhetoric and academia, but the fact is, we cannot, and for very practical reasons.
Heck, here in the USA, we can't even hold onto the rights we were assigned by our own constitution. On the one hand, we've got politicians trying to usurp those rights in favor of not trusting the citizens; and on the other, we've got a whole bunch of citizens accommodated to the idea that the government exists to protect them from themselves -- and they seem to like it that way.
The bottom line is that rights are, and always will be, an intellectual construct. Nature favors the strong; not the high-minded. The luxury of being high-minded is only afforded to the strong. This is why rights only arise as a consequence of power.
Yes, I still like it just fine. It is not the government's business to deal out religious viewpoints, and that certainly includes atheism. They don't have the right to tell you to believe, and they don't have the right to tell you what not to believe. It's not their domain. No matter which side you come at it from. That domain belongs to the individual citizen. Not the country, not the party, not the community. Understand now?
I wasn't attacking religion. Or lack of it. Try to get a grip.
I think if the private citizen simply leaves something alongside the road without government approval, that citizen is littering and should be punished.
If the government supports that citizen leaving something alongside the road, then the government is endorsing that action, and consequently, any meanings that come along with it.
In that case, we need to examine what kind of message is being passed. If the message is religious, then it is inappropriate, the government is out of line, and the "something" should be immediately removed at the expense of the person who put it there in the first place.
You are entirely missing the point.
Religious "decorations", as you call them, amount to a tacit endorsement of the religion they represent, by the government, and that is a bad thing on every level.
Then again, you have missed the point. The ideas that underlie the constitution are designed to protect the individual first, not power-wielding groups such as your local, state and federal governments. Your courthouse is intended to be a venue for justice for all; not justice for Voodooists. So no matter what your religious symbol(s) your community might prefer to erect in front of the building, none are appropriate. Every citizen that walks up to that building must feel that they will get an equal and fair hearing in court, equal and fair treatment when it comes to property, matters of record, and matters of disagreement with other citizens.
If the lawn is littered with voodoo artifacts, and a Christian is to face a Voodooist in court, what do you think the message to the participants is? If the Christian is asked to swear on a pile of chicken bones, what is the message then? If one faces a judge, arguing the merits of keeping one's hardware store open on Sunday, and the ten commandments are on a plaque right behind the judge's head, what is the message then?
Religion does not belong in government at any level, in any form. No matter how much the majority might want it to be there. Because it will crush the freedom of the minority, and avoiding that is exactly the rationale that was used to found this country.
You have the freedom to express yourself on your own land and your own time. Public property is owned by everyone, not just by "the majority." That is where the error creeps into your outlook. The implication is that any citizen can say anything on such land unfettered by the preconceptions of other citizens; but that the land itself cannot be used to buttress the ideas of any one, or any group, of citizens because in so doing, it eliminates the former ability. Hence, no statues, no plaques, no symbols, no belief-based agitprop of any kind.
Government — by definition, everyone's servant, not the servant of the majority — belongs squarely in the land of facts, it has no legitimate role endorsing the religious views of any particular group, no matter how large a majority they might command. For example, a statue of a serving public figure, with name, date and office, is appropriate. It is a statement of fact, of record, of history. Statements of precisely why the edifice exists ("justice for all", the blind figure of justice, tax payments accepted at this window, recycle your batteries here, etc.) also are appropriate. A statue of Bon Dieu, on the other hand, is a statement of fractional belief and does not belong there, even if your community as a whole supports the idea.
It all comes down to apparent endorsement. If I see a flag on your porch, I assume you are a patriot. If I see a cross on your lawn, I assume you are a Christian. If I see a marijuana leaf sticker on your car, I assume you are pro-marijuana.
If I see these same things on your courthouse, why would I assume anything different? They are, in the most basic sense, endorsements of one set of views over another. It is critical that such endorsements not be undertaken by any level of government, lest others become the targets of government repression or coercion based on those ideas.
The bottom line? You can't have "justice for all" when you only have "endorsement for some."
It seems to me that any reasonable reading of the constitution supports the erecting of a (cross | flag | other symbol or structure) that you paid for on your own land, and subsequently lighting it afire or otherwise treating it harshly (or coddling it), as constitutionally protected free expression. You don't want to let a fire get out of control, is all, because then you're risking your neighbor's property, which has its own protections. At that point, the government not only has the duty to put out your fire, but the duty to bill you for the job. After all, why should the people have to pay for your inability to plan through their taxes?
Now, erecting a cross (much less lighting it afire) on someone else's land might get you shot, and I don't have much of a problem with that, either. You really shouldn't mess with other people's property. Two kinds of property are available to you. First, there is property you own; here, anything you do that doesn't physically affect others (like pollute the aquifer, for instance) should be available to you. Second, there is property you share, such as public property. Here, I think you need to refrain from any destructive act unless you have the agreement of the other owner(s) of the property, unless you own the item being destroyed (eg, a flag you are burning) and you can ensure that what you are doing does not compromise the property itself, or any other unrelated property, of course.
As for "hate speech", that idea is a terribly insidious infection of our principles, and as such deserves to be quashed. There is no "right not to be offended", and in fact, that idea contradicts the first amendment in such a way as to be a huge detriment to the liberty to speak freely. It is an insidious way for political correctness to serve as the ultimate arbiter of the things one can express. That's bad enough; but that's not the only negative.
One of the things that I value about freedom of speech is the ability of the person who has opinions that are significantly disjoint from mine to let me know that this is the case, such that I can avoid that person in my private life insofar as that I feel such action is practical, and likewise, to use this knowledge to arbitrate my selections for public office, if and when I feel I need to make such a choice. If you say to the racist or the religionist or the secessionist or the sexually repressed that they may not speak of (fill in the blank), then it becomes more difficult for me as a private citizen to recognize these people and avoid association or inadvertent support of them. I wholly support the right of all citizens to speak as they will, of that which they feel most strongly, in any way they please, and I would deny any level of government any degree of exerting control over such speech. No matter who is being hated or loved, no matter what words are called into service regardless of how palatable they may or may not be, no matter what figure, historical or imaginary, is named, no matter what vile imprecations may be put forth. I value everyone's right to speak far above the insidious idea that some speech might be uncomfortable for some people and as such, should be suppressed.
I do support the idea of appropriate venue, however. It seems to me that it is critical that when one speaks to the public, that the property involved either be owned by the speaker, or that the owner is well aware of what purpose their land is about to be used and has given permission, endorsement, or a formal statement of disassociation. This prevents the views of the speaker from being mistakenly associated with the landowner's views.
Government-owned property (really, we're saying, "property owned by the people") should always be a venue for free speech by the people, to the government, and often, for the people, to the people, but not, of course, for the government to the people. Governmen
No. They just drop bombs on random citizens.
The ban on assassinating leaders is just one more way that line animals and citizens take the brunt for the decisions made by those who do not have to sully their hands with the direct consequences of war, and as such, I think it serves as a condemnation of the system, not a point of honor.
If a person is "commander in chief" (or some kind of intermediate officer) of the armed forces, then he is a legitimate, and high priority, military target. If a senator votes on funding the military, then they are legitimate military targets as well. In fact, as far as I am concerned, if you go so far as to put a sticker on your car that says "I support our troops", then you are a legitimate military target.
The problem is that displays of crosses on the right of way of the road, which is government owned land, and the display of religious artifacts such as monuments to the ten commandments amount to an apparent endorsement, by the government, of religion, said religion almost always being Christianity. For example, I do not recall a single instance of seeing Shiva in a house of legislature, a voodoo altar at an accident site, or a monument to Ayn Rand on a courthouse lawn. When we talk about the US government's sponsorship of religion, It is Christianity first, last, and always.
Now, if some farmer wants to put up crosses in his field, or a church wants to put up religious monuments on church property, or any private citizen wants to erect a shrine to whomever, these are all examples of free expression by the citizens and as such, they are what the constitution seems to be worded to protect. It would be very difficult, I think, to read the first amendment as anything but encouraging the citizen and discouraging the government with regard to religious expression.
Remember the times: This country was founded by people who had been ruthlessly suppressed by the British government because the religion they followed was not that of the state. In 1789, when James Madison introduced the first tentative bill of rights, feelings were very strong that one religious sect or another must not gain religious control of the people through the mechanism of the government.
Madison's suggestion regarding religion read as follows:
That was whittled down to this:
This final version of this idea prevents the establishment of a national religion, and also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-exclusive basis, or so the courts have said until very recently.
Now, there are state constitutions that read slightly differently; however, the supreme court has interpreted the due process clause of the 14th amendment to mean that states may not override this particular section of the bill of rights (the 1st amendment is part of the bill of rights.)
So this means that states shouldn't be putting religious symbols on road right of ways, either, nor should they be erecting monuments to any particular religion's artifacts, creeds, or personalities.
Remember: The bill of rights assigns rights to the people. It takes them away from the government. So you can't really argue that telling the government it can't erect religious artifacts suppressed the speech of the people based on the 1st amendment. It suppresses the ability of the government to tacitly or directly sponsor religion, and that is clearly what the intent of the framers was, not to mention the authors of the bill of rights. The problem, as always, is that when a government expresses a preference for a religion, those who do not follow that religion either are, or feel they are, being marginalized. This is a situation that it is very important to avoid, specifically so that no citizen's expression of religion is likely to be curtailed by concerns about how the government might react to that expression.
Finally, as the government's support of religion is almost exclusively Christian — crosses at the roadside, the ten commandments, Christmas displays, creches, etc. — it is clear that the current situation serves to discommode anyone who isn't a Christian. Therefore it would seem obvious, at least to me, that we have arrived at precisely the birthing of religious sponsorship the 1st amendment was designed to prevent us from getting to.
Y
That is ridiculous. Simply set a company rule, no intoxication at work. Coming to work drunk is already a firing offense, which is perfectly reasonable. As an employer, I'm sure you already have this in place, do you not? I do — I run a software company, a literary agency, a martial arts studio, a recording studio and a lingerie outlet. I have lots of employees that run the gamut from scientists to artists to kids still in high school. I know for a fact there are numerous drug users in the bunch, with a strong bias towards drinkers, but there are quite a few stoners as well. No one is allowed to come to work high, drunk, or hung over, with the single exception of the musicians who hire the recording studio, and who are not, technically speaking, my employees, but rather my clients. Such a compromise is a firing offense, and I have zero tolerance for it. I've never had to exercise the rule, and I've never experienced degraded work product I could attribute to drugs. In other words, I have reasonable policies, and I obtain reasonable performance, all without having to act as arbiter of anyone's pursuit of happiness which strictly impinges on their own time.
Today, people drink legally. There is no "registration" for these people, and "as an employer", there is little doubt that you have hired people who drink (unless your business is so small that you basically have no turnover.) As alcohol has far more deleterious effects than most drugs, particularly with regard to medical care costs, I'd say your concerns about medical care are misplaced when you try to use them as justification to lock out pot smokers, for instance. Especially if said pot smokers are forbidden to indulge while working, or work while high.
The proper respect for liberty demands that we, in our interactions with other citizens, cease our activities where those activities begin to materially step on someone else's toes. In the case of work and work product, an exchange has been agreed upon. Make it clear that what you are offering money for does not include work or work product strained through intoxication of any kind, and there are no ethical problems for you.
As for medical care, if you aren't willing to offer it, then don't. It's as simple as that. Your offer of care (or insurance) is part of the exchange. If you choose to devalue the exchange, you'll generally cut down the ranks of who might be willing to work for you, same as if you drop your monetary compensation. Your choice.
Exactly. It's not a problem. It's a hypothetical situation you made up. It has not been demonstrated to be a problem, nor would I expect it to be, any more than we have to commonly replace alcoholic's livers today. I addressed it as a hypothetical. I doubt it would ever be a significant problem. It is a lot worse problem to lose an employee to overzealous legal action when that employee was a perfectly effective and useful part of your organization. Now that is a real, current problem.
Oh, please. Are you telling me that you think people don't drive cars stoned? What planet do you live on? Do you even know what pot smells like? Do you even drive? Please — try not to be absurd. The fact is, being stoned isn't much of an impediment to driving. I'm not saying it is advisable, any more than talking on a cell phone is advisable, but it certainly isn't a compromise on the same order as driving while drunk. In terms of personal experience, I've only observed perhaps a few tens of drunk drivers, but I couldn't even begin to count the number of times my schoolmates were out driv
Of course, if they exist, but are not recognized by the state, they have no function other than as a call to action. And, as is the case in the USA, if there is no means for said call to action to have any effect once the judicial arm (supreme court) has ruled that those rights are illusory, superseded by some state "interest" or otherwise to be ignored... then I rather think that any such existence is moot.
Many things codified by the constitution have been abandoned, either in "special" cases or outright. For instance, ex post facto law, punishment and judicial proceedings are all SOP, and have all been through the supreme court and "validated", meaning, no one can turn them around now. There is no recourse whatsoever. So while I take your point that it can be said that such a right exists, but has been trampled, I'm fairly convinced that this is the proverbial distinction without a difference.
You (or some other reader) may be thinking that revolution is an available remedy; however, I don't think that is actually the case. The US isn't structured in such a way as to make revolution possible. Way back when revolution was more common, the revolutionaries had weapons at least on par with the authorities. This is no longer true; in fact, the authorities have such a devastating advantage in both firepower and tactical control of the air, that I do not think a "revolution" would accomplish anything more than getting the revolutionaries dead or incarcerated in very short order indeed.
Then there's the issue of complacent citizens who support the government because they do not (perhaps cannot) understand that the government is operating illegitimately. My impression is that such people make up a decisive majority of Americans. Viva la revolucion? No. La revolucion es muerte.
Just go here and dig your own for free. Take your sweetheart. It's more fun to hunt, and if you find something worthwhile, you'll actually have a reason to cherish the stone, as you nursed it right from rock to gem. Check out the exceptional (though very rare) stones that have been found there.
You don't even want to know what can be done with a RealDoll(tm) and an onion ring... you can't handle the truth!
We're doomed, I tell you, DOOMED!
Read your links, got it, I think. Northern Ireland is literally a different nation, with the British making a mess out the last vestiges of their colonial mucking about and the acceptance of this split along religious lines, probably because Protestants are more represented in the English population and Catholics in the Northern Irish population, I'm guessing.
Ireland, on the other hand, is a bonny (though rainy) land which, probably because the English are not involved, is not directly or obviously embroiled in any such conflict.
You were stumping for bonny Ireland. Not war-weary Northern Ireland.
Does that about cover it?
Yes, but that's not what he wrote. He wrote "spoiled" with quotes, using a very, very common written device to indicate that it is highly doubtful that these ballots were, in fact, spoiled. This changes the entire meaning of the sentence. He is asserting that these ballots were thrown out for false reasons. Not because they were actually spoiled.
If I say: 'Sure, you're an "expert" ' then I am being derisive, and I am not using the word expert in a direct manner; it is used as sarcasm, which is what the atypical placement of the quotes are telling you. If I say: 'I accept that you are an expert on these matters', then I am conventionally indicating acceptance of your stance.
In all seriousness, this is a very common literary device. Do you not recognize it now that it has been pointed out to you? Honestly, I'm having trouble believing I really should have to explain any of this.
I disagreed with the (cough) "spiritual source" because I think it is a harmful suggestion. It would be somewhat silly for me to disagree with the AMA, and sure enough, I didn't.
I could say "well, you could go to a voodoo man or a doctor to get your cold cured", and I would expect derisive laughs at (a) the suggestion to go to a voodoo man, (b) the stupidity of holding them up as solutions of apparently equal value, at least equal enough that I felt it warranted mention without further qualification (like, select voodoo if you aren't the least interested in being cured), (c) the very mention of voodoo.
How does this apply in your case? This way: You brought up AlAnon. I'm laughing at you, because you were clueless to do so, IMHO. The only relevance of the AMA in this context is that you thought to juxtapose them as if they were actually comparable, and yes, I'm laughing at you for that as well. Oh yeah, and because you mentioned AlAnon.
By the way, why did you leave out the voodoo man? I'm just asking. :)
No, not at all. Pointing out superstitious venues counts against you. You could have said "AMA or your local doctor" and I wouldn't have thought to make a remark at all.
I do read newspapers. They only carry bad news, because that's what sells. I presume this is good news. Why be reticent in that case? Out with it! Have you people stopped bombing each other over whose imaginary friend is better, or whatever silliness was going on? I confess, I don't know the whys and wherefores, I just remember the pictures of dead people lying in the streets and the clear implication the cause was religious in some way, shape or form.
Don't get mad at me for not knowing; I didn't start that mess.
Certainly it will; because the law being in place has raised the crime level hugely, removing it will drop the crime level the same degree, if not more. Because the law has raised the prices, drug users spend more on drugs than they would otherwise, and those of limited funds tend to steal, which they would have to do less if drugs were priced like any other commodity. Cops would lose a lot of justification for their jobs and have to do real work, like patrolling the neighborhood, the DEA and several other TLA's would have to be disbanded, taxpayers would save billions of dollars in taxes (and drug prices), jails would be relieved of a huge burden of inmates... yes, legalizing drugs will certainly have an effect on society, I agree. :/
On the other hand, responding to the argument that society should have the right to regulate drug use, I would say that it does not as a clear matter of personal liberty. However, should I stipulate that this was a reasonable thing to regulate (I reiterate, it is not), this does not produce any possible rationale that it is also reasonable to regulate glassware that has other uses besides drug use, even if the only other uses might be artistic. If drug use is to be banned, then ban it. Don't ban speech about drugs, don't ban bags that could carry drugs, glassware that could prepare or route drugs, don't ban research into drugs. These things are perversions of liberty brought about by... irrationality. Today, drug use is already illegal. That's enough (it's too flipping much, in point of fact.) There is no need to go on a rampage and make peripheral law. If someone uses drugs, bust them. Done. End of story. You've already trampled on their liberties, punished them for their pursuit of happiness, why not be satisfied with that? Why go and litter the legal landscape with ridiculous peripheral activities that are not punishment for drug use?
Anyone can start taking heroin. Which completely destroys your argument. I'm about 3 minutes from a dealer I know I can get heroin from. It isn't the law that prevents me from going there; it is a personal choice.
Additionally: Drug laws don't (can't!) stop such behaviors. They punish them, which is something else entirely. Regardless, the taking of heroin is no reason to outlaw the use of needles, the purchase of spoons, matches, plastic tubing, and band-aids. Taking heroin is already illegal. Be satisfied with that. You can punish the poor sap for exercising his pursuit of happiness. That's what you wanted, and you surely do have it. Leave the rest of society alone, would you?
As for the "higher prices for health care for the rest of us", if you elect to pay for said poor sap's addiction, then you are a fool, frankly. I would never, ever support such an idea.
Self-inflicted injuries are clearly one's own responsibility. If you stab yourself with a rusty nail, cut your finger off by hacking at it repeatedly with a knife, or dive into an empty swimming pool, I would simply laugh and let you expire, or otherwise suffer. If you can pay for your care, that's fine. But I would not attempt to legislate knives, pools, or nails out of the realm of legal to possess items just because you are an idiot. Again, we're back to the problems with a mommy government. If mommy insists on fixing every injury, no matter how it is acquired, by stealing our allowance, as it were (taxes) then she is forcing us to either glue everyone to a backboard so they cannot under exercise of free will injure themselves or even take a chance of
Um... what about the religious wars you folks were / are having? Not sure I'd be happy to be caught in any of that, frankly.
Not in America, they don't. Did you mean to say, "competent adults should have certain absolute rights, including self-defense, controlling their own bodies, freedom of belief, etcetera." ?
Because in that case, I'm with the program. Otherwise, you're simply not paying attention.
Um... are you winning?
Yeah, because we know they're entirely fact based, considering that they run with that imaginary freind in the sky as a base principle.
I would no more get advice on addiction from Al-Anon than I would get advice on sex from a priest.
If you want to know what addiction is, ask a scientist who specializes in the chemistry of the human body. Not some ragged wag in what amounts to a prayer meeting with what can at best be described as rah-rah mutual support for (and by) the feeble-minded. And whatever you do, don't ask a psycho-babbler; they represent fad-based ideas that swing in and out of fashion even faster than hemlines. You'll end up in a primal scream session or filling out a questionnaire detailing your relationship with your mother before you even know what hit you. Psychology isn't a science. It's highly unstable religion.
That's not for others to judge. What you do on your own time with your own money should be your business, not mine. Arguments about what you may do to your financial standing are specious. You can wreck yourself simply by using a credit card in specific ways, or re-financing your house without understanding what you're doing or even by doing all the right things in unfortunate circumstances.
As for "addiction", some people get into compulsive behaviors, some get out again, some don't, some don't get into compulsive behaviors. And I'm not talking about gambling -- I'm talking about everything. There is no underlying rationale that can sensibly be used to erode the liberties of everyone based upon the shortcomings of the few. Of course, using the term "sensibly" along with the concept of legislation is a bit of a cognitive disconnect, for which I apologize.
Liberty is what we are really talking about here, and liberty is on a steep, steep decline in America, subsumed by the "mommy" government's continual attempt to pre-empt anything it wants to one or more levels from it actually occurring, because the underlying rationale these days is that you, an un-indited, non-felon, stand-up citizen, can't be trusted with: guns | votes | free speech | habeus corpus | glassware | drugs | motorcycles | cars | your sexuality | disciplining your children | etc...
Well, as one wag famously put it, you're getting the government you deserve. Good and hard.
I am astounded at your lack of reading comprehension. You scare me. Really.
Here's what you are missing. America is a "mommy mommy" country. Here, we have laws that don't deal with the problem, they deal with any behavior that some loony thinks might, under some circumstance, possibly, lead to the problem. So it doesn't matter that vote buying is illegal; if they think that accountability leads to vote buying, that's going to be illegal as well.
Other examples abound.
The famous yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Consider: The guy who yells fire didn't cause any harm, and speech is supposed to be protected. The people who stay put, ignoring him, don't cause any harm. The people who file out rationally, like they were taught in school, don't cause any harm. But the guy who panics and tramples someone else commits assault. We have laws against assault, and you would think any laws that subsequently trigger should obviously smack the guy who did the trampling (while the guy who yelled fire should get a community commendation for (a) running a fire drill, (b) keeping us all on our toes, and (c) locating this brain-dead clown who doesn't know how to act when there is a fire, before there is actually a fire and he could cause harm by jamming up the exodus.) But what do we do? We blame the guy who yells fire, of course, and absolve the idiot who trampled his fellow citizen(s). Mommies are like that.
There are laws against smoking the evil killer weed, mari-harmless-juana. So, you'd think that you'd get busted for smoking, and that'd be the legal tipping point, as it were. But no, we have to have laws that forbid the selling of "paraphanalia", laws that incidentally sent Tommy Chong (of Cheech and Chong) to jail for some time because he ran an online store that sold some pretty fabulous glassware, some of which I collected and own (and I do not smoke weed, btw.) Mommy's here to protect me from... glassware. Mommy is a fucking idiot, frankly. I can't wait till I grow up and can make my own decisions. Oh, wait.
Pre-emptive strikes by mommy, ladies and gentlemen, because you cannot be trusted to do the right thing, even though you are an un-indited, non-felon, no-record-having, upstanding citizen.
Every time you suffer those ass clowns (sorry, I mean, legislators) to pass laws like these, you retreat from liberty and snuggle ever-tighter to mommy's comforting bosom. Where you proceed to get blinder by the minute. That's the nipple of repression poking out your eye of liberty, Charlie.
So, no, they're not going to let you have a paper trail on votes. You can't handle a paper trail for your vote, and besides, why should they want to make the voting process accountable? If it were, most likely, we wouldn't have Bush for a president right now. And as for the upcoming election... I highly doubt the Democrats will see the victory they plan on. I think it'll be just like last time, where solidly democratic areas that exit-polled as overwhelmingly NOT for Bush, somehow turned out to be for Bush, even though (a) exit-polling had never been wrong before, (b) the area had never voted republican before, (c) hardly anyone could be located who would admit having voted for Bush.
Ah, legislators. Can't get rid of 'em, can't elect anyone who isn't part of the gamed system, can't shoot 'em.