Man, I was either moving because my dad was running from the law, or I was moving because my dad got caught by the law. My mom, brother, and I were on or off welfare, in and out of government housing more than I can count.
Assumptions are fun though.
And "ethnic cleansing" has a VERY "kill them all" connotation. When people hear it, they usually think gas chambers or mass graves.
Furthermore, it would be impossible for my type of government to be tyrannical.
You cannot tyrannize people who don't have to obey you, and happen to be equally armed.
Well, we live in a democratic society where your principles and convictions can become the law.
If you want your oughts and aspirational viewpoints to be enshrined in law, the best way is support leaders who will carry your issues, vote, or other form of civic participation.
If you don't do this, someone else's aspirational viewpoints will be enshrined in the law. Marijuana after all used to be considered "public enemy #1" three decades ago.
The law on the books today is a legacy of that era and its beliefs.
I don't want my principles to be "enshrined in the law", this forces someone else who doesn't even know me, or like me, or think like me, to live like me.
That's not my goal, and it shouldn't be anyone's.
Unfortunately, we have a system that allows a majority of voters to make Federal law that applies to the whole nation, including the minority of people who don't want it.
We're talking about millions of square miles here. The people of San Antonio should be able to live the way San Antonians want to live, likewise for the people of Spokane.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Third - If you are merely passing through a county that prohibits something you do, and you get stopped, show your ID demonstrating you do not reside there. The officer of the law should allow you to carry on your way, since their laws should only apply to the people who live there.
If the people who live there don't want pot, okay. But they can't force anything on people who don't live there.
Or at least, this is how I believe things should be handled. Part of freedom is accepting that sometimes, and in some places, things you disagree with will be the norm.
So if my podunk county of 200 people doesn't have speed limits, I can barrel down your residential street at 90mph?
I'm gay, and legally married in Mass.
Do me and my husband suddenly become unmarried because I happen to be passing through Oklahoma?
No.
Then certainly, as a resident of Colorado, I shouldn't suddenly become a criminal because I happen to be passing through Arizona.
You're not a criminal for what you do in Colorado. But you can become a criminal if you decide to go to Arizona and break Arizona criminal law. Gay marriage is a poor analogy because it's not a matter of criminal law, and because it's something you do in your state of residence. A Massachusetts gay couple aren't getting married in Oklahoma. And even if they decided to go to Oklahoma to throw a ceremony, after which they called themselves husband and husband, Oklahoma wouldn't have any grounds to arrest them; it simply wouldn't issue them a marriage license or extend state marriage benefits. (There's also the matter of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.)
I think the GOP is wrong here, not as a matter of current law (because they're technically right), but as a matter of principle.
It shouldn't be illegal to use, possess, or even to grow and produce the stuff.
I am not a user, or producer, I am for more freedoms. This being a personal freedom issue for me, and not one of morality or whatever.
You're conflating two separate issues here: that of whether a law is just, and that of whether the law has jurisdiction. Let's say Colorado legalized not marijuana, a prohibition you disagree with, but rather legalized, say, theft, a prohibition I'll assume you agree with. Would you argue that officers in other states ought not to arrest traveling Coloradan thieves? Of course not. Like you said, communities should be allowed to decide what's right for them, and this includes the conduct of visitors. Wyoming law enforcement should not be dictated to by the Colorado legislature about actions committed on Wyoming soil - that is the opposite of local self-determination.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't want my principles to be "enshrined in the law", this forces someone else who doesn't even know me, or like me, or think like me, to live like me.
That's not my goal, and it shouldn't be anyone's.
Unfortunately, we have a system that allows a majority of voters to make Federal law that applies to the whole nation, including the minority of people who don't want it.
We're talking about millions of square miles here. The people of San Antonio should be able to live the way San Antonians want to live, likewise for the people of Spokane.
I believe in an issue similar to what you're talking about in today's U.S. style of governance.
Fundamentally speaking, governing 300 million (400 now I think) people is different from governing 8 or so million. Add to this the fact that the U.S. is probably the most culturally and ethnically diverse country to ever have existed, EVER, whereas the U.S. in 1783 was homogeneous for the most part, and many of the parts that weren't simply didn't seem to care all that much so long as the government left them alone.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks democracy in the manner and style that the U.S. is based on can work in our society today, and we're seeing all the problems with it daily on the news. And I think it needs to be fixed, or else the U.S. will be in big trouble sooner or later.
That being said, your point makes no sense whatsoever. The entire point of democracy is that the majority wins. This inherently carries the fact that the minority will NOT have what they want. But you're saying that EVERYONE should have what they want, and everyone should divide so that they can have what they want.
That is not a democracy. That is not a Republican style of government. That is... I don't even know what that is besides possibly and off-shoot of those Utopian style of societies that cropped up back in the mid 19th century.
Add to this the fact that the U.S. is probably the most culturally and ethnically diverse country to ever have existed, EVER...
Eh, depends how you define "country". The Mongol, Persian, and maybe Roman Empires would have been more diverse if they count, but a traditional empire is such a different animal than a modern nation-state that I'm not sure they do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the Roman Empire had its center core of Italy, with the outside provinces merely being territories nominally under Roman control?
My Roman history is rusty, but I believe that the outside provinces were generally left alone so long as they recognized the supremacy of the Emperor.
This is different from the U.S. I think a comparable case would be if you had all the foreign cultures represented in sizable amounts in Italy.
I don't know enough about the Mongol and Persian empires to comment, though I would imagine that they also kept their ethnic core separate from all the other ethnicity that they controlled.
The way I see it, it would be as if every culture nominally recognized as a part of the British Empire actually lived in England. That would be what the U.S. would be like.
But such a scenario never happened for any of the pre-modern empires. The U.S. is unique in this respect, and hence why I think it legitimately stands as the most ethnically and culturally diverse country/nation state/empire (if the U.S. can legitimately be considered as such) to have ever existed, and probably likely to ever exist.
Honestly, I consider the U.S. miraculous in that it is still standing in spite of its heterogeneous nature, and indeed is thriving. See what happens if you have even a tenth of the diversity in the U.S. occur in Japan, for example. Japan will fall apart; I will bet everything I have on that (though, I suppose Japan might be able to deal with it in the manner that the U.S. did if they had 150 or so years to adapt as well, who knows).
Edit-
Honestly, I think if more people recognized just how amazing the U.S. is, then we'd actually have a better and more tolerant society. The more I learn about the U.S., the more amazed and fascinated I get.
In spite of everything, it truly is a "city upon a hill".
Third - If you are merely passing through a county that prohibits something you do, and you get stopped, show your ID demonstrating you do not reside there. The officer of the law should allow you to carry on your way, since their laws should only apply to the people who live there.
If the people who live there don't want pot, okay. But they can't force anything on people who don't live there.
Or at least, this is how I believe things should be handled. Part of freedom is accepting that sometimes, and in some places, things you disagree with will be the norm.
So if my podunk county of 200 people doesn't have speed limits, I can barrel down your residential street at 90mph?
Just like with B_S, this is a bad analogy.
You are speeding on THEIR street. You didn't bring your street from home. The street isn't yours, the bag of weed IS.
Whereas, if I am PASSING THROUGH with a baggy of jane in MY car. I have MY stuff from MY home, in MY possession. I don't possess the road, I DO possess my cigarettes, and I'm just traveling with my possessions through a place.
What if I'm moving from Colorado to Washington, and I have my legal plants in the U-Haul, and some buds in a bag. Should I therefore drive AROUND Idaho, or Oregon?
Should I send them by air mail?
Now that's starting to sound ridiculous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm gay, and legally married in Mass.
Do me and my husband suddenly become unmarried because I happen to be passing through Oklahoma?
No.
Then certainly, as a resident of Colorado, I shouldn't suddenly become a criminal because I happen to be passing through Arizona.
You're not a criminal for what you do in Colorado. But you can become a criminal if you decide to go to Arizona and break Arizona criminal law. Gay marriage is a poor analogy because it's not a matter of criminal law, and because it's something you do in your state of residence. A Massachusetts gay couple aren't getting married in Oklahoma. And even if they decided to go to Oklahoma to throw a ceremony, after which they called themselves husband and husband, Oklahoma wouldn't have any grounds to arrest them; it simply wouldn't issue them a marriage license or extend state marriage benefits. (There's also the matter of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.)
We're talking about passing through a place, not going there and DOING the thing there.
We were talking about counties, and driving through dry counties with a bottle of beer, for instance.
If Cali, and Washington both had legal pot, and I'm driving from Malibu to Seattle, do I really have to destroy or dispossess my otherwise legal possession while I'm driving through Oregon?
What if Radios were deemed illegal in Oregon, but legal in Cali and Wash. Do I throw my radio away, or destroy it, just so I can drive through Oregon?
That's absurd, and any law that would actually force me to do such a thing I find absurd.
I think the GOP is wrong here, not as a matter of current law (because they're technically right), but as a matter of principle.
It shouldn't be illegal to use, possess, or even to grow and produce the stuff.
I am not a user, or producer, I am for more freedoms. This being a personal freedom issue for me, and not one of morality or whatever.
You're conflating two separate issues here: that of whether a law is just, and that of whether the law has jurisdiction. Let's say Colorado legalized not marijuana, a prohibition you disagree with, but rather legalized, say, theft, a prohibition I'll assume you agree with. Would you argue that officers in other states ought not to arrest traveling Coloradan thieves? Of course not. Like you said, communities should be allowed to decide what's right for them, and this includes the conduct of visitors. Wyoming law enforcement should not be dictated to by the Colorado legislature about actions committed on Wyoming soil - that is the opposite of local self-determination.
Again, we're talking about passers-by.
If the thief, or the pot head, STOP and smoke, or steal, then they HAVE broken local law.
But lets work with your analogy.
Lets say Cali and Washington both have legal theft.
Oregon should not arrest a thief, who is merely passing through Oregon on their trip from Malibu to Seattle, unless they actually steal something in Oregon.
Someone speeding in Wyoming, has broken the local speed limit on a road that is not their personal possession. (If you want, we can talk about interstate highways, and how they aren't Wyoming's OR Colorado's)
Someone driving through Wyoming while in possession of their own personal property, is a different matter.
Let's say birth control pills are outlawed in Oregon. Should I have to throw away or destroy my prescription pregnancy medication just because I'm driving from Malibu to Seattle? No no, I should air mail them to myself, or drive around Oregon right?
What if Chairs are outlawed in Oregon, and I'm moving from Malibu to Seattle? Should I drive around Oregon, or send my furniture by air mail?
What if the plane flies over Oregon? Or do I have to dispose of my chairs at the border, and buy new chairs once I get to Vancouver?
I'd argue stoning your wife is certainly illegal pretty much everywhere in the USA. However, a resident of Syria, and radical fundamental Islamist who is traveling through the USA shouldn't be arrested here, just because they are in possession of the rocks they use to stone women in their country. Unless, you know, they actually stone someone here.
If they MOVE here, they better give up the practice of stoning. If they stone someone here, they're in trouble. But if they are just passing through, being a known stoner in possession of rocks doesn't meet the standard.
(Maybe it should, but I think that starts to enter NWO territory)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the Roman Empire had its center core of Italy, with the outside provinces merely being territories nominally under Roman control?
My Roman history is rusty, but I believe that the outside provinces were generally left alone so long as they recognized the supremacy of the Emperor.
This is different from the U.S. I think a comparable case would be if you had all the foreign cultures represented in sizable amounts in Italy.
Actually, the Roman provinces were firmly under Roman control. The Roman laws that the emperor enacted affected everyone regardless of where they lived. Also, it eventually got to the point where Italy, despite being the center of the Roman Empire, was not where the emperors were coming from and the vast majority of them were provincial governors and generals that had been born in the provinces.
I don't know enough about the Mongol and Persian empires to comment, though I would imagine that they also kept their ethnic core separate from all the other ethnicity that they controlled.
I'm not quite sure about Persia, but the Mongols separated themselves from the native peoples and often refused to give them any role in governing.
But such a scenario never happened for any of the pre-modern empires. The U.S. is unique in this respect, and hence why I think it legitimately stands as the most ethnically and culturally diverse country/nation state/empire (if the U.S. can legitimately be considered as such) to have ever existed, and probably likely to ever exist.
Honestly, I consider the U.S. miraculous in that it is still standing in spite of its heterogeneous nature, and indeed is thriving. See what happens if you have even a tenth of the diversity in the U.S. occur in Japan, for example. Japan will fall apart; I will bet everything I have on that (though, I suppose Japan might be able to deal with it in the manner that the U.S. did if they had 150 or so years to adapt as well, who knows).
Edit-
Honestly, I think if more people recognized just how amazing the U.S. is, then we'd actually have a better and more tolerant society. The more I learn about the U.S., the more amazed and fascinated I get.
In spite of everything, it truly is a "city upon a hill".
As I always say, I always think that the U.S. is bad until I look at the rest of the world.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the Roman Empire had its center core of Italy, with the outside provinces merely being territories nominally under Roman control?
What if Radios were deemed illegal in Oregon, but legal in Cali and Wash. Do I throw my radio away, or destroy it, just so I can drive through Oregon?
That's absurd, and any law that would actually force me to do such a thing I find absurd.
I disagree that it's absurd. If anything about the situation is absurd, it's simply the notion of banning radios. There is nothing absurd per se about having to comply with the laws of the land through which you travel. You're just making it sound silly by hypothesizing a silly law. But while banning radios is silly, that's not relevant to the question of jurisdiction.
Oregon should not arrest a thief, who is merely passing through Oregon on their trip from Malibu to Seattle, unless they actually steal something in Oregon.
Someone speeding in Wyoming, has broken the local speed limit on a road that is not their personal possession. (If you want, we can talk about interstate highways, and how they aren't Wyoming's OR Colorado's)
Wyoming doesn't just enforce laws on land the state owns. It enforces laws everywhere within the state's borders. You can't commit crimes in Wyoming even on land that belongs to you.
Let's say birth control pills are outlawed in Oregon. Should I have to throw away or destroy my prescription pregnancy medication just because I'm driving from Malibu to Seattle? No no, I should air mail them to myself, or drive around Oregon right?
What if Chairs are outlawed in Oregon, and I'm moving from Malibu to Seattle? Should I drive around Oregon, or send my furniture by air mail?
What if the plane flies over Oregon? Or do I have to dispose of my chairs at the border, and buy new chairs once I get to Vancouver?
Again, you're using silly example laws as an intuition pump. The problem here is that birth control pills/chairs should not be outlawed in Oregon, which has nothing to do with the jurisdictional principle we're discussing. In general, yes, if you own an item that a jurisdiction has decided to outlaw, you should not travel through that jurisdiction in possession of that item. For more reasonable examples, we might consider hazardous materials, automatic weapons, endangered and invasive species, and of course drugs. Yes, this may make your travel plans more complicated. No, the jurisdiction is not obliged to bend its laws for your convenience.
I'd argue stoning your wife is certainly illegal pretty much everywhere in the USA. However, a resident of Syria, and radical fundamental Islamist who is traveling through the USA shouldn't be arrested here, just because they are in possession of the rocks they use to stone women in their country. Unless, you know, they actually stone someone here.
If they MOVE here, they better give up the practice of stoning. If they stone someone here, they're in trouble. But if they are just passing through, being a known stoner in possession of rocks doesn't meet the standard.
And as with the thief example above, mere possession of stones is not a crime, but possession of marijuana is.
This is not an analogy for anything. This is just applying your stated principles to speeding.
You are speeding on THEIR street. You didn't bring your street from home. The street isn't yours, the bag of weed IS.
Whereas, if I am PASSING THROUGH with a baggy of jane in MY car. I have MY stuff from MY home, in MY possession. I don't possess the road, I DO possess my cigarettes, and I'm just traveling with my possessions through a place.
What if I'm moving from Colorado to Washington, and I have my legal plants in the U-Haul, and some buds in a bag. Should I therefore drive AROUND Idaho, or Oregon?
Should I send them by air mail?
Now that's starting to sound ridiculous.
You said:
Third - If you are merely passing through a county that prohibits something you do, and you get stopped, show your ID demonstrating you do not reside there. The officer of the law should allow you to carry on your way, since their laws should only apply to the people who live there.
If the people who live there don't want pot, okay. But they can't force anything on people who don't live there.
If the local laws should only apply to people who live there, what basis do they have for preventing me from speeding if I'm from a rural county that allows it? On the other hand, if it being "their street" lets them set limits on my conduct, why doesn't it also let them prevent me from transporting marijuana on it? Could they prevent me from transporting nuclear waste or explosives?
What if Radios were deemed illegal in Oregon, but legal in Cali and Wash. Do I throw my radio away, or destroy it, just so I can drive through Oregon?
That's absurd, and any law that would actually force me to do such a thing I find absurd.
I disagree that it's absurd. If anything about the situation is absurd, it's simply the notion of banning radios. There is nothing absurd per se about having to comply with the laws of the land through which you travel. You're just making it sound silly by hypothesizing a silly law. But while banning radios is silly, that's not relevant to the question of jurisdiction.
I believe it is, because even you say the same thing further below (bolded)...
Oregon should not arrest a thief, who is merely passing through Oregon on their trip from Malibu to Seattle, unless they actually steal something in Oregon.
Someone speeding in Wyoming, has broken the local speed limit on a road that is not their personal possession. (If you want, we can talk about interstate highways, and how they aren't Wyoming's OR Colorado's)
Wyoming doesn't just enforce laws on land the state owns. It enforces laws everywhere within the state's borders. You can't commit crimes in Wyoming even on land that belongs to you.
Let's say birth control pills are outlawed in Oregon. Should I have to throw away or destroy my prescription pregnancy medication just because I'm driving from Malibu to Seattle? No no, I should air mail them to myself, or drive around Oregon right?
What if Chairs are outlawed in Oregon, and I'm moving from Malibu to Seattle? Should I drive around Oregon, or send my furniture by air mail?
What if the plane flies over Oregon? Or do I have to dispose of my chairs at the border, and buy new chairs once I get to Vancouver?
Again, you're using silly example laws as an intuition pump. The problem here is that birth control pills/chairs should not be outlawed in Oregon, which has nothing to do with the jurisdictional principle we're discussing. In general, yes, if you own an item that a jurisdiction has decided to outlaw, you should not travel through that jurisdiction in possession of that item. For more reasonable examples, we might consider hazardous materials, automatic weapons, endangered and invasive species, and of course drugs. Yes, this may make your travel plans more complicated. No, the jurisdiction is not obliged to bend its laws for your convenience.
But unless the road ENDS at borders, I believe it's incredibly stupid to have to drive around whole states, (and maybe counties but less so) just to avoid such asinine ideas.
Highways, and many roads (in fact, the whole idea of TRADE ROUTES) is the idea that I can load up my cart with tasty sausages, and travel along an interstate road to another town which wants my sausages, even if I have to pass through some territory that hates sausages.
And unlike the natural objection of country-based border control, the USA is a UNITED States. One state should not make it a burden for travelers to go to and from the other UNITED states. That's basically griefing other players so to speak.
I'd argue stoning your wife is certainly illegal pretty much everywhere in the USA. However, a resident of Syria, and radical fundamental Islamist who is traveling through the USA shouldn't be arrested here, just because they are in possession of the rocks they use to stone women in their country. Unless, you know, they actually stone someone here.
If they MOVE here, they better give up the practice of stoning. If they stone someone here, they're in trouble. But if they are just passing through, being a known stoner in possession of rocks doesn't meet the standard.
And as with the thief example above, mere possession of stones is not a crime, but possession of marijuana is.
I'm saying it shouldn't be.
We're talking about what SHOULD BE, and not what IS.
I know mere possession is illegal. And under the current laws, yes, Wyoming can arrest me with my pot.
However, if you would be so kind as to let me argue FOR MY BELIEFS...
i.e.
Should Budweiser be able to use a highway that travels through a dry county, to deliver with a truck, alcohol, to a place beyond that dry county, which is not dry?
I say YES. yes they should. The same then, I apply to individuals.
Budweiser shouldn't have to waste the gas driving around an entire territory to deliver some beer, just because a dry county is between them and their destination.
Neither should an individual have to do the same with their legally possessed weed.
The LAW, is capable of making an exception for passers-by. Is it NOT applied at the officers discretion?
Now, is that Budweiser truck trying to illegally sell that beer in the dry county? Is that individual trying to illegally sell or use that weed in a clean county? Well, that's what sting operations and detectives get paid the big bucks for right?
While I agree that marijuana should be legalized, Blinking Spirit has a point. If you are moving to another state through another state where the laws are different, should you be allowed to carry around assault weapons? Bombs? Should you be able to transport your pet python through Florida?
Okay. I get that you disagree with marijuana prohibition. You have already stated your position there. What I'm asking you to do is recognize the difference between (a) disagreement with a law and (b) disagreement with the principle that a state has the authority to enforce its laws on everyone within its own borders. You don't want Wyoming to make an exception for Coloradans; you just want them to legalize marijuana for everyone, Coloradans and Wyomingites alike. And that's fine. But it's a completely different debate. Set it aside. You cannot effectively argue for (b) just by calling a law "absurd" or "asinine"; even if that were a good argument, it would be an argument for (a). In fact, I don't think you even actually want to argue for (b). You are certainly willing enough to grant that a state has the authority to enforce its laws within its own borders when they are laws you agree with. So it seems to me that you accept the principle, but mistakenly think that you have to argue against it because you don't like its consequences vis a vis marijuana. I'm trying to tell you that those consequences stem from (a), not (b): you don't have to reject the jurisdiction principle because you already reject the drug law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While yes, I would like to see it legalized everywhere, that is NOT what my argument is about.
I AM talking jurisdiction. I don't think people should be fined or imprisoned for passing through a place with an otherwise legal thing, just because the passageway runs through a place where it isn't.
While the People of County N voted to outlaw comic books - a person from County M traveling to County O should not be fined or imprisoned simply because they possess comic books, and have to travel through County N.
The Person from County M is not one of county N's people. He doesn't belong to that county. There should be a waiver in their jurisprudence that allows those people to pass-through without suddenly being turned into criminals.
And NO. This has NOTHING to do with speed limits. You do not possess the street, you do possess your comic books.
Jack Daniels is made in a Dry county. You cannot buy or sell it there. But you can still drink it there, as long as you bought it elsewhere. Also, JD ships their alcohol out of Moore County usually by truck specifically TO sell it elsewhere. So it's obviously not impossible for a county that otherwise outlaws something, to allow some leeway here.
"You can make it here, and you can ship it out of here, but you can't buy or sell it here."
"You can't buy sell or use it here, but you can drive through here with some on you."
JD isn't the only one doing this sort of thing either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
What if Radios were deemed illegal in Oregon, but legal in Cali and Wash. Do I throw my radio away, or destroy it, just so I can drive through Oregon?
That's absurd, and any law that would actually force me to do such a thing I find absurd.
Yes, that is exactly what you do. Or you leave it behind when you enter the jurisdiction that prohibits them. It's not ridiculous, its how the world works.
While yes, I would like to see it legalized everywhere, that is NOT what my argument is about.
I AM talking jurisdiction. I don't think people should be fined or imprisoned for passing through a place with an otherwise legal thing, just because the passageway runs through a place where it isn't.
While the People of County N voted to outlaw comic books - a person from County M traveling to County O should not be fined or imprisoned simply because they possess comic books, and have to travel through County N.
The Person from County M is not one of county N's people. He doesn't belong to that county. There should be a waiver in their jurisprudence that allows those people to pass-through without suddenly being turned into criminals.
And NO. This has NOTHING to do with speed limits. You do not possess the street, you do possess your comic books.
Jack Daniels is made in a Dry county. You cannot buy or sell it there. But you can still drink it there, as long as you bought it elsewhere. Also, JD ships their alcohol out of Moore County usually by truck specifically TO sell it elsewhere. So it's obviously not impossible for a county that otherwise outlaws something, to allow some leeway here.
"You can make it here, and you can ship it out of here, but you can't buy or sell it here."
"You can't buy sell or use it here, but you can drive through here with some on you."
JD isn't the only one doing this sort of thing either.
Your original post was about actions, not just possession of an item:
Third - If you are merely passing through a county that prohibits something you do
I think people understand what you are saying... but you're using warm and fuzzy examples... what if we use examples from the other end?
Say Idaho and Nebraska legalize personal nuke ownership... should people be able to drive all over the country with nukes? Yes for something as simple as... chairs, it seems to make sense for states/counties to just let the trucks/people through while they transport these things, but that doesnt mean that every state should allow transportation of anything that happens to be legal to own somewhere.
So each state would have to look at something like pot and decide for themselves whether or not they are ok with allowing it to be transported through.
For the record yes I believe they should. But I recognize that they may not agree with me for completely legitimate reasoning.
Obviously you aren't in trouble for something you "do" <smoke pot on the regular>, but for something you "have" <possession of the pot>.
Other than that confusion, I think I've been pretty clear about my position.
For instance, like with B_S's thief analogy.
If stealing is legal in California and Washington. But stealing is illegal in Oregon.
You shouldn't be fined or imprisoned for being a thief, just because you happen to be driving up I-5 from Malibu to Seattle.
Furthermore, I'd argue that if you have a candelabra you stole in Malibu, in your car, as you drive through Oregon, the possession of that candelabra should also not cause you to be fined or imprisoned.
Now if you steal something in/from Oregon, welcome to jail.
Now of course this sounds crazy, but it's the principle we are talking about, and the principle is the same.
I hear you and understand completely. But since possession of pot is/can be illegal in a state then it would also be illegal to transport it through that state. As soon as you cross state lines with some pot you are now breaking the law because you are in a location where it is illegal to be in possession of something that you are currently in possession of.
Yes I know you are now breaking the law, you shouldn't be.
I am talking about what should be, and not what is, jesus tapdancing christ.
As far as the nukes thing goes - it's the same as the toxic waste argument from a few pages back.
The government, and commercial entities already transport chemicals and weapons from one place to another, by train, truck, you name it, that is illegal or gravely irresponsible, or prohibited, for the people to be transporting.
If J&J is transporting tanks of harmful chemicals by train through a state - is that no more the same thing?
Do we not see train derailments causing damage or dumping harmful chemicals on land that otherwise wouldn't have it there?
The people of Colorado can't have nukes - but that doesn't mean there are no nukes there, there certainly are.
That line of reasoning goes no where.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm still a little confused about your stance on transporting hazardous materials. Let's consider a concrete example. Maryland prohibits transporting certain types of explosives and poisonous gas through the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. Do you object to this prohibition in principle when applied to transport of materials from out of state?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
LOL
Man, I was either moving because my dad was running from the law, or I was moving because my dad got caught by the law. My mom, brother, and I were on or off welfare, in and out of government housing more than I can count.
Assumptions are fun though.
And "ethnic cleansing" has a VERY "kill them all" connotation. When people hear it, they usually think gas chambers or mass graves.
Furthermore, it would be impossible for my type of government to be tyrannical.
You cannot tyrannize people who don't have to obey you, and happen to be equally armed.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If you want your oughts and aspirational viewpoints to be enshrined in law, the best way is support leaders who will carry your issues, vote, or other form of civic participation.
If you don't do this, someone else's aspirational viewpoints will be enshrined in the law. Marijuana after all used to be considered "public enemy #1" three decades ago.
The law on the books today is a legacy of that era and its beliefs.
I don't want my principles to be "enshrined in the law", this forces someone else who doesn't even know me, or like me, or think like me, to live like me.
That's not my goal, and it shouldn't be anyone's.
Unfortunately, we have a system that allows a majority of voters to make Federal law that applies to the whole nation, including the minority of people who don't want it.
We're talking about millions of square miles here. The people of San Antonio should be able to live the way San Antonians want to live, likewise for the people of Spokane.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
So if my podunk county of 200 people doesn't have speed limits, I can barrel down your residential street at 90mph?
You're not a criminal for what you do in Colorado. But you can become a criminal if you decide to go to Arizona and break Arizona criminal law. Gay marriage is a poor analogy because it's not a matter of criminal law, and because it's something you do in your state of residence. A Massachusetts gay couple aren't getting married in Oklahoma. And even if they decided to go to Oklahoma to throw a ceremony, after which they called themselves husband and husband, Oklahoma wouldn't have any grounds to arrest them; it simply wouldn't issue them a marriage license or extend state marriage benefits. (There's also the matter of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.)
You're conflating two separate issues here: that of whether a law is just, and that of whether the law has jurisdiction. Let's say Colorado legalized not marijuana, a prohibition you disagree with, but rather legalized, say, theft, a prohibition I'll assume you agree with. Would you argue that officers in other states ought not to arrest traveling Coloradan thieves? Of course not. Like you said, communities should be allowed to decide what's right for them, and this includes the conduct of visitors. Wyoming law enforcement should not be dictated to by the Colorado legislature about actions committed on Wyoming soil - that is the opposite of local self-determination.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I believe in an issue similar to what you're talking about in today's U.S. style of governance.
Fundamentally speaking, governing 300 million (400 now I think) people is different from governing 8 or so million. Add to this the fact that the U.S. is probably the most culturally and ethnically diverse country to ever have existed, EVER, whereas the U.S. in 1783 was homogeneous for the most part, and many of the parts that weren't simply didn't seem to care all that much so long as the government left them alone.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks democracy in the manner and style that the U.S. is based on can work in our society today, and we're seeing all the problems with it daily on the news. And I think it needs to be fixed, or else the U.S. will be in big trouble sooner or later.
That being said, your point makes no sense whatsoever. The entire point of democracy is that the majority wins. This inherently carries the fact that the minority will NOT have what they want. But you're saying that EVERYONE should have what they want, and everyone should divide so that they can have what they want.
That is not a democracy. That is not a Republican style of government. That is... I don't even know what that is besides possibly and off-shoot of those Utopian style of societies that cropped up back in the mid 19th century.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
My Roman history is rusty, but I believe that the outside provinces were generally left alone so long as they recognized the supremacy of the Emperor.
This is different from the U.S. I think a comparable case would be if you had all the foreign cultures represented in sizable amounts in Italy.
I don't know enough about the Mongol and Persian empires to comment, though I would imagine that they also kept their ethnic core separate from all the other ethnicity that they controlled.
The way I see it, it would be as if every culture nominally recognized as a part of the British Empire actually lived in England. That would be what the U.S. would be like.
But such a scenario never happened for any of the pre-modern empires. The U.S. is unique in this respect, and hence why I think it legitimately stands as the most ethnically and culturally diverse country/nation state/empire (if the U.S. can legitimately be considered as such) to have ever existed, and probably likely to ever exist.
Honestly, I consider the U.S. miraculous in that it is still standing in spite of its heterogeneous nature, and indeed is thriving. See what happens if you have even a tenth of the diversity in the U.S. occur in Japan, for example. Japan will fall apart; I will bet everything I have on that (though, I suppose Japan might be able to deal with it in the manner that the U.S. did if they had 150 or so years to adapt as well, who knows).
Edit-
Honestly, I think if more people recognized just how amazing the U.S. is, then we'd actually have a better and more tolerant society. The more I learn about the U.S., the more amazed and fascinated I get.
In spite of everything, it truly is a "city upon a hill".
Just like with B_S, this is a bad analogy.
You are speeding on THEIR street. You didn't bring your street from home. The street isn't yours, the bag of weed IS.
Whereas, if I am PASSING THROUGH with a baggy of jane in MY car. I have MY stuff from MY home, in MY possession. I don't possess the road, I DO possess my cigarettes, and I'm just traveling with my possessions through a place.
What if I'm moving from Colorado to Washington, and I have my legal plants in the U-Haul, and some buds in a bag. Should I therefore drive AROUND Idaho, or Oregon?
Should I send them by air mail?
Now that's starting to sound ridiculous.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
We're talking about passing through a place, not going there and DOING the thing there.
We were talking about counties, and driving through dry counties with a bottle of beer, for instance.
If Cali, and Washington both had legal pot, and I'm driving from Malibu to Seattle, do I really have to destroy or dispossess my otherwise legal possession while I'm driving through Oregon?
What if Radios were deemed illegal in Oregon, but legal in Cali and Wash. Do I throw my radio away, or destroy it, just so I can drive through Oregon?
That's absurd, and any law that would actually force me to do such a thing I find absurd.
Again, we're talking about passers-by.
If the thief, or the pot head, STOP and smoke, or steal, then they HAVE broken local law.
But lets work with your analogy.
Lets say Cali and Washington both have legal theft.
Oregon should not arrest a thief, who is merely passing through Oregon on their trip from Malibu to Seattle, unless they actually steal something in Oregon.
Someone speeding in Wyoming, has broken the local speed limit on a road that is not their personal possession. (If you want, we can talk about interstate highways, and how they aren't Wyoming's OR Colorado's)
Someone driving through Wyoming while in possession of their own personal property, is a different matter.
Let's say birth control pills are outlawed in Oregon. Should I have to throw away or destroy my prescription pregnancy medication just because I'm driving from Malibu to Seattle? No no, I should air mail them to myself, or drive around Oregon right?
What if Chairs are outlawed in Oregon, and I'm moving from Malibu to Seattle? Should I drive around Oregon, or send my furniture by air mail?
What if the plane flies over Oregon? Or do I have to dispose of my chairs at the border, and buy new chairs once I get to Vancouver?
I'd argue stoning your wife is certainly illegal pretty much everywhere in the USA. However, a resident of Syria, and radical fundamental Islamist who is traveling through the USA shouldn't be arrested here, just because they are in possession of the rocks they use to stone women in their country. Unless, you know, they actually stone someone here.
If they MOVE here, they better give up the practice of stoning. If they stone someone here, they're in trouble. But if they are just passing through, being a known stoner in possession of rocks doesn't meet the standard.
(Maybe it should, but I think that starts to enter NWO territory)
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Actually, the Roman provinces were firmly under Roman control. The Roman laws that the emperor enacted affected everyone regardless of where they lived. Also, it eventually got to the point where Italy, despite being the center of the Roman Empire, was not where the emperors were coming from and the vast majority of them were provincial governors and generals that had been born in the provinces.
I'm not quite sure about Persia, but the Mongols separated themselves from the native peoples and often refused to give them any role in governing.
As I always say, I always think that the U.S. is bad until I look at the rest of the world.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
They actually kind of were. Rome was an extremely cosmopolitan city.
The law prohibits possession, not just smoking. It's... right there in the name of the crime.
Correct. But see above.
Wyoming doesn't just enforce laws on land the state owns. It enforces laws everywhere within the state's borders. You can't commit crimes in Wyoming even on land that belongs to you.
Again, you're using silly example laws as an intuition pump. The problem here is that birth control pills/chairs should not be outlawed in Oregon, which has nothing to do with the jurisdictional principle we're discussing. In general, yes, if you own an item that a jurisdiction has decided to outlaw, you should not travel through that jurisdiction in possession of that item. For more reasonable examples, we might consider hazardous materials, automatic weapons, endangered and invasive species, and of course drugs. Yes, this may make your travel plans more complicated. No, the jurisdiction is not obliged to bend its laws for your convenience.
And as with the thief example above, mere possession of stones is not a crime, but possession of marijuana is.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is not an analogy for anything. This is just applying your stated principles to speeding.
You said:
If the local laws should only apply to people who live there, what basis do they have for preventing me from speeding if I'm from a rural county that allows it? On the other hand, if it being "their street" lets them set limits on my conduct, why doesn't it also let them prevent me from transporting marijuana on it? Could they prevent me from transporting nuclear waste or explosives?
I believe it is, because even you say the same thing further below (bolded)...
It is. You're right about the law.
It shouldn't be.
Yes, but see below.
Yes, but if you DON'T live in Wyoming?
But unless the road ENDS at borders, I believe it's incredibly stupid to have to drive around whole states, (and maybe counties but less so) just to avoid such asinine ideas.
Highways, and many roads (in fact, the whole idea of TRADE ROUTES) is the idea that I can load up my cart with tasty sausages, and travel along an interstate road to another town which wants my sausages, even if I have to pass through some territory that hates sausages.
And unlike the natural objection of country-based border control, the USA is a UNITED States. One state should not make it a burden for travelers to go to and from the other UNITED states. That's basically griefing other players so to speak.
I'm saying it shouldn't be.
We're talking about what SHOULD BE, and not what IS.
I know mere possession is illegal. And under the current laws, yes, Wyoming can arrest me with my pot.
However, if you would be so kind as to let me argue FOR MY BELIEFS...
i.e.
Should Budweiser be able to use a highway that travels through a dry county, to deliver with a truck, alcohol, to a place beyond that dry county, which is not dry?
I say YES. yes they should. The same then, I apply to individuals.
Budweiser shouldn't have to waste the gas driving around an entire territory to deliver some beer, just because a dry county is between them and their destination.
Neither should an individual have to do the same with their legally possessed weed.
The LAW, is capable of making an exception for passers-by. Is it NOT applied at the officers discretion?
Now, is that Budweiser truck trying to illegally sell that beer in the dry county? Is that individual trying to illegally sell or use that weed in a clean county? Well, that's what sting operations and detectives get paid the big bucks for right?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While yes, I would like to see it legalized everywhere, that is NOT what my argument is about.
I AM talking jurisdiction. I don't think people should be fined or imprisoned for passing through a place with an otherwise legal thing, just because the passageway runs through a place where it isn't.
While the People of County N voted to outlaw comic books - a person from County M traveling to County O should not be fined or imprisoned simply because they possess comic books, and have to travel through County N.
The Person from County M is not one of county N's people. He doesn't belong to that county. There should be a waiver in their jurisprudence that allows those people to pass-through without suddenly being turned into criminals.
And NO. This has NOTHING to do with speed limits. You do not possess the street, you do possess your comic books.
Jack Daniels is made in a Dry county. You cannot buy or sell it there. But you can still drink it there, as long as you bought it elsewhere. Also, JD ships their alcohol out of Moore County usually by truck specifically TO sell it elsewhere. So it's obviously not impossible for a county that otherwise outlaws something, to allow some leeway here.
"You can make it here, and you can ship it out of here, but you can't buy or sell it here."
"You can't buy sell or use it here, but you can drive through here with some on you."
JD isn't the only one doing this sort of thing either.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Yes, that is exactly what you do. Or you leave it behind when you enter the jurisdiction that prohibits them. It's not ridiculous, its how the world works.
I'm talking about what should be, not what is.
smgdh
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Your original post was about actions, not just possession of an item:
"do". Not "have".
Are you backing away from this?
Say Idaho and Nebraska legalize personal nuke ownership... should people be able to drive all over the country with nukes? Yes for something as simple as... chairs, it seems to make sense for states/counties to just let the trucks/people through while they transport these things, but that doesnt mean that every state should allow transportation of anything that happens to be legal to own somewhere.
So each state would have to look at something like pot and decide for themselves whether or not they are ok with allowing it to be transported through.
For the record yes I believe they should. But I recognize that they may not agree with me for completely legitimate reasoning.
Obviously you aren't in trouble for something you "do" <smoke pot on the regular>, but for something you "have" <possession of the pot>.
Other than that confusion, I think I've been pretty clear about my position.
For instance, like with B_S's thief analogy.
If stealing is legal in California and Washington. But stealing is illegal in Oregon.
You shouldn't be fined or imprisoned for being a thief, just because you happen to be driving up I-5 from Malibu to Seattle.
Furthermore, I'd argue that if you have a candelabra you stole in Malibu, in your car, as you drive through Oregon, the possession of that candelabra should also not cause you to be fined or imprisoned.
Now if you steal something in/from Oregon, welcome to jail.
Now of course this sounds crazy, but it's the principle we are talking about, and the principle is the same.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I am talking about what should be, and not what is, jesus tapdancing christ.
As far as the nukes thing goes - it's the same as the toxic waste argument from a few pages back.
The government, and commercial entities already transport chemicals and weapons from one place to another, by train, truck, you name it, that is illegal or gravely irresponsible, or prohibited, for the people to be transporting.
If J&J is transporting tanks of harmful chemicals by train through a state - is that no more the same thing?
Do we not see train derailments causing damage or dumping harmful chemicals on land that otherwise wouldn't have it there?
The people of Colorado can't have nukes - but that doesn't mean there are no nukes there, there certainly are.
That line of reasoning goes no where.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein