You can add to the latter collective guilt.A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice."
Regards
Mike
You can add to the latter collective guilt.A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice."
So, in either 'place' it is up to property owner to determine property rights.
In original point on this tangent, it is about public space. IMO, there is a distinction to be made. I think it is very likely common sense in what that distinction is.
The space of really any area (indoors, outdoors, on the moon) that is shared and accessible to essentially anyone, would be the public space. It could still be on private property subject to those rules, in general. But I really do think that public space laws or even unwritten rules trumps whatever is the rules for the property. I'm sure there are exceptions, like everything with pretty much every rule (ever).
Surely a private property owner is not permitted to do things that are illegal on their property. Not sure if that needs to be said, but compelled to because to degree the point I am making is not common sense, then it probably needs to be stated that not anything goes on their property as if that is what their rights entail. But, in the way I think it is common sense, it could be a business that only caters to adults, is known for activities that are seedy, and is known to be place where local laws are not enforced much and STILL I think that there would be certain laws / unwritten rules that would trump whatever it is any single individual would think they could do in that moment, without consequence, including owner of the property. Though owner would likely get way more slack than just about anyone else in that space. Short of that, and in the places where 98% of the population goes, I think there are public space rules / etiquette that, in essence, trump private property rights. And has always been the case for as long as civilization has existed.
But has gotten worse under guise of "public health" propaganda / deception.
You can add to the latter collective guilt.
Regards
Mike
Actually 'collective guilt' isn't necessarily an attribute of those who push public good, but only a tool used by them against others to achieve their goals - that and fear mongering. They fail at reasoned arguments, so they use emotion instead....
If you have an actual lawn, the mower will tear them up. Cigarette filters are really just cellulose (plant fibers) that have been treated with acetic acid (vinegar). They're as natural as leaves, although some people can't stand to have those around, either.Even though I no longer care for the smell of burning tobacco, it seems to me that the only one of those points that really hold water is the "nuisance" point -- even for outdoor areas, because it's very clear that most smokers won't take even one step to put their .... into an ashtray, but will simply drop it on the ground. With enough of them doing that, then you either have to pay someone to clean up the mess, or you have to ban smoking. Even when I smoked, I became quite irate if a visitor to our home simply tossed his .... into the yard that my husband and I worked very hard on, and I would always make them go pick it up and put it in the ashtray where it belongs.
Andria
The point we should be hammering on is that a government that commits fraud to deprive its citizens of their liberties, is a government that is committing acts of war against its own people. It is as unlawful and intolerable as purposely throwing innocent people in prison.You truly haven't a clue. "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers by the consent of the governed."
It is why gov'ts are formed - at least gov'ts that hold individual rights rather than collective rights as supreme.
National defense and the Justice system protect and uphold those rights against attack foreign or domestic, respectively. That's basically the only two legitimate functions of gov't at the federal level. Local and state police forces who feed the local, state and federal justice system, are the other legitimate function.
As far as how it relates to vaping and smoking in public... I was responding to Andria's comments regarding the founders' view on majorities, which then relates back to how majorities are allowed to trample the rights of minorities - smokers and vapers - iow, they shouldn't be able to do that given the founders' ideas and the Constitution. According to the founders, mob rule shouldn't happen.
The 'democratic part' (the word "democracy" never is mentioned in the Constitution) was about the fairest way to elect representatives. But... those representatives were not supposed to enact laws that violated rights by majority votes or otherwise. And other than the obvious exceptions, they didn't for about 120 years.
It is only when 'promote the general welfare' became 'provide for the general welfare' that "public good", along with public health became an'issue'- problem (tip of the hat to bigdancehawk) - where the principles of individual rights were trumped by the utilitarian 'greatest good' - never any part of the founders original intent nor the Constitution. Even national defense was intended to protect individual rights, since only individuals have them, not 'society'. Society doesn't exist and doesn't have "rights". No group does, only individuals - by their nature as humans.
If you have an actual lawn, the mower will tear them up. Cigarette filters are really just cellulose (plant fibers) that have been treated with acetic acid (vinegar). They're as natural as leaves, although some people can't stand to have those around, either.
Of course not now - that 'slippery slope' has been in force since around the progressive age and in full bloom during the New Deal and after. That wasn't what was intended or what went on for, again, around 120 years - and it wasn't just theory, it was in theory and practice - but during that period all the crap you say about public space would have been laughed at or fired upon those preaching it. Your comment to Rossum shows exactly what you didn't understand about vices and crimes. 'Seedy' isn't a crime.
Rights are inherent (or as Jefferson/Franklin said - inalienable - not to be 'determined'. Behavior may be 'determined' but not rights. "Property owner" means he who has rights regarding his property.
Never said seedy was a crime and don't appreciate comments of my not understanding
Ok... perhaps I misunderstood.
Here's what you said: "it could be a business that only caters to adults, is known for activities that are seedy, and is known to be place where local laws are not enforced much and STILL I think that there would be certain laws / unwritten rules that would trump whatever it is any single individual would think they could do in that moment,"
"Seedy" is followed by "place where local laws are not enforced" - which implies crimes are being overlooked. IF that is not what you meant, then why add something that implies (or actually says) just the opposite?
Same with, then: "and STILL I think that there would be certain laws.... that would trump whatever it is any single individual would think they could do in that moment?" .... IOW, crimes are taking place, if there are laws that trump.
How else is anyone reading this to understand that?
And this is the other aspect - if all you are talking about wrt seedy, etc., is vices, then there should be no laws. (or mention of them, as you have done). Crimes are only about harming others or violating their rights - not what some may regard as 'seedy' either by one person or two or more consenting adults where no harm is done - no rights violated.
It is your own words above that give one the impression that you had no clue as to the difference between vices and crimes - hence my comments about your not understanding it.
Yeah, I'm not sure what you are going for or are stuck on. Let's move away from the seedy place (and worst case scenario picture) and go with something mainstream. Like a bank.
I'm saying there are unwritten rules or social norms that are not necessarily / usually written down that are in place that would, for many people (but not everyone) trump whatever is local law / ordinance. Vaping would be a pretty good example. If I vaped openly in a bank (with zero intention or actual exercise of blowing into anyone's face), and no local law saying "no vaping" that the social norms would likely be enough for most people to say that is disallowed. Manager of bank could be vaper, everyone working or visiting the bank could be a vaper, but it could still be a fellow vaper that says "don't do that here" and manager could be like, "yeah, we don't allow that" (even while that is nowhere in writing, and not really an actual rule).
Vaping is not the only example I could come up with, though is probably best for both this thread and this forum. I think I could come up with 50 examples of things I could theoretically do in the public space area of the bank, that are not harming anyone, and that would be perceived as just enough of a nuisance that someone could invoke unwritten rule (along lines of common courtesy) to say it is disallowed. And I am saying it is mostly to only because of it being a "public space."
And painted this picture to bring up a worst type of case scenario that is not blatantly illegal, and yet that social norms would still be (somewhat) present.
That (social norms - whatever they may be) is the sticking point for most 'traditional' and/or 'religious' conservatives and why they tend to lump vices and crimes in certain instances whether it is promoting laws against certain behavior or just wrinkling their noses. Those type of laws regarding non-right violating behavior leads to the slippery slope doing away with freedoms. The very first 'smoking designated area' did that and led to the mass demonization and further regulations and restrictions.
As I've said before, free minds and markets may 'offend one's sensibilities' but it's not going to harm you or violate your rights. And that's the trade off vs. a police state which mandates or prohibits behavior according to someone's or some group's subjective idea of what is the 'social norm'.
When you or Andria (or me) go into a bank without vaping or cursing (wait... I've cursed in a bank before :- ) ... then we set examples perhaps, but not all will follow. The bank owner of course can make his/her own rules, but risks losing customers as a result. But the gov't should have no say in the matter unless harm is done to others. (and actual harm, not 'hurt feelings' lol )
I mean, I openly advocate a hospital as one of best places indoors to vape, and would say a bank is likely one of the worst places, and I am partially basing that reasoning on social norms. If there were no social norms or perhaps I mean if I didn't have (my own) awareness of social norms, there is not a place you could name that I wouldn't consider feasible place to vape, assuming humans are allowed or able to breathe there.
Even when I was a smoker I would often high-beam someone ahead of me who threw a .... out the window.Even when I smoked, I became quite irate if a visitor to our home simply tossed his .... into the yard that my husband and I worked very hard on, and I would always make them go pick it up and put it in the ashtray where it belongs.
Our homeowner's association does not allow fire pits.We all now can purchase "firepits" for private backyard smores making. If I extended an invitation to everyone in my neighborhood to join us, will a gov. regulation stop me?
I have at times considered the appointment of Supreme Court Justices to be the most important thing a President does.But because the Constitution still exists and some judges exist that actually understand it as it was written - then certain cases, like those that uphold the 2nd amendment and strike down private use of public domain and a bunch of others can still set some things right.
I feel like you are equating "public" with "government" and can understand that,