This Just In--Of Drained Resevoirs

snoscythe wrote:

Individuals (and their liberties and property) exist prior to the state. What right do you have to remove someone who does not accept the Constitution? The founders acknowledged that defect of the Constitution. But you seem to know so much more than them, sort of like our current and most recent presidents.

Yeah, so your reading comprehension is still lacking. SpiffCoug said nothing about removing people who don't accept the Constitution. I know you wish he said that, so that's how you interpreted it, but he didn't say that. Your ability to read people as saying something they never said simply because you want it to be there is quite astonishing.

Nice. Now let's see what spiff has to say about his point. Given past posts I feel pretty sure of my interpretation. But spiff why don't you settle a little dispute between sno and I: What did you mean by "Those who choose not [to accept the Constitution], may leave the country?"

Actually, if you are in the the USA, by virtue of your mere presence here, you are presumed to have accepted the Constitution as the binding law of he land, and the force that binds you to its law. You really have no choice or say in the matter, other than to leave the country. Staying means consent. And if you do not understand that fact, that reality, then you would rather tilt at fictional windmills than deal in cold, hard facts.

Lawboy wrote:
Actually, if you are in the the USA, by virtue of your mere presence here, you are presumed to have accepted the Constitution as the binding law of he land, and the force that binds you to its law. You really have no choice or say in the matter, other than to leave the country. Staying means consent.

And you call that a contract?

jvquarterback wrote:

Verse 2:"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."



Verse 2 of section 134 sets out the minimum responsibilities for a government to exist in peace. It says nothing of society much less what you claim.

You are forwarding Lawboy's (Rousseau's) argument that society has more rights than the sum of the rights of each individual member of the society. Neither the first nor the second verse of Section 134 are a basis for that interpretation. If individual rights are inviolate, it should be clear (as Ezra Taft Benson taught) that individuals can give no more rights to government than what they possess as individuals. If the government (which you equate with society) pretends it has more rights than the individual it would be in violation of the second verse of section 134.

I'm not forwarding anyone's arguments. I simply asked you whether or not government has an interest in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society. You said no, and then proceeded to misconstrue scripture that I doubt you even bothered to read before replying. You were the one that referred back to Lawboy's post and his construction of society, not me. I am merely asking whether you agree with D&C 134:1, which states that God holds men accountable for their acts in relation to governments, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society. All I've said is that your refutation of any concept that society as a whole might have legally protected interests doesn't mesh with D&C 134 that explicitly talks about safety of society.



I still don't think you've read verse 2, because all verse 2 does is set forth the minimum requirements of a government to exist in peace--to secure to the individuals free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. It doesn't say that is the sum total of what governments should do (else we wouldn't need verse 1), it merely says you have to preserve at least these three things for your government to exist in peace. These three things are merely limits on the government's right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest.

I wonder how old JVQB's kids are, seeing as he feels he has complete control over their actions. I would guess that he'll sing a different tune as they get older. There's nothing I love more than people who haven't gone through certain experiences critiquing those who currently are.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
Individuals (and their liberties and property) exist prior to the state. What right do you have to remove someone who does not accept the Constitution? The founders acknowledged that defect of the Constitution. But you seem to know so much more than them, sort of like our current and most recent presidents.

Yeah, so your reading comprehension is still lacking. SpiffCoug said nothing about removing people who don't accept the Constitution. I know you wish he said that, so that's how you interpreted it, but he didn't say that. Your ability to read people as saying something they never said simply because you want it to be there is quite astonishing.

Nice. Now let's see what spiff has to say about his point. Given past posts I feel pretty sure of my interpretation. But spiff why don't you settle a little dispute between sno and I: What did you mean by "Those who choose not [to accept the Constitution], may leave the country?"

Sorry, posted this morning then it got crazy at work and just getting back.



It's a free country. I don't know why you want to remain in a country which you did not support. Those who didn't want to support the country/Constitution would be free to leave and find their idyllic country elsewhere, because it's clearly not here.



I was not implying that we would force those out. Although, I would question anyone who 1) remain in a country in which they did not believe and 2) deal with anyone with whom they could be not sure were operating under the same set of standards and principles.



I would fully support boycotting those not willing to accept the Constitution on a yearly/monthly/weekly/daily basis.

Lawboy wrote:
Actually, if you are in the the USA, by virtue of your mere presence here, you are presumed to have accepted the Constitution as the binding law of he land, and the force that binds you to its law. You really have no choice or say in the matter, other than to leave the country. Staying means consent. And if you do not understand that fact, that reality, then you would rather tilt at fictional windmills than deal in cold, hard facts.

Well said, Lawboy.

jvquarterback wrote:

Actually, if you are in the the USA, by virtue of your mere presence here, you are presumed to have accepted the Constitution as the binding law of he land, and the force that binds you to its law. You really have no choice or say in the matter, other than to leave the country. Staying means consent.

And you call that a contract?

Yes, it is a contract. And one that if you don't feel you can accept, you may leave and find a better place that will accept your views on the social contract.

How dishonest would one have to be to live in a society and enjoy all the perks associated with such, but then deny they are part of the society when it comes to giving anything back to that society. By jvc's own standards of restorative justice the members of society which that person is guilty of mooching off of would be well within their rights to take by force all that the thief has taken.

hawkwing wrote:
How dishonest would one have to be to live in a society and enjoy all the perks associated with such, but then deny they are part of the society when it comes to giving anything back to that society. By jvc's own standards of restorative justice the members of society which that person is guilty of mooching off of would be well within their rights to take by force all that the thief has taken.

Or simply force from our lands and prevent from further mooching.

jvquarterback wrote:
Individuals (and their liberties and property) exist prior to the state. What right do you have to remove someone who does not accept the Constitution? The founders acknowledged that defect of the Constitution. But you seem to know so much more than them, sort of like our current and most recent presidents.

Prior to "the State" whose definition of property controlled and what mechanism was there to protect that property? Before the State, if you were bigger than me, you could take my land, my children, my first edition book of mormon etc. So whether property or liberty existed prior to "the State" it is "the State" that gives them meaning and makes them effectual. That is the social contract (at least as I see it--I could be way off from the philosophers and others) In exchange for giving up the right to do whatever I darn please whenever I darn want to do it, "the State" lays down some rules that says no one gets to take BoiseBYU's property from him. I GLADLY agree to that bargain and every day rejoice in it. ALSO you err in saying that the harm addressed by CA's law is the harm of parent's being neglectful when they allow their children to buy despicably violent video games. That is NOT the harm I am focused on. The harm society can speak to is the effect those utterly violent games have on its youngest citizens AND the effect those games have on how such children interact in our society. Just as your right to swing your fist ends before it hits my nose, the right to sell utterly violent video games ought to end before it reaches society's children.

snoscythe wrote:
Maybe you should reread D&C 143, especially verse 1: "We believe governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."



Verse 2:"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."

About verse 2, here's my question. What part of that verse gives government the responsibility to take violent video games away from kids? You could make the argument that the phrase "protection of life" entitles the government to this awesome responsibility but "free exercise of conscience" and "right and control of property" reinforce my beliefs that the less government is involved in our personal decision making the better. I've yet to see any good evidence that kids who play violent video games are more violent people. If that's the case, shouldn't the same criteria be used for adults? Shouldn't we also just ban violent video games among adults so that violent tendencies don't surface to protect society (that's the reasoning I'm hearing for banning it among teens)?



Also, if we start policing what could possibly make one more violent or threatening to society, it opens a pandora's box of "minority report" like proportions. It would inevitably become political and other sources of violence would need to be banned. Guns, religion, a strong sense of patriotism, former military personal could all be used to pin the label of "violence" on an individual.



Here's how I read verse 2: Government has the responsibility to allow people to live in the pursuit of happiness, and if someone really thinks that violent video games are in the pursuit of that happiness, government should keep out of it. I just don't see enough of a connection to playing video games leading to __________ to believe that it warrants the government stepping in. Like BoiseBYU (right to swing your fist ends before it hits my nose) said, we already have sufficient laws in place which protect society which include not assaulting or even harassing others. And as soon as some punk, video game playing kid crosses one of those lines, I'm all for punishing him. :P

Verse two does not impose limit on what governments MAY do. Verse two lays out the minimum for what governments MUST do if they are to enjoy peace.

declocoug, at this point I think the video game issue has become a side note. Speaking of which, I support the Supreme Court opinion, but still reject jv's twisted version of society and government.

Hawk, I'm a stubborn old buzzard and so am not quite ready to give up on the Supreme Court's decision..Here's the lay of the land as I see it: we have laws prohibiting children from being sold alcohol because we do not want them using this substance as a minor. Sure parents should already have rules in place that their kids not obtain such products, but we as a society have still said to retail outlets, don't you dare sell such products to kids. We have virtually the same laws with respect to tobacco and again for the exact same reasons. We also have similar laws with respect to the dissemination of pornography to children--we prohibit certain materials within 1,000 feet of schools etc. Why? We do not want our children exposed to such things. None of these laws have been struck down on 1st A or other grounds. Now however, the Supreme Court says extremely violent video games are beyond the reach of the State to shield from our children. So the bottom line is the State can validly prohibit a magazine with naked women in it form being within 1,000 feet of a school and not be in violation of the 1st A, but the 1st A protects a child from buying a video game in which he can in a realistic manner kidnap, rape, torture and disembowel a woman and it's all good and completely protected as far as the Court is concerned. You are fine with such a result?

snoscythe wrote:
Verse two does not impose limit on what governments MAY do. Verse two lays out the minimum for what governments MUST do if they are to enjoy peace.

Verse 2 certainly does place limits on government. Like the Constitution it is a negative charter of rights to be held inviolate. A government may not make laws or otherwise infringe on the "free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and ... life." Certainly if a government does not defend those rights it is worthless, but if it infringes on those inalienable rights it is an abomination.



Verse 5 make this clear when they say we should "sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected." Those inherent and inalienable rights are the ones outlined in verse 2 (unless you think you see some elsewhere listed in section 134). So there is no command to sustain and uphold a government that infringes upon those rights and sedition and rebellion against such a government are not condemned.



Next if you wish to argue about the relationship between individuals, society and the state you need to make you definitions clear. Unless you tell me you have a different definition than Rousseau and Lawboy, I have to assume you've joined the argument with the definition of society already accepted. Lawboy cited Rousseau as his authority on the matter. Rousseau's definition doesn't fit the definition of the scriptures because it gives greater rights to "society" than to the individual, particularly with respect to property, allowing society to infringe upon the individual right to property.



Of course I agree with the first verse of D&C 134. Society as a whole has the sum of the rights of the individuals who compose it. Society has the right to defend life, liberty and property so long as it does not infringe on any individual rights. Any definition of society that ascribes to it more than the sum of rights of the individuals that compose it would violate verse 2. Try and come up with some other definition of society and we'll see what you can do.



Just so we are clear I support the Constitution with the caveats previously mentioned because parts of Art I Section 8, the 11th and 16th amendments rob individuals of their inalienable right to property. I would invite everyone to accept the Constitution but I would not use it as a club to force those who do not accept it. I would use it as a protection of inalienable rights so if people are mooched off of they can have their property restored.

jvquarterback wrote:

Verse two does not impose limit on what governments MAY do. Verse two lays out the minimum for what governments MUST do if they are to enjoy peace.

Verse 2 certainly does place limits on government. Like the Constitution it is a negative charter of rights to be held inviolate. A government may not make laws or otherwise infringe on the "free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and ... life." Certainly if a government does not defend those rights it is worthless, but if it infringes on those inalienable rights it is an abomination.



Verse 5 make this clear when they say we should "sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected." Those inherent and inalienable rights are the ones outlined in verse 2. So there is no command to sustain and uphold a government that infringes upon those rights and sedition and rebellion against such a government are not condemned.

Like I said, it doesn't limit what it may do, it sets out what it must do as a minimum. Again your reading comprehension is lacking.



It doesn't say that government cannot do anything beyond a, b, and c, it merely states that government must at a minimum perform a, b, and c.

JV,



I cited numerous scholars, not just Rousseau. You just seem to have clung to him for some reason. I also cited Locke, Hobbes and others, because many have commented on the topic of social compact, with differing views on how it applies.



As an attorney, I deal with this stuff daily. And believe me, the interpretation of laws in many cases in dependent on judges. That means bad law at times. But it also means laws that evolve, sometimes good, sometimes bad. And the one thing that is absolutely clear in US case law is that there are no absolutes. Every Constitutional provision of import and the amendments have been clarified and limited in scope or time or place. Because society does not exist in a vacuum.