[earlytom]

Re the Israel thing, I was referring to this:

Yigal Arbiv, who has trained law enforcement officers in the U.S., is responsible for security at the Tchernichovsky Junior High School in Netanya, Israel. He told Fox it is essential for the “head of security [for a school] be given authorization” for all aspects of student and faculty safety.
Arbiv explained that “everyone who goes into the school needs to go through a metal detector, like at an airport, and sign his name.” He added that the “school has one exit and one entrance … nobody comes to the school without the head of security knowing about it. We do not allow people not connected to school to come inside.”

 

[toddmack]

I would think that the Libertarian thought would be that if "there are warnings about prescribed pharmaceuticals" the blame would be on the user.

I'm not trying to start an argument, just asking another question. At heart I'm only 10 yrs old.

 

[earlytom]

I would think that the Libertarian thought would be that if "there are warnings about prescribed pharmaceuticals" the blame would be on the user.

I'm not trying to start an argument, just asking another question. At heart I'm only 10 yrs old.

I see your point, and I see I that I must not have made mine very well.

For by that standard a total libertarian with a "well we warned you in the fine print" would be close to being a anarchist, because functionally there would no laws of protection at all.

To me libertarian means being responsible for yourself, as well as your action's impact on others. Such responsibility should be brought about with as little government interference through mandate and regulation as possible. Human nature being what it is, has time and again proven that some is required.

My original point is that it is nefarious to use laws unequally through government intervention to destroy your political foes and your own nation to acquire more power and wealth.

For instance using tragedy as an excuse to violate existing laws solely to takedown an industry (firearms) to deprive your foes of a human right (self-defence) because that right protects all the others, also enumerated (in the Bill of Rights) human rights that stand in your way of domination. To do so while at the same time ignoring existing laws meant to stop negligent tragedy, and indeed enacted to hold the negligent to account seems especially egregious. Moreover to do so to such a degree that you don't just turn a blind eye to letting the malfeasance slide, but in effect hide it so that the tragedies continue for your mutual evil gain should be an affront to a moral people.

So much like the medical field, we first must do no harm. Libertarians don't believe in liberty without responsibility, as I said, that would be anarchy. However they see that big government is so easily weaponized to destroy liberty that sovereign individuals must have a responsibility to each other. Because by logical extension it seems to follow, that while they not only have the right to protect themselves, but must have also some obligation to protect others, if only for their own good.

 

[Ducatim900]

I've been debating when I should bring up the SCOTUS decision during the hearing. You never know how some liberal judge is going to response to a logical statement.

What county are you in that requires you to meet with a judge?

 

[dfleury]

What county are you in that requires you to meet with a judge?

Im in putnam county. My hearing was supposed to be tomorrow but of course the same day that the governor is talking about changing the laws, they call me and says its adjourned till next month.