Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure it can. Air pressure in different rooms can easily be controlled. There's nothing magical about cigarette smoke that allows it to circumvent the laws of physics.
You guys sure do come up with some whoppers while defending your indefensible positions.
What business exists without license? Let us start there.
No, lets not start there. Lets start with what a business is defined as, what private property is defined as, and what individual liberty is defined as. You want to start where you can infer meaning based on your designed context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
What the word meaning is immaterial. How a business exists, what it is, is what leads to it being a legal entity, NOT a person. Heck, not even by your definition is it a person. You could argue with the issue of loose definition of infringement you've got on virtually any aspect. How about requiring a driver's license for driving?
Actually it is not. It is only such to you because it doesn't fit your argument. I have no interest in arguing in liberal gaga land, I would rather stick to the reality of the the concepts and their existing purpose. You would have us ignore those so you can build your case for "not completely private property". I never said a business was a person, but a persons business is under the establishment of principals to which an individual contains.
Again, legality has absolutely no defining principal on business as it concerns our disagreement, it is a relationship a business may have within a society as it pertains the laws and structures of that society. Though you will not want to go there either because those laws and structures within our own society are established by a basic principal of liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Then you prefer to lie, but aren't smart enough to escape (second time in this thread alone) that you'd to be put back on track.
Ah, calling me a liar and then stupid. Nice, typical liberal trash talk. When you can't have your way, throw a tantrum and attack.
Interstate commerce. However, the federal constitution does not limit a state government's police powers in regards to limiting what you can eat, drink, or smoke.
Yes, congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Unfortunately, that clause has been abused repeatedly to increase the power of the federal government.
But telling me what I can eat, drink or smoke is not interstate commerce.
And yes, the constitution does not limit state powers. We would have to look at each state to see where those limits exist.
The bottom line is this; Government SHOULD not have the power to tell me what I can eat, drink or smoke.
The positive uses for tobacco aren't hard to find, for anyone that's actually interested in knowing what they are. Of course, most anti-smokers simply take the blanket position that "smoking is icky" and really couldn't care less about whether or not the propaganda they parrot is actually backed up by honest data or not. "Smoking is icky" and that's the end of it - they're more than willing to let their personal opinions dictate how the rest of us should live.
Great post. Your last sentence is the crux of the problem. They don't understand freedom.
No, lets not start there. Lets start with what a business is defined as, what private property is defined as, and what individual liberty is defined as. You want to start where you can infer meaning based on your designed context.
Its a start when you identify them all as not sharing but having their own definitions. Then answer the question you didn't. Does a business require a license to exist?
Quote:
Actually it is not. It is only such to you because it doesn't fit your argument. I have no interest in arguing in liberal gaga land, I would rather stick to the reality of the the concepts and their existing purpose. You would have us ignore those so you can build your case for "not completely private property". I never said a business was a person, but a persons business is under the establishment of principals to which an individual contains.
When all else fails, run.
Quote:
Again, legality has absolutely no defining principal on business as it concerns our disagreement, it is a relationship a business may have within a society as it pertains the laws and structures of that society. Though you will not want to go there either because those laws and structures within our own society are established by a basic principal of liberty.
Does a business require a license to exist?
Quote:
Ah, calling me a liar and then stupid. Nice, typical liberal trash talk. When you can't have your way, throw a tantrum and attack.
Good bye!
I think calling you a right winger would have been worse (you tried name-calling so I had to at least be nicer). But then, you've not had anything to argue but scream in pain since I pointed out at the issue that a business isn't quite "entirely a private property". Its existence itself is questionable based on its responsibility towards the society.
What business exists without license? Let us start there.
.
Unfortunately, very few, and that's part of our nanny state problem.
But there are some. My gardener doesn't have a license.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
