Bush Daughters Free To Get Drunk

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not to nitpick but doesn't the FDA ban the selling and distribution of foods, not eating of foods?

One leads to the other, Asher .

The FDA can't stop me from eating anything.

Yes it can. What if you want to eat some sort of the food the FDA has banned to sell?

Sorry, eating food is a right if you have it or can buy it. You don't have the right to food if you can't afford it - I would think that is obvious, given my perspective. Do try to interpret things in the way I mean them, rather than trying to nitpick, please.

Um NO! You do not gain rights if you can afford them. If something is based on money it is a priviledge, NOT a right. A right is universal.

If you claim eating food is a right. Then I'll say 14th Amendment and claim that people that are starving are being denied of equal protection and should have their meals provided for.

I think the problem is that you don't know the difference between a right and a priviledge.

[David Floyd]

Yes it can. What if you want to eat some sort of the food the FDA has banned to sell?

If I have it, they can't stop me from eating it. If my friend gives it to me, they can't stop me from eating it. It is not in their power to prevent me from eating foods they ban.

Um NO! You do not gain rights if you can afford them. If something is based on money it is a priviledge, NOT a right. A right is universal.

Sure, but a property right is universal. Everyone has the right to own property. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to all the property in the world. They have to have some means of obtaining that property, first. And that means has to be one that doesn't infringe on someone else's property right. So, basically, they can buy or trade for said property.

Just because someone has a right doesn't necessarily mean they can exercise it. Can a mute person exercise their right to free speech? Of course not, but they still retain that right.

If you claim eating food is a right. Then I'll say 14th Amendment and claim that people that are starving are being denied of equal protection and should have their meals provided for.

Fine, then I'll claim the 14th Amendment and demand all the property you own. If there are a such thing as property rights, and I don't own any property, surely I'm entitled to the property of other people, right?

Come on, that's a ridiculous argument.

I think the problem is that you don't know the difference between a right and a priviledge.

The problem is we have different definitions. If your parents let you stay up 10 minutes past your bedtime, that's a priviledge. If the government imposes a national bedtime, they are infringing on your rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sure, but a property right is universal. Everyone has the right to own property. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to all the property in the world. They have to have some means of obtaining that property, first.

A person's body is his property. Ergo, you do not need to pay money for property ownership. You just need money for MORE property ownership. You do not start off with food. You need money even for the most minor of foods.

If there are a such thing as property rights, and I don't own any property, surely I'm entitled to the property of other people, right?

Everyone owns property: their own bodies. Therefore they are not being discriminated against for their property rights. A person with no food, if food is a right, is being deprived of his food rights.

If your parents let you stay up 10 minutes past your bedtime, that's a priviledge. If the government imposes a national bedtime, they are infringing on your rights.

The government can impose a curfew without infringing on your rights. A curfew basically constrains you to your property and prevents you from using public property.

A national bedtime infringes on your property rights by preventing you from using your property.


And I can prove that drinking is not a right by pointing to all the dry counties that exist in the United States.


*sigh* I guess this like arguing with Snapcase on music.

[David Floyd]

A person's body is his property. Ergo, you do not need to pay money for property ownership. You just need money for MORE property ownership. You do not start off with food. You need money even for the most minor of foods.

So your assertion is that the only property right is to your body? Would you be of the opinion that you own the labor your body produces, and so forth?

The government can impose a curfew without infringing on your rights. A curfew basically constrains you to your property and prevents you from using public property.

Even if I accept that - which I don't - many curfews during war time include things such as blackouts, and prohibitions against even being out of your house on your own property. That's certainly a violation of rights - although this is a side issue.

A national bedtime infringes on your property rights by preventing you from using your property.

Precisely the point. Restrictions against adults drinking violate rights for exactly the same reason.

And I can prove that drinking is not a right by pointing to all the dry counties that exist in the United States.

All that says to me is that lots of counties violate the rights of the citizens within the counties.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Would you be of the opinion that you own the labor your body produces, and so forth?

Not if you contract to say that the value that the labor of your body produces goes to the employer.

Basically I don't believe in inalienable rights.

many curfews during war time include things such as blackouts, and prohibitions against even being out of your house on your own property. That's certainly a violation of rights

Yep, I agree.

Though I guess the government rationalizes blackouts by claiming a national security interest. Which it can, since it of course it gives us rights.

Restrictions against adults drinking violate rights for exactly the same reason.

Not if it has been banned by the FDA. Then it isn't your property. A banned substance cannot be legal property. At the very least the property right isn't protected.

Also you can be restricted from using your own property on someone else's property. Thus the government can ban people from drinking alcohol in certain places because you are using that property on someone else's property.

All that says to me is that lots of counties violate the rights of the citizens within the counties.

That is merely your opinion, which outside of your room in Austin, Texas, does not hold any weight at all. Especially not with the Supreme Court of any state or most (if not all) legislators.

[David Floyd]

Not if you contract to say that the value that the labor of your body produces goes to the employer.

Clearly, but wouldn't you agree that you own it until you contract it out, and at that point you own whatever compensation you receive?

Though I guess the government rationalizes blackouts by claiming a national security interest. Which it can, since it of course it gives us rights.

Rights supercede government, but this isn't a concept we'll agree on.

Not if it has been banned by the FDA. Then it isn't your property. A banned substance cannot be legal property. At the very least the property right isn't protected.

I guess the question is if certain substances can be banned. I say they can't.

Also you can be restricted from using your own property on someone else's property. Thus the government can ban people from drinking alcohol in certain places because you are using that property on someone else's property.

First of all, even if I agreed with that, you aren't addressing the issue of the government targeting SPECIFIC people.

Secondly, the government can't stop me from drinking at my neighbor's house any more than it can stop me from drinking at mine. Only my neighbor has the right to allow me or disallow me to drink at his house.

Thirdly, if you want to use the concept of public property, two points: First, my taxes went to that property, so it's part mine, and second, I don't agree with taxes.

That is merely your opinion, which outside of your room in Austin, Texas, does not hold any weight at all. Especially not with the Supreme Court of any state or most (if not all) legislators.

I guess I'll just content myself with the rightness of my position

[Sikander]

Originally posted by TheStinger

if the state protects them by not allowing them alcohol, because they are too imature, how the hell can it allow them to go and shoot people.

The laws in this case are for the protection of U.S. civil society in general. In the case of foreign war, it isn't an issue.

[David Floyd]

The laws in this case are for the protection of U.S. civil society in general. In the case of foreign war, it isn't an issue.

Well, at least you just admitted that we don't fight wars in order to protect our own society. I'll have to remember that one, but thanks for making one of my (unrelated but common) points.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Dissident
no. where can I find it? sounds hilariuos. I love those cheesy gov. movies.

I didn't see anyone respond, so: it's a mainstay of the cult rental market; I'll bet you can get it anyplace that's not a Blockbuster et al. chain. Usually I think those movies are pretty dumb and predictable, but this one is great -- up there with the J. Edgar Hoover "Is Your Neighbor a Communist?" 50's shorts. "When in your neighbor's home, do you notice odd literature or suspect-sounding books..." Then again, I shouldn't joke, it sounds like something from today.

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by Dissident
OK folks. There is medical evidence that young adults as well as kids cannot "handle" alcohol as well as adults.

There is enough medical evidence out there to warrant keeping 21 as the age of being able to purchase alcohol.

Of course kids drink anyways- but they are setting themselves up to become alcoholics this way. Granted kids in France drink wine at an early age. But their culture is different.

I wonder then why can somebody be in the military when he/she is 17-18 or even be able to carry a gun at that age but not allowed to drink! I know all the arguments believe me, I was an exchange student in the US and I couldn't legally drink.


So long...

[Zkribbler]

A couple of things we should keep in mind.

We are not discussing here the power of the federal government. It's not the feds that are limiting the drinking age, but the several states.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The states have the "police power," and, as long as the law in question is not infringing upon a fundamental right (free speech, free religion, due process, etc.), the state merely needs to show a rational relationship between the law and the public health and safety.

[David Floyd]

The states have the "police power," and, as long as the law in question is not infringing upon a fundamental right

Which is precisely the point. Equal protection under the law IS a fundamental right (and I'd even consider being able to freely drink what one chooses to be a fundamental right).

[Zkribbler]

Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers lacked the foreslight to put Freedom of Pleasure into the Constitution, and so getting drunk is not a fundamental right.

You have a good argument, though, about equal protection being a fundamental right.

In order for the government to infringe upon a fundamental right, it must show a compelling state interest, and any infringement must be narrowly tailored.

Saving lives on the highway would be a compelling state interest.

But...is there a way to more narrowly tailor this law to lessen the infringement on the citizens' freedom? That is the question.

[mrmitchell]

They should raise the drinking age to 120.
Along with the smoking age.

Most people by that age are usually too old to remember what cigarettes and drinks are anyways...

[Joseph]

Who cares?