SteveInCO
Regular Member
This does not require a legislature also capable of passing criminal laws.
True... what did you think about the rest of my post?
This does not require a legislature also capable of passing criminal laws.
Somebody never heard of "taking the high road".
Since you admit to being a "neophyte", you might consider taking well-meaning advice from those who are not, rather than becoming puerile and defensive.
Really, you're making this celebration into a race thing.........? Wow!
True... what did you think about the rest of my post?
Hey Marshaul,
So what J-school did you graduate from? Clearly, your education level has exceeded your intelligence level.
Do you know the difference between an avocation and a vocation?
All who post here are involved in an avocation. The standard for ethical discourse and decorum are much lower for any avocation. This is not a formal vocation governed by a Bar Association, Guild, Medical Board, or Scientific Peer Review community.
Usually, when I read your posts, I don't know what to think of your statements.
I've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and always enjoyed its political musings.
I think Heinlein was on the right track. His logic is reminiscent of Spooner's defense of the Trial by Jury, wherein he argues that it functions as a check on the majority (and their legislatures), ensuring that no law can be enforced expect those with which substantially the entire nation would agree with.
Jefferson also had a notion that all laws ought to expire after a set period – 18 years or so. While legislatures would have little difficulty renewing laws which prohibit, say, murder (although one could argue the common law takes care of that), they might have a much more difficult time finding political capital to renew the unpopular prohibitions of generations past.
I've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and always enjoyed its political musings.
I think Heinlein was on the right track. His logic is reminiscent of Spooner's defense of the Trial by Jury, wherein he argues that it functions as a check on the majority (and their legislatures), ensuring that no law can be enforced expect those with which substantially the entire nation would agree with.
Jefferson also had a notion that all laws ought to expire after a set period – 18 years or so. While legislatures would have little difficulty renewing laws which prohibit, say, murder (although one could argue the common law takes care of that), they might have a much more difficult time finding political capital to renew the unpopular prohibitions of generations past.
I've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and always enjoyed its political musings.
I think Heinlein was on the right track. His logic is reminiscent of Spooner's defense of the Trial by Jury, wherein he argues that it functions as a check on the majority (and their legislatures), ensuring that no law can be enforced expect those with which substantially the entire nation would agree with.
Jefferson also had a notion that all laws ought to expire after a set period – 18 years or so. While legislatures would have little difficulty renewing laws which prohibit, say, murder (although one could argue the common law takes care of that), they might have a much more difficult time finding political capital to renew the unpopular prohibitions of generations past.
You should read Grumbles from the Grave. The letter he wrote to the editor of Red Planet is priceless (Starts on pp54 of the hardcover)
At one point he tells her "I have one of my characters say that the right to bear arms is the basis of all human freedoms. I strongly believe that, but you required me to blue-pencil it."
Hey Marshaul,
That was a very good post!!! +1
I agree with the viewpoint you were expressing with your paraphases of Heinliein, Spooner, and Jefferson; very profound.
Thanks for adding something positive to the discussion.
markm
You should read Grumbles from the Grave.
Heinlein is sorely missed on this ranch.