vorticon: not the point...the point is that if a countries people had the right to sexually abuse there children and that right was removed you would be applauding it along with everyone else. You did not say "sexually abuse" but what the heck, I will give it a try.
In ancient Sparta a child was taken from his mother at the age of 7 and paired with an adult for training in warrior arts. The sexual relations between the pair were considered normal and encouraged. Such practices produced incredibly well-adjusted, balanced and happy individuals. Spartans were unmatched as warriors but famously hard to provoke to agression or violence.
According to our definitions those were child sex-abuse on a massive scale. But for them it was common sense.
Marrying at 12 or 14 or definitely 16 was common sense in all societies and is common in most - but in US that constitutes a child sex-abuse, since the legal age of consent in most jurisdictions is 18.
In some muslim societies letting a 9-year girl out uncovered constitutes exposing her to sex-abuse - according to their common sense.
Common sense differs so wildly among cultures and times that claiming that general common sense exists is contrary to common sense.
Besides, what if a canadian commits a child-sex abuse - which may not even be a sex abuse according to their customs. Does our government in Washington, D.C. has a right to invade Canada and punish the offender? Not really. We do not have a jurisdiction. By the same token, I do not see why the government in Washington, D.C. has a right to enforce its silly laws in my State of New York - based on preferences of other states. We can sort our own issues here.
that made absalutly no sense at all...no country has ever not had a leader...BSprove it First, even if that were true, the logic that "every country was ruled tyranically, so we must be too" is nonsensical.
Second, there were multitudes of countries in history who's governments - elected or not - did not "led" them anywhere but only administered the laws and maintained order.
Swiss have about 800 years history of direct democracy. Could you name a leader that led them anywhere or could have led them if he wanted to? Not really. Swiss settle most issues locally - on canton and municipal level. Their government expenses are still split 30-40-30 - even afted considerable increase in centralised power over the last 50 years.
Even USA of the first 50 years could not be said to be "led". The population would have been outraged at the very idea that the government should tell them what to do locally.
Romans elected heads of government for a year - in pairs, with veto power over each other. Could such a leader lead anyone anywhere he did not want to?
most of your qoutes said to much or excess or pure...ideal government styles are like hydrogen...volatile and good for floating things... Why don't you read them yourself - you would know exactly what they were talking about. They give a very detailed analysis of all the past and present (swiss, etc) democracies, with though understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and tendencies and reasons of downfall.
even though there policies are slowly killing there employees and customers??? Working in most occupations kills employees - sometimes quickly. Just check the list of ten
America's most dangerous jobs As for the customers, many goods and services they purchase kill them either slowy like food and alcohol or quickly like skiing or skuba-diving or driving cars.
So what? As long as the risks are disclosed, people make their choices based on the benefits they expect. Risky or unplesant jobs command higher salaries. It is a prerogative of every free person to risk his healh for financial gain rather than sit idly and preserve it in safety.
What you end up with if you follow your views to their logical conclusion will be a mix of a communism and taliban - no frivoluous activity whatsoever, only work (in safe environment for the same salary) and prayer (to the all-mighty governent).
What do you think, vorticon - if you owned your house, would it be your right to let your friends in and let them smoke there? How about let them smoke and serve them food? What if some of them help you serve the food to the others?
Would it mean that you are killing your dining friends and helping friends? What would change if you collected money for food and gave some of it to the helpers? Just where is the limit that the government must invade and save your friends from you and themselves?
..smoking in public buildings does not stomp the minority (smokers) rights because if they really need a smoke they can just step outside light up then come in when there done...while the majority (non-smokers) get what they want... That's not correct. "Outisde" is a public property - owned by everyone in the country. It is a nuisance to walk by the smokescreen set by smokers standing on public property in front of a building.
so if a person is trained as something highly specialized and theres only 1 place in town that can hire him but it allows smoking and he doesnt like that does he have a choice??? It was nobody's fault that a person has trained in something that has a very narrow choice of employment. If his expertise is rare, the empoyer will have to accomodate his wishes. If there are fewere jobs than experts in that area, the applicants woudl have to compete.
People do not have a right to work at any particular job.
smoke if you want...just dont do it where its gonna hurt me, or my kids...second hand smoke in a family resteraunt is about the same as a gang war next to a playground...just the speed they kill thats different Do you advocate taking children away from smoking parents in general? How about a private party where smoking is alowed that a family could attend? Should the house owner get jailed?
smoking SHOULD be banned anywhere that you cant seperate...uh oh...you just changed my mind on something... Right. Smokers and non-smokers are
naturally separated - they can go to smoking or non-smoking establishments. If non-smkoers decide to visit a smoking establishment, it's their responcibility of breaking the separation.
Dowding: No hard feelings, miko, I was just pulling your leg. OK.
miko
