I just may vote Republican in 2020

Study the chart. Red = republican and blue = Democrat

The failure of the chart is that for the Senate, it starts not with the rules but the simple majority which won't get you a cup of coffee in the Capitol dining room.

Republicans must have 60 votes to actually run the Senate totally. Majority allows them to chair committees and particular privileges. Funny when the Democrats lack 60 votes, suddenly they recall how the opposing party can block up the Senate. And yet the Democrats have the majority at the same time. Then their memory kicks back in and they recall why a majority in the Senate is not good enough.

 

Control is not the right word. Majority is the correct word. 60 votes in either party hands that party operational control of the Senate.

The house seldom runs the government. Watch Pelosi attempt but fail to run the government.

 

You DID NOT answer my question. What rights do you not have now that you had 100 years ago? You spouted some right wing bull crap, but you didn't answer the direct question.

 

There have been no Dems who would have gone for getting rid of the IRS in the past? I find that very hard to believe. The reality is the Repubs do not have a history of trying to get rid of the IRS.

 

I'll give it a shot. Ahem ... "Mi - mi - mi - mi - mi ... Fee-ga-ro, Fee-ga-ro Feeee-ga-ro"

I do not have the right to opt out of the social security program.

I do not have the right to enter into a contract to work and learn a trade from a master who can only pay me less than the statutorily mandated minimum wage.

I cannot go to work if I am under 14. Even if I am 14 or 15, the law controls how much I may work.

I do not have the right to refuse to conceal my birth certificate, or other evidence of nationality, from my employer (I refer to the I-9 process, though this was a Republican joined if not led initiative).

If I were a hospital administrator, I would not haver the right to turn away a patient seeking emergency care, regardless of his lack of insurance or independent ability to pay.

I do not have the right to alter my property if it is deemed a wetland

If I were a Californian, and thank god I am not, I would not as a businessman have a right to cooperate with ICE agents investigating workplace fraud unless they showed me a warrant. I may not waive this even though it is my business.

In certain parts of the country, especially including New York and parts of Florida, I can not, at least asa. businessman, give food to the homeless without a permit. https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ida-veteran-arrested-feeding-homeless-bans-2/

(You cannot imagine how much food New York caterers have to throw away after a wedding or Bar Mitzvah because there is too much and they can't give it to the homeless.)

I cannot sell a firearm without filling out forms.

I cannot grow marijuana.

I cannot count on the police, in many places, to protect me while giving a speech calling for the criminalizing of abortion or the deportation of muslims, though why the Left sympathizes with Sharia Laws I have no idea. Except that they are laws and therefore have to be good.

I cannot sell home brew without a permit.

I cannot publicly gamble except under state control.

I cannot smoke cigarettes even in private clubs in (I think) the entire State of Alaska.

I cannot shoot a fleeing thief in many places. I'd be afraid to shoot a burglar in California, especially if he were black or brown.

I cannot, at least in Colorado, refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.

I cannot ride a motorcycle with a helmet in many states, 19 or so.

I cannot let my dog out in my yard without a leash in many areas.

I cannot refuse to serve muslims in my place of business.

On certain days, I cannot eat meat in a NY public school.

I cannot pray on the public address system of a public school, or at a school sponsored event like a football game.

I cannot drive without a seatbelt.

I cannot build and operate a motor vehicle unless it complies with a long list of environmental and safety restrictions.

I cannot smoke in many bars and restaurants, even if the owner and every single patron consents.

[Everyone would benefit from just looking at the United States Code, those reddish brown leather bound volumes in your library. It literally stretches 15-20 feet across. Every word in that code imposes an affirmative requirement form the government (do this, or else), or a prohibition by the government (don't do this, or else).]


I do realize that all these laws are well intentioned by their authors ("for your own good"), but it's gotten ridiculous. Now Democrats are contemplating a raft of new laws under the rubric "Green New Deal" which is breathtaking in its scope. Every one of those laws will restrict in one way or another the liberties you currently enjoy. Conservatives look askance or oppose these laws from a philosophical standpoint: it's not the government's business to control us. Liberals support them from a philosophical standpoint, though I have trouble articulating what that philosophy is because it's alien to me.

And yes, I know it's spelled "Figaro." I just like to say "Fee-gah-ro!" Try it. Unless there's a law against it. It's probably a hate crime in Vermont because it makes fun of Italian opera.

 

I do not have the right to not pay income taxes.
I do not have the right to buy liquor that is not taxed.
I am subject to laws not created back then.

 

You realize that President Washington marched with his troops against people who were trying to sell whisky without paying the tax (Whisky Rebellion, 1794). So liquor has pretty much ALWAYS been taxed - or outright outlawed. Prohibition was the law of the land around 1920 - so technically, you have far more rights to buy liquor than you had 100 years ago.

And you are wrong on income tax as well - The US has had some forms of income tax all the way back to 1861 and it was made part of the Constitution with the 16th Amendment in 1913. So you would have been legally bound to pay income tax 100 years ago.

Back then, you were subject to laws that prevented you from marrying outside your race.
Back then, you were subject to laws that said you couldn't vote if you were a US Citizen who happened to be a woman.
Back then was not peachy and wonderful either.

 

I voted for Trump and shall again. I am not in the Republican Party (and I bet neither is OP). I am a republican, not a Republican. Neither is Trump a Republican. He just needed an R or a D nom to get elected. Either would have been fine with him. Establishment R's were as much against him as the D's were.

 

You realize that 100 years ago, you couldn't legally sell alcohol at all (Prohibition Act). So whining about "liberals" keeping you from selling home brew is rather foolish in comparison.

Whining about not being able to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple is rather moronic when you realize that there were laws preventing gays from marriage (along with laws preventing marriage outside your own race) and that a gay person could be legally chemically castrated just for being gay.

Grumbling about not being able to legally gamble is equally foolish as all gambling was outlawed in the US prior to 1931.

Most of what you are grumbling about concerns industries that didn't exist 100 years ago. ICE didn't exist 100 years ago and it was far easier for a Mexican worker to cross into the states than it is now.

100 years ago you COULD refuse service to people of color - so another of your whiny crabbing is shot down.

All in all, we as a people have far more rights than we did 100 years ago.

 

Total BS. What you describe was par for the course for everything and everyone in that time period. Nothing to do with Classical Liberalism.

If anything, Cassical Liberalism was the infant of abolition and civil rights, being diametrically opposed to the elitism of democracy of the time that protected slavery in the south in the founding of our country. Slavery was tolerated for the simple reason that southern slaveholder money/influence was needed to beat back the British or the rebellion had no chance anyway. Given that Brittish supported slavery as well, there was no option that would end it at that time.

 

Prior to 1913, the Constitution banned federal income taxes. And you admit that in your paragraph 2 where you tell when the constitution changed. In fact the supreme court also ruled against it

I did not create the 100 year bar on this topic. It was you that created it. And you are trying to act as if the Democrats are blameless for the plethora of laws on the books.

 

If this is an example of you being "right" - god forbid when you are not.

Banning Abortion is in direct violation of the founding principles -and an anathema to the rule of law and principles of Justice - hardly a defensible position from a Libertarian perspective.

"Defense" ? Since when is nation building a libertarian platform

The Trump administration hates the first amendment - and essential liberty in general ??

The Supreme court is a clown show - including the latest appointment.

If you think Trump is cutting overall spending - you are living in some fantasy that has little basis in reality.

 

All you did is admit you are not keeping up on Federal laws.

100 years ago in CA one could sell real estate as the agent for others. Today one must first pass a lot of schooling and obtain a license to act as the agent of others. This is a state law but has removed the right they then had in CA.

In CA, one did not have to pass the BAR prior to 1927. A lawyer could represent citizens and not have passed the BAR.

 

Where did I say Democrats were blameless? But do note where the first income taxes were levied by the Republican Lincoln administration in 1861. And I notice you skipped the whole alcohol thing that you were wrong about.

Face it. We have more rights as individuals now than we had 100 years ago.

 

And they had people getting screwed over by people who did not understand the law. Laws are passed to protect individuals from other dick-head individuals. People were buying property that had unpaid levies and fines and getting screwed.

100 years ago you couldn't vote if you were a woman.
100 years ago laws prevented you from marrying outside your race.
100 years ago, you couldn't buy alcohol at all.

 

Insulting as ever, eh? Stating a fact is not whining. I didn't even claim it was a bad law (I'll claim it now).

 

I am saying laws by their very nature do not add rights, but reduce rights. Where did I say they did not have the income tax in 1861? I never would make that claim. I knew all about that. Where did I skip anything? Merely because you said something doesn't mean I did not read what you said.

 

Laws PREVENTING a person from marrying outside of their race ADD rights?
Law preventing women from owning property or voting ADD rights?
Laws preventing the sale of alcohol ADD rights?
Laws preventing abortion ADD rights?
Laws preventing a black person from riding in the front of a bus ADD rights?

This is where we were 100 years ago, and it was progressive thought that ended the injustice.

Crazy town with a bit of crazy on the side.

 

We (actually them since I was not then alive) pressed CA to create the laws to license RE agents. Since you are not an agent, you have no clue what this entails or means.
Apparently you need many more laws since you keep approving them.

I showed you the video of the stacks of new laws. And apparently you are in love with new laws.

100 years back Women in Wyoming were voting. 100 years back here in CA you could marry any woman. Who banned drinking in the first place? Do you blame republicans?

 

Those were bad laws -- a good argument for reducing law altogether. People had the natural right to vote and to marry. Laws impinged on those rights.

 

That is your self created set of laws. Not mine.

My major complaint is with Democrats. I am sick of them stacking law upon law upon us as if we are in need of those laws.

Do you know when they pass your loved new laws, even when you have no clue, you still can go to prison for violating a Democrat law?

 

He defended law by showing us lousy laws. A very strange way to argue his point.

 

No, obviously not. The right was there all along. You're confusing bad laws with lack of rights.

 

Robert, you can go down the list of laws introduced by both Republicans and Democrats and you'll find plenty to disagree with on both sides.
And I sold my own property in California in 1999, so no, you do not have to be a licensed agent to sell your own property.

 

That's an example of how laws reduce rights. That's what he's trying to tell you.