Trump lashes out against cross border shopping

What referendum was this?

What if it was on the basis of 50 + 1 but it just so happens that 65% of people vote for a particular law in a referendum?

I was more looking for your personal opinion on it. You DID say that if it is a DUI stop, then nothing else should eventuate from the stop other than the DUI procedure (you at least said "no asking for license" and "no checking for broken tail light.") However, it appears that you would draw the line at a guy screaming from the trunk.

 

Dude - I am having trouble continuing when you make such uninformed comments - Colorado ? California ? and every other state that has legalized weed. Do you live in a cave ? https://www.businessinsider.com/legal-marijuana-states-2018-1

50+1 = "Tyranny of the Majority". Google "Democracy vs Constitutional Republic"

Correct - Fruit of the poisoned tree should not be accepted - used to convict - except in the most extreme circumstances. (and this is general precedent within law - not just my opinion)

 

No, I know about the legalisation of weed in certain states, I just didn't know that it was from referendums. I just assumed that it was the government passing legislation. So are you saying that there has been a referendum in all of those states which has legalised weed? Its just that the word "referendum" doesn't appear once on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_California

I know that, you've already said it. What I'm asking is, at what percentage would you accept it as the overwhelming majority? And you wouldn't go one percentage point under it?

And who defines what "extreme" is? You see? This is the problem that you would have in your system.

 

Colorado Amendment 64 was a successful popular initiative ballot measure to amend the Constitution of the State of Colorado, outlining a statewide drug policy for cannabis. The measure passed on November 6, 2012, and along with a similar measure in Washington state, marked "an electoral first not only for America but for the world.

Please tell me that you understand that although the word "referendum is not used" a "ballot measure" is a referendum.

2/3rd's one figure (or close to it - 60 vote majority in Senate for example) ... 75% of states is needed for a constitutional amendment. 2/3rd's seems right - must be significantly higher than 50+1 though.


"We the people" decide what is extreme ... If 66% of the people agree that something is so dangerous that power should be given to Gov't to use physical violence ... then the law is legitimate.

 

So there are states where the government passed the legalisation of weed without a ballot?

Or close to it? What about 65%?

Yes, but in the case of the guy screaming in a trunk in a DUI stop, leading the officer to take action, how do we know that 66% of "we the people" think that is "extreme" and therefore worthy of legal action?

Sure, so its sounds as if in the US, government money is put towards abortion. Correct? Its just that I imagined that it would be covered under private health given that it is the US. I guess abortion is one of those few things that the government covers for people.

 

1) think it was all by ballot/referendum
2) sure
3) we don't but ... we don't know for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow either. The balance of probabilities suggests that it will.
4) and good thing as it is a whole lot less expensive to pay for some drug addict's abortion pill rather than pay for a child growing up in poverty and disfunction.

 

Okay, but how low would you go?

So in your ideal system, you would make laws on "the balance of probabilities?"

 

1) between 66% and 75% is the range
2) That is now it is done now in many cases - I am ok with this in most circumstances so long as it does not get too subjective - the rule however is that when in doubt - put it to a referendum.

 

Didn't you agree to 65%?

 

Yes but changed my mind.

 

Well I certainly didn't take you for a mind changer, certainly not on a subject such as law!

 

I had an errant thought... or rather did not put much thought into the answer the first time .. it happens.

 

So 65.9% would be "tyranny of the majority?"

 

Correct. In order for law messing with individual liberty to be legitimate (law outside the legitimate purview/authority of Gov't) it must have overwhelming majority consent.

It would suck to lose a referendum by such a small margin (for those on that side) but, you have to draw the line somewhere. On the other side however, it is a win for individual liberty.

I assume you agree with limited Gov't - limited Gov't power/authority. If this is that case - what then do you think Gov't authority should be limited to ? What should be the limits to Gov't power and on what basis and why ?

The reason I ask is that you seem to not like the principles that the founders used.... those found in both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism. If you struggle with being able to answer this basic question - don't feel bad .. most have no idea how to answer the question.

12 years of school and we manage not to teach kids the basic principles on which this nation was founded. Shocking but true. So bizarre is this that I can only conclude that on some level it is intentional.

 

Here is my basic libertarian stand point - I should be able to sit down on my couch in my house and do nothing from now until the day that I die without the government ever bothering me and making me stand up.
If the government makes me stand up, then they have stepped outside of their legitimate purview and authority. However, if I choose to stand up and do something, and that something causes anyone physical or financial harm, then the government can come down on me with the full force of the law. If something that I do poses a RISK to someone, physically or financially, then the government can come down on me with LIMITED force of the law - no jail time if there is no victim, but people who drink and drive should face the prospect of being fined and loosing their license, business people should face the prospect of loosing their business licenses. So I do believe in victimless crime to a point.

In Australia, there are two things that I know of that my government makes me stand up out of my couch for. In the US, there is one thing that I know of that the government makes YOU stand up out of your couch for and it is shared with Australia. I wonder if you know what I'm referring to.

In light of what I have said above, what do you think now?

 

I think you are off to a good start. Individual liberty ends when the nose of another begins .. this is also where legitimate Gov't authority begins and ends. Someone getting behind the wheel drunk as a skunk ... is within the legitimate purview of Gov't.

Back in the day - Hammurabi Law code (1800 BC) ..if you built a structure and that structure ended up collapsing on someone - you were responsible .. and the penalty was not pleasant - no need for building codes.

Arbitrarily detaining someone - on the basis that they might be drunk - is a completely different question. This is a violation of the Rule of law - one person is not to be punished for the action of another. Why am I being punished because some idiot "might" be drunk.

It is recognized by the legal system that check stops abridge Constitutionally protected rights and are therefore illegitimate. Only on the basis that drunk driving is such a risk to society is this allowed. The stop there for is only for that purpose. It is not argued that check stops are legitimate on the basis of looking for a broken tail light - or even lack of insurance. It is bad enough that ones "inalienable rights" are being violated on the basis of drunk drivers. There is no legitimate justification for abridging these rights on the basis of searching for a broken tail light.

Cops should not be able to ask for your license, registration, insurance. The sole purpose you are being arbitrarily detained is to check to see if you are drunk... check if the person is drunk .. apologize to that person for violating their rights (this should be mandatory to remind police officers of their place) and stop detaining that person. You may have just made them late for work or a job interview.

So what are these 2 things in Australia and 1 thing in the US ?

 

I was working in Canada when this was 'new' news and they were playing snippets on the radio. My Canadian counterpart was busily bashing Trump until Trump started talking about folks going across the border and scuffing up shoes to sneak em through customs... and he was like 'OK, well thats true, everyone here does that...' and promptly went back to calling Trump a liar.

I just thought it was humorous.

 

It was not so much about Trump being a liar in relation to this actually happening - cross border shopping to avoid sales tax - the "dotardness" was that he was speaking about Tariffs - and there are no Tariffs on US shoes in Canada.

 

So where do you stand on victimless crime?

Jury duty in both countries and compulsory voting in Australia.

 

In general - no victim = no crime. I do however recognize the legitimacy of law so long as there is "demonstrable" overwhelming majority consensus.

 

Nothing on jury duty? I'm stunned! Perhaps you simply missed it.

 

I do not support forced jury duty nor forced voting. I would be more for some kind of requirement for education (a short course) prior to allowing someone to vote rather than forcing idiots to vote.

 

How do you think people should be found guilty if not by a jury?

 

I like jury's. Not sure where you are getting this from. We do not need to force people into "jury duty" in order to have jury's.

 

Oh right. I just can't see how it would work without it being compulsory. You think that people would volunteer to disturb their lives and potentially get mentally scarred?