Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    21 Jun '11 11:59
    Cos it sounds kinda scary.
  2. 21 Jun '11 12:06
    What does that even mean?
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Jun '11 12:44
    Of course not. The state has no authority to violate people's rights.
  4. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    21 Jun '11 14:25
    Originally posted by sh76
    Of course not. The state has no authority to violate people's rights.
    What should the state's rights be limited to?
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Jun '11 14:30
    Originally posted by kmax87
    What should the state's rights be limited to?
    They should be limited to only force and fraud, if I'm not mistaken.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Jun '11 15:13
    Originally posted by kmax87
    What should the state's rights be limited to?
    Well, I'm sure No1 will be along to tell us what Locke and Madison and co. thought about this, but my understanding is that by electing a government, we vest them with the authority to govern to any extent they deem appropriate provided that they do not violate people's rights.
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    21 Jun '11 17:48
    Originally posted by kmax87
    What should the state's rights be limited to?
    States don't have rights.
  8. 21 Jun '11 17:54
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    States don't have rights.
    John C. Calhoun thought they did!
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    21 Jun '11 17:56
    Calhoun thought blacks did not have rights. He didn't know what he was talking about.
  10. 21 Jun '11 17:59
    Originally posted by kmax87
    What should the state's rights be limited to?
    states should have no rights. there should be no states.
  11. 21 Jun '11 18:06
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    Cos it sounds kinda scary.
    there should be no police [in the USA]. law enforcement should be done by a locally elected sheriff and deputies and their only job is to honor their oaths to protect the constitution and people's rights.

    that would also involve the elimination of victimless "crimes" since no such crimes can exist under the constitution. in today's world, the police forces mainly exist to hand out fines for statutes violations rather than law enforcement.
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    21 Jun '11 18:08
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    there should be no police [in the USA]. law enforcement should be done by a locally elected sheriff and deputies and their only job is to honor their oaths to protect the constitution and people's rights.

    that would also involve the elimination of victimless "crimes" since no such crimes can exist under the constitution. in today's world, the police forces mainly exist to hand out fines for statutes violations rather than law enforcement.
    What happens when the local group of police becomes corrupt? This is a problem that has happened in my hometown.
  13. 21 Jun '11 18:11
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    states should have no rights. there should be no states.
    Just one big federal government that controls everything and provides all the services that the state/county/city governments are now responsible for?
    Wow that's a scary thought the size of the beaurocracy would be unimaginable.
    So the federal government would supply our state/county/city police, water and trash, road maintenance, schools, etc and there would be no states, etc?

    Step back from the podium...think about this for a second......that's an idea that needs to be looked at a bit before saying states shouldn't exist.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    21 Jun '11 18:11
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    states should have no rights. there should be no states.
    I think states are good. They're like the compartmentalized armor of modern warships - a bunch of bubbles, each seperately sealed, so when there's a problem in one, it can be contained.

    One solid bloc makes it harder for inside forces to challenge the President.
  15. 21 Jun '11 18:26
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Calhoun thought blacks did not have rights. He didn't know what he was talking about.
    Damn, my wry British refusal to use those emoticons really is laying me open to misunderstanding from RHP's American posters today. My comment about Calhoun was, of course, ironic.