You DO NOT have the right to burn the Koran.

[ARealConservative]

I understand that working in conjunction within a community is essential, but the basis of valid moral laws is within the voluntary nature of them.

If community passes laws that I do not voluntarily agree to because I think they are stupid or immoral, what should I do about it.

This would depend on your conviction. I violate some. I follow others, and there are some things that would cause me relocate, and possibly even take up arms.

Plus, how do you think valid laws of such communities should be passed? Through oligarchy or rule of majority

If the principal behind removal of rights is to protect rights, then majority is the only way that makes sense.

Again I ask you, what if a few leaders on the local level decided that no churches could be built in your local community. What would be your reaction?

as an atheist, I would probably smile a little on the inside.

 

[LibertyEagle]

And what if I don't agree with the local laws?

Either ya love it or leave it?

/

Yup. You certainly do.

That is what is meant by the saying.... vote with your feet. We were never supposed to be a one-size-fits-all country. I shouldn't be having to tell you this.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

the original intent and understanding of the 1st was a limitation on congress and only congress.

Huh? The Bill of Rights applies to all government at all levels.

 

[Dr.3D]

So if my township decided to have "burn a kitten day" and I didn't want to participate, I should have to sell my home and move?

 

[WaltM]

Yup. You certainly do.

That is what is meant by the saying.... vote with your feet. We were never supposed to be a one-size-fits-all country. I shouldn't be having to tell you this.

took me a whole minute to get that.

 

[ARealConservative]

Huh? The Bill of Rights applies to all government at all levels.

sure, 100+ years later.

but not when it was originally ratified.

 

[Elwar]

Politicians talking about raising taxes sends me into a frenzy...

 

[Vessol]

Yup. You certainly do.

That is what is meant by the saying.... vote with your feet. We were never supposed to be a one-size-fits-all country. I shouldn't be having to tell you this.

That's how it was supposed to be under the Confederalist system, but the Federalist system changed that and made it null and void. It was a good system of checks and balances, but in the end it is still immoral.

Just because that is the way the framers originally intended things does not make it moral. How is it moral for me to be forced to relocate under threat of violence or imprisonment because I disagree with a local law?

You're using the argument that the idolizers of the Social Contract use when justifying their actions. Both Socialists and Neo-Conservatives alike. Don't like the interventionalist and anti-free market government, you can just move to another country you know!

 

[BFranklin]

I think people can burn the flag, the cross, the Bible, the Koran or whatever else they please. They can do what they want and make fools of themselves. Why would some person burning these things bother me? I wouldn't let it, I'd roll my eyes and thank God I live in a place where these things can be done.

 

[ARealConservative]

That's how it was supposed to be under the Confederalist system, but the Federalist system changed that and made it null and void. It was a good system of checks and balances, but in the end it is still immoral.

Just because that is the way the framers originally intended things does not make it moral. How is it moral for me to be forced to relocate under threat of violence or imprisonment because I disagree with a local law?

You're using the argument that the idolizers of the Social Contract use when justifying their actions. Both Socialists and Neo-Conservatives alike. Don't like the interventionalist and anti-free market government, you can just move to another country you know!

you are surrounded by evil statists that embrace their immorality

 

[Vessol]

you are surrounded by evil statists that embrace their immorality

The reason why taxation exists in the first place is so that people can steal the wealth from their neighbor without having to resort to violence on their part. How morale is that?

However many Statists, both here and around claim morality is the reason for so many things. It's a contradiction in that so many embrace the idea of morality yet fail to follow through with it.

Is it immoral for me to go to my neighbor, point a gun at them and to say "You can not ever burn a Qu'ran anymore! Never!. Is it moral for the government to do the same thing? Inconsistencies in morality are more common than warts on a old mans ass.

 

[ARealConservative]

I think people can burn the flag, the cross, the Bible, the Koran or whatever else they please. They can do what they want and make fools of themselves. Why would some person burning these things bother me? I wouldn't let it, I'd roll my eyes and thank God I live in a place where these things can be done.

I agree. And I think people can be free to picket, boycott, and take other voluntary actions to inflict financial harm on people that do such a thing.

Which leads us to this game of chicken. Knowing that others will be upset, and prone to picket and boycott, why should the employer be forced to also suffer from the financial blowback of actions taken by the employee?

 

[squarepusher]

I agree. And I think people can be free to picket, boycott, and take other voluntary actions to inflict financial harm on people that do such a thing.

Which leads us to this game of chicken. Knowing that others will be upset, and prone to picket and boycott, why should the employer be forced to also suffer from the financial blowback of actions taken by the employee?

who cares about employers? This worker should be happy and collect his unemployment for 2 years imo, hell probably get a few million now though

 

[Krugerrand]

This is what scares me:

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Sorry, Steve. Your rights are your rights - no matter how judges interpret laws.

 

[Vessol]

I agree. And I think people can be free to picket, boycott, and take other voluntary actions to inflict financial harm on people that do such a thing.

Which leads us to this game of chicken. Knowing that others will be upset, and prone to picket and boycott, why should the employer be forced to also suffer from the financial blowback of actions taken by the employee?

A employer and an employee enter within a voluntary contract. If the employee violates this contract in any way or if in that contract is a clause that allows the employer to terminate the employee at any time. I would fully support if an employer fired an employee who burned a Qu'ran or something else if it potentially damaged his buisiness. If that is what you are talking about.

IF however people decide that the burner of the Qu'ran must have their door broken in and then be chained up and locked up for months for their "crime". Then no I would not support that.

 

[Promontorium]

Certainly there are a lot of issues being thrown around here, but the justification for banning something because people don't take a shine to it is still unfounded. Nevermind your rights, as long as we're making shit up, do you believe if people vote to reinstate slavery that would be alright? If they vote to murder all children under 10?

If you think there's no federal establishment of supremacy for protecting rights, and such an arbitrary act as lighting fire to a piece of wood can be wholesale banned with literally no justification beyond authoritarianism or democratic vote, then you have defined no standards.

That is not a Republic you are describing. And it isn't even a voluntary system, because you give no quarter for rationality, if the first vote was to forbid movement, and the second vote was to commit mass murder, the victims would be criminals in your line of reasoning.

The idea of a republic is to accept that many things will be in flux, but some limitations on government exist. You say no limit should exist. By rejecting an all-encompassing standard, you must admit you have no standards. For if having a standard is a choice by the government, then it is never an absolute for the people.

 

[JustinTime]

Should it be a crime for me to make a credible threat to kill you or your children?

Is burning a Koran a credible threat to harm anyone?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

Because we'd all much rather live in a society where the first option is not freedom of expression but freedom to kill your opposition. Let's create a society where nobody ever needs to protest because they simply kill people they don't agree with.

 

[LDA]

The first amendment protects the right to free speech. This is not simply a limitation on the federal government. This amendment, along with other amendments included in the bill of rights, apply to all governments within the United States.

 

[PreDeadMan]

So if I buy a Koran... it's not my property? If i'm not allowed to destroy or deface it... how can it be my property? same with an american flag or <insert religious or nationalist symbol here>