Debate : 14117


Off-Topic / Debate / 14117	14116 \| 14118

Subject:	Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:20:13 GMT
Viewed:	369 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: > > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: Why don't you people trim anything? > > > > We *could* pass a law requiring all airline passengers to travel completely > > > > naked with all baggage checked, which might help stop hijackings but that > > > > doesn't make it a good idea, or aligned with the bill or rights. I didn't see this original note...that's not a bad idea actually! I think we need more nudity. :-) > > I've given an example of a law that CLEARLY > > would help stop hijackings. After all, it denies the terrorist a place to > > hide his weapons (or bomb control remote). Do you dispute that it would help > > stop hijackings to require nudity? If so, please explain. Did you read _Diamond Age_? What about the goombah with the gun in his forehead? > Why do we want to stop hijackings? To protect life and commerce? Your > proposal will not do the latter. How's that? People would get used to it and commerce could continue. > > But it's a *silly* idea. That was the *point*... it stops a class of > > hijackings (the class that required a weapon concealed on your person) yet > > it *nevertheless* is unconstitutional and is a *bad idea*. Well, there is that...I guess...actually, how is it? Do we have ninth amendment rights to clothing? Why not say that our right to clothing is like our free speech with regard to shouting 'fire?' Chris

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
(...) Go to Iceland. They have that there. According to _Maxim_ (not the worlds most reliable source) anyway. (...) Implied right to privacy makes it unconstitutional for government to require it, I think. (anyway it's required to make the example (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
(...) "may well" is not "is" (...) So you have no basis for your mudslinging??? Have you no shame? (...) Why do we want to stop hijackings? To protect life and commerce? Your proposal will not do the latter. (...) You were taking a principle to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

49 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search