I don't know what the "LP website" is but I imagine it's a forum that a guy that calls himself a libertarian created in which said guy says that there are cases in which it's ethical for one person to murder, enslave or steal from another person. That doesn't make it so, nor does it him a libertarian. Oh, and a "representative" writing a law that says so doesn't make it so either. Isn't that the whole point of this thread?
http://www.lp.org/
Speculation regarding that LP website on your part is understandable. What is confounding is that you appear to not have investigated that LP website. I take responsibility for making a investigation of the LP website difficult for you. I have rectified my error as is indicated above.
The point of this thread is, in my reading of it, is whether or not a government has the authority, the legitimate authority, to require that a citizen obtain a license to exercise a right. I categorically object to a government claiming the authority to require a license to OC. I do not object to a government claiming the authority to require a license to CC. Though I disagree with a license requirement to CC. See Missouri constitution Article I, Section 23. Further more, OC and CC is not mentioned in the US Constitution so I, understandably, defer to the state as is mentioned in the US Constitution. See Amendment 10. We here in Missouri are working to rescind the constitutional authority of the state to require a license to CC.
It's good that they tried to include a mechanism for reshaping government. I don't think it addresses that there is a disconnect between two statements I was replying to, which was the point.
Your refusal to accept the obvious is on you, and not on those participating in this thread. The US Constitution clearly provides for the reshaping of our republican form of government. Liberty has been eroded due to the correct use (utilization?) of our form of government, not because our government was used incorrectly. Elections have consequences.
By the way, ignorant and anti-liberty judges can be removed from the bench using our current form of government. The very same form of government that placed these ignorant and anti-liberty judges on the bench. Elections have consequences.
Saying something is clear is not a rebuttal. Citing the law as proof of legitimacy of the law is not logical. Citing the law as proof of legitimacy of the law repeatedly when it's been explained that it's not logical is insane. This would be a great example if it wasn't for the fact that the authority of congress to declare war is one of the very things that's being challenged in this discussion and, therefore, the premise that delegation of authority outlined in the law, is not automatically accepted as correct. I thought that was the whole point of this thread.
Citing the obvious rebuts your position. But, I will indulge you on your finer point regarding what is being discussed here. Congress has the enumerated power to declare war. There is no provision for the executive branch to prosecute a war. A checks and balance mechanism is in place to ensure that the act of going to war is more than just a legal endeavor but a moral endeavor also. The failure of the executive branch to prosecute wars that are not only "legally declared".....'cough cough'.....but that are also morally just is irrelevant to the point of this thread.
Elected officials have the authority to write laws, even unconstitutional laws. The citizenry has a obligation to fix unconstitutional laws by either voting or seeking a redress of wrongs via the courts.
The purpose of this thread seems to me to be about the legitimacy of the claim of authority by government. Not about how much authority the government has actually claimed through legislation. The correctness of implementation is not something I was attempting to discuss.
What exactly are you trying to discuss? I explained how a lawmaker gains his authority and that that authority is legitimate.
I guess the problem in our communication is that we don't have a similar understanding of the word authority. You seem to be using it completely differently. Either that, or you're just evil.
Do you believe that the basis of authority is morality or power?
You refuse to accept the obvious meaning of authority and thus your accusation that I am evil because I disagree with your understanding (use) of the word authority makes our continued discussion impossible. You have demonstrated that you are not a rational person when you resort to "name calling."
{QUOTE}What exactly IS germane to this discussion? Interpretation of the law? Is that really all this thread is about? Doesn't seem to be to me! But if it is, I'll happily withdraw![/QUOTE]Good day to you Sir.