> Matthew wrote: > However, I'm not for a completely free and unfettered society > where anything goes - that's an anarchy and I don't think anyone wants to
If your point about anarchy is that it could inhibit your liberties - dead hookers on your lawn, for example - then I agree completely. Where we disagree is in the solution - you seem to be advocating that some arbitrary group of law makers should decided what's good and bad and then enact laws to force others to meet their arbitrary standard. I would take a position that says things you can do in the privacy of your home, that don't inhibit another's freedom, should be legal. However - some of these freedoms can pose a public hazard if unchecked so they need to be regulated. For example, unregulated prostitution can spread disease and unregulated drugs can spread crime and violence. Each of these "crimes of morality" has a regulation solution but will never work is making them illegal. For example, what percentage of kids under 21 haven't gotten hammered? Is the arbitrary standard there working? No. So don't have one, but wisely regulate as they do in Europe and Asia. And, of course, the most efficient way to discover the best solution is to remove these issues from the federal level and let the states experiment. Once a solution is found we all benefit. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:160066 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
