Non-crime hate incidents - yet another not-at-all-Orwellian reality

[Guitar's Cry]

I missed this painful admission .. as predicted .. going through life beliving the lie .. that fallacious utilitarianism is a valid argument.

So OK .. Let us have it your way .. "if it saves one life" -- in Guitar Legal land -- is valid justification for law

I feel like you are talking around me, using little strawmen in order to ignore the larger issue: my argument is that legislation is sometimes required to ensure the rights of citizens in danger of or already suffering from losing them. You argue for preserving essential liberties below, so this should be common ground, but you are focusing on trying to argue against an utilitarian justification. Whether or not my argument (or even yours, since preserving essential liberties for all citizens could be argued as, at heart, utilitarian) is becomes irrelevant if we both agree that preserving essential liberties is important in a Constitutional Republic.

Guess we better ban skiing aye mate -- how many lives we gonna save ! -- What about Boating ... talk about dangerous .. one could drown.
Driving a Car .. No way .. one of the most dangerous things you can do .. and ya know might as well not get out of bed in the morning as one might fall down the stairs and break neck ... Forget walking .. did you not know that activity is 400 time's more risk of harm than a terrorist attack.

Its completely arbitrary - every Judge rendering different opinion -- a complete mess

But, the big problem .. is that this justification for law does an end run around the safeguards put in place to protect Individual liberty .. they are not considered at all in the equation .. which is an anathema to the definition of Constitutional republic .. Since you don't know what this means I will "Splain it" to ya.

Thats when you have certain rights and freedoms known as "Essential Liberty" that is ABOVE - the legitimate authority of Gov't. KK -- U Understand now ? Gov't has ZERO legitimate authority to make law messing Essential liberty in a Constitutional Republic "BY Definition"

K .. but Utilitarianism justification for law completely avoids this complication by not considering the rights of the individual in the equation. in the process giving Gov't Unlimited power.


So lets ask you a simple question .. are you for or against limitations to Gov't power ?

Given my above statements, I hesitate to answer this lest it act as another distraction. My above response should serve as sufficient to continue the discussion.

 

[Sargonski]

I feel like you are talking around me, using little strawmen in order to ignore the larger issue: my argument is that legislation is sometimes required to ensure the rights of citizens in danger of or already suffering from losing them. You argue for preserving essential liberties below, so this should be common ground, but you are focusing on trying to argue against an utilitarian justification. Whether or not my argument (or even yours, since preserving essential liberties for all citizens could be argued as, at heart, utilitarian) is becomes irrelevant if we both agree that preserving essential liberties is important in a Constitutional Republic.



Given my above statements, I hesitate to answer this lest it act as another distraction. My above response should serve as sufficient to continue the discussion.

That is not what you have been arguing .. nor what the argument is about. The discussion is not about someone at risk of "HARM" - defined as is the definition for constitutional republic -- .. as in real physical danger as opposed to hypothetical imagined variety.

And we all agree with legislatislation for that .. its the legitimate authority of Gov't .. the whole reason why We have Gov't .. Why Gov't was created according to Classical Liberalsm -- Protection from Harm ... as in direct harm .. one person on another .... rape, murder, theft ..

but that is not what is being discussed .. nor are we talking Hate Speech .

Some politician or special interest group crying out "If it saves one life" .. is not valid justification for law banning skiing .. Read previous to understand why this is the case .. and why there were no strawman in the room .