Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Return to Normalcy
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Return to Normalcy (Read 519 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53074
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Return to Normalcy
Reply #10 - Jan 7th, 2020 at 6:04pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 4:01pm:
You didn't say what the article you posted was about, so of course I didn't read it.
Geez, it's about normalcy. Are you dense?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53074
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Return to Normalcy
Reply #11 - Jan 7th, 2020 at 6:05pm
Print Post  
Industry wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 4:56pm:
Well everybody wants gay marriage rights that is just recognizing and agreement between two people the government should do that for everybody or nobody but really it is not the governments business to say who can get married at all.
You're talking about normal governments?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Return to Normalcy
Reply #12 - Jan 7th, 2020 at 6:44pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 6:04pm:
Geez, it's about normalcy. Are you dense?


Then why when I commented on normalcy did you say obviously I didn't read it?
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Biq Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1405
Joined: Mar 17th, 2019
Re: The Return to Normalcy
Reply #13 - Jan 7th, 2020 at 6:53pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote Today at 4:01pm:
Quote:
You didn't say what the article you posted was about, so of course I didn't read it.


Jeff wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 6:04pm:
Geez, it's about normalcy. Are you dense?


He's Kazzing and spazzing again.  He has nothing to contribute but he tries to get attention by luring you into a nonsensical conversation about that nothing.

Jeff, I have chided you in the past for the way you post links but this:

Jeff wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 12:30pm:
I know, "normal" is one of those unconstitutionally vague terms, but, everybody uses in everyday life, so it must mean something...

What might it mean in the context of government?

https://reason.com/2020/01/06/the-new-normal-and-the-prospects-for-a-post-politi...

My favorite quote:

"America's present need," Harding declared, "is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution but restoration; not agitation but adjustment; not surgery but serenity; not the dramatic but the dispassionate; not experiment but equipoise; not submergence in internationality but sustainment in triumphant nationality."

Students of history will recall that his term ended not in equipoise but in a wave of scandal and an untimely death."



is exactly the way links should be used.  You told us what the link was about, you quoted it briefly and asked a related question.

I do have to disagree with the way you have been using the term "unconstitutionally vague." in the last few days. 

It is true that the courts have stricken down some laws for being "unconstitutionally vague."  But that does not mean that it is unconstitutional for anything at all to be vague.  It is unconstitutional (according to the USSC) to pass a law so vague that it is difficult to know how to follow it.  It is not unconstitutional for a supreme court decision to use vague language in explaining why it upholds or overturns a law or rules on any other type of case. 

The word "normal" would probably be found unconstitutional if used in a law like, "It is an misdemeanor to walk on a public sidewalk that do not conform to normal standards of modesty."  Instead the laws usually specify which body parts must be covered in public.

For example, in Texas, exposing the genitals or anus is public nudity, exposing the genitals or anus is indecent exposure if done for the purpose of arousing any person.

None of that applies to breasts, but local ordinances can and police officers regularly arrest topless women even in the absence of such ordinances and charge them with disturbing the peace or even more egregiously, public lewdness.


But if a public nudity law was challenged, the court might rule that community standards requiring breasts to be covered comply with established local norms whereas a law requiring full burkas does not.  That wording of the ruling would not be unconstitutionally vague, or at least the courts have never held it to be.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
yamcha
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2781
Location: Southern California
Joined: Jul 5th, 2019
Re: The Return to Normalcy
Reply #14 - Jan 7th, 2020 at 7:25pm
Print Post  
Really, naked boob arrest?  Do the cops in Texas tell these women to "assume the position" while reading them their rights?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Industry
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 609
Joined: Jun 14th, 2019
Re: The Return to Normalcy
Reply #15 - Jan 7th, 2020 at 7:36pm
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 6:53pm:
None of that applies to breasts, but local ordinances can and police officers regularly arrest topless women even in the absence of such ordinances and charge them with disturbing the peace or even more egregiously, public lewdness.


I thought Yamcha made a thread about that but I forgot what was the answer if there is just enough government to have sidewalks and shit can you be topless or naked on them?

I know it doesn't like literally hurt me like make me bleed or anything but if some weird bum is outside my house jiggling his dick around I think it is OK for me to call the cops cause that is harassment.

Oh what about if he got a flashlight and he shines it in my window so I can't sleep at night that doesn't make me bleed either and what if he is not on my property when he is doing that?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
yamcha
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2781
Location: Southern California
Joined: Jul 5th, 2019
Re: The Return to Normalcy
Reply #16 - Jan 7th, 2020 at 7:49pm
Print Post  
That is totally different.  Shinning a floodlight into your room or playing loud music directly disturbs your living.  People going around naked is only potentially bothersome if you decide to look at them.  You have a right not to look.

But this is all silly NAP theory.  In reality, you walk around naked, people in the community will kick your ass if you are a man and cover you up if you are a woman.  There is theory and there is reality.  Your uncle oppo wants to own tigers and he can argue whatever he wants but if he takes his tiger on a walk then it will be killed.

You say that you are on welfare now but will be rich someday.  Why wait for that someday?  Why not today?  Being on welfare legally disallows you to ever be rich so you better get off of it today.  If you ever want to be my better than you need to stop taking my handouts.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53074
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Return to Normalcy
Reply #17 - Jan 8th, 2020 at 7:23am
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 6:53pm:
I do have to disagree with the way you have been using the term "unconstitutionally vague." in the last few days. 

It is true that the courts have stricken down some laws for being "unconstitutionally vague."  But that does not mean that it is unconstitutional for anything at all to be vague.  It is unconstitutional (according to the USSC) to pass a law so vague that it is difficult to know how to follow it.  It is not unconstitutional for a supreme court decision to use vague language in explaining why it upholds or overturns a law or rules on any other type of case. 
When the Court's decisions have the force of law, they must be rendered in language understandable to the average person.

What's the use of a vague law being explained in vague terms?

If I couldn't understand the law, and I can't understand SCOTUS' ruling on the law either, but the law still stands, meaning whatever SCOTUS described it to mean through vague language, how is the Court's vagueness doctrine satisfied?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Return to Normalcy
Reply #18 - Jan 8th, 2020 at 8:03am
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 6:53pm:
He's Kazzing and spazzing again.  He has nothing to contribute but he tries to get attention by luring you into a nonsensical conversation about that nothing.

Jeff, I have chided you in the past for the way you post links but this:


is exactly the way links should be used.  You told us what the link was about, you quoted it briefly and asked a related question.

I do have to disagree with the way you have been using the term "unconstitutionally vague." in the last few days. 

It is true that the courts have stricken down some laws for being "unconstitutionally vague."  But that does not mean that it is unconstitutional for anything at all to be vague.  It is unconstitutional (according to the USSC) to pass a law so vague that it is difficult to know how to follow it.  It is not unconstitutional for a supreme court decision to use vague language in explaining why it upholds or overturns a law or rules on any other type of case. 

The word "normal" would probably be found unconstitutional if used in a law like, "It is an misdemeanor to walk on a public sidewalk that do not conform to normal standards of modesty."  Instead the laws usually specify which body parts must be covered in public.

For example, in Texas, exposing the genitals or anus is public nudity, exposing the genitals or anus is indecent exposure if done for the purpose of arousing any person.

None of that applies to breasts, but local ordinances can and police officers regularly arrest topless women even in the absence of such ordinances and charge them with disturbing the peace or even more egregiously, public lewdness.


But if a public nudity law was challenged, the court might rule that community standards requiring breasts to be covered comply with established local norms whereas a law requiring full burkas does not.  That wording of the ruling would not be unconstitutionally vague, or at least the courts have never held it to be.




Little Biq Man wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 6:53pm:
kaz wrote Today at 4:01pm:


He's Kazzing


LOL, it cracks me up how you continually playground repeat back to me what I say.  That is a clear admission how impressed you are with what I said.  Thank you for the acknowledgement that you can't come up with better lines than I say to you, or in this case what I say to Jeff.

As for your response to what I said, it cracks me up that you two simpletons can't between you grasp the connection between TDS and a return to any sort of normal.  You're as much content as AOC. 

You may now return to blowing your boyfriend  Kiss

  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53074
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Return to Normalcy
Reply #19 - Jan 8th, 2020 at 8:12am
Print Post  
Is this normal?

https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/tesla-stock-most-valuable-car-company-51578...

I say no. In a normally functioning free market, the value of a company is actually related to something besides speculation in it's stocks.

Tesla is not in any way worth $83 billion dollars.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Return to Normalcy
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy