Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Actually, Mr. Harris does NOT have a point. A 3-legged dog ban in Texas shows that the State is free from the intrusion of the federal government, but the society's freedom in Texas is lessened by the rule. The State government is not being oppressed, but it in turn is oppressing the people with its rule. A free society is free from government intrusion, whatever level they may be on. In Cook County, I am less free than others in Illinois, because the City of Chicago and the County of Cook place additional rules on me: how I must ride my bike, where I can walk my dog, a handgun ban, requirement to have a parking sticker, etc. etc. The society here is less free than in, say, Peoria.
|
Thanks for backing my point, which was that each of the States, counties, and cities are free to make their own laws and impose or alow actiona, activities. The Federal Gov't insures that we the people are free to move if we don't want to live under the rules our State, County, City has legaly passed. Each State is a seperate intity(sp?) not bound to follow the laws/rules of another State. We are a highly orginized Confederation of seperate States joined together for the greater good of all, yet free to ban/alow inside our own borders what we the people of each State believes should be baned/alowed. Maine is not bound to follow the laws of Alabama, Alabama dosen't have to listen to Iowa. A States gov't is made up of the people that live in the State and are legaly elected.
Society's freedom is lessened by any laws that are passed, a natural born murderer like Ted Bundy had his freedom lessened by laws that make murder illegal. The vast majority of people wouldn't have a problem with lessening a natural murder's freedom. but what happens when the legal process is followed and all of a sudden one our pet freedoms is outlawed? Do we accept it, do we try and change it legally, or do we become outlaws? questions we must each ask and answer for ourselves.