Redstate

When homosexuals are accommodated it is called tolerance; when Religion is accommodated it is called oppression. The Ninth Circuit has been ruling that way for years.

As long as marriage is considered to be a civil right, same sex unions must logically be permitted. We are seeing the outcomes of letting the debate be carried out under that premise. But marriage has never has been a civil right; it has always been a religious Blessedness - and that is the auspice under which it is to be discussed. Any other 'banner' is a usurpation and a fraud.

As long as government treats married couples differently than non-married couples, it is a public/civil issue.

Member, American Conservative Party

Well, ever since the government involved itself (for tax and also legal reasons for cases in which there was no will when someone died), that status has been hotly argued.

From that perspective, it becomes a civil issue and has often been judged as such in the courts.

I have no problem with civil unions as they are the contractual involvements between adults. I open that up to anyone. If 100 adults want to enter into a GIANT constractual agreement, ok.

It isn't Marriage.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

In our town, no house can be built within 10 feet of the property line.

Can you discern the moral underpinning of this law? Of is it just evil?

Member, American Conservative Party

Zoning Regulations are just that: Regulations. I work with them every day and they change, unlike actual laws, by a board of unelected officials.

That is why they are not Constitutional issues, as was the subject of the post you replied to.

You are making a dishonest comparison.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I will cop to the later, not the former.

Smoking has been outlawed in all public places - including private businesses in this community.

Moral law? Constitutional law? Some communities did it by vote, others by legislation.

Member, American Conservative Party

Those who passed the no smoking laws would say that they did so because it was a matter of public health, which has its roots in morality.

That I disagree with such laws, as an invasion of property rights of business owners doesn't change that those who passed those laws did so on moral grounds.

Hell, even SPEED LIMITS have morality in them. They are (supposedly) based on what a road can safely handle, so the idea is that it is an issue of public health and welfare (not to mention the gas savings of driving at 55 instead of 65)....

I can't think of any laws that do not have a basis in morality.

That we may DISAGREE with the morality or the government mandate.... that doesn't remove the moral stance taken by the law itself.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Make the appeals to morality kinda... lame.

People who support gay marriage do so because they believe that it is far more moral to allow gay marriage than to forbid it.

People who oppose gay marriage do so because they believe that it is far more moral to forbid gay marriage than to allow it.

So then you have to get down into the nitty gritty of what the morality of this vs. that actually is and compare things.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I apologize. I can not support a system that determines my liberties are subject to the moral code determined by the majority - or even a minority. I don't think our Founding Fathers wanted that.

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Member, American Conservative Party

I apologize. I can not support a system that determines my liberties are subject to the moral code determined by the majority - or even a minority. I don't think our Founding Fathers wanted that.

It has nothing to do with Founding Fathers.... it is the nature of Law.

It is, intrinsically, what a law is: An extention of a moral code, enforced by mandate.

Why is murder illegal? Because of the morality of human life and the morality of removal of that basic right to life.

If it makes you feel better, look at it the other way around:

Morals are unofficial laws with no teeth, enforced by societial acceptance rather than force of punishment by government.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Because all this time, I thought our laws were based on rights.

Member, American Conservative Party

Recognizing intrinsic rights of a person is a moral stance on the value and freedom a person has by nature of being a person.

so while laws are checked against our rights to see if the government has the ability to apply them, the law itself is still based on the moral basis of those who push for it to become a law.

I don't know that you're a moron and the mock humility is kind of bothersome, but that's another issue.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I certainly am not going to attempt to dissuade you from your morals. If your position is one that the laws and rights we have are based on a set of agreed (at the time) upon morals, then attempting to change the laws or rights first has to change the morals - for a principled person, an impossibility.

I took these words at face value:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

They may have been based on a set of morals, but I see no judgment, no values here. I have taken this phrase to mean that the rights are there, whether enumerated or not. For me, the morals are on top of the rights, not their support.

As for the mock humility - I assumed as Conservatives we were on the same page - fighting for rights, those inalienable rights. From your positions, and comments, it seems the majority of Conservatives are just fighting for the supremacy of one set of morals over another.

That is a fight I can not join, because it is a fight with no chance of success. Principled people on both sides will never change by definition...there can be no compromise, no meeting of the minds.

Member, American Conservative Party

As for the mock humility - I assumed as Conservatives we were on the same page - fighting for rights, those inalienable rights.

Right, but you still don't have a right to force the majority to change the definition of the word Marriage to mean what it does not, because you, the minority, deem it so.

That is what you keep arguing for, and when the people don't vote your way, you seem to not have a problem with the courts forcing your issue.

Tell me how that is a conservative ideal.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Principles are the MOTIVATIONS that influence the creation and to enforcement of laws. However, laws are made in accordance with a PROCESS that can easily go off the tracks with respect to sound principles.

Conservatives love the Declaration of Independence, but if you cite the Declaration of Independence in an argument to Justice Scalia, he will rightfully say "its not a source of law in the US."

Justice Scalia is exclusively concerned with laws and the U.S. Constitution. The Federalist Papers may give insights to interpretting the Constitution, but they are not sources of law. Same to be said for the Declaration of Independence.

I agree with you the laws should be based on Founding Principles. However, that does not mean that laws contrary to those principles can't be proper laws. For example, take the income tax. A constitutional amendment was enacted to enable to income tax. Now laws take that opening and do all sorts of things contrary to the principles of the Founders.

Income tax is still the law of the land, despite the deviation from sound principles.

Understand?

Excellent insight.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Because all this time, I thought our laws were based on rights.

Member, American Conservative Party

I suspect that your (or anybody's, really) answer to this question contains pretty much the thing that we're really arguing about.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Because all this time, I thought our laws were based on rights.

Member, American Conservative Party

and on principles.

However, there are lots of dumb laws that seem to infringe all sorts of rights.

We have a system of self-government. From a strictly legal standpoint, the entire system can be modified if a super-majority can be sustained long enough to go through the hoops of a Constitutional Amendment.

Principles are the goals we strive to implement.
Process are the tools we have to build things out of the dirt and mud.

The Poet Alexander Pope wrote a poem about the dual nature of man, being both angel and animal.

We can be angelic in our principles, but in terms of process, we are animals.

The following points are true and not contradictory:

(1) The Founders undoubtedly believe that certain uses of power were true to the spirit of freedom and that others were not

(2) The Founders expected elected representatives to at least try to do what is right instead of what is merely expedient

(3) The Founders set up a system where the majority rules in most cases, and in cases where it does not, different types and frameworks of super-majorities do rule

Put another way, the Founders created a system that included the Bill of Rights, and a means to amend or even remove rights in the Bill of Rights.

An amendment to the Constitution deleting the Second Amendment would be legal, it just wouldn't be the right thing to do.

Your rights are subject to the whims of the majority in many cases, and to the whims of the super-majority in all other cases. However, it does not make the whims right, it merely makes them legal.

If 80% of the country wants to repeal the First Amendment and that support can sustain itself long enough to amend the constitution, your legal right to free speech is gone (rule by the super-majority hampered by procedural requirements).

The only other alternative to this is judges that just make of the laws as they see fit.

The following points are true and not contradictory:

(1) The Founders undoubtedly believe that certain uses of power were true to the spirit of freedom and that others were not

(2) The Founders expected elected representatives to at least try to do what is right instead of what is merely expedient

(3) The Founders set up a system where the majority rules in most cases, and in cases where it does not, different types and frameworks of super-majorities do rule

Put another way, the Founders created a system that included the Bill of Rights, and a means to amend or even remove rights in the Bill of Rights.

An amendment to the Constitution deleting the Second Amendment would be legal, it just wouldn't be the right thing to do.

Your rights are subject to the whims of the majority in many cases, and to the whims of the super-majority in all other cases. However, it does not make the whims right, it merely makes them legal.

If 80% of the country wants to repeal the First Amendment and that support can sustain itself long enough to amend the constitution, your legal right to free speech is gone (rule by the super-majority hampered by procedural requirements).

The only other alternative to this is judges that just make of the laws as they see fit.

The following points are true and not contradictory:

(1) The Founders undoubtedly believe that certain uses of power were true to the spirit of freedom and that others were not

(2) The Founders expected elected representatives to at least try to do what is right instead of what is merely expedient

(3) The Founders set up a system where the majority rules in most cases, and in cases where it does not, different types and frameworks of super-majorities do rule

Put another way, the Founders created a system that included the Bill of Rights, and a means to amend or even remove rights in the Bill of Rights.

An amendment to the Constitution deleting the Second Amendment would be legal, it just wouldn't be the right thing to do.

Your rights are subject to the whims of the majority in many cases, and to the whims of the super-majority in all other cases. However, it does not make the whims right, it merely makes them legal.

If 80% of the country wants to repeal the First Amendment and that support can sustain itself long enough to amend the constitution, your legal right to free speech is gone (rule by the super-majority hampered by procedural requirements).

The only other alternative to this is judges that just make of the laws as they see fit.

n/t

self-govern himself. If he didn't we wouldn't need laws to govern over and protect us from each other.

Because man cannot govern himself, we need laws so that man may more effectively govern himself.

Because man refuses to spend his own money wisely, we need taxes so that man can have the money spent effectively on his behalf.

And so on and so forth.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

that properly balances the individual rights of different people. Most if not all rights are not absolute.

I have the right to free speech. I don't have the right to break into your house at 4am and give you a 30 minute ranting in favor of Ron Paul. Your property rights trump my speech rights in that instance.

As technology and economics expand, it becomes harder and harder for even federalists and libertarians acting in good faith to agree on the proper balance.

There are all sorts of examples where my rights get trounced in favor of other rights and interests.

For example, no serious Constitutional scholar would disagree with the U.S. government can take ownership of my home (after providing compensation) to put a nuclear missile silo where my basement used to be.

Rights are like ripples of water in a lake or ocean. They can be trumped and engulfed by other ripples.

We hope these decisions are made carefully and based on principle.

Under the Constitution, if you can get 80% of the country to gang up on the remaining 20% for an extended period of time, the 20% can be turned into the slaves of the 80%.

The only defense against this is the hearts, minds, and souls of your fellow citizens.

This is the ultimate gut check.

If our society en masse loses its ability to reason, or foresakes it, we are doomed.

The only defense against this is the hearts, minds, and souls of your fellow citizens.

Nah, I also have guns.

I give those up under two conditions:

1.) They are pried from my cold, dead hands.
2.) one round of hot lead at a time.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Arguments like, hey, maybe the Jim Crow laws were immoral... but at least they followed the process.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

one could make that case, I guess.... but the quick rebuttal is "Yeah, but they were done away with by the same process."

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

But before then, they would have been legal but immoral, joining a long litany of legal but bad laws.

I am not sugar coating this. I think it is helpful to realize that 80% of the country, could legally make the other 20% their slaves.

The point is that the Constitution does not eliminate the possibility of mob rule.

It places super-majority requirements on certain things.
it places procedural hoops that need to be performed.

The only defense against tyranny is that a sufficient % of the population reject it.

That is the bottom line

Prior to our Constitution, most governments were the other way around.

Around 10% (or less) of the population could make 90% (or more) of the population its total slaves. (Particularly in cases of monarchies or dictatorships)

We provided for a near total reversal, without resorting to total anarchy.

Our Founding Fathers were very smart indeed and, I believe, Guided by a certain Architect.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

In Vino Veritas

Courts didn't enforce the Constitution as it then existed.

Judicial activism in not striking a law.

At the same time Ohio was ratifying the 14th, it was passing state laws essentially barring Blacks from entering the state. The whole of modern interpretations of the 14th is nothing more than judicial activism. The really important thing about the 14th was that it repudiated Confederate debt and guaranteed that US war bonds would be repaid in gold; that's what the authors really cared about. Second, and a far away second, was offering some protection to freed slaves that they would not once again become enslaved through state law. The rest of what we're all told the 14th means is just modern day twisting and bending of its words.

In Vino Veritas

blacks in the same position as whites. That is the plain meaning of the words.

Bork addresses your point by saying that Brown v Board should have made a finding that facts and history showed that separate could not be equal and to thus explicitely reverse Plessy and not base the decision on the need to have whites in the same classroom as blacks to be equal.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

the majority chooses to live within. To break these boundaries brings some form of punishment or penalty. In regards to homosexual marriage the penalty is simply the denial of some civil protections. Some people just find this excessively cruel to deny two love birds some civil protections, but there are many forms of sexual orientation that are equally denied, that is for the time being.

And yes, socialism is a form of over-governance just as libertarianism is a form of under-governance. Hince the reason we have legislatures to weigh things in balance.

The founders would find the courts decision against the will of the majority reprehensible.

Ok, then I guess I will be accused of finally showing true colors. If laws are based on morality, then laws that infringe on my liberties - property rights, helmet laws, no smoking in my business - are in fact an attempt to impose the morality of others on me. Because the principle that "the individual is sovereign" and "individual rights" are secondary to the moral basis of the law.

That laws might find their basis in a set of moral beliefs that I do not share I find that to be an intolerable affront to everything I think/thought this country stands for.

It seems that such a basis for laws can be used to justify virtually any affront against my liberty. Is this the system we support?

Member, American Conservative Party

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

If laws are based on morality, then laws that infringe on my liberties - property rights, helmet laws, no smoking in my business - are in fact an attempt to impose the morality of others on me. Because the principle that "the individual is sovereign" and "individual rights" are secondary to the moral basis of the law.

I don't agree, but I can see the logic you used, yes.

Remember that we are not an anarchy where you are an island onto yourself.

It seems that such a basis for laws can be used to justify virtually any affront against my liberty. Is this the system we support?

I didn't say I agreed with their morality, nor do I believe that every of morality requires a law. I was merely addressing your point regarding morality found in law.

Remember, you may want to run around naked in public, smearing green jello on your body. Doesn't mean it is an infringement of your rights if you cannot.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I didn't say I agreed with their morality, nor do I believe that every of morality requires a law. I was merely addressing your point regarding morality found in law.

But you don't disagree that it is a valid basis for creating laws...the only disagreement is what/who's morality is the basis?

Member, American Conservative Party

Laws are bits of moral code that a government chooses (by whatever means the government does the choosing, be it monarch edict or democratic vote) to enforce.

So yes, you create laws to enforce morality upon the public.

Now, where we has humans disagree is not whether or not laws contain morals, but upon which moral code to we base laws?

Here in the United States, they are based on a Judeo-Christian moral worldview.

In Iran it is an Islamic worldview.

Here in the United States, we have a particular focus on personal freedom, which is also part of a Judeo-Christian worldview, and so we have far fewer laws governing personal action (though the Democrats are working hard to change that) than much of Europe or the Middle East, etc.

Our disagreements come from what moral basis to use and whether or not it is the role of the government to apply a law to a given situation.

However, none of that changes what a law is.

If you do not think that laws are based on morals, what do you define a moral as, what do you draw your morals from and upon what do YOU think laws are based if not morals?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Given the discussion, I am unable to answer your questions. They are beyond what I have ever considered.

MY system of personal rules, morals(?) is based on the premise that the individual is sovereign. I have inherent rights on the basis that I exist. However, this absolute right to myself, is constrained by the FACT that YOU are sovereign also. For each right inherent in me, an equal, inalienable right exists in you and every other human. Any affront on your rights by me is acknowledgment that my rights are neither inherent nor inalienable.

From this, everything else flows.

Member, American Conservative Party

to maximize human freedom for the most people and over a long term time horizon. Thatis my governing principle for making laws. I definitely acknowledge that a lot of immoral behavior should be legal behavior. There should be a gap between what is ethically and morally desired and what is legally required.

That being said, our law making process, however aspirational and principled-guided it is, is still at its core a process.

If 80% of the people on an extended basis want to make Roman Catholicism illegal by amending the First Amendment, they can legally do so.

I would argue against such a change as being contrary to the principles of the contrary. However, it would not be illegal.

My choices at that point would be departure from the country, civil disobediance, or advocacy to amend the constitution.

Ultimately, the only defense we have against tyranny is that enough of the country WONT amend in the constitution in ways that are stupid.

However, when Judges twist and contort the Constitution to fit their indvidual desires, they will risk at some point getting people to think more and more about using constitutional amendments to resolve issues. That is a door I would rather not open, but if it happens, it will be the fault of judicial activists.

55 mph? 65 mph? You are joking.

They'll take 95 mph away from me when they pry my steering wheel out of my cold, dead hands...

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Eh, I don't speed.

I drive in the right land, going the speed limit.

Now, there are times I can't do that. Flow of Traffic laws and all that.

But I'm one of those nerds who, at three am in a tiny town, will stop at a stop sign.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

to facilitate neighborhood harmony by avoiding dislocation resulting from an error in the property line (disputes have occurred where people end up owning the other persons wall)

You may laugh at this, but the Supreme Court does far more gymnastics in interpretting the commerce clause of the Constitution

Plat Setbacks also ensure that no Use will require a person to violate the property rights of another.

However, most Zoning Regulations are to ensure that an area 'look pretty' and have nothing to really do with property rights.

In fact, some have argued that Zoning Requirements are unconstitutional as they infringe upon the property rights of the property owner (but good luck getting ANY government to relinquish power)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

While the state DOES hand out a license to "Sell X", the ability to sell Medication X is not a requirement to sell Medication X.

The license permits sales, it does not, and ought not, require it.

There should be no requirement that a Pharmacy MUST sell any product.

By requiring a pharmacy to sell something they do not want to remove the ability for the pharmacy owners to run the business as they see fit.

While we may disagree as to the need for a license (and I admit that I go back and forth on the licensing issue.), I find it odd that you would condemn the need for a license, but then try to use the license as a 'forcing tool' to require a business sell something.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

The existence of the license automatically means that no one, no one at all, can legally sell X except those folks with licenses.

If I try to sell X without a license, I will be thrown in prison.

If I try to buy X from someone who is selling X without a license, I will be thrown in prison.

If I go to my doctor and my doctor writes out a perscription for some X for me and I go to my local license holder and say "you are the only one in this area authorized to sell X, here is my note from my doctor, I have my co-pay here in my sweaty little hand" and the pharmacist says "nah, that's no good here"... then he is not holding up his half of the bargain that the license entails.

Now if Pharmacy A is across the parking lot from Pharmacy B and Pharmacy A is run by Christian Scientists and they sell only rubbing alcohol and candy bars while Pharmacy B, a few dozen yards away, sells pretty much everything... this is not a big deal and folks who make a stink about it are being fairly silly.

But if Pharmacy A is the only place in town where you can legally buy X and they, for reasons of conscience, refuse to sell it... then there is a problem.

While I agree that the best solution to the problem is to say "hey, no more barriers to entry! If you want to sell or buy X, you can!", I also have enough reason to leap to the conclusion that this ain't gonna happen.

Once again: This is the best solution.

Given, however, that the War On Drugs stands in the way of these things (and it's not going away any time soon), we're stuck with wondering how to deal with people colluding with the government to prevent a legal product from being sold to people who have a doctor's prescription to purchase it from licensed distributors.

So I ask you: Apart from pie-in-the-sky solutions such as "have an amazon.com for prescriptions", what solution do you have? Tell people who have doctor's prescriptions to purchase X from a licensed distributor that if they don't like living next to a Christian Scientist Pharmacy that they should move because taking licenses away from Christian Scientists in order to give them to some agnostic pharmacist is a violation of Liberty?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The existence of the license automatically means that no one, no one at all, can legally sell X except those folks with licenses.

Exactly right. For many licensed things, I believe it is to just function as job security, but that's another issue.

If I go to my doctor and my doctor writes out a perscription for some X for me and I go to my local license holder and say "you are the only one in this area authorized to sell X, here is my note from my doctor, I have my co-pay here in my sweaty little hand" and the pharmacist says "nah, that's no good here"... then he is not holding up his half of the bargain that the license entails.

There we disagree. A license grants the ability to do something. It is not a REQUIREMENT to do something.

I have a license to carry a concealed firearm in the state of Oklahoma (and other states that honor it), but it is not a REQUIREMENT that I do so. If I carry a concealed firearm without a license, I go to jail... but I am not REQUIRED to carry a firearm.

I have a license to drive in the State of Oklahoma. If I drive without a license in the state of Oklahoma, I go to jail, but there is no REQUIREMENT that I drive.

I am certified to perform CPR. If I do not have such a certification and I damage someone, I can be sued (With a certification, I am protected by "Good Samaritan" Laws), but there is no REQUIREMENT to administer CPR (but you can bet that I will, even if it is Michael Moore or President Fonzie from Iran)

But if Pharmacy A is the only place in town where you can legally buy X and they, for reasons of conscience, refuse to sell it... then there is a problem.

You see a problem, I see an opportunity to get a license and open up Pharmacy B, in direct competition.

Tell people who have doctor's prescriptions to purchase X from a licensed distributor that if they don't like living next to a Christian Scientist Pharmacy that they should move because taking licenses away from Christian Scientists in order to give them to some agnostic pharmacist is a violation of Liberty?

I would petition the city/town/county/borough government to work on getting Pharmacies to move in. Call Wallgreens or Wallmart. (In fact, I believe one of those two can mail you medications.)

The market DOES provide a way without mandating what private businesses are required to sell (Oddly enough, this sounds a bit like the other thread about the government mandating what a health insurance company be REQUIRED to cover.)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I am not saying that health insurance companies be required to cover any/everything.

I am, however, saying that the State creates a distortion of the market when it says that only Licensed Practitioners can provide X, it is the agency where Licenses are handed out, it can arrest people for purchasing X when they purchase from a non-Licensed distributor, it can arrest people for selling X when they do not have a license, and it is lobbyable by the license-holders to limit the number of licenses handed out.

And waving aside all of those things in order to say "What about Liberty?" when it is questioned whether licensed distributors who refuse to sell X are failing to hold up their end of the deal strikes me as... well...

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

As I said, I go back and forth on licensing.

I'm not sure that it is the Government's job to regulate and ensure quality and honest nature of vital businesses as Doctors and Pharmacies.

I know that I wouldn't want to learn firsthand that this medication I'm taking is CALLED Metformin, but is actually flower mixed with pool chemicals, because it was cheaper.

However, I don't know that it is the government's job to regulate it.

So I see your point of view on the Licensing..... I just can't agree that a solution is to require that a business sell Medication X if they do not wish to.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

It's my opinion that it should be the job of the FDA to slap a label on the bottle saying "The FDA has determined that Doc Johnson's 100% Snake Oil contains 100% Snake Oil" and if you find a bottle of Nurse Thompson's 100% Snake Oil that doesn't have that label slapped on it, you'd best think twice about whether it really contains 100% snake oil.

But that's another rant entirely.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

When I get my Metformin, I never see the bottle.

I get generic bottles used by pharmacies.

They take the right number of Metformin pills out of the Metformin Bottle and put it into this generic bottle that they put a label on.

Their license is what gives me the confidence that what is in that bottle is metformin and not rat poison.

Though, if it were rat poison, I wouldn't be around to complain.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Because the Tylenol is still in the Tylenol bottle without having been counted by someone and put into a generic bottle.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Those who make Tylenol have a license to make Tylenol.

And, at least with Tylenol, I have a bottle there from the manufacturer saying what is in it, with a tamper-proof cap.

When I get a prescription from a Pharmacy, I get a generic bottle with a label the pharmacy printed stuck on it, with a cap called 'childproof' that any 4 year old could open, with no tamper-proof seals.

That's where I go back and forth on the licensing. I am generally opposed to any government mandated quality control, and it is an issue I struggle with.... finding the balance, and all that jazz.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

a basic right in some sense to be able to purchase a prescription. However the reality is that purchase of a prescription is no different from any other economic transaction. If I go to the only grocery store in my town and they don't sell crackers then I either drive somewhere else or do without. There is no reason why any business in a free market should be required to sell any product it does not wish to sell. To require it to do so is intrusive.

The problem is that too many today have assumed they have certain rights to purchase etc. and that a private business that will not meet their requirements is denying their rights. This is a modern conceptual idea. The conservative view says that additional business will arise to provide the needed products/services and in the mean time the consumer must do without.

You are assuming some basic right deny me the ability to purchase, for example, birth control pills.

Let's say that I suffer from a monthly sickness that totally leaves me positively wrecked for three days and there is a magic little pill that can turn "positively wrecked for three days" into "2 days of general malaise". I take this magic pill, once a day, and find that the quality of my life is improved dramatically.

You say "The flaw in your argument is that you have assumed a basic right in some sense to be able to purchase a prescription."

I rejoin: You assume some basic right to tell me that I shouldn't be able to purchase it.

But let's go on:

"The conservative view says that additional business will arise to provide the needed products/services and in the mean time the consumer must do without."

This is where we come into the whole "licensing" thing.

If the State can deny folks a license, then the State can prevent the additional businesses from arising.

This is the distortion the government creates in the market.

This is what I'm objecting to.

But I say, okay, so let's say that that isn't going away, what do we do when the licensed distributors say that they have no intention of distributing?

Making appeals to Liberty seems odd, in this case... as the Liberty of the person to be able to purchase, for example, birth control is denied. The Liberty of any given person to open a competitive shop is denied... and so when someone says "take the license from this guy and give it to that guy who will distribute", people start screaming "Liberty, Liberty, Liberty".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Are you suggesting that the Government is conspiring with Pharmacies to not allow birth control?

I guess I'm a bit confused there.

See, there are, in today's age, alot of different ways to get prescriptions, even in the highly unusual and odd case of only having ONE pharmacy anywhere near you, which apparently does not sell any medication.

There are multiple pharmacies that allow you to receive medication via the mail.

If anything, there is even LESS of an excuse to not be able to get your medication than in times past.

These days, if you want birth control, move to New England and join the 6th grade. They give it out there without parental notification or consent.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

That being cool with the following:

1) The State having the power to say who can sell X.
2) The State having the power to say who cannot sell X.
3) The State having the power to imprison those who sell X without a license.
4) The State having the power to imprison those who buy X from an unlicensed distributor.
5) The State having the power to deny licenses to qualified applicants.

Making appeals to "Liberty" when it comes to protecting the monopoly power of the licensed distributor to refuse service to prescription holders is not particularly moving as an argument.

For the record, and I believe I said this above... I would be cool with something like Amazon.com for prescriptions and I think that that would solve the vast, vast, vast majority of the problems.

If it is, in fact, possible to get the stuff from Walgreens.com or Walmart.com, I'd be cool with that.

However I suspect that The War On Drugs has done a great job of hobbling exactly what you can and cannot get via the internet. (People may be using that iodine for making meth rather than a first aid kit, you know.)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

on the part of business to refuse to sell certain products. This basic function of American economics is backed up by hundreds of years of free market economic history.

In regards to the licensing thing -- I understand your point and agree that the particular scenario you posit is problematic. However, in my experience government does not hand out a "limited" number of licenses to pharmacies so I am not aware of any instance where they hypothetical situation you are concerned with actually exits.

Additional I would still maintain that the historical response to being unable to find a product locally is to find it elsewhere. This has always been the case and I see no overwhelming reason to change this pattern of economic response. A diabetic might "need" low sodium food from their supermarket. They might live longer if it was available. But you don't take them to court if they choose not to sell it.

What I am not cool with is the government denying the right of people without licenses to sell the thing in question while protecting the monopoly power of the licensed distributor of the thing in question.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I would also be uncomfortable with the government acting as you suggest. The reason I responded is I have seen the argument used before as a reason to require business to sell certain items and I am not aware of any instances where consumers have actually been denied the ability to purchase said products.

Thanks

we should do away with bar exams for lawyers..arbitrarily discriminating against one group from another to 'practice' law ahould be stopped!!

I'm not entirely sure of this but the ability to sell the 'X' at a retail establishment comes down to having a licensed pharmacist on staff (i.e. no pharmacist no license to buy or sell). Even hospitals are required to have a pharmacist to supervise the dispensing of medications.

Again using your reasoning, if I open a convenience store and don't carry your favorite brand of anything you should be able to go to the state and force me to carry it. If your doctor prescribes something he knows is not immediately available he can start his own dispensing pharmacy (new revenue source!) or direct you to where it can be purchased! There is no reason to force a privately owned business to sell anything it doesn't want to.
If you want that much 'control' shut down the private pharmacies and make them all state run We all know how well that would work out!!!

"Again using your reasoning, if I open a convenience store and don't carry your favorite brand of anything you should be able to go to the state and force me to carry it."

This is not my position. The interesting thing is that if you went to Walgreen's and said "I would like to purchase some Dr Pepper" and the White Coated person behind the counter said "We don't serve Caffeine-drinkers here, perhaps you'd be happier in California", you could come up to me and say "dude, can I buy a Dr Pepper off of you?" and I could sell you a Dr Pepper and no one would kick down my door and point a gun at me for doing so.

This is not the case for Yaz (see our ad in Ladies Home Weekly).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

How about Oxycontin or Oxycodone? Why should I need a prescription to get it?? Why can't I just plunk down my money and get what I want?? There have been a number of pharmacies in smaller towns here who no longer carry some of the more powerful pain killers because they've been burglarized too often. Are you going to penalize them for not carrying the drug you need??

I really do favor a limited government. I think a 50% reduction in no DOD positions would be a good start.

This is one area where I truly believe government licensing to control precription medications is a good thing! Requiring a licensed pharmacist to oversee the dispensing of controlled medications gives a greater surety that these medications will not be misused. The threat of losing your license would tend to make you more responsible. Will it completely control misuse? No, but 90% is better than 0%.

Unless and until all pharmacies become government owned and managed they are still PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES! As such they are free to stock or not stock anything they are legally entitiled to sell.

You're arguing that it requires a license is a red herring. Anyone who wants a license can get the education, take the test, pass, pay the fee and get a license. Pharmacists are a high demand profession. You'll get job offers way before you graduate. There are no limitations to the number of licenses the state will issue! You might have a leg to stand on if there were a severely limited number of licenses available, but there aren't so you don't.

Look at it this way, most states require you pass a bar exam to practice law. That fact has not led to a lawyer shortage has it??? Got a problem with your local pharmacy? Find another one and give them your business or get a license and start your own. If the one you don't do business with loses enough customers they may change, go out of business or you could buy it and get into the pharmacy business and run it any way you please!!!

Would probably get you to start yelling about The Children. (I would have used antibiotics as an example rather than Oxycontin were I arguing against me.)

As for the argument that if you don't like that the only place where you can legally buy X decides not to sell it (this isn't a question of stocking it, it's a question of being willing to order it and sell it to you) then you need to go to school for one/two years, apply for a license, then open your own business...

This strikes me as a bit of an undue burden.

Again: If there was something like an Amazon.com for prescriptions, this would all be moot.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

That creates an opportunity for a new competitor to come in and offer a full range of products.

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

"Licensing" creates a barrier to entry and thus a market distortion if the government upholds the monopoly power of the extant licensed providers.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

These aren't nuclear secrets...

Getting a license isn't that hard to do. Yes, it does involve some education and may take a year or two to get the degree required for a license....

but we're not talking about needing top secret status to ensure that nuclear secrets stay secret. (Are there any left? I mean, with Jimmy Carter spouting off, who knows if any nuclear secrets are left.)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

"I would like to purchase some X from you, the sole licensed distributor in the area, and I have a prescription for it here."

"We don't cater to perverts like you. Perhaps you'd be happier in San Francisco."

This creates an undue burden on the customer.
Again, the best solution, to my mind, is not to force the pharmacy to start carrying Prescription-Strength Sudafed or whatever.
It's to make Prescription-Strength Sudafed or whatever available to whomever wishes to buy it from multiple, multiple sources (like an amazon.com for prescriptions!) or to lower the barriers to entry to become a pharmacist or to allow pretty much anyone with a storefront to sell pretty much anything on any shelf (pre-packaged aspirin is available pretty much everywhere... why not pre-packaged Oxycontin? It can be like 1910!).

But I understand that any/all of these solutions that I think are better aren't acceptable to most folks. I'm okay with that.

But the fact that they aren't okay with the other solutions I'm proposing is what makes me wrinkle my brow when they suggest that we're dealing with a "Liberty" issue when a pharmacist refuses to sell this, that, or the other.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If I choose to live hours from a major city and a major airport, is my liberty unduely burdened?

I made the decision where to live.

If someone wants a drugstore on every corner, there are plenty of places they could move too.

Liberty is not the government guaranteeing that you can have your cake and eat it to.

If easy access to pharmaceutical products is a high priority, the person can choose to live where such products are readily available.

If living in a rural area that is sparsely populated is a high priority, the person can choose to live accordingly.

There is no liberty right to have the advantages of a certain location without the disadvantages.

There is no undue burden on liberty if a person chooses to live in the mountains but does not have a lot of options for good cell phone coverage.

You are ignoring the fact that people can choose where to live.

...forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

1.) I've lived in some pretty remote, small towns, but there was always more than ONE pharmacy. Always. The idea that there's some town somewhere in which there is only one place within one brazillion miles to get medicine is kind of a shady hypothetical you're proposing.

2.) Tell me why a Pharmacist would know the sexual orientation of a person getting medication? Last time I viewed my medical record I didn't see a reference to "Lance is Straight, so you can treat him like a real person."

I lived in a small town called Victora, MN. Within half an hour of me was a Walmart, two Targets, a handful of Walgreens and 3 pharmacies that operated inside of Doctor's offices.

There really is no shortage of pharmacies or pharmacists. Especially not now that you can have your prescription faxed to walgreens and have your medications mailed to you.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I have no problem with this place or that place refusing to stock any given item.

If, however, a licensed provider of a product refuses to sell said product and that creates an undue burden on the citizenry, then that is a problem.

I've said, again and again, what I think the better solutions to this issue are... as well as to why the appeals to liberty on the part of the pharmacy owner strike me as sort of hollow.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

(1) move
(2) pursuade someone to open a business in the area
(3) invest themselves to open a business
(4) travel to obtain the item

If, however, a licensed provider of a product refuses to sell said product and that creates an undue burden on the citizenry, then that is a problem.

Yes, but having to go to Walmart instead of Walgreens hardly qualifies as 'undue burden on the citizenry'

What it creates is a niche market for Walmart.

I've said, again and again, what I think the better solutions to this issue are... as well as to why the appeals to liberty on the part of the pharmacy owner strike me as sort of hollow.

Uh, a Pharmacist saying "No, the government doesn't have a right to REQUIRE me to sell Medication X." is an issue of liberty and rights of property/business ownership. That the government will not allow you to buy oxycodone by the truckload from any and every source you can find, as you see fit.... that is kind of irrelevant.

The government saying you can't sell something is the same as the government saying that you have to. It is the government mandating what you can do.

That you're more upset about your inability to get narcotics on demand than you are about the government's attempts to force a business to sell something it does not want to sell kind of confuses me.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

It's one thing if you were discussing a rural county office with only one clerk around, but in LA county you've got hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of qualified clerks. What's wrong with a clerk being allowed to pass off the request to his buddy behind the desk? Why does the LA City Attorney want to stick his finger in people's eyes with his aggressive language - this is imposing an agenda NOW rather than trying to show some humanity and sensitivity.

This policy seems designed to evoke a reaction (which the attorney can then skewer with accusations of homophobia, racism, etc.) rather than to try to win hearts and minds. But I guess if you've got the power for the moment, it's time to pin your opponent against the wall and start screwing.

It could be interesting to look into the LA County attorney's past behavior - this sounds like he's got an axe to grind.

Hopefully this will be an outlier in the larger public discourse.

After all, regardless of how the November initiative goes down, gays and gay marriage aren't going away in the public debate (just as abortion remains on the front burner) - and if we can't treat those on the other side with some decency, then we're going to just fan the flames of civic discord unnecessarily into a raging inferno.

And Rightly So!

Below, somewhere...

I've got no problem with this guy or that guy saying "sorry, you changed my job description!" as long as it doesn't create an undue burden. If, however, the only clerk willing to do a gay marriage ceremony has a backlog of such cases and the conscientious objectors have open dockets... allowing heterosexual folk to mosey in, get 'er dun, then mosey out...

Well, the "separate but equal" *ISN'T*.

And then we have a problem.

And, I'll say again, my sympathy for public servants' distaste at the various creeds of the citizenry goes only so far.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Look, I don't see that we have much, if any, disagreement on the small office scenario, but that's not what's going on in Los Angeles.

We've got one of the most populous county in the state, clearly no shortage of available clerks - probably even multiple clerks at the same office.

What then is going on with the LA City (not county) Attorney muscling in to a county issue and pre-emptively saying that no accomodation is possible (versus the attitude in San Diego)?

Especially given the long case histories in the country and state of employers trying to accomodate to their employees on all sorts of other issues.

Don't you think there's a rather intolerant attitude coming out from this City Attorney, as I've discussed above - and tolerance is what the whole topic of the blog is about?

And the irony is that this intolerance is coming out in the guise of enforcing tolerance.

And Rightly So!

say about 10 per hour for breaks, that's about 80 per day, wait...make that 60 (civil servants don't all work 8 hr days) That's 300 per 5 day week. So the 'happy' couple may have to get 'civil ceremonied' on a different day than they want. Get an appointment. Hetero couples have that same problem and have to find a different day. Their choice usually comes down to what day is my pastor or minister or priest available! What if the illegal immigrant couple want a ______ (fill in the with language of your choice) ceremony and there's only one clerk who can do the ceremony in ______ (fill in the with language of your choice)and she's backlogged? There's a large asian population in L.A.! How about Mandarin Chinese or Japanese? The county court house ain't a fast food drive up!

For that matter why don't we do away with the ceremony altogether. The original pupose of the verbal commitment was because people were illiterate making verbal oaths the only way that they could communicate their promises. As someone once said " a verbal promise ain't worth the paper it's printed on". The only real interest the government has is in witnessing the signatures on the document. All the flowery stuff and the "I do's" are just window dressing to the signatures on the dotted lines of the 'civil union' or 'marriage' c