How I might give Zjabs a heart attack or at least cause him to question reality .

At least the guy who writes here

Zabs is continually illustrating silly scenarios that highlight a few personal characteristics that he noticed about me. To make his point he often uses selective perception amplifying his absolutist protestations to the degree where I come off looking like one of Mao's true believers in a "great leap forward" where no thought or behavior deviation is allowed.

Either he is unaware or better yet deliberately has blinded himself to my social and economic Libertarian sympathies and even a few Capitalist ones.

Of course by avoiding the absolutist label I Am able to have sympathies in both Conservative and Liberal philosophies along with Socialist and Capitalist ones,but often realize that a particular characterisitc might even find a place in traditional Libertarianism.

I Am cheering on a long overdue step towards the legalization of personal drug usage beyond tobacco and alchohol which are the only two presently approved on a federal level for citizen consumption.

I will of course maintain my position that smoking freedom does not give someone the right to pollute the air I need to share in public places and drunk driving penalties serve continue a good social need.

I still maintain that an adult has the right to their own body to do with as they please. This extends way beyond the present legal status a private citizen enjoys at the present time.

A repost from 2009********************************************************************************

I also do not agree with the traditional "family value" some claim that declares parents have absolute authority concening a minor's rights. Limited authority, of course. Refusing them blood transfusions, starving or beating, sex abuse etc, No way.

Just because some Fundamentalist wacko sets up a commune and thumps a Bible this does not isolate the involved children from the reach and protection of civil law no matter how sincere the adult's actions might be.

So Z Man, I Am not absolutly wanting anything to be a part of my reality scene without allowing reasonable exceptions including Constitutional issues.

The last time I checked that document was on parchment , not stone or golden tablets.

It also was part of a greater social contract that for the most part (much more than you might admit to) works pretty well in the long run.

In order to do so it must be viewed in the greater context of history rather than reacting to what might be a deviation that will eventually be compensated for if found to be too unreasonable by contemporary society..

I think the Founders got it right in the context of the society they began to formalize. They could not have predicted every detail that has followed for the past few hundred years but did design an entire system not just an isolated document. In my opinion it still works quite well. Not perfectly as Z Man seems to think with the possibilities of "if only", just "quite well" as Albert 1. wants it to. I want to see common sense remain the basis of how it functions rather than the by the letter of some law as strict constructionists seem to think it should as they continue to interpret just as much as the people they oppose...

© 2009 Matt 7:6 - 1/18/13


add as favorite