Where can I find an empty tropical island?

[longflyball]

This is political, but it is non-partisan and something that everyone should be able to relate to, so hopefully it won't get pulled.


The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts. - Edmund Burke

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

I have no idea if these are properly attributed; the point comes across regardless.

You can't smoke in the neighborhood bar. You can't eat a fatty meal. You can't talk on your phone while driving. Cameras take pictures of your car and send you tax bills in the mail. You can't fly without a federally issued ID. The state automatically collects your DNA if you are suspected of a felony. SWAT teams invade your home with guns drawn to serve warrants for non-violent narcotics offenses - and invade the wrong home and shoot innocent people. Your middle school kid gets expelled and interviewed by police for having tylenol in his locker or calling someone "gay". Your middle school kid can't pack junk food in his lunch. If your house or business sits on a piece of property that is attractive to a politically-connected developer, it is no longer yours. The state physically assumes control of your thermostat during a heatwave (this one needs a link (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=24543)).

I can't be the only to notice these components of a nanny (or dare I say, fascist) state gradually piling one on top of the other.

[square634]

I wish you luck (keeping this thread open).

[RShack]

Well, you can in fact find them... http://www.privateislandsonline.com/caribbean.htm

But as soon as more than 2 people show up, then some folks starts teaming up against somebody else, and it's all downhill from there...

[longflyball]

Well, you can in fact find them... http://www.privateislandsonline.com/caribbean.htm

But as soon as more than 2 people show up, then some folks starts teaming up against somebody else, and it's all downhill from there...

Why am I not surprised that your contribution to this thread is to link to a site that sells tropical islands? :cool:

[SilentJames]

Obviously this is all Peter Angelos' fault

[RShack]

Why am I not surprised that your contribution to this thread is to link to a site that sells tropical islands? :cool:
OK, I'll bite... what kind of contribution would you prefer? I'm willing to play along...

[TonySoprano]

Obviously this is all Peter Angelos' faultIt used to be Tejada's fault, but he was traded.;)

[cindyluvsbrady]

Somehow Disney Cruise lines has one.:) Maybe you could buy that one? It is VERY nice!:)

[sakata_catching]

Non-partisan, huh?:rolleyes:

[rolliefingers]

it is non-partisan and something that everyone should be able to relate to

Hate to break it to you, but you're wrong on both counts. Hope you find that deserted island you're looking for, because civilized society is probably going to be pretty rough for you.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I hear ya man, it's ridiculous. The other day I heard that if you assault someone, you actually end up in trouble with the law. Buzzkill!:rolleyes:

[longflyball]

Would any of the previous three posters care to make a specific argument in favor of the government regulating any of the above aspects of our lives? Or are you content with making sarcastic and dismissive wisecracks?

I guess this is why these threads get pulled.

[Mark Carver]

This is political, but it is non-partisan and something that everyone should be able to relate to, so hopefully it won't get pulled.

I have no idea if these are properly attributed; the point comes across regardless.

You can't smoke in the neighborhood bar. You can't eat a fatty meal. You can't talk on your phone while driving. Cameras take pictures of your car and send you tax bills in the mail. You can't fly without a federally issued ID. The state automatically collects your DNA if you are suspected of a felony. SWAT teams invade your home with guns drawn to serve warrants for non-violent narcotics offenses - and invade the wrong home and shoot innocent people. Your middle school kid gets expelled and interviewed by police for having tylenol in his locker or calling someone "gay". Your middle school kid can't pack junk food in his lunch. If your house or business sits on a piece of property that is attractive to a politically-connected developer, it is no longer yours. The state physically assumes control of your thermostat during a heatwave (this one needs a link (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=24543)).

I can't be the only to notice these components of a nanny (or dare I say, fascist) state gradually piling one on top of the other.

If Montgomery County MD had their way back in 2002, you couldn't smoke in your own home!

Maryland county ridiculed for attempted smoking ban (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=566)


Montgomery County, Maryland, already nationally known for its stringent anti-smoking laws, passed and then retracted a law penalizing people for smoking in their own homes. The law was approved on November 20, but was retracted just seven days later after the county became the object of national and global ridicule.

Under the law, a person could be fined up to $750 for each time a neighbor complained about smelling tobacco smoke coming from a person's home. The law was originally drafted to protect persons from exposure to indoor pollutants such as asbestos, radon, molds, and pesticides. However, the Montgomery County Council voted to add tobacco smoke to the list of alleged pollutants.

[sakata_catching]

Would any of the previous three posters care to make a specific argument in favor of the government regulating any of the above aspects of our lives? Or are you content with making sarcastic and dismissive wisecracks?

I guess this is why these threads get pulled.

I'm merely suggesting that omitting the word "liberal" from the sort of screed one might hear on any given day spent listening to the likes of Michael Savage or Glenn Beck makes your argument neither politically neutral or particularly ingenuous.

And, yes, that is precisely why these threads get locked. Not quickly enough in some cases.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Would any of the previous three posters care to make a specific argument in favor of the government regulating any of the above aspects of our lives? Or are you content with making sarcastic and dismissive wisecracks?

I guess this is why these threads get pulled.

Sure dude! I hate cigarette smoke -- the majority of people who do not smoke hate cigarette smoke. I enjoy being able to go to a bar/restaurant and leave not smelling like I walked out of a Marlboro factory.

Oh yea, and that whole second-hand smoke thing.

And you're probably right, the government shouldn't take measures to prevent people running red lights, I bet there have never been any car accidents due to people running red lights.

There! Sarcastic AND informative!

Again, :rolleyes: to you.

Hey! I got it! Move to Baghdad! They sorta don't really have a government there right now, I bet you could do whatever you want, including running red lights without getting a ticket in the mail!

[Mark Carver]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[Pedro Cerrano]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

So being able to smoke in a bar is an "essential liberty?"

[rolliefingers]

Sure, why not.

You can't smoke in the neighborhood bar.

Increasingly, no. You can, however, walk outside, smoke, then walk back in. Smoking is not a natural act, whereas breathing untainted air is. The majority of people don't smoke and don't want to breathe toxic fumes inside. They should have that right.

You can't eat a fatty meal.

Yes, you can. What are you talking about?

You can't talk on your phone while driving.

In some places. I don't really care. I think it's kind of a ridiculous law, but whatever. People should focus on driving, but I guess if someone can talk and drive without hurting anyone, they shouldn't be penalized. But personally, I think that cars themselves (or, rather, the institutionalized reliance our society has on them) is the real problem. Traffic, and the tension and aggravation that goes with it, is a huge problem; my solution is neither to make laws against it, nor to complain about said laws. My solution is to live as close to work as possible and take public transit. Laws like this one are a suburban concern; I don't care.

Cameras take pictures of your car and send you tax bills in the mail.

I do agree with you here; there's something very creepy and unfair about the police being able to collect these fines without physically apprehending you. I'll concede this one.

You can't fly without a federally issued ID.

Oh, the tyranny! This is what keeps you up at night? Really? The airspace is a public space. It's completely legitimate to regulate who can fly and who can't. Should drivers not be licensed? This is one of he most absurd things I've ever read.

The state automatically collects your DNA if you are suspected of a felony.

I don't think this is correct, but I could be wrong. SOME states collect your DNA if you are CONVICTED of a felony. Am I wrong? Plus, I thought conservatives were supposed to be all about nabbing the bad guys. This practice significantly helps with that process. I live in Baltimore City, so I'll err on the side of law enforcement on this one. When and if abuses come to light, I'll be right with you at the protest.

SWAT teams invade your home with guns drawn to serve warrants for non-violent narcotics offenses - and invade the wrong home and shoot innocent people.

I don't think that non-violent drug-related activities should even be crimes in the first place, so I guess I agree with you here. But, like most of your rant, this bit is completely vague and non-specific; do you have a particular instance of this happening? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but your argument would be a whole lot stronger if you came with specifics.

Your middle school kid gets expelled and interviewed by police for having tylenol in his locker or calling someone "gay".

OK - expelled? I agree that, generally, no child should be expelled for doing either of these things, but again, have any specifics? If a kid is calling another kid "gay", then you need more details - was it a one-time thing, or is this the 34th incident? Does Kid 1 punch Kid 2 as well? Bullying should be dealt with. Are you saying that bullying should be Constitutionally protected speech?

Your middle school kid can't pack junk food in his lunch.

Again: Huh? Increasingly, schools can't SERVE junk food to kids, but since when do individual lunch bags get searched? What are you talking about?

If your house or business sits on a piece of property that is attractive to a politically-connected developer, it is no longer yours.

I have my own issues with eminent domain, but your rant omits the fact that owners are amply compensated for their property.

The state physically assumes control of your thermostat during a heatwave (this one needs a link (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=24543)).

Haven't looked at this one yet, but I'm sure your source is well-researched and not at all biased.

[longflyball]

So being able to smoke in a bar is an "essential liberty?"

No, the owner of a bar being able to decide whether or not he wants smoking in his bar is an essential liberty.

[rolliefingers]

So being able to smoke in a bar is an "essential liberty?"

...And having guaranteed access to non-harmful air to breath is not an essential liberty. Interesting.

[Mark Carver]

So being able to smoke in a bar is an "essential liberty?"

How about government telling an individual(s) what they can and can't do with their business.

[Pedro Cerrano]

How about government telling an individual(s) what they can and can't do with their business.

This happens all the time. Hell, zoning laws dictate what types of businesses can open in certain locations.

Should someone who wants to open an industrial plant in the middle of a downtown business district be allowed to do so because it's his money and his business?

Or should the government be able to say "you can't open that here" for a wide variety of reasons including public health/safety.

[rolliefingers]

How about government telling an individual(s) what they can and can't do with their business.

Defending public health is a legitimate use of government power.

[The Wedge]

Non-partisan?

BLAHAHAHA, oh man, that's the funniest thing I've read in a while.

What, he was serious?

That's kinda the saddest thing I've read in a while...

[Mark Carver]

This happens all the time. Hell, zoning laws dictate what types of businesses can open in certain locations.

Should someone who wants to open an industrial plant in the middle of a downtown business district be allowed to do so because it's his money and his business?

Or should the government be able to say "you can't open that here" for a wide variety of reasons including public health/safety.

As a non-smoker my whole life, if I go into a bar/restaurant that allows smoking. It should be my decision to decide whether to stay or not especially since the product that is being banned, is a legal substance, that is heavily taxed.

Smoking bans further expand government into peoples lives...

[The Wedge]

The thing I've always read about the smoking thing is that while people can choose to go to bar that has smoking or not, the people who work there don't get that choice, so it infringes on their rights.