. . . Jason. Of all people that I could get into an internal debate with, I thought that you'd be the last one to miss critical details of an argument. And you certainly know me better than to honestly accuse me of being a moderate (assuming you were making such an accusation in the first place).
Seriously, and I say this as a friend, make sure you read my original post, first rebuttal, and this rebuttal at least twice before you advance your argument further. The premise you seem to think I'm operating from isn't necessarily so. While it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, my core premise is keyed to a specific legal definition and precedent. Until you get that point, we're going to continue to argue across each other and accomplish nothing.
(Although I gotta admit - sitting here in my favorite bar with a glass of wine in one hand and slice of "meat lovers" pizza in the other - the mental picture of you blowing a gasket because you're missing my point is mildly amusing, if in a twisted sort of way.)
I'm not dismissing any particular counter-argument per se. What I am doing is refusing to be dragged off into the weeds by "counter points" that miss the point. This includes arguments centered around illegal aliens, Democrat incompetence, police misuse of statutes, random demonization, and bogus science. All that's going to accomplish is a blatant violation of Reagan's Eleventh Commandment - and we really don't need to be providing Mr. Mason with a wedge opportunity; he invents enough on his own.
I submit that everyone save a true Anarchist will admit that government is a necessary evil of human existence. (The Declaration of Independence agrees on this point.) Since government is necessary, it seems to follow that government's activity will, over the natural course of events, intrude into private life. To limit government intrusion to only where it rightly belongs, the United States has a Constitution that specifies the limits of the government's authority and reach.
A key element of that constitution is the Ninth Amendment, which may be rightly interpreted to provide that no citizen can exercise his rights in a way that infringes upon or jeopardizes the rights of another citizen.
Now I submit that there are two types of private property:
The first category of private property we both agree is supposed to be completely legally immune from government intrusion, absent a lawfully obtained warrant for a specific purpose. (This doesn't change even if, for example, I have a standing invitation to drop by your house at any time; the public still isn't welcome unbidden.) It is the second category of private property about which we are debating.
- Private property which is not open to public access; such as a private residence, vehicle, club, or beach
- Private property which is open to public access for the purpose of conducting business; such as a restaurant, bar, daycare facility, or small enterprise
In like manner, I understand "public hazard" to be something, seen or unseen, that endangers others in the immediate vicinity by its very nature. Thus, the guy pounding down a fifth-third burger, two chili dogs, a banana split, and three beers in one sitting isn't endangering anyone but himself (though I wouldn't recommend sitting near him while that's digesting). However, if he's inebriated when he gets behind the wheel to drive home, then he's endangering everyone else on the road, and the police have the inherent authority to do something about that.
According to the Hale v Henkel decision I cited in my second rebuttal, as soon as you open your property to the public, you invite government intrusion . . . for the purpose of protecting the rights of individual members of that same public. That's not up for debate; it's a settled legal precedent from a century ago.
(And if I'm off on any of this as a matter of interpreting the law, then show me where, and I'll amend my argument accordingly.)
What we are debating, then, is only the limit to which lawful government intrusion is appropriate . . . and nothing else.
I draw the line at one point; you draw it elsewhere. That's neither advocating nor opposing Statism; it's a legitimate discussion over appropriate application of a principle that we hold in common. I have no emotional attachment to this issue, nor do I view this as dropping our agreement ratio to any lower than 98%.
I'm very comfortable with the principle of individual responsibility, and I practice what I preach. But I include in that principle the responsibility to not intrude on others' rights in the course of exercising my own.
Do you do the same?