Illegal=Immoral

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 11 2004, 11:57 AM'] Therefore the State has no Juristiction over the matter and CANNOT pass a just law regarding it. [/quote]
Doesn't the state say that in the company of your parents you may drink?

The problem with drinking in private is that you will probably leave (a party for example) and then you will be affecting the people around you.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 11 2004, 03:00 AM'] JeffCR07- I think you misunderstand the nature of my arguement It is not because of the door step that the Civil Authority ends at the doorstep with regards to drinking. Civil Authority is only there to promote Civil order and there for through insuring civil order, promoting the Public Good. The life of a citizen being taken is under the Authority of the State even in Private Homes because the continuation of Public order and therefore public welfare is always affected by the taking of a human life, the POublic Order and therefore welfare is not in any way affected by a 17 year old having a beer at his buddies house and not being in public while drinking it, nor while influanced by it. If it does not effect the publics welfare it does not come under the purveiw of the State at all, it is not within their Authority. If something does not in anyway affect the welfare of the public the State does not have authority over it and cannot justly pass laws regarding it, such an act is tyranny.


What I find amusing about your exaample is that in Texas ( my home) you could simply blow the guys head off and it would be very unlikely you would be breaking any laws at all( if it was at night you certianly would not be) where as if a 17 year old has a beer at his friends house even with his parents permission that is a crime unless his parents are there. the takeing of a Huuman life is directly relevant to the social order, the drinking of a beer in a private place is not, therefore one comes under the Authority of the State and the other does not. [/quote]
lol, I knew the Texas thing would get whipped out the moment I used the analogy

Don, it seems to me that your argument hinges on determining what is for the "public good" as can be seen when you state:

[quote]the POublic Order and therefore welfare is not in any way affected by a 17 year old having a beer at his buddies house and not being in public while drinking it, nor while influanced by it.[/quote]

Now this argument, unintended of course, leads to a relativistic outlook on the subject, which is never a good thing. The reason I say this is because your argument assumes that an individual citizen has equal authority to the government in determining what is or is not "for the common good." One individual might see "underage" drinking as not having anything to do with the common good, while another might see it differently. The problem with your argument is that neither opinion, ultimately, matters. Only the government has the right to legislate or repeal legislation that deals with the common good.

However, as I have said before, it is a parent's perogative to raise their children to the best of their ability. Moreover, the care of their child is of higher priorety than the public good in general (everyone is obligated to care for the wellbeing of everyone else, but even moreso for their own children). Thus, if a parent deems it necessary for the right raising of their child to oversee the drinking of that child, the parent of course has that perogative.

However, I maintain that this conclusion does not necessitate a relativistic notion of universal interpretation of what is for the common good, but rather can be entirely contained within the notion of the Order of Authority itself.

Thus, as I said before, a parent, who's first priority is the right raising of children, has the perogative to do that as they see most fit therein. On the other side, the obedience to a parent is of higher priorety than obedience to civil authority on the part of the child.

If the parent does not care one way or the other, then the child should of course not drink, out of respect for the Civil Authority, however, if the parent deems it wiser for the child to drink, then the child is obligated to follow the parent's advice.

Thus, we can achieve the same consequent without such relativistic means.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Don John of Austria]

I understand what you are saying however I am not being reletiveistic, I contend thatthere are objective criteria for the determination of what is in the Domain of the Civil Authority. Just a s there are Objective Criteria for what is in the religious Authority. Now the individuals opinion mattering or not is a differant issue entirely, but I would contend it is one duty to be vigilent as to when the Civil Authority is intruding on to the sphere of private life and therefore becomeing tyrannical. The protection of life is the primary role of the State, they have the right to make laws to protect life as long as those do not intrude on ones personal right to protect ones own life or the lives of those under your care, So they have every right to pass laws about public intoxication, or intoxicated driving, or even to the concequences to his care givers if a teen drinks to a dangerous level but they do not have the right to legeslate about diet, which is what drinking laws are doing.

[qfnol31]

I only disagree with the last part, because I am at a school where people get drunk often enough (sadly) for me to see it affects more than just those people.

[Theoketos]

Yes, our government is a just government, because it is a legitiment government, even though it causes grevious sins.

The way to change these bad things is not by unjust rebelion, but instead working through the messy system.

Underage drinking then really does nothing but provoke the system into being more unjust.

[Don John of Austria]

[QUOTE] our "legitiment government" is the product of an unjust rebellion so how can it be legitiment. And rebellion is not unjust when it is agianst an evil government, so says the Church even today, and has said so in Council in the Past.

[qfnol31]

How was ours an unjust rebellion?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]The problem with drinking in private is that you will probably leave (a party for example) and then you will be affecting the people around you.
[/quote]


Well that would fall under the purview of the State but the matter between parent and Child not in a public setting is not within their authority.

[qfnol31]

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

[quote]When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. [/quote]

Well, with just reasoning first.

[quote]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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.[/quote]

This is true. And it seems by this alone it is just.[quote]

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.[/quote]

That's some excellent reasoning.

[quote]We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. [/quote]

They only ask for separation here, not a war.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]How was ours an unjust rebellion? [/quote]


We rebelled over Taxes which where far below of what an Englishman in England was Paying, far below. We revolted agianst England over nothing but our pocket book and since we were getting a much better deal than a man in London it was a really greedy pocketbook.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 12 2004, 02:33 AM']Well that would fall under the purview of the State but  the matter between parent and Child not in a public setting is not within their authority. [/quote]
We seem to agree that it is just for a child to drink with his parents, and most (if not all) laws allow for this. I just don't think that the parents should give permission while they're not there (I've seen this happen), nor should they be allowed to give permission to other minors.

Edited December 12, 2004 by qfnol31

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 12 2004, 02:37 AM']

We rebelled over Taxes which where far below of what an Englishman in England was Paying, far below. We revolted agianst England over nothing but our pocket book and since we were getting a much better deal than a man in London it was a really greedy pocketbook. [/quote]
We found the king a tyrant. By Plato and Aquinas, he shouldn't be ruling.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
[/quote]

Read -- He is honoring the treaties with the Indians.

[qfnol31]

[quote]He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.[/quote]

This we just said is unjust. The difference between this and our current government is our government allows murder (abortion), while the king ordered it.

Edited December 12, 2004 by qfnol31

[Don John of Austria]

But he wasn't a tyrant -- He simply tried to rule us agian when his Father had neglected us, as for ravaging our coast, burnt our towns etc. It's called propoganda. Only 1/3 of the population wanted independence they imposed it on the other 2/3's a third stayed out of the war and a third violently opposed the rebels.