[Vision2020] re: liquor liability

Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:15:08 -0800

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2D37B.13E52E20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Upon review of your analogy, Mr. Courtney, it is clear that the grocery
store in former East Germany did not (and could not) provide more of a
variety than the "state" allowed.  However, unlike East Germany, variety is
plentiful not only here in the United States, but in Idaho as well.  You can
attend public schools (funded by tax dollars) or you can attend private
schools.  Public morals notwithstanding, one is only limited by his/her
imagination and drive.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Courtney [mailto:dale@courtneys.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:20 AM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] re: liquor liability

Bob wrote:

> Uh, Let's see.  I'm no historian, but I thought the Federal Constitution
> says all powers not exclusive to the federal government are reserved for
> the states. 

That was true. I would argue that it hasn't been true for the last 150
years. When we won the war on racial slavery we lost the war on Federalism.
But that's a different story for a different time. 

> And I'm no lawyer, but since Idaho is a state, and the Federal
> government is not in the business of running a general public education
> system, I thought it was State's jurisdiction to be in the schooling
> business, if the state wants to be, which Idaho obviously does, given the
> state's constitution.

That's where I would disagree. Just because the State wants to be in the job
of doing something doesn't mean it should. 

I remember traveling in East Germany in 1979. I went to a grocery store to
get some cereal for breakfast. There were only two options for cereal on the
shelves in the entire store -- and their flavors were "bad" and "worse"
(they really were awful). I asked the clerk at the counter why there were
only two types available and she told me that's all that the State allowed.
Anything more was wasteful and extravagance. For this boy raised on Ayn Rand
and objectivism, it was a stark realization of what the Libertarians had
been saying all along. 

I do *not* want either the State of Idaho or the Federal Government telling
the people what they can/cannot have. By being in the business of providing
a "service", the State is de facto telling us what we can/cannot have and
do. 

Dale Courtney
Moscow, Idaho

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2D37B.13E52E20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Upon 
review of your analogy, Mr. Courtney, it is clear that the grocery store in 
former East Germany did not (and could not) provide more of a variety than the 
"state" allowed.&nbsp; However, unlike East Germany, variety is plentiful not 
only here in the United States, but in Idaho as well.&nbsp; You can attend 
public schools (funded by tax dollars) or you can attend private schools.&nbsp; 
Public morals notwithstanding, one is only limited by his/her imagination and 
drive.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Tom 
Hansen</DIV>
<DIV>Moscow, Idaho</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
 <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Dale Courtney 
 [mailto:dale@courtneys.us] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:20 
 AM To: vision2020@moscow.com Subject: RE: [Vision2020] re: 
 liquor liability </DIV>
 Bob wrote: &gt; Uh, Let's see.&nbsp; I'm no historian, 
 but I thought the Federal Constitution &gt; says all powers not exclusive 
 to the federal government are reserved for &gt; the 
 states.&nbsp; That was true. I would argue that it hasn't been true for 
 the last 150 years. When we won the war on racial slavery we lost the war on 
 Federalism. But that's a different story for a different time. &gt; 
 And I'm no lawyer, but since Idaho is a state, and the Federal &gt; 
 government is not in the business of running a general public 
 education &gt; system, I thought it was State's jurisdiction to be in the 
 schooling &gt; business, if the state wants to be, which Idaho obviously 
 does, given the &gt; state's constitution. That's where I would 
 disagree. Just because the State wants to be in the job of doing 
 something doesn't mean it should. I remember traveling in East 
 Germany in 1979. I went to a grocery store to get some cereal for breakfast. 
 There were only two options for cereal on the shelves in the entire store -- 
 and&nbsp;their flavors were "bad" and "worse" (they really were awful). I 
 asked the clerk at the counter why there were only two types available and she 
 told me that's all that the State allowed. Anything more was wasteful and 
 extravagance. For this boy raised on Ayn Rand and objectivism, it was a stark 
 realization of what the Libertarians had been saying all along. I do 
 *not* want either the State of Idaho or the Federal Government telling the 
 people what they can/cannot have. By being in the business of providing a 
 "service", the State is de facto telling us what we can/cannot have 
 and do. 
 Dale Courtney Moscow, 
Idaho</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2D37B.13E52E20--