<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Mar 27 2010, 05:30 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Mar 26 2010, 01:08 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Mar 26 2010, 10:27 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Mar 25 2010, 08:42 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The licensing laws are dictated by the state, not the church.
Get. It. Right.
Pubs are ****, anyway.[/b]
Oh yes, I forgot that the Church had zero influence in the running of the country in the early years of the state. Didn't W.T. Cosgrave say he was a Catholic first and an Irishman second? Was the chruch not granted a special position in Bunreacht na hEireann? Did the activities of the Censorship board in the 30's and 40's the huge sum spent on the Eucharistic Congress of 1932, the ban on contreception, the ban on divorce, and the regulation of Dance halls by local Parish Priests not all reflect the huge sway the church had in Ireland politically? You can't be naive enough to think that the church did not have a big say in the drawing up of the constitution and law in the early free state and the law prohibiting alcohol being sold on Good Friday is a relic of that time. It does nothing but serve the interests of one group of Irish society, who's influence is rapidly declining. Get rid of it I say and make the move toward a more independant society.
[/b][/quote]
Groan. Grow up - the licensing laws are there to make money for the state. The STATE is the enemy, not the church.
The Founders of the American Constititution had far more influence on Bunreacht.
And a state employee calling for a more independent society? I would insert a sarcastic smilie, except I've had too much of this bullshit to pretend to be amused. Just be happy you have no mortgage, because the consequences of an out of control state will last for decades.
[/b][/quote]
Ahem, out of control government firstly, not state. There's a massive difference. And the state shouldn't be judged as the enemy of the people, quite the opposite really.
You do know that even if you are employed in the civil service you are fully entitled to criticise it? Perhaps my meaning was misconstrued when I said a more independant society. I mean a more independant society for the individual. I certainly do believe that the state should hold powers over crucial systems such as policing, health and national defence. There should also be state owned transport, electricity, communications etc. companies that compete with the private sector. Provide good enough services and people will utilise them. People should however, always have the choice to decide which services they wish to avail of and what body to do business with, just as they should have the freedom to drink on Good Friday if they wish.
And I'm not arguing that the US constitution didn't have a huge impact on our own, I'm stating that the church too had an influence.
[/b][/quote]
On the last point, it's pretty well rehearsed that Dev
sought the pope's approval in 1937. The rights articles of bunreacht have alot of influences, but the supreme court interpretations from the 1960s onward are copied from the US.
How do you distinguish between state and government, between tax-take and tax-spend?
Just to let you know where I'm coming from - libertarian. State should have no role in limiting production and sale of intoxicating things, including mind altering drugs. Do enough to give confidence that the stuff won't poison consumers, and let the people decide what they want without having to pay ridiculous duties and taxes to fund an army of state employees to regulate it to hell.
In the UK, state appointed doctors are proposing a ban on smoking in cars. GRRRRREAT! How could we survive without them? By paying alot less tax and doing as we please.
