Posted on 06/12/2002 11:57:24 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:38:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Incorrect. My first post questioned your knowledge of conservatism based on your replies in this thread.
"Yet you've never argued specifically as to my supposed 'intent'."
I haven't mentioned your intent. I have mentioned what appear to be your conclusions regarding other peoples' intent.
"As I've said, your first few posts here convinced me that your opinion is not one I can value."
That's too bad. Your outlook would greatly benefit by instruction and perspective in the smallest of doses.
"It's unfortunate indeed that you have irrational ideas about libertarians."
I don't have irrational ideas about libertarians. Every opinion I've expressed to you regarding libertarians and libertarian ideas in this thread is expressed here daily by libertarians themselves.
Get that therapy, and we'll talk again.
Thus, he would be committing murder upon innocent civilians were he to sign their death order. It's not that complicated. And regardless of what the FAA considers "reasonable", it has no authority to abridge our rights.
----------------------------
Ahhh yes, we must put our faith & trust in the 'earnest beliefs' of the bureaucratic agencys of government. -- They know best. They're here to help.
Frankly dearie, I'll put my trust in the judgement of a well armed pilot & copilot in a secured cockpit. - But of course, -- our fine 'authorities' won't even 'allow us' such a choice.
-- So it goes in a free *bushbot* republic.
"'It's unfortunate indeed that you have irrational ideas about libertarians...'"
I'm noticing that you're finding it increasingly difficult to argue your points; in fact, you haven't made one in quite a while.
Anyway, for your benefit, edification and enlightenment, here's support for my "irrational ideas" from Robert Bork:
"Libertarians join forces with modern liberals in opposing censorship, though libertarians are far from being modern liberals in other respects. For one thing, libertarians do no like the coercion that necessarily accompanies radical egalitarianism. But because both libertarians and modern liberals are oblivious to social reality, both demand radical personal autonomy in expression. That is one reason libertarians are not to be confused, as they often are, with conservatives. They are quasi- or semiconservatives. Nor are they to be confused with classical liberals, who considered restraints on individual autonomy to be essential.
"The nature of the liberal and libertarian errors is easily seen in discussions of pornography. The leader of the explosion of pornographic videos, described admiringly by a competitor as the Ted Turner of the business, offers the usual defenses of decadence: 'Adults have the right to see [pornography] if they want to. If it offends you, don't buy it.' Those statements neatly sum up both the errors and the (unintended) perniciousness of the alliance between libertarians and modern liberals with respect to popular culture.
"Modern liberals employ the rhetoric of 'rights' incessantly, not only to delegitimate the idea of restraints on individuals by communities but to prevent discussion of the topic. Once something is announced, usually flatly or stridently, to be a right --whether pornography or abortion or what have you-- discussion becomes difficult to impossible. Rights inhere in the person, are claimed to be absolute, and cannot be deminished or taken away by reason; in fact, reason that suggests the non-existence of an asserted right is viewed as a moral evil by the claimant. If there is to be anything that can be called a community, rather than an agglomeration of hedonists, the case for previously unrecognized individual freedoms (as well as some that have been previously recognized) must be thought through and argued, and "rights" cannot win every time. Why there is a right for adults to enjoy pornography remains unexplained and unexplainable.
"The second bit of advice --'If it offends you, don't buy it' -- is both lulling and destructive. Whether you buy it or not, you will be greatly affected by those who do. The aesthetic and moral environment in which you and your family live will be coarsened and degraded. Economists call the effects an activity has on others 'externalities'; why so many of them do not understand the externalities here is a mystery. They understand quite well that a person who decides not to run a smelter will nevertheless be seriously affected if someone else runs one nearby.
"Free market economists are particularly vulnerable to the libertarian virus. They know that free economic exchanges usually benefit both parties to them. But they mistake that general rule for a universal rule. Benefits do not invariably result from free market exchanges. When it comes to pornography or addictive drugs, libertarians all too often confuse the idea that markets should be free with the idea that everything should be available on the market. The first of those ideas rests on the efficacy of the free market in satisfying wants. The second ignores the question of which wants it is moral to satisfy. That is a question of an entirely different nature. I have heard economists say that, as economists, they do no deal with questions of morality. Quite right. But nobody is just an economist. Economists are also fathers and mothers, husbands or wives, voters citizens, members of communities. In these latter roles, they cannot avoid questions of morality.
"The externalities of depictions of violence and pornography are clear. To complaints about those products being on the market, libertarians respond with something like 'Just hit the remote control and change channels on your TV set.' But, like the person who chooses not to run a smelter while others do, you, your family, and your neighbors will be affected by the people who do not change the channel, who do rent the pornographic videos, who do read alt.sex.stories. As film critic Michael Medved put it: ' To say that if you don't like the popular culture, then turn it off, is like saying if you don't like the smog, stop breathing. . . .There are Amish kids in Pennsylvania who know about Madonna.' And their parents can do nothing about it.
"Can there be any doubt that as pornography and depictions of violence become increasingly popular and increasingly accessible, attitudes about marriage, fidelity, divorce, obligations to children, the use of force, and permissible public behavior and language will change? Or that with the changes in attitudes will come changes in conduct, both public and private? We have seen those changes already and they are continuing. Advocates of liberal arts education assure us that those studies improve character. Can it be that only uplifting reading affects character and the most degrading reading has no effects whatever? 'Don't buy it' and 'change the channel,' however intended, are effectively advice to accept a degenerating culture and its consequences.
"The obstacles to censorship of pornographic and viloence-filled materials are, of course, enormous. Radical individualism in such matters is now pervasive even among sedate, upper middle-class people. At a dinner I sat next to a retired Army general who was no a senior corporate executive. The subject of Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs came up. This most conventional of dinner companions said casually that people ought to be allowed to see whatever they wanted to see. It would seem to follow that others ought to be allowed to do whatever some want to see.... Any serious attempt to root out the worst in our popular culture may be doomed unless the judiciary comes to understand that the First Amendment was adopted for good reasons, and those reasons did not include the furtherance of radical personal autonomy."
Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, pp. 150-152.
I'm noticing that you're finding it increasingly difficult to argue your points; in fact, you haven't made one in quite a while
What part of, -- 'I don't CARE what you 'notice', -- is hard for you to understand? -- I've heard your type of bull from many more talented slingers than you, ad nauseum.
---- Butt out. -- And shove your *bork* where the sun don't shine, on the way.
"I've heard your type of bull from many more talented slingers than you, ad nauseum.
---- Butt out. -- And shove your *bork* where the sun don't shine, on the way.
I'm not surprised that you'd like me to "butt out." I've shown you that my points, which you have referred to as "irrational," are in line with a constitutional scholar and conservative jurist nonpareil who is the scourge of the left, and your reply is to euphemize whatever it is you'd like me to "shove where the sun don't shine" with the man's name.
Your replies are more pointless than your opinions (which would be better informed were you to read Bork's words, provided above by yours truly for your edification and enlightenment).
Help me help you, tpaine. You need it desperately.
"I advocate the stablity of our constitutional principles" and
"Original constitutional principles suit us just fine."
Robert Bork is one of the pre-eminent Constitutional scholars of our time. He is a conservative jurist and a strict constructionist regarding the law and the Constitution. Surely, anyone advocating "the stability of our constitutional principles" will be interested in Bork's opinion...unless, of course, the person is utterly ignorant of what he thinks he's advocating (and it should be apparent to anyone reading your replies that your ignorance of Constitutional principles is worthy of a public-school dropout).
What did he do? Give an honest opinion on Roe v Wade before the Judiciary Committee? Is it the goatee or the voice which would serve him well in broadcasting?
What? What?
I have to admit, I was not the best versed (young and not mature enough politically) when the Bork thing hit the fan. I was given tid bits and could find nothing wrong with the man. I have had the pleasure to read several of Clarence Thomas's opinions on cases (where he cared to write an opinion). I have great respect for the man and having read an exert of Bork's book (thank you for posting it) I feel I must agree with you. His book looks to be a wonder read, and a futherment of my education in the right direction.
Thanks
Low OiL
Defending the unconstitutional Bush decision to violate a pilots RKBA's is sheer political jingoism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.