Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anarchy vs. the Right to Life
Mercurial Times ^ | February 11, 2002 | Aaron Armitage

Posted on 02/12/2002 3:33:17 PM PST by A.J.Armitage

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-170 next last
To: Hank Kerchief
What's a right?

  1. Life
  2. Liberty
  3. Property

121 posted on 02/12/2002 10:10:27 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Thanks for the information.
122 posted on 02/12/2002 10:14:04 PM PST by week 71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: veryconernedamerican
All of the problems of our government are scrictly the responsibility of the citizens as we have total control in the long run as to what happens. big government can only be made, and only be abused with our consent.

Very true. This is a republic, after all.

Everyone likes to point out that we have a government "of, by, and for the people"--but most Americans get fixated on the "for" part instead of the "by" and "of."

123 posted on 02/12/2002 10:14:54 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
If there is more than one government or "gang" telling us what to do, then this brings uncertainty to our lives and the market in general. This is bad. However, if there is only one government or "gang" telling us what to do, then there is greater certainty but only that things will get worse over time.

A bunch of renegade defense agencies maximizes uncertainty. A single tyrannical government maximizes injustice. Taking a chapter from game theory, it may be that we have the mixed form of government we do because it is a practical compromise between the two extremes: a mix of local, state, national, and global governments that generate an annoying but tolerable level of chaos is exchange for a tolerable level of justice.

In this way, every time we give more power to a central government we minimize current chaos in exchange for future injustice, e.g. we give the government more powers now to fight the uncertainty of terrorism in exchange for a future chance that these powers will be used against innocent citizens.

Mass murders by highly-centralized governments are the flip side of roving mobs of starving citizens trying to get their next meal.

The long term answer to this governmental question then is not to look for a pure solution at either end of the spectrum, but to closely examine the current situation, and on a case-by-case basis work to move the balance of control toward or away from local governments depending on whether we are more likely to suffer from uncertainty or injustice.

124 posted on 02/12/2002 11:11:43 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333, Hank Kerchief
I always show a decency to people who I debate, except in those rare instances when I lose my temper. This occurs when my faith is ripped to shreds, which is what happens each and every time I debate with OP and a handful of others on this forum. It is indeed lent, and I intend to be good. Therefore, I'm not going to get into a theological debate with him, which is what he is trying to bait me into. =)

No, I ain't.

Here, I'll even prove it.

Amend my references to Roman Catholicism to be, instead, references to Islam. I hope we can all agree that Mohammed was not a true Prophet of God sent by the Father of all Light on a holy mission to bring the Church into a Right understanding of the Gospel of Life:

Having excised all references to the Bishop of Rome, you may now address my argument, which is the same theonomic argument in either case. BIBLICALLY, what immoralities should the State prohibit, and why?

125 posted on 02/12/2002 11:14:32 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
You made the claim that "our history" shows that illegal abortion does not open such a Pandora's box.

I responded that abortion was never illegal since murderers were never punished for their crimes.

As for the idea that history proves anything about Pandora's boxes, the government has gotten far more meddlesome in the recent past. In order to simply travel from one city to another, the government obliges me to show an ID card, waylays me and forces me to submit to groping by strangers. This in the name of defending me (something it will not allow me to do). Forty years ago, this would have been inconcievable.

126 posted on 02/13/2002 1:28:35 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
For the actual murderer (the abortionist), the penalty must be Death. (Genesis 9:6)

For the complicit accessory (the aborting woman), penalty might vary dependent upon mitigating factors.

If I hire someone to commit murder, the law views me as being the principle in the act, not my hired gun. As it should. You are wrong. She did it. And according to your book, she deserves death.

Why do you shrink from that conclusion? Like Aaron, you refuse even to state what the penalty should be. Mitigating factors, my sweet petunia. It's pre-mediated.

127 posted on 02/13/2002 1:36:57 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Architect doesn't agree. You and I hire hire one agency to punish abortionists, he hires another to protect them, and, as John Locke would put it, we make our appeal to Heaven.

I never said this and don't agree with it. And I would have appreciated a flag.

128 posted on 02/13/2002 1:39:46 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
You get married and earn enough to support you and your family. You have ten children. You get bored. You leave your wife. Your ten kids are at my back door looking for food. Your problem just became my problem.

Look. Throughout all of human history up until 1936 there was no such thing as welfare. People had big families. Yet somehow societies managed to deal with it. Fathers never almost abandoned their families either.

Now we have welfare and family breakup followed. It took a single generation to destroy the black family. In every census from 1870 to 1950, the black man worked more than the white. Then it changed. Another generation and the white family followed.

The government is precisely what has destroyed the family. And you argue that the solution is more of it. Brilliant. Take your liberal ideas over to DU. We don't need them here.

129 posted on 02/13/2002 1:50:22 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I certainly don't have the right to kill someone inside that land who's there through no fault of her own, and if I do, it's not outside the government's jurisdiction because it happened inside what I own. It happened to someone I don't own, and that's the key issue. (Or, rather, I did it to someone I don't own, and would therefore deserve punishment.

Do you or do you not have the right to expel the tresspasser (and to use lethal force if the intruder refuses to comply)? What is different when someone is tresspassing on your body?

And you still refuse to answer the question, Aaron. What is the penalty do you propose for this act of pre-mediated murder? Death? Be very careful with your answer, because, throughout history, juries have refused to convict women for infanticide. Never mind abortion.

130 posted on 02/13/2002 2:05:17 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
This whole anarchy idea is so off the mark from any sense of reality it is breathtaking. My only way to explain it is those who wish to use drugs without fear of arrest are willing to believe anything just to continue.

Idiot.

131 posted on 02/13/2002 2:13:22 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I believe that the murder of a child should carry, as a maximum - but appropriate - penalty, Capital Punishment as sentence upon conviction.

If you mean "unborn baby" by the word "child", best of luck in finding juries to convict the mothers.

132 posted on 02/13/2002 2:18:18 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
That's almost clever.

But you make absolutely no provision for issues of size and inertia. One thing that prevents a military coup in America is that it's just too big, hence the practical impossibility of a "defensive agency" taking control. If you want to see this neo-feudal theory in practice, move to some gang-controlled portion of one of our large cities. In the absence of a controlling authority, a society where protection and retribution are the the responsibility of mercenary bands will come to look much like Bosnia.

If meting out justice were in the hands of private Condottieri how do you handle disputes between rival "defensive agencies" (I believe the name used in Somalia is "warlords.")? A court system? Financed by whom? With rulings enforced by whom? How about binding arbitration? Any arbitration whose enforcement is not backed up by the threat of a superior level of force is binding in name only.

133 posted on 02/13/2002 3:23:13 AM PST by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Agree with post 102. So then why argue for anarchy ?
134 posted on 02/13/2002 3:54:25 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Architect
Look. Throughout all of human history up until 1936 there was no such thing as welfare.

False premise. Of course we have had welfare. Every society has welfare. This anarchy idea is full of nonsensical realities.

135 posted on 02/13/2002 4:00:41 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
From Dictionary.com: "Welfare 3a: Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need."

What financial or other aid did the government provide prior to AFDC? And why have families fallen apart since 1950? Oh, I know. Fathers suddenly took it into their heads to abandon their children, as they had never done before in history. Or maybe it wasn't fathers. Perhaps it was those "nonsensical realists" - the anarchists?

136 posted on 02/13/2002 4:10:30 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Architect
Even the bible dealt with widows and orphans. Before major federal and state programs states had orphanges. In fact slavery is a form a welfare.

Bring on all the dictionary definitions you want the need for welfare didn't begin this century or even the millenium.

137 posted on 02/13/2002 4:30:35 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Architect
I responded that abortion was never illegal since murderers were never punished for their crimes.

This is a false contention. Abortion was illegal in all 50 states at one time or another, and classified as a felony. Very few abortionists were prosecuted because evidence was very hard to produce. But there certainly are records of abortionists being prosecuted.

However, contrary to Mr. Lallier's "Pandoras Box" fears, in a 1983 study of 200 years of legal history, the American Center for Bioethics found no evidence of a woman ever being prosecuted as an "accomplice" in abortion. There are cases in which accused abortionists convinced the court to recognize women as acomplices, but no prosecutions followed.

In summary, when abortions were classed as felonies, none of the scenarios proposed by Mr. Lallier occured. Contrary to your assertion, abortionists were prosecuted and punished, but only when evidence could be produced.

As for the idea that history proves anything about Pandora's boxes, the government has gotten far more meddlesome in the recent past.

If you believe this means we should legalize felonies, I'm afraid I'll have to simply disagree. Even radical libertarians believe a proper role of government is the defense of the rights of its citizens. The problem you describe is out of control law enforcement - not the things that are illegal themselves. In other words, even if the liberals are right and Mumia was railroaded, legalizing murder is not a proper solution.

138 posted on 02/13/2002 4:31:16 AM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Semi Civil Servant
Unfortunately, government does not end the protection racket but is far more likely to engage in it and benefit from it.
139 posted on 02/13/2002 4:39:52 AM PST by cpressroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
the American Center for Bioethics found no evidence of a woman ever being prosecuted as an "accomplice" in abortion. There are cases in which accused abortionists convinced the court to recognize women as acomplices, but no prosecutions followed.

Exactly what I said. In fact, it is bizarre in the extreme to let off the ringleader and prosecute her hired guns instead.

140 posted on 02/13/2002 4:48:52 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson