Posted on 02/12/2002 3:33:17 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
|
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."
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.
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:
But, much as I might (and do) consider Islamism to be immoral, I don't believe that I have Biblical Basis to outlaw it.
So, BIBLICALLY, what immoralities should the State prohibit, and why?
What authority has the State to ban bodily whoredom, but permit spiritual fornication?
Should it attempt to proscribe both... or neither, having no authority to do so?
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?
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.
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.
I never said this and don't agree with it. And I would have appreciated a flag.
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.
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.
Idiot.
If you mean "unborn baby" by the word "child", best of luck in finding juries to convict the mothers.
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.
False premise. Of course we have had welfare. Every society has welfare. This anarchy idea is full of nonsensical realities.
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?
Bring on all the dictionary definitions you want the need for welfare didn't begin this century or even the millenium.
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.
Exactly what I said. In fact, it is bizarre in the extreme to let off the ringleader and prosecute her hired guns instead.
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.