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 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
To: A.J.Armitage
Good column. No system of political ideas can be perfect and there's no shame in adjusting theory to reality. A system that presumes the existence of rational, independent, individuals who seek there own benefit, will have to consider the claims of those who cannot speak for themselves. Otherwise it will commit grave injustices. Allowing some to speak on behalf of those without voices may open the way to wider state powers, but nothing in this world is pure and perfect and choices have to be made between alternatives neither of which is purely good or bad.
101 posted on 02/12/2002 8:15:01 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
This whole anarchy idea is so off the mark from any sense of reality it is breathtaking.

If you mean, the idea that there is the possibilty of a society without a government, I agree. If you mean, the idea that moral intelligent men can live in a society without a government, I dissagree. This difference in principle is important. The only reason there is government is because societies are comprised primarily of immoral individauls. In a hypothetical moral society, government would serve no purpose whatsoever. The problem is ultimately the stuff society is made of, and until that problem can be solved, there is no political solution.

Hank

102 posted on 02/12/2002 8:16:20 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
A bit of fun here. My apologies to those who find this impertinent...

Those Who Can and Those Who Can't Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, counsel. Those who can't counsel, administrate. Those who can't administrate, enter data into the computer. Those who can't enter data into the computer, take dictation. Those who can't take dictation, alphabetize files. Those who can't alphabetize files, answer the phone.

Those who can't answer the phone, fry hamburgers. Those who can't fry hamburgers, run the cash register. Those who can't run the cash register, wait on tables. Those who can't wait on tables, carry dishes to the kitchen. Those who can't carry dirty dishes to the kitchen, wash the dirty dishes. Those who can't wash the dirty dishes, peel potatoes.

Those who can't peel potatoes, buff the floor. Those who can't buff the floor, haul out the garbage. Those who can't haul out the garbage, write poetry. Those who can't write poetry, write clever letters to the editor. Those who can't write clever letters to the editor, write angry letters to the editor. Those who can't write angry letters to the editor, spray paint graffiti. Those who can't spray paint graffiti, write screenplays. Those who can't write screenplays, write TV scripts.

Those who can't write TV scripts, read scripts for the studios. Those who can't read scripts for the studios, act. Those who can't act, take acting classes. Those who can't take acting classes, sing. Those who can't sing, sing Rock 'N' Roll. Those who can't sing Rock 'N' Roll, sing it anyway. Those who can't sing it anyway, become depressed. Those who can't become depressed, get bitter. Those who can't get bitter, get confused. Those who can't get confused, stay confused. Those who stay confused, find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences. Those who find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences, ____________________.

103 posted on 02/12/2002 8:16:55 PM PST by jmp702
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: jmp702
......Those who stay confused, find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences. Those who find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences, ____________________.

Those who stay confused, find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences. Those who find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences, become President of the United States.

Hank

104 posted on 02/12/2002 8:22:59 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
...and then engage in a war(?) that _____________.
105 posted on 02/12/2002 8:37:06 PM PST by jmp702
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Is Sobran advocating a return to feudalism?

The problem with hiring a "defensive agency" (also sometimes called mercenaries) is that the people with the weapons tend to write the rules, if not immediately, then eventually. And the fees that are at first offered as wages will soon come to be extracted at sword-point as tribute. History, especially ancient history, shows many examples of this.

106 posted on 02/12/2002 8:41:15 PM PST by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmp702
Well, see, you are definitely a candidate for the presidency, not being able to complete that very easy sentence. This is the war that will, let's see, "make the world safe for democracy," hmmm, or maybe, "end all wars," hmm, no, wait a minute, I've got it, "rid the world of terrorism," yep, that's it.

Hank

107 posted on 02/12/2002 8:53:35 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
The problem with hiring a "defensive agency" (also sometimes called mercenaries) is that the people with the weapons tend to write the rules, if not immediately, then eventually. And the fees that are at first offered as wages will soon come to be extracted at sword-point as tribute. History, especially ancient history, shows many examples of this.

The problem with electing a "defensive agency" (also sometimes called the government) is that the people with the weapons tend to write the rules, if not immediately, then eventually. And the fees that are at first offered as payment will soon come to be extracted at sword-point as taxes. History, especially modern history, shows many examples of this.

Hank

108 posted on 02/12/2002 8:59:09 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: RLK
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian To get into some crackpot discussion over wheth we're going to have the kind of society where I'm going to ned to hire Samuri as a remedy for a crime committed against me is not my cup of tea tonight. 93 posted on 2/12/02 8:42 PM Pacific by RLK

Ahh... I agree.

109 posted on 02/12/2002 9:10:46 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian What's the punishment for the murder of a child or unborn baby? 96 posted on 2/12/02 8:49 PM Pacific by Demidog

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

110 posted on 02/12/2002 9:12:30 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
You know that, and I know that, but JMJ333 doesn't. If you allow agencies to go past punishing crimes against their clients, there's no structural reason not to have agencies punishing whatever someone's willing to pay for.

I'd like to see where I advocated anything except upholding the law in regard to prostitution and drug abuse. I've been advocating societal standards, and somehow you've interpreted that to mean government agencies going past punishment. Seems to me there is always a way to twist out of having to deal with concrete truths. Prostitution, as well as drug use, are indeed immoral and should remain illegal.

111 posted on 02/12/2002 9:21:43 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Demidog, A.J.Armitage
Ok. Well-stated. Now. Tell us how you intend to catch women who commit abortions. In your perfect state, let's assume that the state has the duty to protect the rights of the unborn (I'm not so sure this is true but for arguments sake lets say it is.) What is your plan for catching and trying these criminals? What's the punishment? In the case of a miscarriage, does the state have the right to invade the woman's medical records or subpeona her doctor to "prove" the unprovable?

Generally, No. Subpoenas can only follow the admission of a valid Charge.

Biblical Law specifies the evidentiary requirement for the introduction of a valid Charge. (more below)

I await your plan with eagerness.

If I may speak for A.J., here is our plan:

Capital Cases should require the evidentiary testimony of at least two knowledgeable witnesses.
Short of Oath or Affirmation, No Warrants shall issue.

Specifics could go into depth and include diverse considerations, but that will serve as a fundamental basis.

112 posted on 02/12/2002 9:28:00 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333, Demidog, A.J.Armitage
Prostitution, as well as drug use, are indeed immoral and should remain illegal.

Prostitution is not illegal in Nevada.

Should it be, or not? And on what Biblical Basis?

IMHO, preaching the illegitimate ecclesial claims of the Bishop of Rome as the "Vicar of Christ" is immoral, and ensnares far more "clientele" worldwide than even the most entrepreneurial prostitute. (NOTE TO BAN-HAPPY MODERATORS: This is ONLY my own ecclesial opinion and is offered as a point of hyperbole, reductio ad absurdum!!)

But, much as I might (and do) consider Romanism 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?

113 posted on 02/12/2002 9:36:00 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Fascinating that you couldn't pass up the temptation to compare prostitution to the term "vicar of Christ". You'll have to excuse me for not debating, but I really have nothing to say to you.
114 posted on 02/12/2002 9:45:50 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: A.J. Armitage
Excuse me for posting the meaning of Vicar of Christ on your thread, but I wanted to post a definition so any lurkers might be able to read it and see that teaching people about the term and women selling themselves aren't comparable.

Vicar of Christ (Lat. Vicarius Christi).

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19. In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

115 posted on 02/12/2002 9:49:34 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333, Demidog, A.J.Armitage
Fascinating that you couldn't pass up the temptation to compare prostitution to the term "vicar of Christ". You'll have to excuse me for not debating, but I really have nothing to say to you.

Respectfully, I know full well that my argument could apply equally well to Presbyterianism, if presbyterianism be false.

I'm talking about the fact that false preaching is, by definition, spiritual whoredom. Either Rome, or Presbytery, is false. Either Rome, or Presbytery, is enslaving men's souls to a false Gospel in a way to which no bodily prostitute could possibly compare.

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?

116 posted on 02/12/2002 9:54:06 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Fascinating that you couldn't pass up the temptation to compare prostitution to the term "vicar of Christ". You'll have to excuse me for not debating, but I really have nothing to say to you.

EXCEPT...

Excuse me for posting the meaning of Vicar of Christ on your thread, but I wanted to post a definition so any lurkers might be able to read it and see that teaching people about the term and women selling themselves aren't comparable.

Vicar of Christ (Lat. Vicarius Christi). etc. etc. etc....

Why in the world would anyone confuse what OrthodoxPresbyterain said with what your saying. This is lent, and you should be more understanding.

Hank

117 posted on 02/12/2002 9:59:30 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: 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. =)
118 posted on 02/12/2002 10:06:06 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
This is an honest question, I'm not being bellicose; When one says vicar of Christ are they implying the pope is vicariously Christ or in place of Christ, Christians may experience Christ through the pope?
119 posted on 02/12/2002 10:07:09 PM PST by week 71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: week 71
No..not at all. Simply it means that he is the head of Christ's church on earth--His replacement. Christ handed the keys to Peter and told him upon this rock I build my church. It means the Pope has Authority passed down to him by Christ to lead his flock.
120 posted on 02/12/2002 10:09:50 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

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]

To: Architect
Exactly what I said.

No you said : "murderers were never punished for their crimes."

You classified the women getting the abortion as "accomplices," not murderers. The abortionist is the murderer in this case. And they certainly were punished in the past.

However Mr. Lallier, whom you cited, was concerned exclusively that abortion cannot be illegal because it would inevitably lead to endless legal entanglements of women as accomplices in abortions. Despite the fact that you may think it unjust, since women were never prosecuted as abortion accomplices when abortion was illegal, Mr. Lallier's contention is refuted by the facts.

You now seem to be raising a new objection to illegal abortion: If all guilty parties cannot be punished, no guilty party may be punished. In other words, if you cannot punish both the abortionist and the woman who procures his services, you ought to let both off scot free. Have I accurately stated your position?

141 posted on 02/13/2002 5:03:18 AM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
And one more thing . . .

In law enforcement and the military, there are certain economies of scale. It takes one guard for one prisoner, but it also takes one guard for perhaps ten prisoners. Similarly, if defensive points are widely separated, each such point will require its own garrison, its own lines of communication and supply, and its own support (such as artillery). Consequently, if society were to break into little enclaves, each owning its own defensive/retributive agency, there would actually be MORE armed functionaries and the military/police presence would be even greater.

And eventually, I can foresee alliances among these Free Companies in order to implement economies of scale and scope. So, in time, we would re-build the nation-states on the basis, initially, of alliances of mercenary bands. In other words, we would re-enact the late medieval to Renaissance period and end up back where we were in the first place - big nation, small police force.

There are many, many things wrong with our current establishment, but returning to A.D. 1400 may not be the answer. I rather like 1787 myself.

142 posted on 02/13/2002 5:43:07 AM PST by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
You are, of course, correct A.J. But I would ask you to go easy on Mr. Sobran in these turbulent days. A lot of flotsam and jetsom posing as "polemics" will be flying through the air during these strange days.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

----
....William Butler Yeats

A lot of people are momentarily--or perhaps permanently--caught up in the intellectual anarchism that accompanies the realization that we are losing---everything. The re-arrangement of thinking about the universe is always a messy, often irrational, sometimes even intelligible thing. Sort of like the creation of the universe.

Some of us will elect the ausonian solution and try to live quietly and well in our little corner of the world. Some will go out in a blaze of--well--if not exactly "glory", at least in a puff of smoke or something.

Others will re-allign their affections so as to pretend to themselves that they are still having an effect upon the Great Game. Observe the contortions of the various Libertarian Think Tanks as they discover previously unknown penubra in what passes for libertarian thought supporting the State of Permanent War. After all, bazaars are opening up all over Afghanistan now, selling a variety of toys not available under the grim gaze of the Taliban.

For others we probably shouldn't speculate upon their final intellectual and spiritual landing place, because, as we are all overjoyed to know, Homeland Security is omnipresent (if not yet omniscient--but give it time!)

So be kind to Mr Sobran and his ilk. History hasn't been. It's the least you could do....

143 posted on 02/13/2002 5:46:17 AM PST by LaBelleDameSansMerci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Architect, A.J.Armitage
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 2/13/02 2:36 AM Pacific by Architect

Respectfully -- and with due credit to Susan B. Anthony for her recognition of this fact -- there have been far too many under-age girls throughout history who have been essentially *forced* into abortion by parents, or wives/girlfriends coerced into abortion by abusive mates, to wave our hands and pretend that there are no such things as "mitigating factors".

Now, in the case of some brazen "Cosmo Girl" who is simply seeking to dispose of the child, conceived by her own irresponsibility, who "endangers" her career -- or worse, who has gotten herself preggos for "breast-enlargement-on-the-cheap" -- I do regard such a one as the commissioner of a hired assassin, and believe that, if the case is properly established by Biblical evidentiary standards, she should be treated as such.

But that isn't always the reality of the situation. In fact, it often isn't. The abortionist is always a murderer; but the woman is sometimes a co-conspirator, sometimes an accessory, and sometimes exculpated entirely -- dependent on the particulars of the situation. Because sometimes, there are mitigating factors in the woman's case.

It would be unrealistic to write law as if there aren't.

144 posted on 02/13/2002 5:58:56 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
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 brought up the argument of immorality in post 17,which I stand by.

You don't have to use biblical references to understand that prostitution and drug use should remain illegal. Just look at Holland and view what has happened to their culture after they legalized drugs and prostitution. While everyone is getting high and degrading themselves, their government passed doctor assisted euthanasia laws. They've slipped into complete socialism and have embraced the culture of death. I don't want to live in a society like that. If you legalize these vices then many more people will engage in them. I don't encourage vices, I fight against them.

Since we have been blessed to live in a self-ruling society, we have a responsibility to do our part in governing and standing for the moral principles of God. And, if we are to stand for God, we should be committed to do everything possible to promote a government that recognizes moral truths. The effect of legalizing prostitution and drugs, coupled with our replacement of Judeo-Christianity with moral laissaz faire relativism, would destroy our country. It would end up strengthening the state.

145 posted on 02/13/2002 6:08:12 AM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
In an anarcho-capitalist society, instead of using police and an official court system to punish criminals, individuals would hire defense agencies, in much the same way we hire insurance agencies now. Then, if you're robbed, your agency would try to track down the guilty party, and, when they catch him, bring him to trial, probably before a judge agreed to by both your agency and his.

LOL! One time when I was in high school, one of my friends told another guy (a boxer), "I'll pay you a nickel to him him." The guy slugged me on the shoulder. (It hurt.)

I told him, "I'll pay you a dime to hit him back." He did.

My friend complained: "You hit me harder than you hit him!"

"Well, yeah. He paid me more."

Which is a real-world example of your observation: The only kinds of crimes that could be punished in a pure anarcho-capitalist scheme are ones directly harming paying customers of a defense agency.

I guess the real point here is that one will not be able to guarantee moral behavior -- in the sense of people behaving according to an agreed-upon set of standards -- will not be gained simply by exchange of money.

And, as you point out, other than "who can pay the most for the best goons," it does not provide any mechanism for dealing with cases where contending sides do not share a common set of standards (e.g., pro-life vs. pro-abortion).

146 posted on 02/13/2002 6:12:10 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333, Hank Kerchief, A.J.Armitage
I brought up the argument of immorality in post 17,which I stand by. You don't have to use biblical references to understand that prostitution and drug use should remain illegal. Just look at Holland and view what has happened to their culture after they legalized drugs and prostitution. While everyone is getting high and degrading themselves, their government passed doctor assisted euthanasia laws. They've slipped into complete socialism and have embraced the culture of death. I don't want to live in a society like that. If you legalize these vices then many more people will engage in them. I don't encourage vices, I fight against them.

What about Islam?
Not a Vice?

You're not answering my original question: Why should the State go into a conniption fit over the matter of some burnout toking wacky-weed in his basement, but regard the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell, as being hunky-dory? (Or at least, the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell is treated as being not nearly so bad as a Nevada "bunny ranch", about which the State simply must do something, post-haste!!)

Any moral consistency of thought here? Not a jab, honest question.

Since we have been blessed to live in a self-ruling society, we have a responsibility to do our part in governing and standing for the moral principles of God. And, if we are to stand for God, we should be committed to do everything possible to promote a government that recognizes moral truths. The effect of legalizing prostitution and drugs, coupled with our replacement of Judeo-Christianity with moral laissaz faire relativism, would destroy our country. It would end up strengthening the state.

I agree. But then again, I'm in favor of replacing (by moral suasion and evangelism) our bland "Judeo-Christianity" with the Calvinism of our Colonial Forefathers, not with moral laissez~faire relativism.

On the matter of "Government recognizing moral truths", though.... again: why should the State go into a conniption fit over the matter of some burnout toking wacky-weed in his basement, but regard the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell, as being hunky-dory?

Where's the Biblical Basis for such a regime of Law? Where's the moral consistency of thought in such a view?

147 posted on 02/13/2002 6:42:17 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
What about Islam? Not a Vice?

The freedom to practice one's religion is in no way comparable to legitimizing prostitution or drugs. Prostitution and drugs would have a direct effect on local neighborhoods. Other crimes would escalate because that environment is conducive to violence, sexual abuse and exploitation...crime in general. Would you really want a whore house being run next door to your family? How about a crack house? Is that the type of environment for raising children?

You're not answering my original question: Why should the State go into a conniption fit over the matter of some burnout toking wacky-weed in his basement, but regard the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell, as being hunky-dory? (Or at least, the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell is treated as being not nearly so bad as a Nevada "bunny ranch", about which the State simply must do something, post-haste!!)

See previous paragraph.

Any moral consistency of thought here? Not a jab, honest question.

If I have an Islamic neighbor who lives by the moral standards and laws of this country, then I have no quarrel with him. I'd be interested in having a thealogical discussion with him, but that is different from having him run a drug or prostitution business out of his home.

On the matter of "Government recognizing moral truths", though.... again: why should the State go into a conniption fit over the matter of some burnout toking wacky-weed in his basement, but regard the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell, as being hunky-dory?

You keep asking the same question! Its not just about some burn-out, its about society at large and how it will affect our neighborhoods and the atmosphere our children will live in. Take a look at Holland! Now THAT is a regime!

148 posted on 02/13/2002 7:11:28 AM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
You may have an advantage over me since I haven't read Hoppe's book. We either have judges or we don't. If we do, they go by rights and not by whims or by who hired them. If they don't do that, then they are not judges, they are PR wing of the private securuty firm.

In either case, your objection is the standard objection to anarchy, that supposedly nothing prevents people from hiring a criminal gang instead of a protection firm. There is nothing in your objection that is specific to abortion. You could just as easily said that I can hire goons to do my murdering, then choose judges that believe in murder.

The question is, is independent and competent adjudication possible in the environment where multiple independent law enforcers exist? I haven't read the book, but I don't see why not. Here is

Annalex-Hoppe Theorem. In a multiple law enforcer environment, independent judiciary will reflect the community standard of justice.

Indeed, if a judge consistently allows verdicts that do not reflect the community standard of justice, a coalition of enforcers will form against him, and it will be stronger than a coalition of enforcers in his defense.

So, in a way, you are right that pro-abortion verdicts are possible under a multiple enforcer system, if the community standard of justice is pro-abortion (or pro-murder, pro-credit card fraud, etc), but that is no different from a single enforcer system that we have now.

149 posted on 02/13/2002 7:22:27 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333, Hank Kerchief, A.J.Armitage
The freedom to practice one's religion is in no way comparable to legitimizing prostitution or drugs. Prostitution and drugs would have a direct effect on local neighborhoods. Other crimes would escalate because that environment is conducive to violence, sexual abuse and exploitation...crime in general. Would you really want a whore house being run next door to your family? How about a crack house? Is that the type of environment for raising children?

How about a Mosque, or a Hindu Temple? Do you really want your children exposed to pagan idolatry which endangers their eternal souls? Why shouldn't the State do something about these kind of environments?

If I have an Islamic neighbor who lives by the moral standards and laws of this country, then I have no quarrel with him. I'd be interested in having a thealogical discussion with him, but that is different from having him run a drug or prostitution business out of his home.

What about the Imam who is calling your impressionable young child to pray to a pagan moon god, while you're away at work?

I mean, if (certain) drugs were legal, I imagine they generally would be sold where legal drugs are usually sold -- liquor stores and pharmacies. At least those institutions would card your kid for age if he came looking for some vodka, or some "happy pills", as the case may be.

But what about the false-gospel pushers on the street corners? A trip to Hell lasts a lot longer than a bad trip on lysergic acid; shouldn't the State do something about these purveyors of addictive, soul-destroying poisons? Isn't that the State's job?

You keep asking the same question! Its not just about some burn-out, its about society at large and how it will affect our neighborhoods and the atmosphere our children will live in. Take a look at Holland! Now THAT is a regime!

So is Saudi Arabia. All very moral (outwardly, at least), and most of them going straight to hell.

And you're willing to let Wahhabist Islam pushers operate on our street corners, marketing their addictive, soul-destroying poisons to impressionable children!

Where is the moral consistency in banning "bunny ranches", but permitting Mosques to proselytize children straight to Hell in every city in America?

Shouldn't the State do something? Shouldn't it outlaw both?

Or maybe... just maybe.... that's not the State's job. In either case.

150 posted on 02/13/2002 7:25:14 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 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