Skip to comments.Anarchy vs. the Right to Life
Posted on 02/12/2002 3:33:17 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
click here to read article
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.
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, ____________________.
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.
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.
Ahh... I agree.
I believe that the murder of a child should carry, as a maximum - but appropriate - penalty, Capital Punishment as sentence upon conviction.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.