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: annalex
It doesn't follow. An elementary rights analysis would show that it is rightful to come to defense of the rights of others; but it is not rightful to commit aggression on behalf of others.

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.

Thus a charity hiring a protection agent to punish abortionists would do so by rights of protecting the unborn, while NARAL hiring another agent to protect the mother's whims would be out of bounds.

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.

Your agrument would work in an environment without laws, but it doesn't work in the environment you present according to Hoppe, where the use of force is moderated by judges.

Pro-life judges or pro-choice ones?

51 posted on 02/12/2002 6:11:26 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
The purpose of government is to defend the equal rights of all persons, with special care to the defenseless.

What's a right?

Hank

52 posted on 02/12/2002 6:11:45 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dales
I'm the autonomist

The Autonomist's Notebook

53 posted on 02/12/2002 6:14:46 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
but the government can be restrained by the public, at least in a republic

If you believe that, I have a ..., never mind. I can't take advantage of the gullible.

Fraud - The Autonomist Notebook

54 posted on 02/12/2002 6:21:06 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #55 Removed by Moderator

To: VRWC_minion
The mafia provides the system. If they decide to kill you, who is to stop them ?

The govenment decides to kill you, who is to stop them? (It's happened a lot recently.)

Government - The Autonomist Notebook

56 posted on 02/12/2002 6:25:16 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Architect
Wrong. The murderers were never prosecuted for their crimes. Instead their accomplices were.

Wrong about what?

You asked how to counter Lallier's objections. Lallier's "Pandora's Box" example spoke exclusively about these accomplices. Not the abortionists. That is the very example refuted by historical example.

Are you claiming this is an invalid counter-argument because it doesn't speak to the abortionists themselves? How does that have anything to do with countering Lallier, who doesn't mention them?

57 posted on 02/12/2002 6:27:34 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Yes I can, because I don't live in subjective utopia. Concrete moral truths exist.

They most certainly do. Now prove that drug use being immoral is one of them.

Prostitution reduces a human being to an object because that is what happens when you act sexually base. It strips a person of dignity, and denegrates the sacredness of sex, marriage, family, and human life.

I've never seen an object do anything sexually base. And there are plenty of undignified people who aren't objects, and there are people who do unsacred things without being objects.

Just say that fornication itself is immoral and be done with it.

BTW, should it be illegal for unmarried people to have sex without money changing hands?

There are victims of drug usage and prostitution also. It has a negative effect on society--the society which we have a moral obligation to pass on as healthy as possible for American children.

Society? Too nebulous. If Dope Smokin' Joe takes a toke of the old whacky weed, name the person who suffers an invasion of his person or property.

If the "values of morality and legality" are not reinforced among the public and in the media and social institutions, the agreements, declarations, and most sophisticated juridical instruments will be useless. Without a clear conscience of what is right and wrong, our societies will be incapable of being immune to the plague of crime.

You can reinforce something without making it illegal to do otherwise.

I don't recall asking you to wage physical war. I'm talking about the arena of ideas.

No, you're not talking about ideas. You're talking about making it illegal to do what you consider (rightly or wrongly) to be immoral. If something's illegal, you don't counter it with ideas, you use police officers and administer punishments.

58 posted on 02/12/2002 6:28:43 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Pro-life bump.
59 posted on 02/12/2002 6:31:55 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
If you want less government, then you should fight to retain what remains of our foundational culture.

You just made a big mistake on that one. Our foundational culture never placed anyone in jail for being a drug user. Infact drugs existed back in the very good ol days like they do now. Morphine was sold in bottles legal for all in every single general store across america. Now I do not believe you can compare THC to being as nasty a drug like Morphine but you get my point.

The idea of outlawing drugs like morphine, booze and other products is a very new one to our nation not an old one.

The problem is that we never paid for addicts to live a life of being a drug user in the days of the early republic.Most Americans stayed away from those items because of quite a few reasons however the most important is that they would die from them quite early because of no government welfare or programs to keep them on legal drugs with taxpayer money like we have now.

The problem with some libertarians is that they believe that drugs should be legal and then taxed to fund more government programs. I believe drugs should be legal without a tax and no treatment for addicts. Put the orignal danger back into drugs. You know early death and let the problem weed itself out over two or three years.

Libertarians who want drugs to be legal and then taxed for more social welfare programs are dealing with two large problems. Making the government your drug dealer and growing government by keeping addicts alive to fund itself.
60 posted on 02/12/2002 6:32:55 PM PST by Libertarian_4_eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Architect
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.

This stuff is so basic, I cannot fathom anyone giving anarchy anything more serious than a passing thought.

61 posted on 02/12/2002 6:33:58 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
The govenment decides to kill you, who is to stop them? (It's happened a lot recently.)

Logical fallacy. Can't anarchy be supported without ignoring reality or resort to logical fallacies ?

62 posted on 02/12/2002 6:36:13 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Architect, A. J. Armitage, tex-oma
Let's address the question of women who murder their unborn babies (and I concede nothing about what it is. Unlike Rothbard, I recognize that murder is murder). You tell me. What penalty do you advocate for their actions? Death?

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.

And how do you answer Bob Lallier's objections here? To wit: "To violate this right of individual sovereignty opens many fearsome Pandora’s boxes. For one example, if abortion is homicide then innocent women who have suffered miscarriages can be hunted down by the state and hustled off to gynecologists and investigated as possible crime scenes...A state that can define its jurisdiction so as to include the insides of our very bodies will leave absolutely no room left for any individual humanity at all. Such a state will not be above dictating the genetic engineering of people to make them more ‘fetus friendly’ in the interest of protecting "our" little "proto-citizens." Believe me, even Catholics do not want to go there..."

An "empty womb" is not a "witness" to the act of murder.

Two witnesses are required.

False Witness in matters of Capital Crime to be punished by Death.

The Bible authorizes the State to wield the Sword; and the Bible also so restrains the State's Use of the Sword as to answer Bob Lallier's objections.

The Bible has the answers.

63 posted on 02/12/2002 6:37:54 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Architect
If I own land, it's mine just as much as my body is.

Absolutely correct. Do you think that other people have the right to use your land against your will?

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.)

64 posted on 02/12/2002 6:38:29 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Libertarian_4_eva
I get it. The entire purpose of anarchy solely to be able to do drugs without fear of punishment ? No wonder the practical aspects are ignored. Adoption of this concept yields a desired result.
65 posted on 02/12/2002 6:38:58 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion, Architect, tex-oma, A.J. Armitage
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. This stuff is so basic, I cannot fathom anyone giving anarchy anything more serious than a passing thought.

Actually, her problem just became her local church's problem.

And His Grace is sufficient for us.


66 posted on 02/12/2002 6:41:39 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Logical fallacy. Can't anarchy be supported without ignoring reality or resort to logical fallacies?

If it were a logical fallacy, you used it first. However, it is not a logical fallacy. It is both logically correct (government has the exclusive legal right to initiate the use force) and practically corract (Waco).

Finally, I am not an anarchist of any flavor, I am an autonomist. Have all the government you want, and suck-it-up when they come after you.

Hank

67 posted on 02/12/2002 6:41:55 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Thanks for the link.

There is a wealth of truth to be found.

68 posted on 02/12/2002 6:43:44 PM PST by jmp702
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | 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."

How long would it take before this system degenerated into a series of gangs and turf wars on a gigantic scale? How long would it take before you were paying "protection money" to every thug in your neighborhood? You have to assume a basic universal decency among all humans for a system like this to work. I don't buy into that at all.

You also have to assume that the "judges" in this system could not be intimidated or killed out right by one side or another. That isn't realistic, either.

Granted, the most dangerous (non-spiritual) thing you will ever encounter on earth is likely to be your government. Granted, most governments in history have ended up killing a fair number of the governed. But I'd rather be under the rule of our government (or any in Europe) than at the mercy of all the wacked-out, mean, evil, heartless, cruel brutes that live in my town (or yours). Protection rackets are pretty nasty enterprises. Even when it's called "insurance".

69 posted on 02/12/2002 6:50:03 PM PST by Semi Civil Servant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; Askel5
Thanks. Good to see Merc is back in business.
70 posted on 02/12/2002 6:50:12 PM PST by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Sounds good to me.
71 posted on 02/12/2002 6:50:12 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I get it. The entire purpose of anarchy solely to be able to do drugs without fear of punishment ? No wonder the practical aspects are ignored. Adoption of this concept yields a desired result.

I think people should able to do drugs without fear of punishment, and said so in the column above. Anarchy is more about getting rid of taxes. Not just high taxes, any taxes.

72 posted on 02/12/2002 6:54:03 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian Sounds good to me. 71 posted on 2/12/02 7:50 PM Pacific by A.J.Armitage

Sadly, many, many abortions would probably go unprosecuted. Biblical evidentiary standards, if consistently applied, are too rigorous to permit invasive wild-goose-chases; only clearly evidenced crimes, with ruthless penalty for false evidence.

But, abortion would be illegal. It would be classed as Murder.
The Magistracy's Law would be right in the eyes of God.

73 posted on 02/12/2002 6:56:33 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Logical fallacy to argue that not x therefore y. Which is what your attempting.
74 posted on 02/12/2002 6:59:36 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
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.
75 posted on 02/12/2002 7:00:13 PM PST by veryconernedamerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
So you believe that justice as described in the Bible is what ought to be instituted in the USA. So, if by intention or accident someone causes someone else's eye or tooth, hand or foot, to be lost, they should loose theirs:

Deuteronomy 19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

This prescription is stated at least two more times in the Bible, Exodus 21:24, and Leviticus 24:20

And you believe this, even though you know the Bible clearly teaches that God determines who the rulers of countries are, and chooses the basest of man as those rulers: Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. Or maybe you only believe those parts of the Bible you like pertain to the government today.

Hank

76 posted on 02/12/2002 7:02:23 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Semi Civil Servant
Containing the use of force is the issue. Anarchists think you can solve the issue of Liberty vs. Power by abolishing Power, but that won't happen. Their force-users are still Power as much as the federal government is. So you're right in granting that the government is the most dangerous physical force in existence, but the alternative will be just as, or more, dangerous for the same reason government is dangerous in the first place.
77 posted on 02/12/2002 7:02:34 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
A Church is a form of gov't. Anarchists think they can construct a society without one. They ignore practical realities. Having to invoke another form of gov't to make up for the impractical aspects of anarchy proves it doesn't work.
78 posted on 02/12/2002 7:03:56 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
True, but as William Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer."
79 posted on 02/12/2002 7:07:35 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Anarchy is more about getting rid of taxes. Not just high taxes, any taxes.

But in your made up world you are just renaming and reasigning responsibilties. Instead of taxes we have insurance. Instead of gov't we have agencies. If you follow the natural course you will be right back where you started. I can't imagine you can't see that. I think the desire to make drugs legal is clouding an otherwise rational mind.

80 posted on 02/12/2002 7:09:24 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Instead of taxes we have insurance. Instead of gov't we have agencies.

I am not an arnachist, even though I beleive there is no moral justification for government. But, there is an obvious difference between an insurance agency and government which you neglect. An insurance agency cannot force anyone to by insurance, a government always forces you to pay taxes. The difference is essential and moral, one works by offering you a value you may choose or reject, the other is the offer of, "your money or your life".

Hank

81 posted on 02/12/2002 7:20:01 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
A.J., I deeply admire your patience to read this crap and make such cogent remarks on it! Your assessment deserves more accolade than the bilge about which you've written. But one would expect such from a thinking mind such as yours, as opposed to the deranged ravings of malcontents.
82 posted on 02/12/2002 7:23:55 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Thought you may get a kick out of this humorous passage.

____________

PEOPLE DON'T KNOW AND HAVE TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO ANYWAY
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW (1856-1950), ANGLO-IRISH PLAYWRIGHT, CRITIC. BOANERGES, IN THE APPLE CART, ACT 1.

I talk democracy to these men and women. I tell them that they have the vote, and that theirs is the kingdom and the power and the glory. I say to them "You are supreme: exercise your power." They say, "That's right: tell us what to do;" and I tell them. I say "Exercise your vote intelligently by voting for me." And they do. That's democracy; and a splendid thing it is too for putting the right men in the right place.

83 posted on 02/12/2002 7:24:40 PM PST by jmp702
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief, A.J.Armitage
So you believe that justice as described in the Bible is what ought to be instituted in the USA. So, if by intention or accident someone causes someone else's eye or tooth, hand or foot, to be lost, they should loose theirs: Deuteronomy 19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. This prescription is stated at least two more times in the Bible, Exodus 21:24, and Leviticus 24:20

Yes.

Of course, many modern Christians misunderstand this passage. I could go into some depth here, but maybe a quick "squib" from our Messianic Jewish brethren will serve to re-connect our understanding to the original Hebrew wording of, and meaning of, the Text.

As Protestants, we are Sola Scriptura Christians. But this does not prevent us from working back from our somewhat-fallible English translations to attend to the original sense of the Text.

God forbid that we should understand these passages as the Pharisees understood them. But we are not remiss in our duty to Scripture if we seek to understand them as MOSES understood them!!

And you believe this, even though you know the Bible clearly teaches that God determines who the rulers of countries are, and chooses the basest of man as those rulers: Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. Or maybe you only believe those parts of the Bible you like pertain to the government today. Hank

The basest of men may govern, but they are still under God's Commands to organize the State according to Biblical Principle.

Recognizing the temporal power of the Magistrate, and exhorting him to conform his Government to Biblical Authority (and, by the example of Jehu, to slay the King if he will not Repent!!), are not mutually exclusive concepts. They are mutually necessary concepts.

84 posted on 02/12/2002 7:24:51 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
This article loses me. It sound like someone is so dedicated to a single facet of ideology that they contort everything around them in sacrifice to it.
85 posted on 02/12/2002 7:27:51 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
I don't neglect but I believe unrestrained the insurance agency will have at a minimum the same problems as we do with our government. An insurance agency needs to set rates, it needs to specify what is covered and what is not, it needs to spread the risk, it needs to be governed by some mechanism. All of these issues will be faced by whatever entity one wants to name it.

Its juvenile thinking that just because an entity has been renamed we remove all of the problems. The aspect that such an entity would grow into a huge repressive government is so basic to me I am overwhelmed that such otherwise intelligent people cannot project what would happen.

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.

86 posted on 02/12/2002 7:29:18 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion, A.J.Armitage
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian A Church is a form of gov't. Anarchists think they can construct a society without one. They ignore practical realities. Having to invoke another form of gov't to make up for the impractical aspects of anarchy proves it doesn't work. 78 posted on 2/12/02 8:03 PM Pacific by VRWC_minion

A Church is a "form of Government".

What a Church is not, is a STATE.

For all but an extremely limited number of cases (actual crimes of aggression), a covenantal Church is a far better, and more Biblically appropriate, form of Government, than the coercive State.

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian True, but as William Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer." 79 posted on 2/12/02 8:07 PM Pacific by A.J.Armitage

Yes.

The world is imperfect -- for now. Blackstone's maxim is one of those "best we can do, this side of Glory" type things, and is "true" -- at least for this Time, and this Season.

87 posted on 02/12/2002 7:29:19 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RLK, A.J.Armitage
This article loses me. It sound like someone is so dedicated to a single facet of ideology that they contort everything around them in sacrifice to it.

Life.
Liberty.
Property.

Where's the contortion?

88 posted on 02/12/2002 7:30:24 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I have no problem with your suggestion. What you suggest is rational and would work. I don't think the anarchists would go along though because the Church is likely to be unsupportive of drug use and would impose their will on the poor drug users.

This isn't the solution these folks are looking for. Their only hope is in believing anarchy is a workable system.

89 posted on 02/12/2002 7:33:49 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Egads... Avika Belk is not a Messianic Jew. I apologize for the botched attribution on my part.

HOWEVER, Orthodox Messianics will agree with Belk's theonomic reading of Exodus, as Orthodox Messianics read Exodus in the same way that an Orthodox Rabbinic like Belk would read the passage. That, despite my botched attribution, was my point. Mea Culpa... it's late.

90 posted on 02/12/2002 7:36:48 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | 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.

Machine-gun libertopian anarcho-narco-capitalism... A very scary prospect indeed. If someone wrongs you, just hire a bunch of JBTs to arrest them, and if they refuse to be taken in, Waco them. Not a society I'd want to live in!

91 posted on 02/12/2002 7:38:41 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I have no problem with your suggestion. What you suggest is rational and would work. I don't think the anarchists would go along though because the Church is likely to be unsupportive of drug use and would impose their will on the poor drug users.

Yes, it would, it should, and it does.

This isn't the solution these folks are looking for. Their only hope is in believing anarchy is a workable system.

Hedonists will be hedonists, whether Communistic (Green Party) or Capitalistic (some Libertarians).
C'est la vie. God sits in His heaven and laughs... at both Statists and Hedonists. All men everywhere must Repent.

92 posted on 02/12/2002 7:40:12 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

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 02/12/2002 7:42:15 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
The unborn, and for that matter born children, will be unable to hire an agency to protect them from their own parents or, in the case of some already born children, step-parents.

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?

I await your plan with eagerness.

94 posted on 02/12/2002 7:45:44 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Now prove that drug use being immoral is one of them.

I'll use pot as an example. None of the effects produced by smoking are virtuous. Gluttony, laziness, lowered sexual inhibitions, are all vices. Vices shouldn't be encouraged by legitimizing the behavior through legalization.

I've never seen an object do anything sexually base. And there are plenty of undignified people who aren't objects, and there are people who do unsacred things without being objects. Just say that fornication itself is immoral and be done with it. BTW, should it be illegal for unmarried people to have sex without money changing hands?

Give me a break, A.J. By the term "object" I mean dehumanizing to base level. Prostitution helps create a moral and social climate conducive to sexual abuse and expoitation. I do believe that fornication is immoral, but I would like to stay on the topic of prostitution and drug use. The last question is too silly to answer.

Society? Too nebulous. If Dope Smokin' Joe takes a toke of the old whacky weed, name the person who suffers an invasion of his person or property.

We were talking legalization and immorality. Normalizing the behavior by making it legal will continue to push our society further away from our cultural foundations. Our kids deserve a better society than what you propose.

You can reinforce something without making it illegal to do otherwise.

Societal standards are important. Without them the line between relative and concrete becomes blurred. I have already given an argument in an earlier post on this.

No, you're not talking about ideas. You're talking about making it illegal to do what you consider (rightly or wrongly) to be immoral. If something's illegal, you don't counter it with ideas, you use police officers and administer punishments.

Prostitution and drugs are already illegal. I was specifically referring to fighting the culture war in the arena of ideas, which is what I am doing as we speak. Someone has to stand up for our foundation before its lost.

95 posted on 02/12/2002 7:45:52 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
What's the punishment for the murder of a child or unborn baby?
96 posted on 02/12/2002 7:49:00 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
None of the effects produced by smoking are virtuous. Gluttony, laziness, lowered sexual inhibitions, are all vices. Vices shouldn't be encouraged by legitimizing the behavior through legalization.

This is a blanket statement and you have absolutely no idea that it is true. Smoking is not in and of itself moral or immoral. People who smoke pot to alleviate their pain are no more doing anything immoral than are people taking aspirin.

Secondly, it is not the job of the state to produce "virtuous" members of society. Were this true you and I would have to agree that the state should be scrapped immediately because it is failing miserably.

97 posted on 02/12/2002 7:56:43 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Anarchy vs. the Right to Life

Sounds like a typical polling question from the Left! =^)

Kicking puppies vs. hugs from Mom... you choose!

98 posted on 02/12/2002 7:58:10 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmp702
Thanks!

GBS is one of my favorites, and his "Notes for Revolutionaries" from Man and Superman is the source of some of the most famous quotes in the world, though, most people don't know it. I particularly like, "Those who can, do; those who can't teach."

It is also the source of the misquoted, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," which is prefaced by, (and this is correct, I beleive), "all men mean well."

Hank

99 posted on 02/12/2002 8:06:46 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
This is a blanket statement and you have absolutely no idea that it is true. Smoking is not in and of itself moral or immoral. People who smoke pot to alleviate their pain are no more doing anything immoral than are people taking aspirin.

The effects of smoking are exactly as I said. They produce vices not virtues, and shoudln't be encouraged through legalization because of the toll it takes on society. I'm concerned about the culture our children inherit.

Secondly, it is not the job of the state to produce "virtuous" members of society. Were this true you and I would have to agree that the state should be scrapped immediately because it is failing miserably.

lol...

My whole point has been that if we want less government then we should return to our cultural roots--meaning Judeo-Christianity. However, we still need societal standards that we all live by. I don't want the government to produce any type of citizen. I just want them to uphold the law where it pertains to a clear cut case of concrete moral truth. Prostitution and drug use are indeed immoral and should remian illegal. =)

100 posted on 02/12/2002 8:13:42 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | 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