Predators & Pornography. A disturbing link.

NRO ^ | May 19, 2005, 8:15 a.m. | By Penny Nance

[cyborg]

I disagree. In fact, we are miles apart on this issue and I don't care to discuss it.

[Antoninus]

Apologies if my wording wasn't clear. The amendment process is legitimate--hence, a state that legalized slavery would be in obvious violation of the constitution. Rule by judicial fiat is not based on anything specifically in the constitution but instead relies on "interpretation" of the constitution to find hidden rights--like the right to view, own, and distribute porn. Thus, your analogy is flawed.

And by the way, as a libertarian, what's the problem with slavery? If I sign a valid contract with someone that I waive my legal rights and am willing to work for them in perpetuity in exchange for a lump sum payment to my family, what's the problem? Who is physically harmed in such a transaction?

[Antoninus]

First of all, I've made clear that I'm not a Catholic.

Were you before the Jesuits got their claws on you?

[JeffAtlanta]

And by the way, as a libertarian, what's the problem with slavery?

What you described is not slavery.

[Modernman]

We may disagree when it comes to porn, but do you disagree with the notion that one of the aspects of living in a free society is that you have to tolerate certain bad behavior by other people?

We probably both agree that getting blind drunk every single night constitutes bad behavior, but I don't think you woul be in favor of banning that particular type of bad behavior.

[Publius Valerius]

I have never been a Catholic. In fact, I was raised Southern Baptist, about as far from Catholicism as you can get.

[Aquinasfan]

Not really. One of the legitimate roles of government is to protect the citizenry from outside threats.

I agree that that's the libertarian position, and that it's also true.

A good case can be made that the citizenry would be safer if Muslims were not allowed to immigrate to this country and if non-citizen Muslims already here were deported.

Also true. But at the very least this argument is in tension with libertarianism's indifference to religion. There seem to be two conflicting principles. If Mohammedan immigrants represent a danger to society, then Mohammedanism must represent a danger to society. On what basis then can the government maintain an indifferentist position towards Mohammedanism and all other religions, if one of the legitimate roles of government is to protect the citizenry from threats?

[Antoninus]

Second, if you buy the notion that Jesus forgives you of your sins, there aren't any sins that will keep you from heaven--ask for forgiveness, and you've got it. Whether you're a porn watcher, child molester, or serial axe murderer.

Four words: FIRM PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT.

I don't make any mistake of confusion--you are making a moral judgment of others when you say that what they are doing is WRONG. Wrong is a moral judgment.

Saying an action is WRONG is not anything like saying a person is WRONG. The first is encouraged. The second is forbidden.

[Modernman]

Right. That's why Thomas Jefferson signed a Virginia bill assigning castration as the punishment for sodomy. Good libertarian deist that he was.

Even TJ wasn't perfect. As smart as he was, he was still a product of his times and held many of the same predjudices as his contemporaries. He owned slaves, for example.

[Antoninus]

What you described is not slavery.

No? What's your word for it then? Should such transactions be allowed?

[Modernman]

If I sign a valid contract with someone that I waive my legal rights and am willing to work for them in perpetuity in exchange for a lump sum payment to my family, what's the problem? Who is physically harmed in such a transaction?

Nothing wrong with such an arrangement. Professional athletes, for example, sign very similar contracts, albeit of much shorter duration. As for waiving legal rights? you can certainly do so, but that doesn't keep your employer from being charged with crimes if he holds you against your will, murders you etc.

[Antoninus]

I have never been a Catholic. In fact, I was raised Southern Baptist, about as far from Catholicism as you can get.

Got it. That was unclear to me when you said you were a product of Jesuit education.

[cyborg]

I don't have to tolerate anything I don't like. I am especially INTOLERABLE of porn. I'd be happy if porn was banned but it won't be. Too many people like that trash.

[Modernman]

On what basis then can the government maintain an indifferentist position towards Mohammedanism and all other religions, if one of the legitimate roles of government is to protect the citizenry from threats?

There is a dichotomy between those who are citizens of this society and those who live outside of the borders of the USA. Libertarianism is based on rights and there is no right to immigrate into the USA. However, there is a right for American citizens to remain in this country and practice their religion of choice, so long as they do not harm others.

The USA can exclude Muslim immigrants because, put bluntly, they have no right to be here and no claim to protection under the Constitution.

[Publius Valerius]

Oh, I agree that we should attempt to help sinners; I didn't ever mean to imply that we shouldn't.

But when you legally prohibit a sin that is not inherently evil, that is making a moral judgment, no more and no less--and I believe that Jesus councils us that we should not do such things.

As far as firm purpose of amendment goes, people still continue to sin after they have accepted Jesus, and that's ok. People will always sin; you, me, everyone else. But it's the committment to accept Jesus that gets us into heaven. Remember, though, I'm not Catholic--I don't believe that people need to continually confess their sins in order to receive forgiveness.

[Modernman]

I don't have to tolerate anything I don't like.

In a free society, you have to tolerate many things you don't like. That doesn't mean you have to accept them joyfully. You have to tolerate the moronic blatherings of Ted Kennedy (in that you cannot legally make him shut up), for example, but that does not mean you have to accept whatever gin-soaked ideas he comes up with.

[cyborg]

Tolerance is overrated. I wish Ted Kennedy could be shut up but that's like asking the Nile to stop.

[laredo44]

The purpose of government is to promote the common good.

The founders of this nation would disagree with you. The purpose of government, as explained in our declared independence from Britain, is to protect rights.

Libertarians can't justify taking such a position, and would slit their own throats by allowing a Mohammedan takeover by immigration.

I'll guess that your inability to understand why libertarians would have no trouble justifying keeping the likes of Atta and others out is that you don't understand the purpose of government in the first place.

[laredo44]

If you take away their porn, you are a tyrant.

Wrong, liberty hater.

Your world, where if I do as you permit is to practice liberty, is the land of tyranny. That you would presume to tell me what I might do in my bedroom and tell me I am a free man is the absolute height of denial.

[laredo44]

Sounds like a good movie plot. If everyone were like me of course the world would be a much better place. No children would be abused. No wives would be murdered, battered, neglected or cheated on. There would be no income tax evasion or other fraud. Everyone who heed traffic laws. Come to think of it the world would be a whole heck of a lot smarter too! And generally better looking as well! And most of all, there would be no lack of humility! So. Does that satisfy your thirst for sarcasm - or should I go on... ;)

I think you pretty much hit the high points. ;)