tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post7011188823470571714..comments2024-01-01T13:40:44.929-08:00Comments on Dedicated_Dad: Children, Adults, and Choice For Men!Dedicated_Dadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06375339835638311982noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post-81734632778474387212010-07-24T11:22:48.622-07:002010-07-24T11:22:48.622-07:00Sorry that I missed the last 2 posts until now.
N...Sorry that I missed the last 2 posts until now.<br /><br />NOVA: I agree, once the fetus develops the ability to feel pain or becomes a recognizable human form (whichever is first) it **IS** murder.<br /><br />Unfortunately we live in a VEEeery twisted society where removing a child feet-first so the Doc can stick scissors through the base of its skull and suck out its brains (before tossing it in the trash like soiled tissue) is acceptable.<br /><br />Well... Acceptable so long as Doc doesn't allow the head to exit Mom's vagina before said murder occurs. If he slips and has to do the same thing on the table then we call it murder.<br /><br />As to "how can we continue to live together" - I frankly don't see how we can.<br /><br />Essentially we have "irreconcilable differences."<br /><br />WE want our Federal Government to live within its proper bounds, leaving all other matters to the states or the people as the Constitution demands.<br /><br />THEY want a government without limits, where those savvy enough to win an election are permitted to do anything they please, magically elevating them to a state of infallibility equalled only by - for example - the pope.<br /><br />This is an inaccurate comparison, because since they recognize no G*d but "the majority", papal infallibility is a cruel joke whereas anyone chosen by The Majority is vested with G*d-like wisdom and power once known only to kings.<br /><br />The other major fallacy is the concept of "somewhat limited government." As others have said many times, if the government is allowed to decide limits of its power, then there *ARE* no limits.<br /><br />There is simply no way to reconcile our proper, Constitutional, "Tightly-limited government" with their "unlimited government." It's as if trying to compromise light and darkness -- anything NOT darkness is - by definition - lit!<br /><br />The question then becomes "division or restoration"?<br /><br />Do we divide into two separate nations or do we stamp out the evils of collectivism by whatever means may become necessary?<br /><br />Personally I'd rather see them go -- and may G*d have mercy on their souls -- but that's not going to happen.<br /><br />Still, I hope they'll get the opportunity, and I KNOW they'll use maximum force to attempt to stop our movement -- at which point we'll be justified in doing what must be done.<br /><br />God help us -- and God Save Our Republic!!<br /><br />DDDedicated_Dadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06375339835638311982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post-32141589004527228722010-07-06T22:27:36.341-07:002010-07-06T22:27:36.341-07:00DD
I like your story about your daughter my firs...DD <br /> I like your story about your daughter my first born is my daughter also.<br /> But can you please tell me how these two peoples(actulally more like four or five)different peoples live together. <br /> I don´t see how personaly the burden has become to much and is robbing my familly of their futures.<br /><br /> Dennis<br /> III<br /> TexasDennis308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post-85195358325390967422010-05-25T18:26:36.028-07:002010-05-25T18:26:36.028-07:00Abortion is murder. Pretty simple really.Abortion is murder. Pretty simple really.novahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02324749633489670413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post-87574275822907043882010-04-13T19:42:35.323-07:002010-04-13T19:42:35.323-07:00Asking what libertarians believe is like asking wh...Asking what libertarians believe is like asking what christians believe.<br /><br />Depends.<br /><br />See, all are different, being humans and stuff...<br /><br />To me, it's all about Liberty.<br /><br />What better example could possibly exist than to choose what to do with one's own body, or what to ingest, smoke, or...?<br /><br />Why is that *ANYONE* else's business?<br /><br />As a comedian put it - "If a guy who really needs some attention happens to meet a woman who really needs some money - why is that "society's" business?<br /><br />As to war? Well... There are just wars IMHO. Nobody ever said we'd all agree - in fact the biggest reason the big-L Libertarian party is a joke is because it's like herding cats.<br /><br />Personally, I believe that our Founders were guided by Divine Providence and created the single best system of government in human history. <br /><br />NOTHING is so perfect that determined people can't screw it up - but the problem is with THE PEOPLE in question...<br /><br />DDDedicated_Dadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06375339835638311982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post-1155552818539522072010-04-12T11:00:46.798-07:002010-04-12T11:00:46.798-07:00"If I understand correctly, a libertarian isn...<i>"If I understand correctly, a libertarian isn't necessarily opposed to having some laws, just as long as those laws revolve around use of force."</i><br /><br />Right. From another angle, we're very much in favor of the notion that government exists to secure individual rights, and nothing else. If no-one's rights are violated there can be no crime.<br /><br /><i>"1. Libertarians seem to be opposed to any and every type of war... Do you believe there is such a thing as a just war? If the answer is "no..." I would ask the followup about the Revolutionary war and WW2, I cannot imagine better causes for war."</i><br /><br />If somebody attempted a military invasion of our territory, I'm sure most libertarians would be right there fighting to defend the homeland.<br /><br />The war had been going on for over two years before the attack on Pearl Harbor and our declaration of war against the Axis. Though we had been providing material support to our allies, until that point the public had resisted going to war. The US embargo of Japan and even speculated foreknowledge of the Japanese attack, are seen by some people as evidence of a calculated strategy by FDR to draw us into the conflict.<br /><br />In that light, I think those libertarians you're reading believe that we could have remained neutral and dealt with the victors when it was all over.<br /><br />I think Jefferson's "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none..." expresses the overriding principle here.<br /><br />I have to think about this some more in the context of the American Revolution...<br /><br /><i>"2... If we didnt have laws that dealt with non-aggressive issues (ie eminent domain, all forms of taxes, and laws that deal with environment) wouldn't we as a country be just like any other third world hell hole? I am thinking of the river in Ohio that caught on fire in the 60's, the idea that our roads would be terrible and we would not have a standing army to deter our enemies."</i><br /><br />Pollution hurts people and infringes property rights. Libertarians would look to a strong judiciary as the best means to deal with such problems. If any individual could expect to effectively sue Dow Chemical, for example, and actually shut them down if they pollute the river or groundwater, then it would be possible to keep such abuses under control.<br /><br />The people, armed and ready, voluntarily trained, with access to local armories for heavy weapons, would be a formidable alternative to a standing army, especially if you aren't engaged in foreign "adventures."<br /><br />If the government was pruned back to its essential and important functions, and no more, you'd find that tax rates would be miniscule and most costs could be covered by surcharges for specific services, voluntarily paid.<br /><br />In my experience, private toll roads are better maintained than public highways... Why?<br /><br />If the governments of those "third world hellholes" magically became committed to defending the rights (life, liberty, property) of their individual citizens, wouldn't the standard of living explode in response to the industrious efforts of those people to improve their own circumstances and make a better life for their children?<br /><br />In short, the classical liberal philosophy expressed in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, is pretty close to an ideal statement of our beliefs.<br /><br />It's a long way from where we are to where I would like us to be. On any given issue there is an, often unrealistic, ideal solution and, at the same time, any number of small, practical, if imperfect intermediate steps to move us in the right direction. In every case, however, you can trace their origins to our core principles by clear logic and reason. That's one of the things that's most satisfying for me.<br /><br />I suggest the writings of Ron Paul as a good way to gain perspective on the issues from a mostly libertarian point of view. A good resource for this is:<br /><br />http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/<br /><br />Be well,<br /><br />Mike D.Mike D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post-32511860180943190002010-04-09T11:13:27.289-07:002010-04-09T11:13:27.289-07:00Mike and DD,
I appreciate your clarifications.
If ...Mike and DD,<br />I appreciate your clarifications.<br />If I understand correctly, a libertarian isn't necessarily opposed to having some laws, just as long as those laws revolve around use of force. An example might be if the legislature passes a law against robbery or murder. While on the other hand, a libertarian believes laws against prostitution and drug use are unjust. If I am on the right track with that, then I can certainly understand it's (libertarinaism's) appeal. It sure would eliminate the nanny problem we have now.<br /><br />I would like to bounce two more questions off you guys if I could.<br /><br />1. Libertarians seem to be opposed to any and every type of war. I hit up lewrockwell.com once and awhile and get the feeling that all wars including WW2 are unjustified in their view. (I realize that lew rockwell does not represent all libertarians) I have also heard other libertarians speak as though war is never justified. My question is, do you guys feel the same way? Do you believe there is such a thing as a just war? If the answer is "no, there is no justifiable war" I would ask the followup about the Revolutionary war and WW2, I cannot imagine better causes for war.<br /><br />2. This last question comes from issues of practicality (pragmatism I suppose). I realize that most arguments from pragmatics are nothing but red herrings. If we didnt have laws that dealt with non-aggressive issues (ie eminent domain, all forms of taxes, and laws that deal with enviroment) wouldnt we as a country be just like any other third world hell hole? I am thinking of the river in Ohio that caught on fire in the 60's (pollutants), the idea that our roads would be terrible and we would not have a standing army to deter our enemies.<br /><br />Thanks for you guys' time in helping me through these issues. I wish you all the best.<br />Nanders<br /><br />P.S. Keep your powder dry...Nandersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post-92050194925742567972010-04-08T03:07:34.718-07:002010-04-08T03:07:34.718-07:00@DD
You're welcome!
My point re: abortion is...@DD<br /><br />You're welcome!<br /><br />My point re: abortion is that, without the broad consent of the governed, you'd have a situation no different than the one we have now; a plurality of those in control forcing a moral standard on an unwilling population of similar size. As I see it, the issue won't be fully resolved until the prohibition of abortion is nearly as uncontroversial as the generally accepted prohibition on murder.<br /><br />I see something like the level of political consensus necessary to amend the constitution as a reasonable minimum standard of consent, whether or not an amendment is the appropriate way to implement the change.<br /><br />Mike D.Mike D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post-25914078287233743492010-04-07T21:58:37.383-07:002010-04-07T21:58:37.383-07:00thanks to both of you for the comments and kindnes...thanks to both of you for the comments and kindness.<br /><br />@ Nanders: Mike explained the "non-initiation (of force) principle very well.<br /><br />I often say "<i>You have the right to do anything you like - including swing your fist - but your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose!"</i><br /><br />On the "Constitutional Amendment" thing, frankly you're a bit off.<br /><br />A Constitutional Amendment cannot rightly fix everything - especially if it's not in keeping with the letter and spirit of The Constitution.<br /><br />Suppose we somehow ratified an Amendment that all red-heads could be killed on sight? Or that Congress COULD restrict the press, or (insert obvious but not too outlandish point here...)!<br /><br />As soon as Dear Reader& his minions add 30 million new voters, they could EASILY pass an amendment allowing "re-education camps" for anyone expressing opposition to the .GOV, or banning all private ownership of firearms.<br /><br />Would that be legit?<br /><br />FARK no - NEVER!!<br /><br />DDDedicated_Dadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06375339835638311982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post-46532582278270413472010-04-07T03:12:12.236-07:002010-04-07T03:12:12.236-07:00DD,
Your framing of the issues is as good as any ...DD,<br /><br />Your framing of the issues is as good as any I've seen, and would generate political traction if anything can. Very good.<br /><br />As a libertarian, I've arrived at the practical but unsatisfying conclusion that a) abortion is immoral, but b) the issue cannot be legislated until we have the "consent of the governed." Something like the supermajority required to pass a constitutional amendment asserting human rights for the unborn would be a reasonable standard.<br /><br />Nanders,<br /><br />Your difficulty stems from misunderstanding of the core principle of libertarianism: you may not initiate force against anyone else. That's the more appropriate way of phrasing "you don't get to tell anyone else what to do."<br /><br />The use of force in self-defense is entirely appropriate when you are faced with aggression.<br /><br />The phrase "You can't legislate morality" applies to attempts to limit consensual behaviors in the absence of force, fraud, or coercion, such as drug use or prostitution, or to enforce "moral" behaviors, such as charitable giving or energy efficiency -- at the point of a gun. It is not intended to contradict the key moral prohibition on aggression.<br /><br />Actually, though they don't tend to think of it in these terms, my libertarian friends and colleagues are the most moral people I've ever known. At least, when I'm around them, I know I am NOT in a room full of people who would willingly see me murdered rather than permit me the least non-conformity to their idea of morality.<br /><br />You're a libertarian if you believe in live-and-let-live. A good introduction to the subject can be found at:<br />http://www.libertarianism.com/<br /><br />Be well,<br /><br />Mike D.Mike D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797313837469614889.post-90554762334104559842010-04-06T01:37:09.690-07:002010-04-06T01:37:09.690-07:00Caught your link from sipsey street.
I do have a ...Caught your link from sipsey street.<br /><br />I do have a question(s) that about something that you allude to in your post. It's not the main point of your post, but I have not spoken very many libertarians, and the few that I have spoken to arent very articulate.<br /><br />I have heard libertarians state that libertarianism consists mainly of 2 ideas 1. Nobody tells you what to do and 2. you don't get to tell anyone else what to do.<br /><br />I think you kind of invoke that idea when you said that "The small-l-ibertarian in me also believes it is morally wrong to try to force my opinions on others at this point."<br /><br />But is it wrong for you to tell me (or anyone for that matter) that I shouldnt steal from you? or to burglarize your neighbor? Doesnt a person have the right to say, Hey, sir you really shouldnt murder me today? I believe that we do have the right to tell folks those things, and this is why I am not an official libertarian (and i reject the 2 principal fundamentals of libertarianism listed above). I have many libertarian leanings, but it seems like true libertarianism is anarchy by another name. <br /><br />That said, I believe in natural law. As a consequence I do believe that we need some laws. Further if you look at any law that exists it is nothing more than legislated morality. Indeed all laws are legislated morality. This doesnt mean I think we need even one tenth of the laws that we have, but I certainly do not believe the myth that "morality can't be legislated". Do not confuse this with passing a law makes a person magically moral, but since I beleive that some laws are needed, and all laws are legislated morality, it follows infallibly from those premises that legislated morality is needed.<br /><br />I am curious to get your insights on this. By the way I appreciate all of your posts on mikes blog. I have been reading his blog for 1.5 years now, and rarely if ever post. Just to let you know that I am not some fly by night libtard or a guy unfamiliar with the current situation we find ourselves in. I hesitate to post on his blog for two reasons 1. paranoid that the alaphabet soup organizations will get interested in everybody they encounter on "extremeist blogs" 2. I don't have enough intelligent things to add to make the comment sections better.Nandersnoreply@blogger.com