Replies

Well, if you're a libertarian, there's no reason to ban polygamy, is there? What if a guy has seven wives and 36 children, living paycheck to paycheck, and then he dies and the state gets stuck with supporting the children? I mean, if you're a libertarian why would you give any charity to these people because of their "voluntary" decisions? But if you don't want to help such people, then either the state has to do it or they starve in the street.

Strawman argument. You could have one man and one woman with 8 to 12 kids, and his death could cause the same situation, easily. Do you now propose that we prevent people from having large families, so that they are not a burden on "society"? They are very fond of that sort of thing in China.

After all, did God not say "Be fruitful and multiply?" They were just following Judeo-Christian influences. So what if they made their own mess...it was all in the name of being Judeo-Christian and "moral".

Charity should not be extracted from the point of a gun, which is what Socialism is. If this guy dies, then, yes, too bad, but the woman and her children are going to have to find a way to get money. Life sucks, and only Socialists and Democrats think that the playing field should be leveled, Harrison Bergeron style. If other citizens want to form charity organizations so that the woman can be helped through the kindness of others, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Expecting the Government to clean up after peoples mistakes, or misfortunes discourages people from taking personal responsibility in their lives.

Do you also believe that the Government should tell people what they can put in their bodies? Obesity costs us billions each year. Do you believe the Government should save us from ourselves and ban fatty foods? Do you believe the Government should save us from ourselves and ban smoking or drinking? After all, it would keep the State from having to clean up all those messes, yes?

You talk about things going on in the privacy of people's homes; what about people who beat their children? If you're an atheist, you believe that people are just material, not created by God, and thus the parents (the physical creators of the children) can do whatever they want with them.

That is so false, and you know it. Again, you seem to fall back upon strawman arguments. I have said time and time again, the role of the Government is to protect the rights of the individual. Theft or murder or kidnapping or rape are not acceptable at all, whether in the privacy of the home or not. The State has every right to defend children who are being abused. Because it is a crime in which the rights of one person are being usurped by another through the use of force.

Again, are you going to try to compare the act of an adult beating the crap out of a child to the act of a single, solitary adult having a bong hit in the privacy of their own home?

But if you believe that children are to be protected, to what moral standard do you appeal to take them away from their parents?

The rights of an individual are being impinged, non-consentually through force. That is the legal standard I use to protect children. Basic, universal human empathy is the moral standard I use. How would YOU like it, if you were a child being terrorized and beaten to near death by your parent(s)? Unfortunately, this is one of the very stickiest situations of Morality and Governance. How do you differenciate between discipline and abuse? No real easy answer for that one, I will grant you.

But I could make an argument that beating your child is a very Christian/moral thing to do. Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother. Spare the rod and spoil the child. The Bible is just chock-a-block with parents abusing their Children, and claiming it as a right of being a parent. By what moral right do you claim Christians SHOULDN'T beat their children?

Again, I am not saying religion is bad. I'm just saying it is folly to expect the Government to be the single source of morality and moral guidance in this world. After all you've seen with Clinton, do you honestly trust the Federal Government to understand basic human morality, and to be it's guiding hand?