PHOTOS OF HILLARY CLINTON WITH SLAVE PROSTITUTION BOSS AND COCAINE SMUGGLER
Sex and Slavery: Hillary Clinton backs "voluntary" prostitution - "Prostitutes, in this view, are merely "sex workers" who "empower" themselves."
Posted on 11/11/2004 9:34:13 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that consent is the basis of morality and therefore that any activity - prostitution, "assisted" suicide, you-name-it between consenting adults ought to be legal. Libertarians also believe that man "owns" himself, and therefore may do anything to himself he pleases - use drugs, commit suicide, again, you-name-it.
It is logically impossible for Libertarianism to be America's founding philosophy.
At least 30 years ago, most Americans could quote the beginning of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Whether you say UNalienable or INalienable, understanding the concept of rights you can't give, sell, or trade away is key to understanding Christian freedom.
First, let's be clear what each of these rights are and where they come from. The right to life is pretty straightforward. All rights arise from the prohibition of moral rules, and the right to life comes from God's rule that says it is wrong to kill innocent people. Although you can't give it away, you can forfeit your right to life when you initiate the use of deadly force against another without first having been threatened with deadly force by the person you attack. This is why God had to command us to use capital punishment, and gave us examples in the Old Testament to show that self-defense was justified. Otherwise, since God's rules apply all the time, we might be confused into thinking that the commandment against murder prevented us from resisting someone who was trying to kill us, or punishing one who had killed another.
To understand the right to "liberty" we need to know what liberty is. Say you have $100, and you were planning to buy your self a real nice dinner with it. Then a thief steals your $100. You have lost the "liberty" to control how the $100 is spent. You have lost liberty.
The same analysis applies if someone makes you a slave against your will. You have lost the "liberty" to control how your labor is employed. The slave owner takes this liberty from you.
We lose "liberty" whenever someone violates God's moral rules. The right to liberty is a command to government to prevent and punish those who would violate God's moral rules.
The right to the pursuit of happiness is similar to the right to liberty. The right to liberty recognizes that we lose our liberty when our fellow men violate God's moral rules. Protecting our liberty is the reason we command government to set up police forces, armies and navies. They protect us from foreign aggressors and domestic criminals. But what protects us from government itself?
Protecting us from government is the work of the right to the pursuit of happiness. This right does not mean license to do whatever gives us pleasure. We cannot molest children, say, and claim the protection of the right to pursue happiness.
This right is based on the idea that God made us in such a way that we cannot be truly happy unless we follow God's moral rules. As a political right, then, the right to the pursuit of happiness is a right to be free from a government that commands us - or just allows us - to do what God forbids, or that forbids us to do what God commands, or just allows.
For example, God does not command us to have children, but if we are married, he allows us to engage in the activity that can result in reproduction. China, however, forbids people to have more than two children. China thus forbids what God allows, and it interferes with the right to the pursuit of happiness of its citizens.
The U.S. government allows its citizens to have abortions, though it does not (yet) command abortions as China does. Nevertheless, simply by allowing evil - the murder of the unborn - the U.S. government interferes with the right to the pursuit of happiness of both born and unborn citizens. It allows citizens to commit evil that will cause them pain and remorse later.
Okay, we know what these rights are now, but why is it important that we not be able to give or sell them? After all, if two adults consent to some voluntary transaction, shouldn't government allow them to engage in it?
The answer is unalienable rights cannot exist if consent, not God's rules, defines what is right and wrong.
If consent defines what is right, there is no inalienable right to life. Imagine I'm a poor man but want to leave a large inheritance to my children. Say I agree to "star" in a snuff film - to be killed on camera in return for a big chunk of cash which I will bequeath to my kids. If government honors my contract with the producer, it has just thrown my inalienable right to life out the window. It has also thrown God's commandment not to murder innocent people out the window, too.
Likewise, say I want to be a prostitute, and other consenting adults want to hire me for sex. No one else is involved, right? Why shouldn't government honor my agreement with my "johns."
This situation is a bit more subtle, but presents the same conflict - either consent is the basis of right and wrong, or God's rules are.
If the "john" is married, clearly there is an external cost to allowing prostitution. The john's wife has a right to fidelity - the husband's faithfulness - created both by God's commandment against adultery and by contact - by the husband's promise. But the external cost of prostitution is imposed not only on the wife, but also on society. Marriage is a bilateral monopoly that increases human productivity by taking many transactions out of the market. When the costs of prostitution are not stopped, they reduce the value of marriage. At the margin, there are fewer marriages, and society - all of us - loose the savings that marriages produce. We are all made poorer.
But what if the prostitute's customer is single? Surely then nobody else is involved and we ought to allow the consensual prostitution, right?
We can answer this question by looking to see whether God's rules apply to us as individuals at all times, or if they only have force when we interact with others. The truth is, of course, that God's rules apply to us at all times. What we call "virtues" arise from the application of God's moral rules to the self. For example, if I do not have the virtue of thrift - if I spend my money like there was no tomorrow - I rob myself of my future consumption. The virtue of "thrift" arises from applying God's moral rule against theft to the self.
To return to our example with the prostitute and the unmarried customer, God's moral rules for sex tell us that sex is the physical manifestation of a spiritual union between a man and a woman brought together by God. To use sex as just a meaningless recreational pursuit violates this rule. But applying this rule to the self - even when that "self" is unmarried - gives rise to the virtue of chastity.
Is there a practical reason that government should encourage chastity by refusing to enforce a contract for prostitution - or the same thing, heterosexual or homosexual promiscuity - between two unmarried people?
The answer depends on whether using sex in a way that violates God's rules can really increase the welfare of the individuals who engage in that activity. All sin appears pleasurable for a short time, but in the long run it produces more costs than benefits.
In the case of adultery, the momentary pleasure must be weighed against the risk of disease and the cost of the losing the true happiness that can only come from following God's moral rules. The lesson of history is that prohibiting prostitution is not a rule without a reason. Every society that has bowed to the desire for a short term pleasure that is less than the long term benefits foregone has fallen - look particularly at Greece and Rome.
America today is under attack by people who claim to champion freedom but who, in reality, champion a philosophy that would destroy freedom because it would destroy our inalienable rights. These people call themselves "Libertarians." They claim that the basis of right and wrong in interactions between people is only consent - not God's rules - and that society has no power to impose any standard of right and wrong on individuals in how they use their own bodies. Libertarians think prostitution, drug use, and suicide should all be legalized.
John Locke answered the Libertarians more than 300 years ago. Locke said, in his Second Treatise on Government, that merely having the power to engage in an activity does not make it right. For Locke, as for America's Founders, the only true source of right was God's moral rules. But if consent is the basis of right and wrong, there can be no inalienable rights, because one can always consent to give his rights away.
We may legitimately question whether we want to use law, the coercive power of the state, to enforce God's rules or rely on extra-legal sanctions like social norms. The answer is always that we want to use the enforcement method that produces the greatest benefits at the least cost. For example, we could not afford to put policemen in every individual's bedroom, so we have traditionally relied on social norms to enforce moral rules relating to sex.
But the lesson of the last 150 years of American history is that evil first attacks and destroys social norms, then changes the law.
Rights arise from moral rules. But the moral rules that create our law are simply whatever a majority of citizens believe is right or wrong. If we want Godly laws, we must bring a majority of citizens into agreement with God by introducing them to Jesus Christ.
PHOTOS OF HILLARY CLINTON WITH SLAVE PROSTITUTION BOSS AND COCAINE SMUGGLER
Sex and Slavery: Hillary Clinton backs "voluntary" prostitution - "Prostitutes, in this view, are merely "sex workers" who "empower" themselves."
Not to defend The Hil., but that article does not quote her support for legalizing prostitution. It just states that she should be ideologically pre-disposed to favoring legalization.
Hi Joe. Seems to me the Godless continue to believe in the inherent good of man and the brotherhood man. Not biblical. They keep betting on man. You know if I was a betting man and I kept on going to the racetracks betting on the same old nag that could barely stumble out of the starting gates, day afer day, week after week, year after year, it might some day dawn on me that my loyalty to that horse far exceeds my common sense. Betting on the goodness of man is very dangerous and fruitless. Otherwise Mr Dead Corpse would give you all in his bank account. For his love of arguement he clings to 5000 years of mans inhumanity to man. However I believe you correctly determined the real problem which is Self. The Christian has the perfect law of liberty. That Law is perfect, but Christians are not. We should always strive to be. We are not citizens of this world, we're just passing through. The unregenerate mind will never appropriate this truth, because he rejects the Truth.
"The answer depends on whether using sex in a way that violates God's rules can really increase the welfare of the individuals who engage in that activity"
Interestingly the above is one of the favorite arguments used by left wing gun banners, they always pose the question: "What possible reason is there for anyone to own an 'assault rifle,' or what possible reason is there for an American to own a magazine that holds more that 10 rounds? The Left demands, as does the writer, that we must submit an approved reason as justification for "pursuit of happiness."
We're not living free anymore, time we can't move without using some state sanctioned "reason."
The writer would have us, as Americans, be forced to justify all our actions to the government, based on whether those actions will "increase our welfare!" Not only that, but apparently the government will judge based on the state religion. I can't wait to see the list of approved freedoms we'll have to consult before doing anything.
The fact is that our founding fathers did not intend a system of positive freedom, in which we enjoy only certain freedoms, as specified by the generosity of our rulers, they intended negative freedom, in which we enjoy all liberties not expressly prohibited, within the bounds of our Constitution(s), by our legislatures.
"Fat people cost society in a myraid of ways, what should the government do with them? Likewise with seniors, children with disabilities and people who ride motorcyles. Where does the legislation end?
Taken to its logical end, both the ideology of the left and the big government right leads to a state that serves as mommy: Eat your peas, throw away that junk food, get more exercise, don't smoke, don't drink and don't look at Playboy."
I guess for some people, "It Takes a Village"
: )
MIT
Actually, no. I'm betting on the inherent animal nature of man. Ergo, the fewer evolved monkeys with big guns and public approval pointed at the rest of us, the better. I do not carry a gun because I believe in some inherent mythological good in my fellow humans. Same for putting them in positions of power over my life and the lives of others.
I don't expect you "love thy neighbor" types to understand or approve. You zealots never change no matter what religious labels you try and hide behind.
Pure relativist morality. The logic of this statement is that if I, an Individual, decide something is OK, you have no right to argue otherwise. More specifically, if the Individual were really the only factor in the decision, I could decide to kill you for money, or even for the pure pleasure of doing so, and you cannot say that it is wrong.
You of course noticed the the problem with that, which is why you go on to state the following:
You have total liberty to act as you choose so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. It is the only social system based on the protection of human rights.
In other words, the individual (notice I did not capitalize that word) is clearly NOT the ultimate arbiter of morality -- there is something outside the individual's purview that makes initiation of force intrinsically wrong. So the Individual (sheesh) is clearly NOT "the arbiter of his morality and liberty and faith."
Which is to say: you have placed yourself in the contradictory position describing a sovereign Individual who is not sovereign.
I find it interesting that you seem to be drifting from one of the central dogmas of Christianity: free will.
Actually, it is not a central dogma of Christianity. It is, in fact, a topic of spirited debate within Christian theology.
I am the arbiter of my fate.
Here is your central error concerning Christian teaching. You may (or may not) possess free will; however, in the end Christianity teaches that God is the arbiter of your fate.
And, if you look at it, that is a logical requirement if the idea of "unalienable rights" has any meaning whatsoever. Without God as a final arbiter, your "fate" is decided only by what you were able to get away with during your lifetime.
Let's look at that a bit more. Suppose it's true the you are the sole arbiter of your fate. Then suppose that you (like Pharaoh) were to die old, rich, and happy after a lifetime of plunder, rape, and murder. Given that the world exacted no penalty on you for these alleged misdeeds, and indeed rewarded you on your ability to get away with them, how can we say that these actions were wrong?
If you think about it, the idea of "unalienable rights" leads logically to a corollary idea: that of "unescapable consequences." If it's ever possible to get away with violating an "unalienable right," then the right must not have really been "unalienable" in the first place.
Given that we know people get away with such things all the time, the only way we can logically continue to insist on the existence of "unalienable rights" is if we invoke a Judge (notice that I capitalized that word) to administer the "unescapable consequences" of our actions.
What are John Adams and James Madison "arguing" for?
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was written for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." ~ John Adams
James Madison: "... We have staked the future ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
Hey, let's give credit where credit is due ! When it comes to enforcing "God's moral rules" (as interpreted by TJ) he's not a socialist, he's an absolute TOTALITARIAN.
See..this part of the debate should get very interesting. Apparenlty the Fouding Fathers were very smart and many of them were fluent in Latin and well read, a privelege reserved for only the brightest and best. Assuming someone is smart, has faith and leadership qualities and reads a lot, is this a reason why everyone else has to emulate them? Like it or not, many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves and had children out of wedlock. Should we be emulating that too (again, assuming they are bright, religious and smart people)?
MIT
It's clear in both of the quotes that you presented that they were relying on the ability of the populace to control themselves (with the help of their religion).
The quotes do not sanction enforcement of that religion by the government, which is what that convoluted essay posted by TailGunner Joe was getting at (from what I could decipher).
LQ
IMO, you put your finger on one of the roots of the argument with that sentence. The question is, of course, who takes the responsibility for personal behavior, the state or the individual? In a free society, I think it is not the state.
Regarding the fact that our rights are granted by our creator, that is a very handy argument for use against those who think that those rights are granted by the state.
You've convinced me. Your logic confirms you do have one foot on the ground and one in the trees. The Law of Claw and Fang will work for you as long as you are not the prey. I suppose you feel we need to weed out weakness in the gene pool. Hey lets kill the diabetics. They cost society billions. Does that work for your animal nature? Why even get up out of bed with your wacko view of life. Total nihilism.
I disagree: there are folks who say precisely that. For example, there are those who say that government has no right to ban abortion. There are folks at right here at FR who have argued that drunk driving should not be illegal.
Government should use the least restrictive laws neccesary to deal with violations of rights.
Agreed.
However, don't demand that government enforce your moral code for you.
That's a pretty silly statement, actually. Laws do embody a moral code -- if not "mine," then certainly that of a majority of the legislative bodies.
Agreed, but I think I've laid out a pretty good framework that balances rights with responsibility.
Yeah, for the most part. I think in most cases we would agree on the spirit of the laws. However, I think you (like the rest of us) have left a lot of loose ends lying around, and that's where the problems come in.
We tend not to understand, much less defend, the underlying moral basis of our laws. As a result we find ourselves tussling with the other side about the proper way to twist the letter of the law, the spirit of the law having long ago been done away with.
But that is done every time we vote.
But that is done every time we vote.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
They were pointing out that a system in which everyone is entitled to free choices cannot work if the people are not virtous enough to make responsible choices. I cannot think of a clearer instance or argument (than the quotes you posted) that our founding fathers intended us to have choices. What use or good is personal virtue when there are no choices or free will? When all virtue belongs to the state?
Which is the opposite of what you are arguing.
Dude - Stop trying to shove your religious beliefs down my throat. My relationship with God is my business.
Besides, except for their Liberal stances on many issues, Libertarians make a lot of sense some times.
Take marijuana for example. Currently, there are approximately 1.5 Million drug arrests in the US annually. 700 Thousand are for marijuana. The cost of arresting these people is about $2.5 Billion (not including prosecution costs). The cost for housing one prisoner is about 22 Thousand per year. So, if only 10% of marijuana users go to jail for a year, the "housing" cost is another 1.4 Billion.
This also doesn't count the huge cost of our military's "war on drugs," the cost for new prison construction, or of recidivism.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
It also doesn't count the intangible costs, such as when a policeman is arrresting a marijuana user, he's not arresting a heroin user, or rapist, murderer, etc.
On the other hand, the crooks are fluorishing. Just as Joe Kennedy is reputed to have done in the Prohibition era, they are cleaning up.
"The average cost of a pack of Marlboros in the U.S. is $3.15. Of that, 43 cents goes to state excise taxes. Another 34 cents goes to federal excise taxes. Throw in another 58 cents for the cost of the $206 billion settlement with 46 states — a suit, the irony of which should not escape anyone, launched to recoup "lost" healthcare costs due to smoking. According to the American Lung Association, Americans consume 420 billion cigarettes per year, or 21 billion packs. Which means that between the states, the feds and the trial lawyers, smokers are coughing up $30 billion a year."
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,169517,00.html
Even if only 10% of the people smoked marijuana, we would accrue an additional $3 Billion.
Cha-Ching! That's in excess of 7 Billion a year on VERY conservative numbers. Of course, this doesn't take into account the fact that we would create an additional cash crop for the farmers.
I was sort of startled by Matchett-Pi's use of those 2 quotes for a theocracy myself, since I frequently use them as arguments for individual freedom and personal liberty.
Not entirely true. As the Declaration points out, "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." Which is to say: governments exist precisely to enforce responsibility upon those who will not do it on their own.
Of course, the Declaration goes on to spell out the limits to which Government should be held; i.e., consent of the governed. However, we must understand that consent to be an aggregate, not an individual, consent. Were it to be otherwise, then we could flaunt any laws with which we personally happened to disagree, which is anarchy.
Regarding the fact that our rights are granted by our creator, that is a very handy argument for use against those who think that those rights are granted by the state.
It is also a very handy argument to use against those who claim to be able to derive such rights by application of reason alone. (Though they can never seem to provide a logical proof for the claim....)
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.