Santa Barbara Libertarians help win Boy Scout discrimination fight

A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right,

What a crock. I know everything I think is wrong. I won't stand up for any of my opinions. I'm a perfect product of the tolerant millennium.

No I'm not. That was wrong. Everything I think is wrong.

Actually, I would modify the definition to suit my bigotry. I blieve I am right about everything, but I leave room for someone to be able to prove me wrong.

But they gotta bring proof - not the PC crap that stands for proof in the year 2002.

Shalom.

Our Constitution was a delegation of powers FROM the already existing states TO a newly created federal government. Simple, but apparently too difficult for some to fathom.

[cite] - We the People, -- well, -- you get the picture & it proves you wrong.
---- States have been given no such powers to delegate to the fed. People delegate powers to both states & to our higher federal constitution, which is the law of the land. -- Simple concept, which you choose to misinterpret for statist political reasons.

Citeless and sightless.

Yep, you mirror your faults well. - But how bout some of that requested humor?

In a free market, Adam Smith's invisible hand will solve your problem.

Amen to that! I am not arguing with Adam Smith. He said that, if each individual rationally follows his own self-interest, the outcome will be the best for society as a whole. That's why I support Conservatism in the first place.

You said it was a moral absolute that you must not initiate force or fraud. I agreed with this, with the amendment that you must not initiate force other than to enforce mor...well, make it the law. Where is this morality derived from? I mean, why is it immoral to initiate force or fraud? If somebody steals your wallet, why are you justified in seeking a remedy? Did the thief not just pursue happiness, which he has a right to?

The answer is, of course, that he didn't. You do not get any happier by becoming a thief. Richer, perhaps. But not happier. Theft is a destructive action, and the thief is irrational.

Indeed, Adam Smith's individuals need to be rational for the invisible hand to work. I guess you can't disagree with this. The Liberals in my story were destructive and irrational: they envied my wealth and, rather than make their own honest money, they decided to destroy my wealth. Their action made society as a whole worse off, didn't it? I became poorer, the Libs became no richer, and those poor fools I employed for menial chores fell into complete irrationality from partial rationality.

Liberals in the real world are just like this, aren't they? They abuse the partial rationality of a great portion of the population for their own destructive purposes. They are destructive and irrational, just like thieves. Another bold proposition: that which is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be irrational AND ALSO DESTRUCTIVE, is immoral and should therefore be illegal.

While the force of the law cannot make an irrational person rational, it can remove some of the most destructive irrational elements from his behavior, thus increasing his apparent rationality. Just to make the invisible hand work, so the Libs don't get a chance to destroy capitalism. Would you support that?

If not, what would you do with the Libs? They are out to destroy capitalism!

States have been given no such powers to delegate to the fed

Wrong. The States were sovereign, citeless historical revisionism notwithstanding.

Who says the hooker is better off?

Oh, I'm beaten and bleeding. Prostitution is not a good example for unfair advantage.

However, if this does not qualify as an unfair advantage, it might qualify as partional rationality. I mean, she really isn't better off!

It was a good idea to ask me for examples. Perhaps there's nothing I can think of. You're a smart one!

if I forbear from certain actions because they are immoral, but other people can do them unpunished, they gain an unfair advantage. What do you think of this?

Could you give an example?

336 posted by freeeee

Speeding is what immediately comes to my mind, thought I guess that would be handled somehow in a Libertarian society.

Somehow? -- I doubt a 'libertarian society', based on our constitution, would handle speeding much differently then now. Why would we?

Let's make it prostitution then. That danged hooker is allowed to make money by selling herself, and thus gains an unfair advantage over my daughter.

How silly. -- Move to Nevada and see for yourself what advantages 'pros' have over 'good girls'.
- [answer? - none.]
-- -- You be sure to report back now, ---- when you get some intelligent reasons to bash libertarianism.

It was a good idea to ask me for examples. Perhaps there's nothing I can think of. You're a smart one!

Thank you.

Where is this morality derived from? I mean, why is it immoral to initiate force or fraud?

You're asking some tough questions yourself. I'll do my best to answer, but the most eloquent person on this subject is OWK. If my answer doesn't suffice, perhaps you'd ask him.

It is morally wrong to initiate force because it violates the rights of others.

Did the thief not just pursue happiness, which he has a right to?

His right to pursue happiness ends where my rights begin. In this case, his happiness cannot come at the expense of my property rights.

While the force of the law cannot make an irrational person rational, it can remove some of the most destructive irrational elements from his behavior, thus increasing his apparent rationality. Just to make the invisible hand work, so the Libs don't get a chance to destroy capitalism. Would you support that?

No. I'd prefer rationality be preserved by the market. The unbridled free market is far more ruthless and unforgiving than any law could ever be. Because you see, the result of irrational behavior without social(ist) benefits is misery and death. Irrational people may not even survive long enough to reproduce, so there is also a darwanian element at work here. This is why liberals don't like libertarians very much.

If not, what would you do with the Libs? They are out to destroy capitalism!

If you hadn't noticed, liberal's powers are extended through the force of government. A liberal prohibited from initiating force or fraud is utterly powerless to harm anyone, much less destroy capitalism, which stands not as the intentions of men, but as the result of nature's laws of supply and demand. Without force or fraud, liberals would have no more chance of destroying capitalism than they would have of destroying gravity.

[cite] - We the People, -- well, -- you get the picture & it proves you wrong.

---- States have been given no such powers to delegate to the fed. People delegate powers to both states & to our higher federal constitution, which is the law of the land. -- Simple concept, which you choose to misinterpret for statist political reasons.

Wrong. The States were sovereign, citeless historical revisionism notwithstanding.

People gave their 'sovereign' states power, even under English common law. -- That changed with the U.S. Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, and gurantees that each state shall have a republican form of government.
-- [thus, states are no longer sovereign in the 'ruling' sense of the word.]

You have any more citeless, one line revisionism, roscoe?

People gave their 'sovereign' states power, even under English common law. -- That changed with the U.S. Constitution.

Some restricted powers were delegated to the newly formed federal government.

BTW, sodomy was a violation of the common law.

See my post #345. I guess my venture into prostitution has ended in a quick and humiliating failure... :-)

You be sure to report back now, ---- when you get some intelligent reasons to bash libertarianism.

I don't want to bash Libertarians. I want to have a rational argument with rational people. So, when I "bash" you, take it as a compliment: you're rational!

But alas, I'm out of freep time for today. I'll continue complimenting you tomorrow. So long!

No, but how much easier would it be to tell Billy he can't do something and neither can his friends, as opposed to Billy being the only person that can't do it. This is a major reason to live together with people who share similar standards.

So you're still arguing in favor of Hillary's bogus claim that it takes a village to raise a child. Here's the hypocritical dark side of "people who share similar standards". How about it start at home where most parents tell their children the three reality distorting lies -- flying Santa Clause, Easter Bunny and tooth fairy. Ah, but it takes a village to further distort reality in young innocent minds via telling/living the three lies. But those three lies are all told/lived in the name of having fun, right? Is it any wonder that children are prone to telling lies considering that parents are first to teach their children by example how to lie and that it's a means to having fun. Then parents try to teach their children that it's wrong to lie. Is it any wonder that some children chose to take reality distorting drugs to have fun. I mean parents and the "child raising village" have taught by example that distorting reality in the name of fun is a good thing.

And the threat by the user is enough to merit a law anyways. A hard recreational drug simply cannot be used responsibly. It not only takes away the users ability to make resposible decisions while high, but it also takes away the users ability to control the amount he or she takes. They become addicted, and do nothing but destroy everything around them. They hurt their loved ones, their neighbors, and especially kids, if they have any.

And the threat by the user is enough to merit a law anyways. A hard liquor ~~recreational drug~~ simply cannot be used responsibly. It not only takes away the users ability to make responsible decisions while high, but it also takes away the users ability to control the amount he or she takes. They become addicted, and do nothing but destroy everything around them. They hurt their loved ones, their neighbors, and especially kids, if they have any.

You keep avoiding the point. Here it is again...

Roscoe: If the Boy Scouts owned an apartment building and rented out units to the general public, they would be required to make the apartments available to applicants without regard to their races. 242
Zon: The fourth amendment refuses government access to a person's home, property or business without a properly signed warrant. Yet the government forces business owners to give access to total strangers via discrimination laws. In effect the government, taxpayers' employees, can't be trusted, yet the same government that can't be trusted proclaims that business owner must trust total strangers. 272

Roscoe, how do you explain the glaring contradiction?
322 posted on 2/20/02 3:23 AM Pacific by Zon

Roscoe's response: It's a misrepresentation, not a point.

The point is how does Roscoe explain the contradiction?

I've asked you three times how you were harmed by seeing a person on drugs. 308
Children look up to all adults, especially law abiding ones, as opposed to those breaking the law. 309
Children learn who to look up to and who not to look up to by their parents teaching them. It doesn't take a village to raise a child. 317

If I were to raise my child in a Muslim community, would there be just as much of a chance of my child being a Christian as if I had raised him in a Christian community? I'm not saying it is impossible, but it helps a hell of a lot when the majority of other adults your kids sees shares similar views as you do.

So in the name of "it takes a village to raise a child" you want to outlaw practicing certain religions in the community where you live?

but it helps a hell of a lot when the majority of other adults your kids sees shares similar views as you do.

Yep, enlist that old "it takes a village to raise a child" slogan to further teach the child by example that telling/living reality distorting lies in the name of fun is a good thing. After the innocent child accepts the three reality distorting lies is it any wonder that when older they disregard their parents warnings about reality distorting drugs?

A hard liquor recreational drug simply cannot be used responsibly

I did the other day. One glass of Crown Royal. Nice buzz. Din't get drunk. Was perfectly able to act responsibly.

So in the name of "it takes a village to raise a child" you want to outlaw practicing certain religions in the community where you live?

Many things can be called religion. What if my religion was to have orgys in public?

I did the other day. One glass of Crown Royal. Nice buzz. Din't get drunk. Was perfectly able to act responsibly.

Many hard drug users say the same. You two share company on that line. Nothing like a reality distorting buzz, right. And I suppose you think that's a good example for the children, right?

Seeing as you argued in favor of Hillary's bogus claim that it takes a village to raise a child, here's the hypocritical dark side of "people who share similar standards" 316. How about it start at home where most parents tell their children the three reality distorting lies -- flying Santa Clause, Easter Bunny and tooth fairy. Ah, but it takes a village to further distort reality in young innocent minds via telling/living the three lies. But those three lies are all told/lived in the name of having fun, right? Is it any wonder that children are prone to telling lies considering that parents are first to teach their children by example how to lie and that it's a means to having fun -- not to mention teaching by example that getting a reality distorting buzz from alcohol is fun. Then parents try to teach their children that it's wrong to lie and do reality distorting drugs. Is it any wonder that some children chose to take reality distorting drugs to have fun. I mean, parents and the "child raising village" have taught by example that distorting reality in the name of fun is a good thing.

If I were to raise my child in a Muslim community, would there be just as much of a chance of my child being a Christian as if I had raised him in a Christian community? I'm not saying it is impossible, but it helps a hell of a lot when the majority of other adults your kids sees shares similar views as you do. 327
So in the name of "it takes a village to raise a child" you want to outlaw practicing certain religions in the community where you live? 353

Many things can be called religion. What if my religion was to have orgys in public?

It depends on the meaning of "is", right? But you didn't say orgies, you said Muslim. And now you're arguing in favor of outlawing practicing certain religions in the community where you live.

Manny hard drug users say the same.

They lie then. There is not a single hard drug user out there that uses a hard drug without getting high. It pretty much physically impossible, unless you have a super high tolerance, in which case you are addicted anyway, or you have a rare chemical make up in your body.

flying Santa Clause, Easter Bunny and tooth fairy.

I'm starting to think you have some childhood issues you need to face. Santa Clause? Com'on

And now you're arguing in favor of outlawing practicing certain religions in the community where you live.

No I am not. I am illustrating that it would be wiser to raise your child in a community that supports your religious views. The major seperating factor in our society is religion. Our very freedom is based in a fight for freedom to worship freely with others that share your beliefs. If I so chose to I could find a Muslim community to raise my kid in if I were Muslim, but no law can be made in respect to religion.

I'm starting to think you have some childhood issues you need to face. Santa Clause? Com'on

Seeing as you argued in favor of Hillary's bogus claim that it takes a village to raise a child, here's the hypocritical dark side of "people who share similar standards" 316. How about it start at home where most parents tell their children the three reality distorting lies -- flying Santa Clause, Easter Bunny and tooth fairy. Ah, but it takes a village to further distort reality in young innocent minds via telling/living the three lies. But those three lies are all told/lived in the name of having fun, right? Is it any wonder that children are prone to telling lies considering that parents are first to teach their children by example how to lie and that it's a means to having fun -- not to mention teaching by example that getting a reality distorting buzz from alcohol is fun. Then parents try to teach their children that it's wrong to lie and do reality distorting drugs. Is it any wonder that some children chose to take reality distorting drugs to have fun. I mean, parents and the "child raising village" have taught by example that distorting reality in the name of fun is a good thing.