Posted on 03/19/2003 12:48:02 AM PST by RJCogburn
More false witness, Hit your knees moral man.
Because if there were sufficient demand for human sandwiches, there would be a successful black market in them. There isn't.
You guys believe that people are naturally good.
I already told you I don't believe that. Some people are good, some are bad. Because of bad people (those who initiate force and fraud) governments are created for the purpose of upholding individual rights. Also, bad people are 'darwinized' out of existence by their partaking in activities harmful to themselves, and then not being saved from the consequences of their actions by a socialist society.
Did you see that story from a month or so back
Yes.
For seven hundred years, millions of people watched other people get impaled, burned, chopped to pieces, mauled by lions, etc. for their own viewing pleasure.
Initiation of force. Libertarians would outlaw the Roman coluseum to unwilling participants. And somehow, I doubt there would be sufficient volunteers for it to continue otherwise.
Seven hundred years that went on until the Christians shut it down.
And after Christianity became the mainstream Roman religion, Roman Christians persecuted those who would not convert. Anyone can initiate force and violate rights, even Christians. All it takes is acceptance that the majority or the powerful can rightfully initiate force, and the disrespect for the rights of the individual to be left alone.
Philosophies are not capable of moral judgements, people are. Philosophies ARE moral judgements in some cases.
For instance, the First Commandment must be rejected as a basis of law in order to preserve freedom of conscience. However, the prohibitions on murder, theft, and false witness (unless your name is "Bill Clinton", it seems) are simple reiterations of principles required to protect personal and property rights.
They prettify it by arguing that they are not really seeking to defend sodomy in particular, but to expand human freedom in general. But in the end, it really comes down to defending sodomy in particular.
You guys think that people are naturally bad? And that somehow they become good if they are elected?
Great stuff.
That is why no government may be permitted to wield the powers you would assign to it.
Talk about missing the point.
There is no black market for human food. Therefore, people have morally chosen for themselves to not partake in it, and government intervention is entirely unnecessary.. That is libertarian philospohy.
The first part is nonsense, "common good" is a matter of opinion.
The common good means the good of society. That much is unarguable. As an organizing principle of society, what is the alternative to pursuing the common good?
The second part is none of your business.
Normally yes, if the behavior is behind closed doors. But what if it's made public?
All sin does. And law should be ordered to promoting the common good.
I think the "common good" would be served if you were not allowed to speak. See how that works?
No. You need to provide a reasonable explanation of your assertion proceeding from First Principles.
I have never attempted to justify so called evil behavior. Straw man.
As long as you don't assert a "right" to homosexual activity which is intrinsically evil, I can agree with you.
However, such a law would make it possible to "clean out" public bathrooms, etc.
There are laws against certain sexual behavior public, homo and hetro. No sodomy laws are needed for this.
What about the case in point?
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
Define abnormal so everyone agrees about what it is. Your interpretation is different than mine.
That's the dictionary definition. I agree with you regarding "abnormality." Unnatural acts can be determined objectively, however.
When the act is "finished" orally, yes, it represents sodomy. Such an act is obviously opposed to the natural order.
So you are in favor of laws prohibition oral sex between man and wife. Good luck.
Such a law may be impossible to pass. That wouldn't make such a law wrong.
So God requires that we don't punish evil acts?
Bizzare leap. Strawman. Define evil.
You told me that God will pass his judgement at the end. My question to you is, will God look favorably upon me for being indifferent to the criminalization of homosexual acts?
Check your history...there were plenty of free men who competed in the Coliseum...
Here's another example. Recently, the SCOTUS ratified (in a mind-bogglingly dumb decision) virtual child pornography, on the rationale that no child is hurt in the creation of this "product". Ok...so here's another one for you libertarians.
Lets say I make a 16' by 20' billboard of the most revolting (simulated/legal--and I could prove it) child pornography that you've ever seen and then put it up in my front yard right in front of your house. It's on my property, and I'm not hurting anyone, and no one was hurt in the making of said pornography. So, would you allow this?
No, no, no -- it really comes down to defending The Demon Weed With Roots In Hell[tm]. Please try to keep to the talking points, or Roscoe will have to scold you.
Circular illogic. Define it. This case is a perfect example. The good of society is either served or not depending on which side of this argument you are on.
Is there a black market for human organs? Yep. Would you allow this in libertarian 'world'?
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.