Posted on 02/20/2006 6:24:40 AM PST by Shalom Israel
You belly up to the buffet and eat the lunch, you're obligated to pay the bill.
TANSTAAFL
You have conceded the debate by failing to find any quote from anything, written by Heinlein or anyone else, that contradicts my fairly extensive quote from Heinlein, not to mention my earlier quotes from his obituary, and from material whose source was Heinlein's wife.
I here and now decree a law, that shall stand alongside Godwin's law for all time, and that shall, in honor of my pseudonym, be named "Israel's Law":
In any Internet debate, the probability approaches 1 that the at least one party will abandon any semblence of argument, and reply, effectively, "yo mamma." When that happens, the debate is over, and the first one to call "yo mamma" is the loser.
Corollary: Any statement which admits no logical reply is deemed equivalent to "yo mamma." Examples include: you're stupid; you don't know what you're talking about; go back to kindergarten; ROTFL; etc.
Corollary: If one party calls "yo mamma" but does continue to offer rational arguments, then Israel's Law is not yet satisfied.
"There's a fourth, and probably the most important one: there was a period of near-self-government..."
I can see that giving them a taste for more.
Having used that "argument" more than once, and ignored the reply every time, your repetition is equivalent to "yo mamma." I invoke Israel's law and declare discussion with you over.
To quote Robert Heinlein:
All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can—and must—be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly—and no doubt will keep on trying.
Your mouth was full of food.
It's no strawman at all.
Is govt too big, too small, or just right for you?
You obviously are deluded into thinking what we have is constitutional. It is far from it. It is not a free market. And the Gen'l Welfare, Equal Protection and Commerce clauses are abused beyond anything remotely like founding intent. Their abuse has resulted in a SS system cum campaign and spending slush fund - what if every dime had been invested to compound at T-bill rates? What instead if people just kept the money they earned, a right they empowered govt to protect? The concept of SS is Marxist. And IIRC Bismark, Stalin, Hitler, Mao & Saddam were all fans.
So is the redistribution of incomes. The strongly self interested public educator's biased agenda towards the larger state they and most all Fed'l employee votes for, has a grave and direct impact on society - to normalize it and herd favor for it - a task they've succeeded accomplishing. With the power to tax learnt from the euro-dictators, the progressives and New Dealers built govt and expanded their voting base in one shot and a forty four year rule and leftist judicial appointments. Have you ever whinced when Leno asks a college grad a question fifties 10th graders could rattle off in a NY sec - and they can't? Iraq has better voter turnout than we do! We're a country of elite conned mushheads. Way to distracted to pay attention - just the way elites like it. Ignore Able Danger and the Saddam tapes that implicate WJC & the Chicoms - treasobable offenses. The shooting stole the real show - dupes in a dupeland, oblivious. When mainstream America is as misled as much as it is, that they are too harried to pay attention, then Govt has gotten too big. Had the SCOTUS done it job under FDR, instead of "his" job, we'd be running surpluses as far as the eye can see. Most all of the last 25 years of growth and low inflation comes from RWR's tax cuts from 70% top rate which kept capital rat-holed. Newt's cuts did even more despite Clinton, and so did W's. Our spending problem is one of judiacial fiat enabling congress to spend beyond constititonal limits. This isn't conjecture - I'll take the words of Judge Robert Borck and Ted Olson anyday as my guide.
Corruption and favoritism on the taxpayer's right to happiness dime can and should be drastically reduced. Only an informed citizenry can do it. I'm guessing you decline.
Have you applied for your Iraqi citizenship yet?
Give the citation, numbskull. Lack of citation hinders response, and obscures context. Anyway, the quote doesn't prove what you want it to:
All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can—and must—be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible...
This statement has no bearing whatsoever on Heinlein's preferred government (or lack thereof). His high regard for women, as the scarcer resource for propogation of the species, is also well attested. More to the point, here is another quote from the same source, "Time Enough for Love":
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors - and miss.
You're not even trying. You offered one argument since I called Israel's law, but it was extremely weak. The above is yet another call of "yo mamma." Thank you for playing.
Your Google broken?
The Notebooks of Lazarus Long. Anyone you was even marginally familiar with Heinlein would recognized the quote instantly.
Anyway, the quote doesn't prove what you want it to:
Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal.
Put some ice on it.
He says nothing there aboout government. You carefully avoid any quotes that say anything about government, because they don't support your claim. For example, the quote I gave.
moveon mojivvy, your not worth the breath
"You use it specifically to imply that I'm a welsher if I reject some aspect of this "contract" I'm supposedly party to."
What we've got here is a failure to communicate. I did not mean to nor do I see where I implied anything about being a welsher.
I clearly stated "...you can always ignore it and be an outlaw."
And if you know enough to talk about Hobbes and Social Contract Theory the way you did you know enough to not state '...the other party to this "social contract" is presumably government.' But for some reason you stated it anyway.
But it doesn't matter. I'm done with this for the day at least.
"Without a National Defense some of your concerns will go away, but you'll also have a new set of problems. And I'm not entirely convinced that the new problems won't be worse than the old ones."
The "new problems" are the problems that were there before the old "solutions" were enacted, and are still there today. Which "new problems" did you think would suddenly crop up? Weak national defense? Americans complaining about harassment and unfair trading practices abroad? How would that be different from today?
Curious what this means, since we have been saying complementary things all thread.
Which renders your assertions about a "social conract" essentially meaningless, since you're using it as a synonym for "law".
And if you know enough to talk about Hobbes and Social Contract Theory the way you did you know enough to not state '...the other party to this "social contract" is presumably government.' But for some reason you stated it anyway.
Right. A real contract is an agreement between consenting parties. If a social contract is, in particular, a contract, and I'm one of the parties, then presumably the other party is the one to whom the contract obligates me, namely the government. Since you (rightly) reject that analysis in toto, you fully concede that a social contract is nothing like a contract.
You keep using that term, even though I've argued that it doesn't stand on Hobbesian grounds, nor w.r.t. the meaning of the term "contract". So it's far from clear what you're trying to get me to affirm. The Constitution is a durn sight better than what we have today, and I'd be mightily relieved to see it followed, if that's any help.
the right to travel over public roadways, and so forth.
The author amusingly cites that as a clarification of "life, liberty and property". The author is confused.
The exercise of such natural rights may be restricted to the extent that they come into conflict with the exercise of the natural rights of other members of society
Again he's confused. My rights never come into conflict with yours. Any purported case of conflict always turns out, on examination, to be an imaginary "right", such as the nonexistent "right to swing my arm [anywhere]." The result is profound-sounding but idiotic statements like, "My right to fling spears willy-nilly ends at the boundary of your cranium."
DD, I know you weren't. That's why they call `em analogies. 8)
"My analogy addressed how the players were selected. Do you really think the Steelers would let 11 different outside agencies independently select their starting lineup? Do you think such a selection process would produce an effective defense?"
Not for San Francisco. But I do think that you are changing the terms of your analogy a tad. Nonetheless, I don't think it would be any different than a sandlot game initially and would work its way into a team structure based upon the members of the team best suited to it calling plays and picking teams. Think 'The Longest Yard.' And centralization certainly has its drawbacks as well. For example, what happens when the coach is ailing mid-game, or a crappy coach? What happens when the owner decides against investing in new blood? What happens when the owner determines that you don't need any line to protect that QB because he's damned if he'll pay any more than the league minimum and the game is about making money not about winning and...sorry, I started thinking about Hugh Culverhouse again.
"Suppose one contractor thought linebackers should emphasize speed rather than strength? Sure you can build a defensive concept aroung speedy but light linebackers by compensating at the other positions. But without a central coordinating authority, how do you ensure that these compensations are considered by the other contractors?"
Based upon a failure to draft primarily upon the basis of pure speed or pure strength, the entire team would be at a disadvantage? Do you really believe that nobody on the team would align with the rest of the team and say 'I got him, you got him?' In fact, it's usually well-balanced teams that are advantaged on the field, and even sandlot defensive players know to set stunts before the snap. Why insist that 'compensations are considered by other contractors' if the primary goal is to get the best man for the job and the prototype is set, at least to the degree proven by time, in a fashion that makes minor distinctions like the 'hands team' or 'speed team' less relevant? No contractor with that in mind will be drafting Shawn Bradley as a lineman, or Fridge Perry as a wideout.
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.