Posted on 02/07/2002 8:02:41 AM PST by watsonfellow
"In many cases the situation consists of two mindless or pathological people entering into relationships and neither realizes the other is mindless, pathological or irresponsible because they both share the same mental condition (and label it liberation). To one person who is using drugs, another person hooked on drugs is acceptable or even attractive in the sense of sharing a commonality of interest and life style. But, marriages don't work on drugs and there are twenty-five million people in America playing with drugs. They have children."
"To one person who is sexually liberated, another person who is sexually liberated may be acceptable to become involved with or to marry. The problem is it doesn't work out so well a year later when that liberated person runs off with someone else in another expression of liberation. If it also happens that somebody in that liberated group happens to be pregnant or have a child, it becomes even less fun. Then, Donahue announces that the children become "our children" and "society's failure." They don't become... "liberation"'s---failure."
Where socialism comes from!
That's the main course of their philosophy. All the rest of it is side dishes.
Ironic, that libertarians want "small government," but want the government to regulate drugs. Rather, hypocritical and revealing.
Drug dealers or no drug dealers, legalizing drugs will and has increased drug usage, including usage of harder drugs. Considering that 26-29% of all murderers were high on drugs and that up to 70% of all criminals in prison were high on drugs, legalization would be result in a dramatic increase in crime.
Further, we already lose more people each year to drunk driving than to murder. Why need we need more losers using drugs, intoxicated and killing innocent people.
Can you show me how Darwin's recognition that the isolation of finches in the Pacific, resulted in the development of uniquely identifying characteristics, caused Hitler, Marx, and Stalin to turn into homicidal tyrants?
And what excuse do you use to explain history's butchers prior to Darwin's investigations? Were the crusaders brutal animalistic rapists because of Darwin? How about the inquisitors? Were they sadistic flesh ripping killers because Darwin told them to do it?
Or was there perhaps some common tie between Hitler, Stalin, and the inquisitors and crusaders... that had nothing to do with Darwin?
Was it perhaps a failure to recognize the rights of man as absolute?
You're arguing in a circle again. The broadcaster has the legitmate property right, having converted a fallow natural resource to a useful product. A "contract" made with the FCC in order to prevent the FCC from forcibly shutting down the broadcaster has the same moral standing (none) as a protection racket accepted in order to prevent mobsters from buring down one's business. A clause in such a contract waiving one's property right has the same moral standing (none) as a transfer of the business deed to the mobster in exchange for continued "protection".
Alchohol should be illegal? If not, why is it 'ok' if a loved one is killed by a drunk driver?
How is it my filth? If I don't like something I don't watch it. I am sorry you cannot do the same and want everyone to be forced to cater to your inability to control a TV or radio. If you know a station has content which you do not approve of, don't change to that channel.
Your self-defense is to create or support the creation of the content YOU want to watch instead getting the socialist, nanny state to limit my options to watch what YOU approve.
Afraid to look at the unconstitutional nature of much federal law or reluctant to deal with the ethical and existential consequences of truckling to the powerful?
I have already clearly outlined my explanation to you. The differences between the USSR and the USA, are like night and day. The fact you don't like what I had to say, doesn't mean I'm being weak, or submissive in any way, shape or form and is argumentative. As I told someone else on this thread, I'm not an absolutist and I don't agree with such a set of values and beliefs. I'm a conservative who believes in the Constitution and supports traditional American values. Limiting the size and scope of the federal government is one of those traditional values. For the last seventy years thn federal government has traveled down a road that has created social programs and promoted liberal ideas that are not consistent with a smaller and limited government. Reversing those trends should be a #1 priority for all republicans and all conservatives. But turning back seven decades years of FDR-LBJ-Clinton lead expansions of the federal governemnt will not happen overnight.
Lease the right to transmit through the private property of other citizens without reimbursement or consent? Sounds like a violation of Libertarian "principles."
Your incisive work on the Entropy/2nd Law of Thermodynamics enigma can surely not go unrecognized in the scholarly world.
Maybe you and Roscoe can share a taxi to the awards ceremony; he's sure to get the Economics prize for his account of 'airwaves' ownership.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record." (Gould, Stephen J. "The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181)
Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641.)
So, Gould, not being a complete fool like you are, made up another unproveable idea of punctuated equilibria (evolution happened so fast there is no evidence for it).
It will lead us to a place where some Americans, having been given the freedom to "do" drugs, will try it out and eventually decide it's a stupid thing to do. Others, given the same freedom, will feel no need, desire or temptation to "do" drugs at all and will not change their attitude at all. Others will become addicted and will need help getting off of the drugs; some of them will recognize that they have a problem and will seek help on their own; others will have friends and/or relatives that will recognize the problem and they will be encouraged to find help, which some will deny; others may die as a result of "doing" drugs.
Those who try it will probably learn something (good and/or bad) from the experience that they can pass on to others. Hopefully, in the end, it will lead to a society where the "forbidden fruit" factor will no longer exist, thereby resulting in fewer people feeling the need or the desire to use drugs "recreationally".
But I think it's a pretty safe bet that it won't lead to an entire society of drugged-out zombies that causes America to crumble and disappear overnight. If it does, and thereby goes to show that there was nothing between America and utter ruin but the willingness of some Americans to punish other Americans over drug use, then it's probably reasonable to assume that America wouldn't have lasted much longer anyways, and was ready for the garbage heap of history.
They expressly and explicitly waive such rights.
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.