Posted on 07/31/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by fporretto
Absurd!
It is not rational to wish death on old people, when one day you will be old as well, and receive the same. Anyone using such an example of "reason", needs to be committed.
I think you've come pretty close to the materialist/rationalist/atheist POV.
But remember; the truth is a cork, it always rises to the top.
"Q:"Well, let's take health care. Most health care costs come from end-of-life care. In other words, keeping old people alive. So, I think, using utilitarian logic, we should simply put old people who are going to die anyway out of their misery. And ours. Perfectly reasonable."
Absurd!
It is not reasonable to wish death on old people, when one day you will be old as well, and receive the same. Anyone using such an example of "reason", needs to be committed.
Except of course in the Netherlands where such practices occur everyday, but hey, the have legal drugs (and prostitution) so they must be enlightened.
Every one has the right to be sovereign over their own Free will. Since you have already indicated you are a Christian you should know that free will is a gift from God. It is a gift that no one else should interfere with, even God Himself doesn't. It is a gift, the same as life. It is equal to life in that it belongs to the individual and no one else.
Right is a claim an individual makes to something he is entitled to. In this case the individual claims he has a right to life and to be sovereign over his own Free will. Notice God Himself claims this, as do some atheists.
What are the limits to the exercise of will that God has and has so instructed man. They are the last 6 of the 10 commandments. They honor the right to life, sovereignty of will, truth and property.
God summarized the commandments in 2 and I'll contract them here. Love God and man as yourself. God loves Himself and that is how He loves man. He gave men the gift of life and each a Free will. A Free will that He instructed no one else to interfere with, either on His behalf, or on any man's behalf. So when you say:
"We don't have a right to prostitutes, drugs, homosexual behavior, etc. The majority of society could pass a law that everyone has to wear a green hat on Fridays or be put in jail; but come Friday, EVERYONE better be wearing a green hat."
All of the particulars mentioned and the implied ones included in the ecetera, are in fact exercise of Free will that does not effect your life, sovereignty of will, or your property. Your rights are not being violated buy any of the above actions. That is the limit to the exercise of sovereignty of will that God embodied in the 10 commandments, that you should not infringe on what are absolute inalienable rights. They are summarized in the Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty and the purusit of happiness.
So any law that restricts the sovereignty of will of another human being when they are not violating your rights is theft It's also a direct violation of the command to love your neighbor as yourself, because there's no way anyone would submit his will to the arbitrary will of another. Notice the essential feature hear is that the imposition of law and punishment is simply to coerce the will of another individual that is not violating anyone else's right(s). Any attempt to justify this sort of law by claiming a majority opinion is arbitrary law. Any attempt to justify the law by making a claim that the state will have to pick up some subsequent tab is also arbitrary and bogus, because their is no right to expect someone else to pick up any tab(accept their responsibility) and their is also no duty to do so. Such picking up of the tab is refered to as charity, and to force other people to be involved in charity amounts to theft of their sovereignty of will and property.
"No God, no restraint. No restraint, no duty. No duty, no order. No order, no liberty. No liberty...well, you get the point.
God restrains no one and to do so in His Name is a violation of the 3rd commandment, "You shall not use the Name of the Lord your God in vain." There is no logical connection between restraint and duty. Order is not dependant in any way on duty. Liberty is order.
Protect Freedom: Matt 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
I can't point it out, because you're correct on the 10th Amendment.
You believe that states can violate the 2nd amendment, and prohibit the possession of arms?
But here's one for you: please point out the part of the Constitution that restricts the states from passing sodomy laws, anti-prostitution laws, anti-drug laws, even anti-atheist laws.
The 14th. It requires:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
IE -- Guns are property, & prohibitions on their possession are not due process.
I mean, slavery was Constitutional, wasn't it?
Special case, addressed in Art I, Sec 9. - And you know it.
The states, under the Constitution that you would "live and die for", can ban or allow whatever they wish.
Not true under the constitution, and you SHOULD know that. Curious that you don't.
Why do you reject your own inalienable rights?
You're a conservative, no wonder why you'd make such a statement. No conservative believes in inalienable rights. That's such a messy idea that gets in the way of regulating the hell out of peoples' behavior.
yes.
Cheers, HV
You're freaking out, tpaine.
Mr. Porretto wasn't even replying to you.
I certainly don't agree with all of Mr. Porretto's views, but I do recognize that he both preaches and practices civility in discourse.
You should chill-out, dude, and listen to what the man has to say.
And he's also honest. An honest atheist. Libertarians face the same quandries, but libertarians are actually decent people that want pure freedom without God. But, unfortunately, liberty without Jesus Christ is impossible. Sorry.
So that is why Israel is a socialist state. Funny, you "Christian Conservatives" show your hypocrisy. No wonder why most of you advocate Socialism. If "God's country" does it then we should too.
Sample Q&A:
Q: "By what standard should we determine public policy?" "
A: "Why, reason of course. If only all people acted reasonably, we would have a perfect society".
Q: "Define reason."
A: "Well, well Ayn Rand says reason is the only standard by which we could judge human life. So, perfect reason. Ayn Rand says that between two reasonable people, disagreements are impossible."
Ayn Rand? What about God? Doesn't God use reason to do all His thinking, arriving at conclusions and judgements? Man was made in the image and likeness of God. Does that mean physical image, or a real living capacity?
Q:"Well, let's take health care. Most health care costs come from end-of-life care. In other words, keeping old people alive. So, I think, using utilitarian logic, we should simply put old people who are going to die anyway out of their misery. And ours. Perfectly reasonable."
Sure it's reasonable, but why stop there? You've not mentioned what the old guy desires, charity, or anything else.
A:"But that's disgusting! That's not reasonable!"
Yes it is. You're confusing reason with principle and rights.
Q:"I think it is. I'm not crazy."
A: "No it's not!"
...
Q: "Sure it is. It's logical. If we just kill old people, we won't have socialized medicine, because old people account for almost all the costs. And because we're both atheists, to what authority are you going to appeal to show that your point of view is correct? We're both reasonable people, and we're disagreeing."
Socialized medicine exists, because folks created a state mechanism to take the treasures and efforts of others to redistribute for whatever arbitrary reason those that hold power claim. In this case, free medical services are obtained by voting for a cash redistribution to coerced on everyone. The money and wills that are coerced don't belong to the voters, so the process is fundamentally a rights violation of all those that don't want to participate. You have the right to Life, sovereignty of will and property rights. You don't have a right, or entitlement to violate anyone elses right to perform charity action, or to obtain it. Atheist, or not!
"That may seem a little over-simplified, but it's about true. In an atheistic universe, any point of view can be correct. Kill old people, retarded people, whatever's expedient; they're just material and they're in the way. Oh, that's right. I forgot. Since in an atheistic universe you can't appeal to God's Revealed Word for guidance, I guess there's only one thing left to enforce one arbitrary viewpoint over others: Men were created in the image and likeness of God. To propose that and atheist wouldn't come to the same conclution that God has, is to deny God's Word. It is also using God's name in vain for 2 reasons, because He said, "only the Spirit knows what is in a man's heart", and He never told anyone to justify theft in His Name.
"Brute force."Is justified only to protect Life and the rights of the living.
"Philosophy is bankrupt. Which one a society adopts boils down to who has the guns."
Is God's philosophy bankrupt? Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. God said that with the work of your own hands you will live. That includes the defense of your Life and rights. There is nothing wrong with self defense, only the theft of another's Life, or 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.