Posted on 07/31/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by fporretto
Each abridgement of liberty has been used to justify further ones. Scholars of political systems have noted this repeatedly. The lesson is not lost on those whose agenda is total power. They perpetually strain to wedge the camel's nose into the tent, and not for the nose's sake.
Many a fine person will concede to you that "liberty is all very well in theory," follow that up with "but," and go on from there to tabulate aspects of life that, in his opinion, the voluntary actions of responsible persons interacting in freedom could never cope with. Oftentimes, free men and free markets have coped with his objections in the recent past, whether he knows it or not. You could point this out to him, provide references and footnotes, and still not overcome his resistance, for it does not depend on the specifics he cited.
His reluctance to embrace freedom is frequently based on fear, the power-monger's best friend.
Fantasist Robert Anton Wilson has written: "The State is based on threat." And so it is. After all, the State, no matter how structured, is a parasitic creature. It seizes our wealth and constrains our freedom, gives vague promises of performance in return, and then as often as not fails to deliver. No self-respecting people would tolerate such an institution if it did not regard the alternatives as worse.
The alternatives are seldom discussed in objective, unemotional terms. Sometimes they are worse, by my assessment, but why should you accept my word for it?
Let it be. The typical American, when he opts for State action over freedom, isn't acting on reasoned conviction, but on fear of a negative result. Sometimes the fear, which is frequently backed by a visceral revulsion, is so strong that no amount of counterevidence can dissolve it, including the abject failure of State action.
We've had a number of recent examples of this. To name only two prominent ones:
In either of the above cases, could we but take away the fear factor, there would be essentially no argument remaining.
Fear, like pain, can be useful. When it engenders caution, it can prolong life and preserve health. Conservatives in particular appreciate the value of caution. The conservative mindset is innately opposed to radical, destabilizing change, and history has proved such opposition to be wise.
However, a fear that nothing can dispel is a pure detriment to him who suffers it.
Generally, the antidote to fear is knowledge: logically sound arguments grounded in unshakable postulates and well buttressed by practical experience. Once one knows what brings a particular undesirable condition about, one has a chance of changing or averting it. The great challenge is to overcome fears so intense that they preclude a rational examination of the thing feared.
Where mainstream conservatives and libertarians part company is along the disjunction of their fears. The conservative tends to fear that, without State involvement in various social matters, the country and its norms would suffer unacceptably. Areas where such a fear applies include drug use, abortion, international trade, immigration, cultural matters, sexual behavior, and public deportment. The libertarian tends to fear the consequences of State involvement more greatly. He argues to the conservative that non-coercive ways of curbing the things he dislikes, ways that are free of statist hazards, should be investigated first, before turning to the police.
I call myself a libertarian, but I can't discount conservative fears in all cases -- especially where the libertarian approach to some social ill involves a major change to established ways. Radical transformations of society don't have a rosy history.
Yet conservatives, too, could be more realistic, and could show more confidence in the ideals they strive to defend. As Thomas Sowell has written in discussing the War On Drugs, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damned fool about it."
The past two decades, starting roughly with Ronald Reagan's ascent to national prominence, have laid the foundations for an enduring coalition between freedom-oriented libertarian thinkers and virtue-and-stability-oriented conservative thinkers. Each side needs to learn greater confidence in the other, if we are to establish the serious exchange of ideas and reservations, free of invective and dismissive rhetoric, as an ongoing process. Such confidence must include sufficient humility to allow for respect for the other side's fears -- for an unshakable confidence in one's own rightness is nearly always misplaced. There is little to learn from those who agree with you, whereas much may be learned from those who disagree.
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.