For what it's worth,

This should light someone's fire....or at least a flame or two...

The following was written by State Representative Mitchell Kaye from Cobb County, GA.:

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal, bedwetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a "Bill of NO Rights".

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like; however, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world, and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

If You Agree, We Strongly Urge You To Forward This To As Many People As You Can. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. We just think it is about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Call it The Age Of Reason revisited.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 15, 1999

Answers

Amen and Amen.

-- Dian (bdp@accessunited.com), May 15, 1999.

The only part I resent is, "and other liberal, bedwetters." I am a liberal, and I agree with the rest of his version of the Bill of Rights. But liberals are constantly given a bad rap in the South and on this forum. I think he alienated a good portion of people, who would otherwise agree with him, until he implied that only liberals need "common sense guidelines" to follow.

And as far as whining goes, I've seen more whining and hand wringing and moaning on this forum, by conservatives, blubbering about y2k, than I've ever seen on any other forum.

And "You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone not just you!" I agree. But he failed to mention that it is usually conservatives who are in the front row wanting everything banned they find offensive. I despise censorhip; there's never a stopping place. And I personally am not as offended by the idiots inTV, movies, music, and bad books, as I am by idiots that want to censor everything with which they disagree.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 15, 1999.

Good one...I'm with you

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), May 15, 1999.

I wonder how many votes this bill would garner?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 15, 1999.

Gilda - I don't get it. "I am a liberal, and I agree with the rest of his version of the Bill of Rights." Your definition of liberal must be very different than most people's because by the popular definition a liberal could not agree with those rights. Perhaps you are using the 19th century version of the word? ;)

On conservatives that want to ban x,y,& z. Liberals believe is social freedom but economic slavery. Conservatives believe in economic freedom but social slavery. Or why I am a libertarian........

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 15, 1999.

I think Gilda may be unaware that she is more Libertarian than Liberal.

I see a lot of self confessed Libertarians who post here. How many of you have put your money where your mouth is and joined the "Party"? Can we get a running count?

Me=1

-- Uncle D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 15, 1999.

Count me in at #2 on the Libertarian list !

-- Tony C. (yo7@bellsouth.net), May 15, 1999.

Hi Gilda,

I agree with you. The last part of that sentence is inappropriate and offensive and degrades the rest of the document. (Dean -- Also a libertarian and former LP candidate for office.)

-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines (dtmiller@nevia.net), May 15, 1999.

Ken, that is really a good definition of liberals and conservatives. I'm sick of conservatives trying to tell everyone what is socially, politically, sexually, psychologically, and spiritually correct. It's none of their business. But I'm also sick of liberals wanting to protect everyone from the cradle to the grave from their own foolishness, and then tax "we the people" to death to pay for their idiocy.

You're right! I really am a Libertarian. Yes Uncle I'll put my money where my mouth is. A party with you in it is bound to be on the right track. Count me in--today! If Tony's #2 then I'm #3. I've got the Libertarian Site bookmarked.

Dean, don't give up, run again. Look at all the new Libertarians that have just signed on. By the way, I've been coming to Des Moines, every September for ages, for the best book sale in the U. S., held at the Farigrounds and sponsored by Planned Parenthood.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 15, 1999.

Count me Libertarian #4, if I can type fast enough. AKA Classical Liberal.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), May 15, 1999.

So I take it a Libertarian is someone who believes that all adults are responsible and will act that way if left alone to do so?

I cannot join this camp. I guess I'm a conservative without a sexual moral agenda. Experience shows that people do a risk assessment before acting irresponsibly, and that certainty of retribution is FAR more important than severity of retribution. Short of a repressive police state, that retribution must stem from within each of us. I believe a litigious society, as we have become, has offloaded responsibility onto "the system" rather than internalized it. And the goal isn't so much to let the system substitute for moral fiber, as it is to beat the system and get rich without earning it.

No, I'm not a libertarian.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 15, 1999.

Flint,

"So I take it a Libertarian is someone who believes that all adults are responsible and will act that way if left alone to do so?"

Not exactly. We do believe that someone who IS responsible, and acts that way, should be left alone to do so.

"I cannot join this camp. I guess I'm a conservative without a sexual moral agenda."

Most Libertarians that I have read consider themselves fiscal conservatives and social liberals. You may already be ideologically close to our camp.

"Experience shows that people do a risk assessment before acting irresponsibly, and that certainty of retribution is FAR more important than severity of retribution. Short of a repressive police state, that retribution must stem from within each of us. I believe a litigious society, as we have become, has offloaded responsibility onto "the system" rather than internalized it. And the goal isn't so much to let the system substitute for moral fiber, as it is to beat the system and get rich without earning it."

Ummmm, what is the point of this statement? Libertarians believe very firmly in personal responsibility, and in punishment for those who commit crimes against others. We do not, however, believe in punishing folks who do stupid or "immoral" things to themselves, such as smoking a joint, or visiting a prostitute. Libertarians are not in favor of a litigious society that blames others, or the system, for our actions, we are in fact set against that.

"No, I'm not a libertarian."

How do you know? You don't seem to have a very firm grasp of what a Libertarian is.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.

Unc D:

No, I admit I don't have a firm grasp of what a Libertarian is. If you live in an apartment with thin walls (all you can afford), at what volume does your right to play loud music interfere with your neighbor's right to peace and quiet? How do Libertarians address such questions?

No, I don't believe there should be 'victimless' crimes. But I also don't believe that our behavior should be limited by 'whatever we can get away with.' And this requires a fairly strict sense of morality. I'm not a member of any organized religion, but I sense that this is fundamentally a religious issue, and that the legaland political base is in some sense necessarily grounded in religion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 1999.

Jeffersonian Liberal = Constitutionally-Limited Republic

Not a Bill Klinton liberal

-- Roger Klinton (bubbabro@whitehouse.lie), May 16, 1999.

Flint,

Ahhhh...issues such as those are open to a fair amount of debate even among Libertarians, but speaking for myself:

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. I would end your right to loud music at my ears.

As to your reference to "what ever we can get away with", this impies to me "getting away with something" that affects others in a direct sense, such as stealing when nobody is looking. We're against that.

As to morals, what kind of morality throws people in jail for indulging in personal behavior with which you do not agree? How evil is that? Can you see a world that says "We are outlawing the consumption of broccoli, 5 long years if we catch you with it?" Such is the sad state of our current "morality".

Keep in mind that there will never be a utopia on earth where everyone is always happy and things always work out for the best for everyone. But leaving responsible people, who do not steal or harm others, to conduct their lives as they see fit is a good start toward that aim.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.

No, that was not written by Mitchell Kaye.

He is at least the second politician I have seen who has apparently taken credit for it.

The Bill of No Rights is copyright Lewis Napper, and printed on page 40 of the March/April, 1999, issue of Backwoods Home Magazine

Someone should tell Mitchell Kaye that he has *no right* to claim authorship of what he did not write.

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), May 16, 1999.

Try this quiz to find your political identity.

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.htm

-- Rory (Rroy@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.

Sorry!

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

-- Rory (Rroy@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.

i took it; it says i'm libetarian too. i sent for more info.

-- sarah (qubr@aol.com), May 16, 1999.

This might surprise some, but even though I am a Christian (I know you know, not to beat it to the ground) who is profoundly pro-life convinced we are in the middle of a moral melt-down, etc., I lean heavily towards Libertarianism. In fact, I think Libertarianism, if I understand it correctly, could be fundamentally scriptural (groans will come from all on that).

Where the rubber meets the road (and I don't think Uncle has answered this) is when/how does a "Libertarian" government act and what criteria does it use for acting? If it is purely pragmatic (some variation of the "if it doesn't hurt others" argument), who decides? Is it value-driven (where do the values come from)? Is it poll- driven? Do sociologists decide? Psychologists?

The reason I mentioned scripture before is that I see government established/affirmed in the New Testament but for VERY limited purposes (fundamentally to punish wrong-doers .... no getting around that debate as Flint brings out and to leave Christians free to live in tranquillity, ie., to be left alone ... remember, the Roman Empire wasn't too friendly).

That is a sincere question. It can't simply be Wild West (play loud music and I'll punch you).

This is one of those threads that make me love the forum. Thanks.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 16, 1999.

OK Big Dog, here goes, No Offense Intended, but you've just added the one element that is a turnoff and always causes trouble.

If Libertarianism is "fundamentally scriptural," count me out! Because first and foremost I believe wholeheartedly in separation of church and state. I am a member of AU, and support them totally. But if being a Libertarian means being grounded with a high moral background, with the liberty to make one's own decisions, and take responsibility for those decisions, then that's for me. If one doesn't have a high moral background, as long as they don't bother me, what business is it of mine.

As a nonChristian, who is profoundly pro-choice, whether it concerns abortion or ending one's own life, I feel that control over one's own body is the most fundamental and basic right any human being can have. No other individual, religion, government, doctor, nor agency based on another's moral creed, has the right to regulate my body. If I want have tattoos, body piercings, abortions, implants, reductions, or to starve it, abuse it, worship it, refuse medication, or kill it, it's is nobody's business but mine.

I have much higher values than many Christians I know. I certainly don't want them deciding what passes for moral values. They tend to focus on "other people's" morals, not their own.

Concerning loud noise in apartments. Flint, we have apartments with adjoining walls. We try to run our apartments with as little interference as possible, and noise is one of the few problems that we've had to address. First, if the noise level bothers a tenant, he is to ask the other tenant to lower it. If the other tenant refuses, he's to call us. We give the other tenant two warnings; three and your out. It's their choice. We have them read and sign a set of rules when they rent the apartment. Everthying is covered in the rules, if you break the rules, after fair warning, you're out. In ten years we've only evicted one person.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 16, 1999.

Gilda

Dang girl!

You are going to do the Party a bunch of good, I wish I was as good as you are at summing up an idea so neatly.

Too many folks I talk to have this idea that Libertarians would let chaos rule, anything goes, no restraints. That is not true of course. We do not want a world where anything goes no matter who is affected by your behavior.

What we do want is a world where government does what it should do, protect us from the actions of others who would cause us harm, while leaving us the hell alone if we are not harming others.

Actually that does remind me a bit of the "Golden Rule"!

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.

Thanks Uncle.

Actually the Golden Rule is all anyone needs as a guide on how to live. I don't always manage to pull it off, but I try.

I've been reading about the Libertarian Party, and I like it.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 16, 1999.

Gilda:

I did ask a practical question for which you have a practical answer, but only Big Dog understood the philosophical underpinnings. Maybe I can reformulate it a bit for clarity.

Let's say our 'loud' music player has N adjoining neighbors (maybe 4, on either side and above and below). If all 4 of them complain, OK, the music is too loud, turn it down or leave. But what if only ONE complains, and that same complainer complains about *any* noise made by *any* of his neighbors? Do you evict all of them to preserve the absolute silence demanded by that tenant? What if TWO complain?

How should this be resolved? Should the neighboring tenants take a vote? Should you sit down in the complainer's apartment and determine if *you* think it's too loud and impose restrictions based on your autocratic tastes? Should a decibel level you can measure be established as a guideline? If so, who determines this level and how?

In a general sense, it seems that Libertarianism works only when the *values* held by the polity are pretty homogeneous -- when there is near-universal agreement as to appropriate standards of behavior. And what is the wellspring of this common value system? In a broad sense, I called this fundamentally religious. The details of the moral code are not important. What's important is that the moral code is *shared*, internalized as a basic sense of right and wrong by the large majority of those living in proximity. This is what religion does.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 1999.

Flint, first I'll address the practical "lous noise" issue, then the "philosophical underpinnings" or what you called "fundamentally religoius."

Concerning the loud noise issue. If only one person complains, and that person complains about any noise, that's nitpicking. We would tell the nitpicker, "This sounds like a personal problem. You can either move, work it out, or endure it." We made a decision a long time ago not to get caught up in these harangues. We don't hold meetings The rules are very comprehensive, you don't follow the rules, you move.

The only rules we have concerning tenant relations concern noise and parking. The rest concern other issues such as damage to the property etc., We are tolerant about many things that other landlords don't allow, so we have very few problems.

Now to the philosophical arugments. Many of these arguments are simply nitpicking too; how many angels can dance on the.... or, If the dog hadn't stopped to.... But, there does need to be a few universal agreements on what are appropriate standards of behavior. But since Libertarianism seems to be a "live and liet live" kind of party, the question seems almost moot, or purely academic.

I'm too new to know much, (Uncle D, correct me if I'm wrong) but it appears that Libertarians can hold different opinions on the same issue, but as long as they don't force of push their point of view on others, they would still be a homogeneous group, repecting their differences and appreciating their diversity. The point of cohesion would be their basic belief in the government taking care of the business it was elected to do, and "we the people" taking care of our business in our own particular way, whether bumbling or efficient.

I think the "values held by the polity are pretty homogeneous" now. But here's an example; I don't want any part of what many people consider entertainment or the "pursuit of happiness." But I damn sure don't think it's my business to tell others what they can pursue. This is where I, and it seems to me, that Libertarians depart from the fundamentally religious.

The religious have every right to worship as they please, and worship any God they please, even if it's the family cow, without persecution. But they don't have the right to impose their views about their religion, abortion, or gun control, or anything else on me. Those choices are mine alone: you have no more right to impose Christianity on me, or tell me I can't have an abortion, (heehee, a moot point at my age), or tell me I can't own a gun, than I have the right to insist you convert to Buddhism, get an abortion or else, and arm yourself to the hilt.

It all boils down to a matter of choice. As long as my choice doesn't hurt you, or the general population, you have no right to make my choice for me, nor does the government have the right. I'm an adult, I take responsibility for my choices and I don't need a nanny.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 16, 1999.

Gilda:

We're still talking past one another. We don't know who discovered water, but we know it wasn't a fish. To a fish, water just IS. And when values are shared, they just ARE, and we take them for granted.

Let's say I strongly believe it's my duty to convert you to my religion. I know beyond any possible doubt that your immortal soul depends on it, and that I cannot in good conscience "let live" the way you are. And any attempts on your part to get me to desist I can only regard as a severe restriction on my life as demanded by my moral code. To me, such restrictions are worse than death.

NOW, which of us is "right"? And who gets to decide? And by what principles and procedures is this decision arrived at? And who gets to define these principles and procedures? If you do, I should be put to death or locked up. If I do, my efforts to "cure" your aberrant behavior are only correct and reasonable, and you are subjected to a 'deprogrammer.'

When values are fundamentally in conflict, philosophies which assume no such conflict are unworkable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 1999.

Gilda,

You don't need any help from me! You go girlfren!

Flint,

How many of these silly hypothetical situations can you come up with?

As for your latest one, when you hit the point of harassment, then you have crossed the line. In that case you are wrong, whether your belief tells you so or not. Then it is justifiable for the government to step in and protect me from your stalking behavior. Just because you "think" that you are doing the best thing for me, you are not given the freedom to continually badger me.

The Libertarian philosophy does not assume that there will never be any conflicts between people, nor does it assume that there is a perfect solution for every single problem your demented mind can conceive ;) What it attempts to do is to allow RESPONSIBLE adults to live as they see fit. Harassing others who wish to be left alone is NOT responsible behavior.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.

Unc D:

You make my point quite eloquently. *You* define my (hypothetical) behavior as irresponsible, and yours as responsible. *I* define our respective behaviors precisely oppositely. NOW, who should impose upon whom? Depends on which of us gets to do the imposing, doesn't it? And how is this decision made?

Historically, issues like these are decided militarily. You can close your eyes and deny the existence of irreconcilable differences, but your voluntary blindness doesn't change the world around you. So long as those differences exist, your philosophy is unworkable. And they *do* exist. Only a common moral code keeps them within manageable limits.

I find it odd that you can state "MY definition of responsibility is the *only* correct one." Just like the y2k debate: MY vision of the future is correct, so let's attack those who disagree. We are justified in doing so, because they are wrong. If we could only make them go away, we could pretend they don't exist and we'd be so much happier.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 1999.

Flint, are you smokin' wacky weed? It doesn't really matter if you're wrong, or I'm wrong in our personal philosophical differences. What matters is each person's right to live their life as they see fit, and just as long as they are not hurting anyone else or scaring the horses.

Is that so difficult to understand. I don't care if you believe in UFO's, think I'm bound for hell, or are in love with a sheep; it's your business. I think you're complicating this issue needlessly. This kind of discussion is like trying to run through mud; you put out a lot of energy but get nowhere. It's the rhetoric of lawyers. `Nuff said.

Spindoc' glad you've joined the parade. Do I see #5?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 16, 1999.

I really feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

Gilda, I said IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES!!! This means differences in viewpoints that can NOT be reconciled. How much clearer can it be? For you to continue to repeat that we can get along fine because our differences CAN be reconciled is totally missing the point. I continue to point out that for some people, letting you live your life in peace is NOT TOLERABLE! This means they can't do it. This means doing so represents an UNACCEPTABLE restriction on them according to their value system. Do you know what unacceptable means?

Look what has happened historically when religions have come into conflict. The issue is real. Saying I'm smoking something weird because I refuse to close my eyes and pretend that all differences are cosmetic is a copout.

Here you are (along with Unc D) saying that anyone who does not share your moral code is WRONG. Can't you understand that from their viewpoint, you are equally wrong? Can't you understand that from their viewpoint, the ONLY possible solution is for YOU to change yours? If you feel your viewpoint is so right, why can't you understand that someone else can believe just as strongly?

The essence of politics is conflict resolution. If this conflict is to be resolved by FORCING your opinions down the throats of your enemies because you won't compromise at all, then you end up with situations like Yugoslavia, and Northern Ireland, and several African nations like Ethiopia. And sometimes the ONLY possible solution is genocide. And who gets to DO the genocide depends on who has the most guns, not on whose philosophy is right and whose is wrong.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 1999.

Flint,

I'll bite yet again.

"You make my point quite eloquently. *You* define my (hypothetical) behavior as irresponsible, and yours as responsible. *I* define our respective behaviors precisely oppositely. NOW, who should impose upon whom?"

Neither of us should impose upon the other without the consent of the other.

"Depends on which of us gets to do the imposing, doesn't it? And how is this decision made?"

Well, if I am ramming ideas down your throat against your will I am imposing on you. The same thing if you are trying to "save" me, you are imposing on me. It does not matter how many converts you have to your point of view, no matter if the whole world thinks that I am wasting my immortal soul by ignoring you, you cannot continually badger and harass me. Nor can I do so to you. If you want a world where some groups are free to impose their will on you because they think you are not living up to their standards, even though you are harming nobody but yourself, I would look into joining the Republicans or the Democrats.

"Historically, issues like these are decided militarily. You can close your eyes and deny the existence of irreconcilable differences, but your voluntary blindness doesn't change the world around you."

Who is denying the existence of irreconcilable differences? What we are after is a system that tries to solve these problems in a way that favors the individual's right to live your life as you see fit as long as you refrain from harming others. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

"So long as those differences exist, your philosophy is unworkable."

Untrue! As long as these differences exist, our philosophy is vital!

"And they *do* exist. Only a common moral code keeps them within manageable limits."

How about the common moral code of "Live and let live" combined with "Don't tread on me"?

"I find it odd that you can state "MY definition of responsibility is the *only* correct one."

I don't think I am, I am just looking for a system of government that leaves me be. Until I begin to pester you against your will, of course.

"Just like the y2k debate: MY vision of the future is correct, so let's attack those who disagree."

I wasn't attacking you, you rotten rat bastard!

"We are justified in doing so, because they are wrong."

No, but we ARE justified in stopping those who trespass against us.

"If we could only make them go away, we could pretend they don't exist and we'd be so much happier."

But, since "they" will not go away, and since they do exist, we will let them live as they see fit, until they "tread" on me.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.

Unc, and Gilda;

You both have missed Flint's point, and *SHEESH* He even used the King's English. If you talk to a truly committed evangelical Christian, (s)he will NOT let you go until you eventually convert, or FORCE a separation. If this person is a neighbor, you MIGHT have a problem.

You see, this person is working under a value system which FORCES them, because of the Great Commission, to convert EVERYONE they come into contact with. The WORK of the Commission is what they dedicate their lives to. They are no less able to live and let live than are they able to ignore a rape in the street out front of their house, or an abortion clinic next door.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 16, 1999.

Flint, you don't need to scream, I'm not that deaf. OK we've got irreconcilable differences that cannot be reconciled. Got it. But to say that for some people, letting me live my life in peace is NOT TOLERABLE, and to say that it means they can't do it is hogwash. I let other people live their lives in peace everyday who do things I'm dead set against morally. It bothers me terribly when I let it. But, there are some things in life that are none of my business and I have to like it or lump it. I do what I can, to bring about change, but I can't make people change, and to harangue and harass them, would only alienate and make them hate me, and convince them even more of the rightness of their position. What I'm referring to would not be a big deal to 95% of the people on this forum, but it is to me, and it has nothing to do with religion, sex, guns or abortion.

I'm not saying anyone's moral code is wrong. I'm just saying their code is wrong for me. I may not like it, but what are my choices? I can either live with it, or what? They have as much right to their opnion, no matter how wrong I think it is, as I do mine. Yes, I understand they feel as strongly as I do. So we can either live in a state of war, or a state of detente.

As far as the political aspect of conflict resolution, I simply don't know. I do know you can pass laws to facilitate integration, sexual preference, separation of church and state, engaging in wars and to tax the hell out of people, but it doesn't change how people feel about it inside.

And ending up in situations like Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, the Mideast and dozens of other conflicts over religion is one of the most idiotic things that has ever come to pass. This is one of the reasons I have no use for religion. I'm a spiritual person that doesn't require a special religion to feel either special or spiritual.

Mark Twain didn't call us the Damned Human Race for nothing. But I do know that if everyone just minded their own business, this would be a much better world.

Hell Flint, I've only been a Libertarian for about 8 hours. How can I possibly know all the answers to these weighty questions in that short time period. What's your solution?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 16, 1999.

Unc, you did a lot better on that last bait, or debate, than I did. I simply would like to be connected to a party that doesn't choose up sides and set one side against another. The Libertarian Party sounds like that to me. Divide and conquer is not always a good idea, and I hate it. It seems to me that's all the Democrats, Republicans do.

And religion has done to this for centuries; divide, cause conflict, set nation against nation, commit atrocities and genocide in the name of God, and ruin millions of lives. I'll have no part of such an institution as that.

Chuck surely you don't mean that Flint is an evangelical Christian. Surely he has more sense than that. I consider the religious right, born again Christians, and evangelical Christians part of the Christian Mafia. Their motto of believe as we do, convert or we'll harass you to death, makes me sick. Is that what you meant, or am I totally in the dark and jumping to conclusions. This gets curiouser and curiouser! I think I'll jump down the rabbit hole, and pull it in after me. Frankly I don't waste my time talking to evangelical Christians. They're nuts.

Hallyx where are you????

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 16, 1999.

Gilda:

My solution: In a word, WAR. There is no other, ultimately.

At least Chuck understands what's really going on here. You dismiss evangelical religions as hogwash. Then you call them idiotic. Then you say you have no use for them. Fine.

But THEY have a use for YOU, and their use can NOT be denied according to their own beliefs. Converting you to their moral code is the essence of their being and the purpose God gave their life. There is NO option of living in peace with them, for either of you. One of you must convert the other, or leave, or die. And imposing on you is their heritage, and their birthright, and their meaning of life. To deny them this is to destroy them. To accept it is to destroy you. You can't just call them idiots and wish they'd go away, and expect this to be sufficient. It's not.

Like I said earlier, when you live surrounded by people who feel much as you do, your value system looks quite reasonable and proper. And if the others converted you (from your perspective, brainwashed you) then the conflict would also be resolved. Was it Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must be fertilized with blood periodically? He was quite right, in a general sense. ANY tree, whether of liberty, or dictatorship, or theocracy, must be fertilized the same way periodically. Otherwise, the value system that tree symbolizes is lost.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 1999.

Chuck

"You both have missed Flint's point, and *SHEESH* He even used the King's English. If you talk to a truly committed evangelical Christian, (s)he will NOT let you go until you eventually convert, or FORCE a separation. If this person is a neighbor, you MIGHT have a problem."

Yes chuck, you do have a problem, that I understand. I get his point. But to me the question is whether or not I wish to live in a place where they are free to harass me. I do not.

"You see, this person is working under a value system which FORCES them, because of the Great Commission, to convert EVERYONE they come into contact with. The WORK of the Commission is what they dedicate their lives to. They are no less able to live and let live than are they able to ignore a rape in the street out front of their house, or an abortion clinic next door."

I understand that too, that is why I want a political system that protects me from their ways. If you condone that kind of behavior, and think it is fine to allow some folks to bother, pester, or imprison you because they do not like the way you live, even though you are not pestering them, Libertarianism is not for you.

OTOH, if you wish to live in a land where you are free to persue your ideal happiness, so long as that happiness does not harm, impose upon, or take from others, you should join us.

Take a look around in

HERE

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.

Unc D:

I agree with you on this one. We have indeed fought wars to "make the world safe" for our belief system. We have the world's highest percentage of our population in prison for violating our belief system. Are we imposing on this prison population? Oh no, *they* were imposing on *us*, see? We have a long history of trying to impose "democracy" on third world nations, using whatever degree of force we can muster, because we are 'against' imposing on others, see? And we don't want innocent people suffering the impositions of poverty, so we tax the productive to pay people 'entitlements' because otherwise they'd be imposed on, see?

But I think your Libertarianism requires a currently impractical amount of personal space. Groups must compromise to work together well, and compromise is hard. Two solutions -- no groups, or everyone agrees. And our current standard of living requires groups, and everyone does not agree.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 1999.

Well I guess Libertarianism is for me because I require lots of "impractical personal space." If our current standard of living requires groups, then I'm sunk. I don't like groups, and don't spend much time in groups. So much for compromise.

The second law of Thermodynamics is moving right along, from the available to the unavailable, from the useable to the unusable, from order to disorder and from disorder to chaos. Ciao.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 16, 1999.

Gilda:

If you're using a PC, there's about a 10% chance that it contains some of my code in it. Groups can be subtle things.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 1999.

Deedah said, "I understand that too, that is why I want a political system that protects me from their ways. If you condone that kind of behavior, and think it is fine to allow some folks to bother, pester, or imprison you because they do not like the way you live, even though you are not pestering them, Libertarianism is not for you."

I'm getting a little lost here. Are you saying that Libertarianism should protect you, for instance, from my saying on this thread that I'm a Christian? (I don't think you're probably meaning that, or is that "pestering")? Should it protect me from Gilda mocking my beliefs (whether Christian or whatever, say I was homosexual)? Or are you talking about protection from physical harm?

Actually, Gilda jumped to conclusions from my original post. I wasn't saying that "Libertarianism" SHOULD enable me to impose my pro-life views on her or her impose her pro-choice views on me.

On the other hand, it leaves me free to argue for my pro-life views and Gilda for her pro-choice views, no? Or else aren't we looking at a new kind of tyranny?

It seems to me that this forum is actually quite Libertarian on the whole? Or am I missing what you mean by Libertarianism?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 16, 1999.

Forgive an ignorant Canuckiuckian for interrupting - I want to understand.

Unc, if I understand you and Gilda, you feel that personal rights are paramount and that they should only be overturned by societal rights if life or health others is at stake.

Flint, if I understand you, you say that the definition of life and health varies, so it is hard to draw the line (the abortion issue is a perfect example of this IMHO - pro-choice : woman's body, woman's decision - pro-life : baby's life, society's decision). Different political parties draw the lines in different places.

In Canuckiana, you'd all think we're pink if not red. We do feel that health care is a right - by and large. We feel the same about education through grade 12, and in some provinces - through University. We are divided on the issue of drugs : some feel that the use of drugs by an individual causes unacceptable damage to society, others feel that it is just an individual decision. Abortion is well established as affecting only the woman, a fetus has been declared not human by the Canadian Supreme Court. Personally, there are things that I like and things that I dislike in my society's laws. Some things make me rather militant. I don't mind paying 50% tax (at least) in order to have good, universal health care. Our premier, who likes the US version, I feel should try to emigrate there rather than force his views on our province (nor am I alone in this feeling - even from those within his own party). On the other hand, I feel that making drugs illegal is the stupidest move our politicians had made until they started the war in Kosovo. Like many, I don't feel that I really fit in any political party, and I vote according to who I think will best handle the issues most important to me.

CT, this thread may be OT, but it's one that has made me think. Thanks!

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), May 17, 1999.

Flint

Allow me one more time to dissect your post. I find it easier to address your points one at a time. Please bear in mind that I am not the Chairman of The Libertarian Party.

"I agree with you on this one."

Huh? Flint, are you teasing me?

"We have indeed fought wars to "make the world safe" for our belief system. We have the world's highest percentage of our population in prison for violating our belief system."

Yes, we do. It is a shameful disgrace that we call ourselves the "Land of the free" while locking up people for consensual crimes. You sound like a Libertarian.

"Are we imposing on this prison population? Oh no, *they* were imposing on *us*, see?"

How? By living in a manner that we did not agree with? Because they relaxed with a joint instead of a beer? Or are you being facetious? If you are, you sound like a Libertarian.

"We have a long history of trying to impose "democracy" on third world nations, using whatever degree of force we can muster, because we are 'against' imposing on others, see?"

Ummmm, no, I don't. Are we for or against imposing on others? Most especially imposing on them against their will? Me, I'm against imposing on others by force, unless of course, they are messing with me and refuse to stop after being asked.

"And we don't want innocent people suffering the impositions of poverty, so we tax the productive to pay people 'entitlements' because otherwise they'd be imposed on, see?"

No, I don't see, again. Unless you're kidding me. If you are then you sound like a Libertarian. We don't like taxing others so that non- productive people can get a free ride from those hard earned tax dollars. For folks down on their luck, charity did a much better job at helping others, or at least it did before one spouse had to work full time just to cover the amount we pay for taxes. Numerous studies have concluded that private charities do a better job of this than government programs do.

"But I think your Libertarianism requires a currently impractical amount of personal space. Groups must compromise to work together well, and compromise is hard. Two solutions -- no groups, or everyone agrees. And our current standard of living requires groups, and everyone does not agree."

Let me try again. I am a Libertarian because I wish to live free from being subjected to behaving in my personal life the way that you insist I should. No matter how much you dislike my lifestyle, as long as I am not harming you or taking from you, you must let me be, and I you. This philosophy does not require any more personal space than what we have now. Nor does it disallow compromise, or working together. HOWEVER, it does require that people get over their foolish urges to dictate to others how they should live. This is also known as maturity. Again I say to you, if you think it is fine for me to be able to force you to cut your hair a certain way, or to insist that you can only interact with consenting others the way I dictate you must, if it is OK for me to tell you how and who you can love, and how you are permitted to show that love, if it is OK for me to tell you what God you must pray to and how you must pray to that God, and if it is OK for me to back up my insistance with the force of arms, then you are not Libertarian. Do not join us if you think that is OK, join one of those other two parties.

Big Dog,

You stated the following:

"I'm getting a little lost here. Are you saying that Libertarianism should protect you, for instance, from my saying on this thread that I'm a Christian? (I don't think you're probably meaning that, or is that "pestering")? Should it protect me from Gilda mocking my beliefs (whether Christian or whatever, say I was homosexual)? Or are you talking about protection from physical harm?"

No this does not mean that I should be protected from reading that you are a Christian. I am refering to physical harm mostly, but it would also extend to emotional harm inflicted through excessive "in your face" type tactics. I do not believe that we have the right of never being offended, just the right not to have our minds changed by force of arms.

Unless I am causing you real demonstrateable harm, I am left to my own devices. I think that is a pretty simple concept to understand. When conflict arises between our ideologies, Libertarianism attempts to solve that conflict in the way that most benefits individual freedom.

We will never find a utopia where all beliefs co-exist perfectly together, where all parties are 100% satisfied with the solutions to problems. What I do believe however, is that a good first step toward that goal is to be governed by a system which attempts give the most freedom of choices to the individual, so long as his choices do not cause real harm to others.

Will you then be offended by some peoples behavior? Yes. Of course you will. But that is a price of being free yourself to do things that others may find offensive, such as praying to the wrong God, or praying to the right God for that matter, against the wishes of others. Or not praying at all, the choice is yours to make.

Not mine.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo .com), May 17, 1999.

In all probability, the "ANSWER" lies in a slightly different direction Many of the most acrimonious "debates" I've had the pleasure (?) to witness or have my finger prints on in the last year or so revolved around one (unspoken) change in our social condition. This can be ascribed to the day that they took attendants out of the men's rooms across the country.

What I'm, referring to here is the unfortunately unlamented (in many quaters)DEATH OF CIVILITY. It was THIS (civility) that kept one from overstepping the right to swing, and actually landing one on the nose. It was CIVILITY that was the lubrication in social intercourse (DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GOING THERE! LOL). It was CIVILITY that caused the reporters to NOT report that they caught JFK climbing back into the compound via the back fence on election night, smelling of another woman. Contrasting life in the 60's and early 70's (minus the segregation/desegregation battles which were due and needed at the time) to life today, what is missing is CIVILITY. This is why my 2 favorite passengers at work are Mrs. XXX (if I said the company you would know who she was) and her very good friend (whose money came from I know not where but I DO know it came in railroad carloads). Listening to them talk is like a good Gatsby novel. I LOVE to take them wherever they are going. CIVILITY again. (And, in this case, gentility, which I keep trying to spell out of the word "genteel")

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 17, 1999.

Deedah -- OK, I thought that was what you meant. I can accept that Libertarianism hits the walls (positively, not negatively) at the question, "at what point IS a little government or, say, some foreign action required?" Nothing wrong with that. Every political position has to wrestle at its "limit" (for instance, "socialism" deciding how much private property it should steal ;-) with, "is this consistent with our philosophy?"

Christians have debated over the centuries (as you know) the degree to which convictions about private morality must be imposed publicly (and keep in mind that punishing theft is as much to the point philosophically to us as other less public acts). Obviously, you can tell from what I've posted, but I'll repeat, that I believe scripture actually urges minimalist government and for much the same reason that many Libertarians argue --- unintended consequences due to human inability to foresee the results of well-meaning but fundamentally arrogant decisions.

Where it gets tough (and I REALLY don't mean to start flaming, but encourage some more thoughtful discussion) is something like abortion. I can live with a government that doesn't outlaw abortion but I am no happier with a government that sets policies in place to support its financing (say, for poor folk) than pro-choicers would be with the reverse. I think my position would be the true Libertarian one.

A caveat there (which is what makes abortion a real flash-point that can't be easily resolved) is whether or not it really is a form of murder. Obviously, honest people disagree strongly about that.

Anyway, respect (what Chuck might mean by civility) has to cut both ways. Heck, not both ways, but all ways even as (here Flint has a point) we do our best to persuade one another (even hotly sometimes) to our own views about what is "best" about many things in life, for instance Y2K preparation, not merely what is tolerable.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 17, 1999.

Abortion is the dismemberment of feeling, sensing babies with knives, or the boiling of babies in salt solution, or the puncturing of their skulls while almost completely born. THIS is what Gilda is 'profoundly pro-choice' about. How lovely. Death of Civility? One wonders why.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), May 17, 1999.

It's 6:00 AM, I've had my first cup of coffee, and I see everyone was busy last night after I said, ciao. Things really got interesting after I joined the Libertarian Party. hee hee I read more on the Libertarian site last night, and I can't see much I disagree with.

Flint, I enjoy the subtle groups you mentioned, like your code on the PC. But think about this. Most in-the-flesh discussion groups turn into shouting matches and accomplish little; our congress is one such group. I've been in many group like that.

Big Dog. I apologize; I used that same tacky method of "mocking" your beliefs, that Christians often do my nonbeliefs. However, you have never done that to me, and I genuinely regret my hasty words. You are right that we should be able to argue and air our different beliefs, and I don't believe in censorship of any kind. That too is one of the good points of the Libertarian Party.

But I don't agree "that this forum is actually quite Libertarian on the whole." From my POV it seems to be very right wing conservative.

Tricia I'm glad you jumped in. After reading your post, I may move to Canada! My husbands family lives in Sweden and they too have excellent health care, etc., and they too pay a hefty amount of taxes, but they have no complaints as they don't have the hassle of worrying about health care. Right now I'm in the hassle of changing health insurance companies, (I'm not yet eligible for Medicare) but the maze of finding a company whose premiums are affordable, that covers anything, is a lesson in futility.

I resent government employees having the best health care and retirement plans in the U.S., which we citizens pay for, while half the citizens can't afford any insurance, and we have to pay for that too in the long run.

I too think making drugs illegal is stupid, and I am not, and never have been into drugs, even though I'm a product of the 60's that believed in their efforts to initiate social and political change. But if we legalized drugs, we'd have to fire half the bureaucrats and law enforcemnt people, that love to pass laws, and beat down doors and confiscate property, even if it is the wrong house. Besides it would eliminate one of those popular political rallying cries of, "We must protect our children from drugs!!"

Uncle your post addressing each of Flint's posts was right on target. Flint is a Libertarian, looking for Utopia. It doesn't exist, but it doesn't hurt to throw out the old parties that don't work and get in some new blood. They are making an attempt, they are growing, and I'm glad. Entitlements and education are two of the biggest governments tits in our bureaucratic system. They help no one but the administrators and create more government drones, and they certainly haven't improved education despite the amount of money thrown at it.

Bit Dog, I don't mind anyone mentioning or practicing their religion. But I get mad as hell, when having said that I'm a nonChristian, that Christians either start their proselytizing, or saying they will pray for me, or hauling out the unChristian like slurs and insults. It makes me want to pray to the Bacchus and Pan to show them the error of their ways. Let the Grand Bacchanal begin! Seriously, it brings out the worst in me. I don't ever start in on anyone to become a nonChristian. They've made their choice and I mine. So why can't they just say, "Oh well, to each his own," and then shut up about religion and leave me the hell alone. I grew up in that twilight zone; I hated it then, and I hate it now. This is a personal opinion, from my personal experience, which has only been reinforced through the years. It is not meant to be a flame, especially not to you whom I've always like. But to me religion is the greatest evil posturing as the greatest good.

I too think Flint has some good points, especially when he reminds people on this forum that they are totally blind to another point of view from the so called DGI's. But I still think he's a Libertarian under the skin; I hope so anyway.

I love a good debate, and the only thing I can't stand is people who have no opinions on anything except the latest sporting event, movie stars, or sitcoms. I wish someone would start a thread about all the different things we are taxed on. I started but became overwhelmed. Taxes is one of my really hot button issues.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 17, 1999.

Bad subject and verb agreement on taxes. My excuse is that our excess of taxes make me so mad I can't think straight.

Spidey, once again you have brought up a typical pro-life response; the emotional, hit `em in the gut, bring on the gore and guilt, and the appeal to rage instead of reason tactic. I could respond in kind you know, the dead mother, orphan children, yada, yada, yada. Instead, how would you answer the following questions. How much do you remember of what took place in the womb? Is an unfertilized egg a person? Is sperm? Is birth control murder? Are condoms killers? Should we legislate condom control along with gun control? Is masturbation murder? Should it be a crime? Should sex be legislated for creation of life only? Are you willing to take a pregnant teen into your home and see her through a pregnancy with all the attendant expenses? Would you be willing to pay for more government funding to pay for unwed mothers, prenatal care, unwanted children, etc.?, Should women who have abortions be sent to prison? Should we have abortion enforment teams like drug enforcement teams to ferret out unweb mothers wanting an abortion? Should abortion doctors be executed or sent to prison for life?

You are free to not have an abortion, and I would want to be free to have one. It all boils down to choice again; the freedom to have control over the most basic of all freedoms, your body.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 17, 1999.

"Bit Dog, I don't mind anyone mentioning or practicing their religion. But I get mad as hell, when having said that I'm a nonChristian, that Christians either start their proselytizing, or saying they will pray for me, or hauling out the unChristian like slurs and insults."

Gilda, no question many of us do these things at times and it is truly regrettable. I appreciate your gracious words to me in your post above because I know how this subject hits so close for you.

Spidey: don't think I'm wishy-washy but this THREAD isn't the right place for debating abortion itself. There ARE many honest people who don't see it the way you or I do. I simply wanted to illustrate the need for mutual respect coming from both directions.

I don't disagree that many of the posters and positions on the forum are "conservative", but I guess I was referring to the "liberty" of the debates we have AS debates. In that sense, I still think the forum itself has a highly libertarian spirit, evidenced not least by Ed's striking ability to "let things go" without over-controlling them. I'm extrardinarily impressed by that and wouldn't be able to do it myself (uh, as I'm sure a few of you might suspect).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 17, 1999.

Just a quickie.

Big Dog wrote,

"Where it gets tough (and I REALLY don't mean to start flaming, but encourage some more thoughtful discussion) is something like abortion. I can live with a government that doesn't outlaw abortion but I am no happier with a government that sets policies in place to support its financing (say, for poor folk) than pro-choicers would be with the reverse. I think my position would be the true Libertarian one."

You are correct sir! Abortion is a divisive issue even among Libertarians, we are real people, not robots. Most Libertarians would leave that choice to the woman, her family, and her doctor. And yes, let private charities that believe in the right to abortion help the poor to pay for them.

Back with more rantings later,

Cheers!

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

This is a marvelous thread. No trolling, good subject material, good thoughts, and civility in the true sense of the word. And, for once, I think Mr. Flint did/ is doing an excellent job as Devil's Advocate. Please don't stop now.

Mr. Unc D,

I too am a Christian with (some) libertarian leanings, though I'm not really "up" on the latest party platform. Have read Robert Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream" a long time ago, so am familiar with some of the precepts. So the following is not so much an objection as it is a conundrum seeking a solution: What constitutes "demonstrable harm?" On principle, doesn't that (for instance) force a Libertarian to side with the gov against the tobacco companies? The gov has, after all, proved demonstrable harm. A similar argument could be made with regard to abortion. Furthermore, you have mentioned "...it would also extend to emotional harm inflicted through excessive "in your face" type tactics." Surely it is clear that, using abortion again only as an example, I could argue that practicing abortion causes me great emotional distress. Can the Libertarian position resolve this in any consistent fashion? Unfortunately, the relativist stance seems to create more conflict than it resolves.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 17, 1999.

How do you like your new name, Bit Dog? My typing stinks!

I too think your position on abortion is more in line with the Libertarian ideal, from what little I know about it. And I could live without any government funding for abortion, as long as women had the right to make their own decision about this issue. But when religious zealots kill doctors, providing abortions to women who have made their choice, they have crossed the line. This is not meant to inflame, but the idea of getting one's shorts in a twist over an unborn fetus, rather pales by comparison when a viable, living adult, with wife and children, is gunned down in his own home, while minding his own business.

Elbow Grease, I could argue that eating meat causes me great emotional distress, and it does, but very few people would be sympathethic. I don't mean to get OT, but much greater harm is caused by eating meat than is caused by abortion. First, the amount of manure put into the environment from feed lots and CAFO's (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) is far more than produced by the human population, and far less regulated. The runoff from this excrement gets into streams, rivers, lakes, killing thousands of fish across the U.S. and creating algae and disease; pfisteria piscidia (sp) is one that comes to mind.

Second, the a amount of water used to raise an animal from birth to slaughter, is enough to float a battleship. This is not hyperbole, this is a provable fact. This amount of water is lowering the water tables in many western states and depleting aquifer's that provide most of our fresh water. The Ogallah is at an all time low, attributed to feedlots. Cattle grazing and wading on the riparian banks of rivers, lakes and streams, are ruining this area which is important to the overall health of the bodies of water and the land it adjoins.

The use of steroids, hormones, dubious roughage and antibiotics are putting our health at risk. Dr. Theo Coburn's latest book on endocrin disrupters addresses this threat and there is documented proof that small children in South America have developed breasts, pubic hair, and fully developed sex organs at pre-kindergarten ages. I saw documentary video of a 2 or 3 year old, on a pediatrician's table, sucking a pacifier, who had enlarged breasts and pubic hair from hormones in meat. Plus we all know that animal fat is the worst kind for our health. It has also been show that BSE is now in the Elk population. How long before it shows up in another species?

Third, the inhumane way that animals are treated in feed lots and confinement houses is a disgrace. What kind of a civilization are we that claims to be so compassionate when we raise animals in such deplorable conditions, then haul them to slaughter houses that are dens of horror and filth, (I've been there) kill them inhumanely as they scream in terror, and then sell the excrement splashed meat to the public. Irradiation kills neither Listeria or E Coli.

We will never be civilized until we treat the creatures that share this planet with us as sentient beings, nor until we as individuals take personal responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies in human beings. End of rant. But I understand the problem you brought up, and it is definitely a "three pipe problem" as Sherlock Homes would say.

CT, you sure started one hell of a thread. Where are you???

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 17, 1999.

even though i'm not sure i can add anything new, i feel compelled to add my .02 cent's worth. i'm not even sure, after reading down through the thread (great one, by the way), who some of these responses are addressed to.

first, i lean libertarian *very* strongly. i am also a fervent Christian, with the full knowledge that my beliefs about Christian character don't match those of the elders and preacher in my church. this was just the first church i could find that did not make me sign on to a list of beliefs to become a member. (becoming a member was important to me at that time, it's not as important now.)

i am conservative fiscally and socially (for my own life), but would love to wipe off the books all 'consensual,' 'victimless,' 'internally-directed-moral' crimes. for example: i believe all drugs and alcohol should be legalized with the same caveat - personal use is okay, public use is regulated (prohibited where it would cause harm to someone else), causing harm to others is jail term material. No Exceptions for law-makers and big contributors!!!!! drive a car drunk/stoned/coked, go to jail for a week. hurt or kill someone doing same, go to jail for a long, long time.

i know i'd shock people in my church with my views on the sanctity of life. i believe abortion is murder, but i don't see anything wrong with suicide. 'suicide is everyman's right.' birth control, condemned so strongly by the catholic church (but not by catholics :)), is okay if it's before the fact, but not after. anything that prevents the conception, in other words.

as do most libertarians, i believe your right to swing your fist ends at one inch off my nose. however, i give up that protection when i have initiated the violence, either toward you or someone else.

there are so many good posts on this thread. is there a forum devoted to this kind of philosophical give-and-take?

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), May 17, 1999.

First of all, I would just remind all that I am speaking for myself as a Libertarian, not for the Party. Though I think they would agree with most of my rantings.

Mr. Elbow Grease,

I too am a Christian with (some) libertarian leanings, though I'm not really "up" on the latest party platform. Have read Robert Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream" a long time ago, so am familiar with some of the precepts. So the following is not so much an objection as it is a conundrum seeking a solution: What constitutes "demonstrable harm?"

Thank you Elbow, I realized after posting that my word for demonstrable was not a good choice ;) Now we enter the gray zones. Demonstrable harm is, to me, harm that is inflicted upon others against the wishes of those others, that is a poor definition, I know, but I will return to this concept later.

On principle, doesn't that (for instance) force a Libertarian to side with the gov against the tobacco companies?

No. Just the opposite, the Libertarian Party was on the side of the tobacco companies.

The gov has, after all, proved demonstrable harm.

Yes, the government has shown that people who choose to smoke are harming themselves, however I am not aware of any smokers who were forced by threat of bodily harm to begin smoking. I am also unaware of any smokers who believe that smoking is good for them, yet they continue despite the risks. Are ciggies addicting? Yeah buddy! I miss them every day! But I chose to smoke, and I also chose to quit smoking. My body, my choice.

A similar argument could be made with regard to abortion. Furthermore, you have mentioned "...it would also extend to emotional harm inflicted through excessive "in your face" type tactics." Surely it is clear that, using abortion again only as an example, I could argue that practicing abortion causes me great emotional distress. Can the Libertarian position resolve this in any consistent fashion? Unfortunately, the relativist stance seems to create more conflict than it resolves.

OK now, into the meat of the matter. Let us use (and modify) your example.

You hate abortion! (Or pot smoking, or gays, or Buddhists, or hookers for that matter) Hate it hate it hate it!! You cannot live with the fact that some folks are having an abortion! (Or smoking pot, or sleeping with someone of the same sex, or prays to the false idol, or pays another for sex) It is a disgrace! Horrors! Are you suffering undue stress? Yes, youre going insane! You just cannot sleep knowing that abortion (Pot smoking, homosexuality, souls going to hell, prostitution) is occurring! Stop them from tormenting me!!!

We as Libertarians cannot stop them from tormenting you! Why? Because, they are NOT tormenting you, you are tormenting yourself!

But you are going crazy with knowing that others are choosing a lifestyle that you hate!

That sucks, get counseling! You do not have the right not to be offended. Let us explore why this must be so.

If I am indulging in behavior that you hate, and if that behavior is not causing you loss of life or property, it is merely behavior which you find offensive. If you are able, through force of arms to imprison me for behavior that offends you, you have opened yourself to imprisonment for acting in ways that offend me. Stated simply this would lead to the following situation:

Citizen A is offended by citizen Bs behavior, so citizen B is thrown in the clink. Citizen C is offended that A was able to do have B thrown in jail and while youre at it, B offended me this other way, so, citizen B joins A in jail for being Offensive. Now D is pissed because he was in love with B, and she is in jail. So now C joins the rest of the Offensive Types in prison. Well, dont think that Cs parents arent PO-ed now, so in goes D too. Now Ds sister is upset that D is in jail, and so go the parents of C. And so on and so forth. That is the can of worms we open when we imprison those who merely offend us.

Silly example? Maybe, but it gets to the crux of why offensive behavior that does not deprive you of life or property must be tolerated.

I take that back.

It shows that offensive behavior that does not deprive you of life or property must be tolerated if YOU wish to live free to make personal choices that are not always what other would dictate are best for you.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

Mr. Deedah sagely stated:

"We as Libertarians cannot stop them from tormenting you! Why? Because, they are NOT tormenting you, you are tormenting yourself!"

If ever I agreed with a statement made on this forum, the above is it. I raise my glass to you sir!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 17, 1999.

Unfortunately, Unc D missed the point again. Blind spot, I guess.

Unc, the victims are NOT the anti-abortionists who are 'tormenting themselves' and need counseling. The victims are the babies being murdered. Try to understand this.

If I choose to murder you, should your wife seek counseling to aid her through her self-imposed grief? You have no problem, you're dead. I have no problem, you deserved to die. The only problem belongs to your wife, and she should realize that nobody else is involved here, so it's her problem. Right? That's a very strange viewpoint to me.

If you feel that murder is a liberty to be respected, you will meet some reasonable resistance. If you define abortion to suit your own preferences, this doesn't make you right, and hardly makes you moral. You might find this abominable definition CONVENIENT for your own purposes. And I should sit back and let you kill because you find it convenient? And if I don't this is MY problem for tormenting MYSELF? Give me a break.

No, I'm not a nutcase, and in fact I'm pro-choice. But the viewpoint I described must be given more respect than mere dismissal as a psychological pathology.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 17, 1999.

No Flint, Uncle D did not miss the point, you did. You, like Spidey, call abortion murder so you can demonize the person performing the abortion, and the person having the abortion, no matter whether you've been in their shoes or not. Who appointed you the Grand Inquisitor? The arbiter of morals? The seer who determines when life begins? Abortion is legal, so get over it. When you men can have the babies, then you can make the decisions.

I was not a person until I emerged from my mother's womb. If someone had taken me by the heels at that point, and cracked my little head on the table, that would have been murder. This does not mean I condone late term abortions, I don't. But not being in the shoes of the person having the abortion, why should I judge them.

I think you show disrespect for women in distress, and having an abortion, by referring to them as murderers. And as far as people tomenting themselves over other people's business, whether it's having abortions, sleeping with someone of the same sex, buying sex, smoking citgarettes, weed or grapevines, drooling over porn, or not believing in god or believing in the devil or little green men, or boozing, swearing, joking, belching, farting, yodeling, snoring, or chasing wild women, GET OVER IT. Tormenting yourself worrying about what the hell someone else is doing that you don't approve of, shows that not only are you suffering from psychologial distortion, but blown pathology.

I realize this is just a rhetorical discussion, but if human beings weren't so damned anthropocentric they wouldn't worry themselves silly over what happens to a fetus, when there are millions of real live children suffering from mistreatment, starvation and neglect everyday.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 17, 1999.

I should have known better than to post a comment on a thread with the word 'abortion' in it.

Not that anyone cares, but...my glee was triggered by Mr. Unc's example of the pot-smoking Gay prostitute with Buddhist leanings.

Blood pressure medication all around, on me.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 17, 1999.

Gilda:

I was attempting to illustrate, by example, what I mean by an irreconcilable difference. You continue to refuse to admit that such differences exist, and dismiss those who feel differently as wrong and maybe sick-minded. Yet those differences are real.

In a not unrealistic society (they exist) what you consider your own personal decision would cause you to be put to death. Other behaviors you mention are in places now, and have been in many places in the past, worthy of death sentences. These aren't pathological societies of nutcases by any means, they are simply people with very different moral standards than your own. They are just as intolerant as you are, but about different things.

And these societies are perfectly stable and workable. This is true because their members *agree* on what is allowable behavior and what is not. They share a moral code. Within wide limits, almost *any* moral code is workable so long as it is shared. Libertarianism is simply another moral code among many.

The important point is that for a Libertarian society to be peaceful and workable, those who feel *just as strongly* about their own, totally different code, cannot be permitted membership. They must be evicted, imprisoned, or killed. There is no alternative.

Remember that you are able to enjoy many of the freedoms you do, because "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Otherwise, where could your ancestors have gone to set up a country like ours?

I'm not trying to tell you what you might do with your own body, that's simply one illustration of the point I'm making and you are ignoring.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 17, 1999.

Shit! Yeah, you know, s-h-i-t! Did that offend you? Gilda got him.

But...

Since I am a Hunt and Pecker typist my responses take an extraordinary amount of time, and Im gonna post his anyway cause it took a while.

Flint!

I am beginning to see why Paul Milne hates you so! Hee Hee. You are a stubborn nitpicker.

Here we go again,

"Unfortunately, Unc D missed the point again. Blind spot, I guess."

Ummm who is missing the point here? Me? I think not, in fact I think I am doing a fine job of describing why I am a Libertarian. You, on the other hand, are trying to show that Libertarianism is not the perfect solution to all problems for all people. Well no shit! So what? Are the Republicans or the Democrats the perfect solution for all problems for all people? And while you are at it Flint, what is the Republican solution for next door neighbors who will not leave you alone? What is the Democrat's solution? Huh? Who, in your example of zealous converters living next door, who gets the limits enforced upon them? The zealot? Or is the zealot free to harass others? Hmmmm? Well Flint? Who is wrong? The fellow who wishes to be left alone? You tell me.

"Unc, the victims are NOT the anti-abortionists who are 'tormenting themselves' and need counseling. The victims are the babies being murdered. Try to understand this."

Again Flint, you are using a particularly divisive example to try and prove that Libertarianism is un-workable. Show me how the other two Party's solutions are any more workable and fair to everyone who holds an opinion on this subject. Do either of those two Parties hold the perfect solution to this problem? Speak up, show me how they have it solved better than we do. Please, show me!

"If I choose to murder you, should your wife seek counseling to aid her through her self-imposed grief?"

False! Please read what I am writing. Let me say this again. You have the right to live as you see fit as long as you do not deprive others of life or property! See how that works? Next you will ask me how does this position reconcile itself with abortion? You will say isn't abortion depriving the fetus of it's right to life? Well, all I can say is LET US THEN BEGIN THE DEBATE OF WHEN LIFE BEGINS, rather than whether or not Libertarianism has a perfect answer for every problem.

"You have no problem, you're dead."

Well yeah, I'm dead, I was deprived of my life by you. That is a crime, you should be punished for that.

"I have no problem, you deserved to die."

Maybe that is true, but you still cannot kill me despite how you feel about me, killing me is a crime. You should be punished for that.

"The only problem belongs to your wife, and she should realize that nobody else is involved here, so it's her problem. Right? That's a very strange viewpoint to me."

Actually, what I find strange is how your mind is able to twist what I say into pretzels. Where did I say that murder is OK?

"If you feel that murder is a liberty to be respected, you will meet some reasonable resistance."

Flint, do I really need to answer that ridiculous statement? Murder is a liberty to be respected? Where did I say that? Quote me! Please! Now! Show me the money! Please quote to me exactly where I said that Libertarians are in favor of murder! Show me where I said Deedah hereby decrees that murder is Okey Dokey! You are beginning to remind me of that 8 year old child that all of the other children get tired of playing with. The one who always says; Yeah, but what about OK, but what about Sure, but what about Well, what about

"If you define abortion to suit your own preferences, this doesn't make you right, and hardly makes you moral."

I never said it makes me right in the absolute! I never said that it makes me moral in the absolute! I just said that I joined this particular political party because they and I agree for the most part on how to solve these issues. SHEESH!

"You might find this abominable definition CONVENIENT for your own purposes. And I should sit back and let you kill because you find it convenient? And if I don't this is MY problem for tormenting MYSELF? Give me a break."

Again, only I will say it crudely now, 'cause you are egging me on. I do not give a shit whether you agree with everything that I believe! I only give a shit whether or not you are allowed to make me to think the way you want me to think through force! Is abortion (your divisive issue of the day) murder? Are people who think abortion is murder wrong? Are people who think it is not murder wrong? I dont care who is right or who is wrong, but I do care if they are allowed to FORCE me believe and act the same way they do.

No, I'm not a nutcase, and in fact I'm pro-choice. But the viewpoint I described must be given more respect than mere dismissal as a psychological pathology.

Actually Flint, I have my doubts about the nutcase comment.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

Mr. Unc D,

>>If I am indulging in behavior that you hate, and if that behavior is not causing you loss of life or property, it is merely behavior which you find offensive.<<

I think that pretty much destroys any argument you might make concerning recourse for "emotional harm," don't you think?

Returning to the tobacco industry for a moment, I want to state emphatically that I hate smoking. It fouls the air, ruins the taste of fine food at restaurants, and second hand smoke has been proven to be demonstrably harmful. In a public setting, the right of the smoker to expel his effluvium must stop at the Libertarian's nose, no? BUT, I perceived the actions of our dear .gov against the industry for what it was: A greedy grab into deep pockets on a scale never before dreamed of, and a coup, a stroke against a foundational principle of our society. We really have come a long way, baby.

gilda,

>>I could argue that eating meat causes me great emotional distress, and it does, but very few people would be sympathethic.<<

Um.....yeah......ok. Your facts regarding the raising of meat animals are interesting, but I have no idea where you were going with them.

As to Mr. Flint's comments, I think he has done quite well presenting a viewpoint *not even his own.* I take his point to be that many people, let's say a 'large minority' certainly view abortion to be murder and who are *you* to say they (we) are wrong? Attempts to define the beginnings of individual human life by weeks of gestation or 'viability' require tortuous twists of logic. The fallacy of such logic is revealed each time the current "limit" is exceeded: Oh, well, *that* was just an arbitrary definition, after all. Why should we draw a hard line at the end of the "second trimester?" The 24th week? The 26th week? Any time before the first wail? Then how about the second? Sorry, doesn't wash.

>>We will never be civilized until we treat the creatures that share this planet with us as sentient beings, nor until we as individuals take personal responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies in human beings.<<

Now don't have a tantrum, gilda, but it appears you have an overdeveloped anthropomorphic sense, to the detriment of your anthropocentric sense. If I were to say "we as individuals should take personal responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies in human beings." It would carry an entirely different meaning, wouldn't it? It sounds like I'm meddling in someone else's business, doesn't it? Well, what are *you* doing if not tormenting yourself over someone else's situation?

Honestly, I do take your point regarding walking in another's shoes. If you want a challenge, try a Christian's shoes. ;-)

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 17, 1999.

Unc D:

To the anti-abortionist (no, I'm not one of them), the act of killing you and the act of having (and performing) an abortion are indistinguishable. YOU may draw the distinction yourself, and you may want to debate as to whether your distinction exists. To the anti- abortionist, there is nothing to debate. It isn't a matter of technicalities, it's a matter of definition. To them, you have deliberately deprived a genuine person of life, as genuine a person as you are. There is no debate.

As I wrote to Gilda, if everyone agreed with your philosophy, there would be no conflict. If everyone agreed with almost any philosophy, there would be no conflict. Agreement is the key. Your philosophy is as good as any, and perhaps better than most. But for it to work, you need converts. This means somehow making people agree with you. When a child is raised within a given belief system, is that child being FORCED into those beliefs? Good question, I think. Your philosophy is the product of your culture, an accident of your birth.

I chose abortion because within our fairly homogeneous culture, this issue is most irreconcilable. It's something we're familiar with. Female US soldiers in Saudi Arabia encountered something similar, and equally unthinkable between cultures. I don't have the answers.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 17, 1999.

Damn, I gotta get me one of those talk into your computer and it writes what you say programs! I'm a step behind everyone else cause I cannot type quickly enough to keep up.

Mr Elbow Grease, you first quoted me saying:

"If I am indulging in behavior that you hate, and if that behavior is not causing you loss of life or property, it is merely behavior which you find offensive."

To which you stated:

"I think that pretty much destroys any argument you might make concerning recourse for "emotional harm," don't you think?"

And my response is;

No, not always. I of course did not say it exactly right about life and property, please include loss of liberty too. I realize that I am not able to pin this down to an absolute rule that fits all occasions, but I would draw the line thus:

If I am doing something that you hate to see, or something that makes you mad to know that I'm doing, this by itself is not enough to claim emotional distress.

However, if I am sending you three (arbitrary number, don't get hung up on it) letters a day, calling you again and again, knocking on your door, and otherwise being an actively intrusive pest, you have a case which you can take into court to try and cease my behavior towards you.

It is not an easy thing for me to point out in black and white, and it is really not a huge leap from how we resolve disputes now. Is your neighbor a pain in the ass who will not leave you alone? What do you do now? How do you solve this problem? Go to court? Talk it out? Why do you assume that Libertarianism is going to change all of that? Why do people hear the word "Libertarian" and assume that this is some sort of new radical thinking? It is not, these are the very ideas that founded our Republic. That a man should be free to live as he sees fit, so long as he does not cause real harm to others.

I am afraid for our nation, and our liberty, that this seems to be an alien concept.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

Flint, I realize you're not telling me what I can do with my body. I realize you were just making a point. I am NOT ignoring the point you were making. I said in my post, "I realize this is just a rhetorical discussion." Remember that?? Whew!! Sure glad we got that settled.

OK, I agree there are irreconcilable differences, and there probably always will be because of turkeys who want to argue and nitpick like you. And I also know that people once were publicly flogged, hanged, placed in the stocks, dunked, whipped, and you name it, just because holier-than-thou assholes wanted to impose their anal retentive moral code on everyone else. Fortunately, we got past the worst of them, but they're still trying..

I'm really glad you mentioned the freedom we have because, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Yes those wonderful settlers said, "This is a Christian nation! Those heathens must go." And those blacks were meant to be slaves, the Bible says so. Now here's where it gets personal. Years ago I had a family member who took dead aim at tracing our family tree. I could not have cared less about it. She traced one branch of our family back to New England two years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. That branch moved on into the South. Some of the men were landowners and slave owners. One, was a preacher, and owned slaves. Now how do you think that made me feel? Hypocritical bastards! And they called themselves Christians! Need I say more.

Anyway, I get your point just fine. We have to have consensus on what is morally correct, or we will kill each other. I say baloney. But as a new Libertarian, I shall strive to support a party that at least is offering some new solutions to old problems. If they don't work, at least they tried. Flint, those who feel just as strongly about their moral code as I do mine, don't have to be killed. All I want is for them not to impose their moral code on me, and I won't impose mine on them.

Uncle, doesn't this guy just wear you out?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 17, 1999.

Yeah Gilda, he's a bugger.

BTW, you are NOT a new Libertarian!

You are just newly aware that there is a word and Party for it.

Cheers,

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

Gilda:

I think you should realize that your ancestor wasn't a hypocritical bastard by his own lights, within the tenor of his times. Our moral code has changed since then, and it's not entirely valid to project our current morality onto other times and places and condemn them. In a few hundred years, there will be another swing of the pendulum, and your distant descendents will be condemning you for being in violation of *their* morality. And they'll be making the same mistake you are. Times change.

When you write:

"Flint, those who feel just as strongly about their moral code as I do mine, don't have to be killed. All I want is for them not to impose their moral code on me, and I won't impose mine on them."

then I wonder about any hope of communication. Essentially, you are saying that "all you want" is that they share a critical tenet of your own moral code. It is *not* misrepresenting you, to point out that your statement boils down to "I don't care how much you disagree with me, so long as you agree with me." Because to leave you alone, they must agree to do so. They must agree that it is *right* to do so. And that's *your* morality, not theirs.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 17, 1999.

Mr. Unc D,

For hunt and peck, you're not doing so bad at all. :-)

The reason I am harping on the "emotional harm" thing is the insubstantial, touchy-feely nature of the phrase. Seems like a wide open invitation to a whole lot of abuse, and great business for lawyers. If memory serves, what impressed me most about Ringer's book was his observation that our "inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is *not* some touchy-feely phrase. To the Founding Fathers, the pursuit of happiness was synonymous with the pursuit of *property and wealth.* I was impressed by that and would hate to think that Libertarianism had degenerated to some politically correct corruption of that principle.

Unc, you're struggling to get around a concept that I am reading to be plain vanilla harassment. Is there more to it than that? And if handling this type of situations in a Libertarian environment is no different from what we do now, what good is it?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 17, 1999.

Crap, this is gonna take a while.

No I take that back, this is gonna be quick, if you folks really want to know where Libertarians stand on the issues, visit our

Party Platform

and read it for yourself.

I'm tired, but I'll be back.

Cheers,

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

Mr. Flint,

It's not likely that I'll say this often, but I am in total agreement with your logic here. You are exploring one of the most compelling pathways dealing with irreconcilables. When someone "gets it," it can stop them in their tracks. The argument is sublime, the conclusion is mundane. What is the bottom line?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 17, 1999.

Elbow Grease, I'm sure glad you mentioned my post about eating meat. You will note, that not once, did I suggest that everyone else in the world should become a vegetarian, because I'm one. But that was not the main point. The main point is this: People get in a big red faced sweat over abortion, and yet few get excited over the problems caused by meat.

I made the point that raising animals by the millions, in confined areas, ruins water, depletes aquifers, cause diseases and fills the soil with contaminants; in other words, has a detrimental effect on the enviornment in which we all have to live.

I also made the point that the hormones, steroids, fillers and anitbiotics are causing early sexual development in children and have been proved to affect the health of adults. This is something that touches all of us

I further mentioned that it is an inhumane way to treat animals, and we have no shame about their miserable condition. Also, we are not as concerned as we should be about the contamination in packing houses and all because we want cheap meat. And yet, no one gets stirred up about eating meat which has such a large impact everyone. But the abortion issue has people blowing up clinics, locking themselves to parking meters, killing doctors, injuring innocent bystanders and harassing anyone and everyone who will stand still for 5 minutes. This is crazy!!

And no I don't think that when I said, "we as individuals should take personal responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies in human beings," it means anything different than if you said it. I think all of us have a responsibility to look after ourselves, and that includes pregnancy. But I don't intend to stand on a street corner, in front of a clinic, blaring my message to either the distressed, or disinterested, who didn't ask for my opinion in the first place. Then it becomes meddling.

Me tormenting myself over some else's situation? You've got to be kidding. I have enough to do just looking after my own business without minding anyone elses. I've also said, "People should take more responsibility for their pets so that they don't have unwanted litters," but it doesn't mean I'm tormenting myself about it. BAAAHHH!

You say, "If you want a challenge, try a Christian's shoes." You're not serious?

All one has to do is swallow the whole salami, don't ask questions concerning it's origin, and you are among the good guys bound for heaven. Jesus is your shepherd, and he will lead you; you are the sheep. I never aspired to be a sheep. Remember Grease, I was raised as a Christian--a Baptist at that. If that doesn't cure you, nothing will. Once you begin to ask questions, and finally leave the flock, you have turned to shit in the eyes of the flock. You may be a spiritual person, and a good person,but that doesn't cut it; only accepting Jesus Christ as your savior will whisk you up to heaven. And don't forget, those other religions don't count. Those people are LOST..........

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 18, 1999.

Gilda notes that describing abortion is a "typical pro-life argument, going for the guts and gore." What is a typical argument against the Holocaust of Jewry? Don't they show mounds of bodies, and emaciated concentration camp prisoners? But we are prevented from describing what occurs in an abortion? Yuh, right. You, and all those witches (I mean what I say) who fight for abortion, are willfully blind. I was born illegitimately in 1959, and thank God I was not dismembered in the womb. Sadly, Over a million human lives are cut short every year in this country by abortion. A curious right, indeed: if it were exercised by all women, the race would vanish. The inversion of language is total, and diabolical. The feminist (a misnomer itself) says "this is my body--hands off!" Jesus said "this is my body, given up for you, that you may have life." Abortion is an economic crime, too: poor women, or women deluded by thoughts of material baubles, kill their children because they think they can't afford to have them. As a physician, I don't have to 'respect' your desire to kill: I loathe it. The fruit of abortion is not a better society: it is hell on earth.

-- Spidey (iln@jam.commie), May 18, 1999.

Unc, I never felt comfortable with the liberal label, but it was better than the conservative for my live and let live world view. Now I feel I'm in the right place. I read the link you gave for the 1998 platform and I like it. There's a point or two that bugs me, but hell, isn't that what being a Libertarian is all about, being able to live with something, as long as it doesn't bother you personally.

Flint, you said, "I think you should realize that your ancestor wasn't a hypocritical bastard by his own lights, within the tenor of his times. Our moral code has changed since then...." Flint, one of my relatives said the same thing after I blew off my mouth about our racist ancestors, and I said, "bullshit." There were all kinds of people that risked life and property to help blacks escape slavery. A war was fought, because people didn't accept the "moral code" of the South.

My mother was alive when we got copies of our ancestors wills, with the bequests such as "one black wench called Nancy to my daughter Nancy," etc., and she too was horrified by this discovery, saying, "My God, this is worse than a family of horse thieves" There were lots of interesting bequests like that. But my point is that there are people who wouldn't own slaves, no matter what the tenor of the times, just as some people had the balls to stand up against witch burning in New England, because it was against their personal moral code.

Now, I'm sure you're going to play the devil's advocate by saying, there are people that feel the same way about abortion. This is true, but there's a difference, and the devil is in the details. It boils down to a difference of opinion about when life begins, and that will never be satisfactorily settled. But I believe that our most basic freedoms is the freedom to do with our own body what we will. A fetus is not a citizen. If it has feelings, it doesn't know it. The sticky wicket revolves around when does life begin and my opinion is just as right, or just as wrong as anyone else's. I choose to have control over, and do what I want with my body. But I would never try to influence anyone else to have an abortion, commit suicide or ever have a face lift. That is a personal decision.

And if we get on the slippery slope of when life begins, we're back to the old questions I asked much earlier on this thread that nobody chose to answer, for the answers are truly unknown an irreconcilable. Therefore each person has to deal with her/his own conscience or level of comfort. If my level of comfor bothers you, too bad! Get over it because you don't have to answer for it. I have to deal with your lever of comfort too, and that is your right to NOT have an abortion. With freedom comes responsibility. I even wrote a paper about this in college, ages ago.

.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 18, 1999.

gilda,

I *did* ask you not to have a tantrum, didn't I? I *did* say your facts were interesting, didn't I? At this juncture, I can only repeat Flint's complaint: You've missed the point. The discussion is Libertarian treatment of irreconcilables. How is the subject of meat animals related to that? How is your *concern* over meat animals related to that? How is that concern related, by analogy or contrast, to the abortion issue? Are you saying that the passion over abortion is misplaced and people should by more concerned, like yourself, with the conditions of meat animals? As stated before, I see no comparison.

I side with Spidey on the issue in most all respects. But I have realized how hopelessly polarized the rhetoric has become. The abortion industry should be dealt with through the law; that means working to change the law. In addition, civil disobedience and demonstration are justifiable with this issue as they have been with many other issues. The pro-abortion side has done their share of these things too. Killing doctors, bombs, violence: no justification whatsoever.

When you say:

>>And no I don't think that when I said, "we as individuals should take personal responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies in human beings," it means anything different than if you said it.<<

When you ask:

>>Me tormenting myself over some else's situation?<<

I despair of having a meaningful dialog with you, just as Flint said. You are either missing the point or being disingenuous. At least give it some thought.

>>You say, "If you want a challenge, try a Christian's shoes." You're not serious?<<

Well, I did put a smiley after the comment, didn't I?

You have made your thoughts and feelings about Christianity transparent. Every chance you get. I wasn't asking for more of that. Since you know the scriptures and doctrines, what does it take to be a *good* Christian? And, how long could you wear those shoes?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 18, 1999.

Good old, tolerant Spidey. He's preached to me on other threads. But alas, I'm still a witch. I bet he would dance and chuckle with glee if I were burning at the stake. He'd shout out,"Throw another faggot on the fire! Not that kind of "faggot" you idiot, I meant a sitck of wood! On second thought, throw that other faggot on the fire too!"

Spidey it wouldn't have bothered me a bit to have been aborted, since I obviously wouldn't have remembered it. In fact, I don't remember any of my babyhood. I was walking and talking before I have memories of incidents in my life.

But the holocaust victims were walking, talking, working, going to school, laughing and minding their own business. They could feel and suffer-- they could anticipate their impending death, and that is the vast difference between a fetus and a person.

You have reinforced my lifelong decision to stay as far away from doctors as possible. Some of them are as corrupt and money hungry and judgemental as our esteemed leaders and the clergy.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 18, 1999.

Elbow Grease,

You stated:

At this juncture, I can only repeat Flint's complaint: You've missed the point. The discussion is Libertarian treatment of irreconcilables.

I thought I had made myself clear about how we try to solve those differences, perhaps Flint missed my following quotes? He has yet to answer a single one of the questions that I have posed to him.

If you want a world where some groups are free to impose their will on you because they think you are not living up to their standards, even though you are harming nobody but yourself, I would look into joining the Republicans or the Democrats.

I understand that too, that is why I want a political system that protects me from their ways. If you condone that kind of behavior, and think it is fine to allow some folks to bother, pester, or imprison you because they do not like the way you live, even though you are not pestering them, Libertarianism is not for you.

Again I say to you, if you think it is fine for me to be able to force you to cut your hair a certain way, or to insist that you can only interact with consenting others the way I dictate you must, if it is OK for me to tell you how and who you can love, and how you are permitted to show that love, if it is OK for me to tell you what God you must pray to and how you must pray to that God, and if it is OK for me to back up my insistance with the force of arms, then you are not Libertarian. Do not join us if you think that is OK, join one of those other two parties.

Are the Republicans or the Democrats the perfect solution for all problems for all people? And while you are at it Flint, what is the Republican solution for next door neighbors who will not leave you alone? What is the Democrat's solution? Huh? Who, in your example of zealous converters living next door, who gets the limits enforced upon them? The zealot? Or is the zealot free to harass others? Hmmmm? Well Flint? Who is wrong? The fellow who wishes to be left alone? You tell me.

Again Flint, you are using a particularly divisive example to try and prove that Libertarianism is un-workable. Show me how the other two Party's solutions are any more workable and fair to everyone who holds an opinion on this subject(abortion). Do either of those two Parties hold the perfect solution to this problem? Speak up, show me how they have it solved better than we do. Please, show me!

Well Flint?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.

Since this thread has dealt extensively with the topic of religious liberty, here's an example from the Freedom Forum of some rather controversial current legislation dealing with same: 1999 Religious Liberty Protection Act

As noted in the article, the 1999 RLPA is the second attempt by lawmakers to partially resurrect the now-defunct Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.

My $.02: I'm in full agreement with the apparent Libertarian stance that government should minimize its own intrusion into citizen's lives. The original RFRA was an excellent piece of legislation sponsored by a broad coalition of groups, including People for the American Way. Why the court struck it down is quite beyond me. I have a sinking feeling that the Court is more concerned with social engineering (in much the same way that Congress uses the Tax Code for its own version of "behavior modification) than it is in ensuring constitutional liberties.

RLPA is another attempt to minimize intrusions, but it's much more limited in its scope and is seen as potentially allowing discrimination. Hmmmm... One person's discrimination is another person's right to freely associate.

RFRA and RLPA are tough calls for folks who care about liberty, but who may prefer NOT to exercise their freedom of religion. How does one muster the energy to support a fundamental right than one may not care all that much about?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 18, 1999.

gilda -

I know that the alliteration of "the devil is in the details" is pleasant, but the saying is actually "God is in the details." It's by architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1886-1969) (who also gave us the famous comment "Less is More"). It's based on a comment by Flaubert, "Le bon Dieu est dans le detail." ("The good Lord is in the details.")

It's certainly comforting to hear this from an architect. How much better to live in a structure where the designer is passionate about "the little things." 8-}]

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 18, 1999.

Unc D:

I have written repeatedly (can you read? I get tired of repeating myself) that your code is just fine so long as everyone agrees. Almost *any* code is fine so long as everyone agrees. The first issue here is, what are the proper procedures for handling fundamental, irreconcilable disagreements?

Just read Gilda's hilarious post. She champions the philosophy of "live and let live" until she finds someone else doing something she finds morally repugnant. And in a sudden about-face, she finds herself supporting the outside agressors. Why? Because those being left in peace were *wrong*. Their moral code was so egregious that it must be destroyed! She doesn't tolerate letting others live in peace if she disagrees strongly enough with how they live. Imagine that.

My, how easily we abandon our principles when we find other people's behaviors intolerable, even when they aren't anywhere near us physically, or temporally (that was long ago), or presenting any immediate threat to us of any kind. You let me live in peace no matter what I'm doing so long as it doesn't hurt you, and I'll let you live in peace *so long as I approve of what you're doing*, even if its not hurting me. Gilda's flagrant double standard illustrates my point perfectly.

It's not a question of what political party looks best through your eyes. People are going to disagree. Our founding fathers understood this, and set up procedures for conflict resolution. Not all conflicts can be resolved through any single procedure, but the goal is to keep societal turmoil within manageable limits.

So they went one step more abstract. They said, It's less important that people agree on the matter at hand, as that they agree that the *methods* for resolving conflict are themselves agreeable. As a more trivial example, most sports would not be playable without an agreed procedure for resolving disputes. We may not agree with every decision of the umpire or referee, but we *must* agree that those decisions be accepted.

In those (fortunately rare) cases where the *procedures* are not agreed on, we are in trouble. We've touched on two examples. Abortion is either legal or it isn't. If it's legal, we're not going to be able to avoid what we see happening now. The legal system is viewed as less compelling than the eyes of God. And if it's illegal, we'll have the pro-Roe vs. Wade situation where the poor used coat hangers and the rich went to other countries.

The slavery issue was decided by total war. There were attempts to deal with the issue short of war (see the Missouri Compromise, for example), but again the legal and political procedures proved helpless in the face of perceived moral absolutes. Moral absolutes permit no compromise.

So what I've been driving at all along is, how can moral conflicts be dealt with? What should be done when compromise is *not* an option? So far, I've been trying to show that this really happens. Until you and Gilda can understand that no-compromise moral conflicts exist, you can't reach the point where you can address the issue of dealing with that situation.

As a goal, I think your Libertarian philosophy is as good as any and better than most (as I said before). But it's moot if we can't figure out how to get there from here. I'm suggesting that the best way to get there isn't so much to find some way to handle no-compromise conflicts when they arise, as to prevent them from arising in the first place.

And this is the role of religion, not the role of philosophy or politics or law. So long as there is a common sense of right and wrong (*regardless* of what is considered right or wrong), other conflicts are trivial and can be handled very satisfactorily.

For Libertarianism (or any other philosophy) to work well, those sharing and living by that philosophy must be deeply religious in a large sense. I don't mean belonging to any particular church and trying to believe any particular (often rather strange) dogma. I'm talking about being surrounded by a constant "moral weather" from the moment of birth.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 18, 1999.

Flint,

Maybe I am not being clear, I am going to try again;)

"I have written repeatedly (can you read? I get tired of repeating myself) that your code is just fine so long as everyone agrees. Almost *any* code is fine so long as everyone agrees. The first issue here is, what are the proper procedures for handling fundamental, irreconcilable disagreements?"

Wrong again, my "code" is fine even if everyone does not agree. Freedom to live as you see fit so long as you do not trample the rights of others is the essence of a Constitutional Republic, and we have strayed far away from that. Does everyone agree on the "code" we have now? I don't think so, but yet we manage to solve most problems through the rule of law, Libertarianism does not dispense with the rule of law. What it does seek to do is to put the boundary of which side is subject to the force of law at those who cause real harm to others.

"Just read Gilda's hilarious post. She champions the philosophy of "live and let live" until she finds someone else doing something she finds morally repugnant. And in a sudden about-face, she finds herself supporting the outside agressors. Why? Because those being left in peace were *wrong*. Their moral code was so egregious that it must be destroyed! She doesn't tolerate letting others live in peace if she disagrees strongly enough with how they live. Imagine that."

I must have missed that one, which post are you refering to? Cut and paste it, and I (or she) will address it.

"My, how easily we abandon our principles when we find other people's behaviors intolerable, even when they aren't anywhere near us physically, or temporally (that was long ago), or presenting any immediate threat to us of any kind. You let me live in peace no matter what I'm doing so long as it doesn't hurt you, and I'll let you live in peace *so long as I approve of what you're doing*, even if its not hurting me. Gilda's flagrant double standard illustrates my point perfectly."

Again, I'm not clear about which of her posts you mean. If she holds a double standard about who is to be left in peace because she disapproves of what they are peaceably doing, that is not a Libertarian viewpoint.

"It's not a question of what political party looks best through your eyes. People are going to disagree. Our founding fathers understood this, and set up procedures for conflict resolution. Not all conflicts can be resolved through any single procedure, but the goal is to keep societal turmoil within manageable limits."

Let me say this clearly, as I may not have before. Libertarians are not trying to change HOW conflicts are resolved, if you feel that you have been wronged, go to court. What we are after is a system of government wherein the burden is on you (or the state) to show how my private personal behavior is causing you (or the state) true harm, not merely offending you. Libertarians believe that societal turmoil is best kept within manageable limits when the people are left to do as they please, so long as they do not cause true harm to others. If you are looking for a completely homogenous society where there are no "offensive" people, move to Iran.

"So they went one step more abstract. They said, It's less important that people agree on the matter at hand, as that they agree that the *methods* for resolving conflict are themselves agreeable. As a more trivial example, most sports would not be playable without an agreed procedure for resolving disputes. We may not agree with every decision of the umpire or referee, but we *must* agree that those decisions be accepted."

This is OK by us. We want to have more personal freedom, not anarchy. Laws and courts will still be in place to resolve disputes among people.

"In those (fortunately rare) cases where the *procedures* are not agreed on, we are in trouble. We've touched on two examples. Abortion is either legal or it isn't. If it's legal, we're not going to be able to avoid what we see happening now. The legal system is viewed as less compelling than the eyes of God. And if it's illegal, we'll have the pro-Roe vs. Wade situation where the poor used coat hangers and the rich went to other countries."

Agreed.

"The slavery issue was decided by total war. There were attempts to deal with the issue short of war (see the Missouri Compromise, for example), but again the legal and political procedures proved helpless in the face of perceived moral absolutes. Moral absolutes permit no compromise."

The moral absolute to which you refer is whether or not one man has the right to deprive another man of his life, liberty, or property. We do not believe that men have that right, unless they themselves are victim to encroachment of same by others. I am not permitted to throw you in jail because your hair is shocking blue with a red swastika in the back, nor am I required to cut my hair the same way as you do in order to avoid you throwing me in jail. Also, if you have the above described haircut, I would not be required by law to associate with you if I choose not to, nor to hire you to work in my business.

"So what I've been driving at all along is, how can moral conflicts be dealt with? What should be done when compromise is *not* an option? So far, I've been trying to show that this really happens. Until you and Gilda can understand that no-compromise moral conflicts exist, you can't reach the point where you can address the issue of dealing with that situation."

How many times must I say that understand that no-compromise moral conflicts exist? For crying out loud, I should go back and count them! A Libertarian believes that the force of law supports the side of the peaceable party, and sides against the party that initiates force. In your example of a zealous prophet who MUST convert me or die, he may try any way of converting me that falls short of infringing upon my life, liberty, or property. If he, or I for that matter, cross that line and initiate force against the other, the force of law goes against that person. This is really not too far different fron how we resolve these situations now.

"As a goal, I think your Libertarian philosophy is as good as any and better than most (as I said before). But it's moot if we can't figure out how to get there from here. I'm suggesting that the best way to get there isn't so much to find some way to handle no-compromise conflicts when they arise, as to prevent them from arising in the first place."

What prevents that now? Nothing I'm aware of, since we have plenty of disputes now.

"And this is the role of religion, not the role of philosophy or politics or law. So long as there is a common sense of right and wrong (*regardless* of what is considered right or wrong), other conflicts are trivial and can be handled very satisfactorily."

If you want a country run by religion, try a nice peaceful place like Iraq, Iran, or, hey how about the great way that religion solves all of Ireland's problems? Perhaps we aren't for you Flint, join another Party.

"For Libertarianism (or any other philosophy) to work well, those sharing and living by that philosophy must be deeply religious in a large sense. I don't mean belonging to any particular church and trying to believe any particular (often rather strange) dogma. I'm talking about being surrounded by a constant "moral weather" from the moment of birth."

(Forgive me for this next rant, I direct it nobody in particular)

Here's some moral weather for you, "Live and let live". That is what we are after, creepy huh? Boy, I guess that concept must really be from outer space for it to be unworkable in America. And I guess those founding Fathers were nutso, thinking that we had the right to pursue happiness, the right to be secure in our homes, the right of not being subject to unreasonable search and siezure, and the rights to do with our property as we see fit. Yes, Libertarianism sure is radical and goofy.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.

Unc d:

I fear your slippery situational ethics are crippling any ability you might have to do abstract thought. So I'll stick to the nice concrete slavery example. I'm patient, and you might see the light yet.

The Southern slaveholder only wanted to be left to live his life in peace. His attitude was "I'm not telling you damn Yankees how to live your live, don't you try to tell me how to live mine." Clearly, the Libertarian (so far) comes down squarely in favor of the Southerner.

Ah, but you don't *like* what the Southerner is doing, even if it's not hurting you any. What do you do in that case? Well, you write:

"the burden is on you (or the state) to show how my private personal behavior is causing you (or the state) true harm, not merely offending you."

Since the Northerner couldn't show this, and was merely offended, the Libertarian is still in the Southern camp.

But now you say that if you *really* don't like what the Southerner is doing, you *give yourself* the right to meddle. How convenient. And on what grounds do you grant yourself this privilege? You write:

"We do not believe that men have that right...to deprive another man of his life, liberty, or property."

In other words, if someone else (who isn't harming you) violates your *belief*, THEN you can meddle in their life. How convenient again. Just as I said, you leave me alone to live my life as I see fit, and I'll leave you alone to do the same *unless I don't like it*, in which case I'm allowed to force my beliefs down your throat. Neat trick.

Now, if you feel morally justified in meddling, how should you do it? Well, you write:

"if you feel that you have been wronged, go to court...Libertarianism does not dispense with the rule of law"

OK, the North took slavery to court. And the Supreme Court ruled (in the Dred Scott decision) that slaves were property and not people. Indeed, this had been their legal standing since the country was founded, and several of the founding fathers were slaveholders.

OK, you have exhausted your options. Game, set and match. You aren't being harmed, you don't believe in forcing your morals upon others, you believe in the court system, and it ruled against you. Case closed.

But wait! Slavery is still *wrong* (says you). Something must be done about it. Slaves are people (and fetuses are not -- or was it the other way around (it used to be, you know). Well, who cares, so long as *I* know I'm right and you're wrong, that justifies interference.)

So at this point, you've abandoned your non-interference policy, you've abandoned your reliance on the legal system (itself a reflection of a moral philosophy), and you've even abandoned any consistency in the definition of a person. You've reached the point where you must do whatever you *know* is right. Viola, a moral absolute. Flexible over time, flexible between societies, flexible between people in the same society, but so what?

And then you have the gall to write:

"my "code" is fine even if everyone does not agree."

Some code, conveniently defined to suit your fancy whenever you like, and permissible to coerce onto others even if they don't like. It's a very good thing there *are* procedures in place to control people like you. You write:

"A Libertarian believes that the force of law supports the side of the peaceable party, and sides against the party that initiates force."

To this, you must in all honesty add "Except when *we* initiate the force." Then it's OK, because you only do that when you're *right*, see? And what if others try to do it to you because they think *they're* right? And procedures don't matter?

Back to school, Unc. You have a ways to go yet.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 18, 1999.

Elbow Grease, why did you say I'm having a temper tantrum? I *did not*, but if I do you'll know it. Evidently your definition of a temper tantrum is someone disagreeing with you.

You say I missed the point, well you missed the point of my post on the meat industry. If you'd read my post, you would have known that my concern for animals was only one part of the whole. The point, since you obviously didn't read it, is that the meat industry affects the health of millions of people and it affects the environment, which affects all of us, and animals. Whereas abortion only directly affects one half of the population, women, and only a small percent of those. Yet people scream, harass and kill people over abortion which affects few. Get it?

I don't eat meat and I don't smoke, but I once did both. I missed smoking, but I never missed meat. I don't try to impose my choice to not smoke, or eat meat on anyone else. It was my choice. So according to the Libertarian view, I have the freedom of choice, which everyone else should be allowed without be hassled

And by the way, name me one instance where the pro-abortion side has ever killed doctors, bombs or committed other violence that you claim to have occurred. Facts please.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 18, 1999.

Gilda:

In every abortion, a baby is murdered. Open thine eyes, and witness thou the carnage to which thou art blind. Eh?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 18, 1999.

Flint,

You yourself stated that the hypothetical situation (abortion) was irreconcilable. That means that there is no right solution, one or the other party must prevail, as there is no compromise. The one must stop it or die, the other must allow it or die. You wanted to know how Libertarian thought would handle that situation. I tried to make it clear that when conflict arises, the force of law goes against the initiator of force against others. I have been consistent with that thought, as you so sweetly pointed out.

I stated before that abortion is a tough one even for Libertarians. It involves a fetus that will eventually become a human life, and I will ignore for now the debate about when the fetus becomes so. In the meantime that fetus is a part of the womans body, and while it is still a fetus, and it is still a part of her body, we would leave the choice to her. See how that works? Is this the solution that the pro-lifer would come up with? I doubt it, but remember the situation is one in where one or the other side must lose.

The same goes for your example of slavery, IF we ignore the fact that the slave is a man separate from the slave owner.

The southerner was depriving a man (the slave) of his life (freedom to live as he saw fit etc), liberty (natch), and property (the fruits of his labors). He is depriving him of these rights by force, is he not?

I have stated before that as our ideal, the law comes down against those who initiate force against others, unless they have first initiated real harm against others themselves. I have also stated that you are to be left alone until you initiate harm or force against others.

Has not the slaveholder initiated harm against his slave? Our ideal is therefore consistent with the action of stepping in and stopping the slaveholder from continuing that force against the slave.

Are we then forcing the (former) slaveholder to live as we see fit? Yes, of course we are, because he has first broken the code of leaving others be.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.

Unc:

At long last, we may be talking to one another. Great.

So OK, you hold one code, the slaveholder holds another. Your code holds that thou shalt not interfere, with exceptions (which you define, of course). The slaveholder's behavior is one of those exceptions, justifying your interference according to your own standards. The slaveholder resists this interference, since by *his* definitions he is doing no wrong, and you are the agressor. A peculiar inversion of your philosophy, but hey, gotta be flexible, right?

By extension, this is how *any* polity works. Someone defines a set of standards, and a set of procedures to determine, refine, define, and apply those standards, and punishes violators. Over the course of time, moral standards wander, and the standards of behavior wander with them, and the procedures for applying those standards change as well. This is called satisficing - a 'sniglet' word meaning getting by without being perfect, adequate is sufficient, perfection is the enemy of excellence, and all that.

Interestingly, we live in exactly the Libertarian society you espouse. We define right and wrong in very practical terms -- laws must be both agreeable and enforceable. Violators are punished. In general, those who do the imposing are the violators. Of course, there is no universal agreement as to exactly *what* constitutes a punishable violation, and you have agreed yourself that at least *some* behaviors must be enjoined from morally repugnant behavior. The question is, just how repugnant must it be to justify interference, and WHO gets to define the term? The essence of politics right there.

I've been trying to say that the definitions wouldn't be so tricky, nor the enforcement so expensive, if the core value system were more homogeneous. And this is religion's role. Your suggestion about going to Iran is a good illustration -- had you been born and raised there, you would find the system congenial. And if you tried to plunk down your Libertarianism on the Iranians, you'd be rejected or ignored, because for them your philosophy is repugnant. It's hardly some Kantian universal.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 18, 1999.

Flint, I concede that there are irreconcilable differences. But I agree with Unc. There is nothing wrong with my code even if others don't agree with it. That's the live and let live idea. Your code may not be suit me, but you have every right to your beliefs as long as you don't push them on me.

I'm glad you found my slavery post so hilarious. We need a little levity on this topic. Flint I never said that I gave myself "the right to meddle." But while I detest the idea of owning slaves, had I lived in that time, I'm sure I would not have gone to the South, and marched around plantations, with a placard reading, "Free the Slaves!!" or "Slavery is an Affront to God," or "It's a Person, Not a Property." Nor would I have chained myself to their hitching posts, or bombed their property, or shot the slaveholder in his own home. I also would not have harassed slaveholders conducting business off their properties.

But that doesn't mean I would have approved of slavery. I would have worked in whatever peaceful and legal way I could have to end it. Both Helen Hunt Jackson and Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote books that called attention to the plight of slaves, without physically harassing the "owners." Both books had a great impact on how people thought about slavery. Both were legal protests against slavery, and Helen Hunt Jackson sent a copy of her book, "Century of Dishonor" to every member of Congress.

And Roswell Field, the attorney, fought for ten years to free Dred Scott, and only quit then, because Scott was sold to a man in New York, and Field prepared the papers on the appeal and turned them over to the lawyers in New York who also fought tirelessly for Scott's freedom. They worked within the limits of the law.

And I will remind you again that in the case of slavery, as opposed to abortion, we are talking about real, live people; people that think, work, play, feel physical and mental pain. We are not talking about a fetus that does not think or work or play or feel physical and mental pain. Even if it did, it would have no memory of it. And this is a difference you refuse to take note of.

Flint are you a lawyer?? Your circuitous arguments, your pursuit of the abstract, your ability to see wrong as right, and black as red, and speak gobbledegook, makes me wonder.

Unc, do you ever think we'll see the light according to Flint?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 18, 1999.

What I'm still trying to understand is how Libertarian does indeed differ, in the end, from yet another "might makes right" type of system? What Flint means by religion could apply to the Romans as well as to Islam: profoundly shared consensual values that serve as a yardstick for when to interfere or not with the privacy of another.

My sense is that the Libertarian "core value" is one of judging when "harm" has taken place, such that "push back" is justified, whether by the government as an intervener or by an individual.

The subject of slavery is really quite apropos and is slightly (though only slightly) less inflammatory than abortion. While men like Robert E. Lee and a surprising number of other Southern leaders envisioned a withering away of slavery even in their own lifetimes, they vigorously resented the idea that slavery was a system which "harmed" slaves. My gut feeling is they would have been convinced that the North was precisely and viciously anti-Libertarian: might makes right to the max.

Islam (let's stay away from Jews and Christians to shift the frame of the discussion) appeals to a book for its yardsticks. Communism appealed to a bizarre but comprehensive "this explains all" theory of economy and class as a yardstick. Without some sort of profound external referent (not necessarily a book), doesn't Libertarianism become solipsistic in the end? Or no?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 18, 1999.

Gilda:

I'll gladly go along with almost all you say here. But there is one little thing that bothers me. You wrote:

"And I will remind you again that in the case of slavery, as opposed to abortion, we are talking about real, live people; people that think, work, play, feel physical and mental pain. We are not talking about a fetus that does not think or work or play or feel physical and mental pain. Even if it did, it would have no memory of it. And this is a difference you refuse to take note of."

No, I see plenty of differences. In fact, I can see that no two people are alike -- there are measurable differences even between identical twins. The slaveholders defined slaves as property rather than people because it was convenient for them to do so (and according to cleometric studies, quite economical as well). You define unborn children as *not* people because it is convenient for you to do so. Surely you are not saying that all slaveholders were blind or stupid, or that all pro-life people are either?

And it's true, we create our definitions and our laws for our own convenience. And we change them when times change and we feel differently. And when you try to cram together a bunch of people with different moral anchors, you get a lot of contention and a lot of violence and a big prison population and a lot of very inefficient and expensive government programs to try to set things to right. And more lawyers per capita than you'll find anywhere else.

Why so many lawyers? Because if the majority is imposing on you, you can't fight them, you must outflank them. In a country like the US where there is no longer any clear "majority" moral code, all we have to fall back on is laws. With all the attendant battle to create exceptions, and split hairs, and find loopholes and technicalities. All of which costs an incredible amount of time and money.

All of which circles us back around to those thin apartment walls. There needs to be a workable definition of 'reasonable' noise levels, and a procedure (eviction) if reasonable is violated. And wouldn't it be easier if everyone agreed to keep quite or ignore noise? That's what a MORAL code is all about. Not a legal code.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 18, 1999.

Flint,

I'm going to refer to two of your paragraphs,

"Interestingly, we live in exactly the Libertarian society you espouse."

No, we do not *exactly* live in that society. If we did the Libertarian Party would not exist for those of us who feel that the state has overstepped it's bounds.

"We define right and wrong in very practical terms -- laws must be both agreeable and enforceable. Violators are punished. In general, those who do the imposing are the violators. Of course, there is no universal agreement as to exactly *what* constitutes a punishable violation, and you have agreed yourself that at least *some* behaviors must be enjoined from morally repugnant behavior."

Yes, but who's morality? Mine? Yours? That group of fifty over there? This clan of a thousand here? The millions over there?

"The question is, just how repugnant must it be to justify interference, and WHO gets to define the term? The essence of politics right there."

Of course that is the question, and the essence. Am I agreeing with you or are you agreeing with me?;)

"I've been trying to say that the definitions wouldn't be so tricky, nor the enforcement so expensive, if the core value system were more homogeneous."

I agree with that, I simply feel that the most basic human core value is the desire to be left alone to do as you wish in your personal life. Or are you aware of a large percentage of people that I am unaware of? Those ones who enjoy being told how to live.

"And this is religion's role."

No, I think that idea has it's own faults. If it was religion's role, Northern Ireland would be a very peaceful place all of the time. There would never have been the Crusades, or witch burnings, or throwing Christians to the lions or a thousand other horrors enacted in the name of religion.

"Your suggestion about going to Iran is a good illustration -- had you been born and raised there, you would find the system congenial."

Me? Nah! I would hate it there! Why? Because I wish to live as I see fit, so long as I do not cause harm to others. Plus they don't have any good beer in Iran.

"And if you tried to plunk down your Libertarianism on the Iranians, you'd be rejected or ignored, because for them your philosophy is repugnant. It's hardly some Kantian universal."

I'm not trying to do that, though I know in my heart that there are bound to be countless Iranians who hate how they are forced to live, they are just not free to express that this is so.

What I and other Libertarians are trying to do is to return this country to the ideals embraced by the Founders. A Constitutional Republic, where the right of the individual to conduct his business as he sees fit is protected from interference by the rule of law, rather than interfered with by the rule of law.

A Constitutional Republic, where the Bill of Rights and individual rights are paramount. A place where we do not have the state acting as "clergymen with billyclubs", peeking into windows, spying on it's citizens with infrared helo-copters, tapping your phone, posing as hookers, confiscating your property unless you can *prove* you are innocent, dictating what medicines you are allowed to use even if you are dying, and testing your urine to see if you are living in sync with the wishes of others, even though you pose no threat of harm to them.

That is why I am a Libertarian, not because it is a perfect philosophy.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.

Flint, I do not think all slaveholders were blind or stupid. Of course it was economically sound to own slaves. But I see their reasons for owning slaves as more mercenary than convenient. I do not define a fetus as an unborn child or a person until it is born. It could either be defined as a parasite or as a part of a woman's body. I define it as part of a woman's body, and I want the right to have control over my body.

Women were under the control of, and dependent on men for so many centuries--just another chattel in their portfoliio of property--that I think many of them/us feel we should at the very least have this one option in our lives even is it doesn't have total social or religious acceptance. I've known women who've had such ongoing worries in their life about raising children, especially alone, that even though they probably would never have an abortion, they kind of like to know it is an option.

I agree that "when you try to cram together a bunch of people with different moral anchors, you get a lot of contention." That applies to lots of other parameters besides moral anchors. Forced integration sometimes didn't work because there was no choice. Trying to make your daughter like the friends you want her to like, doesn't work either. It all gets back to choice. People like choice. I also think the population is so large and so diverse that even more violence and contention is ahead; but that's a whole other issue.

BTW, what does cleometric mean? I couldn't even find it in the dictionary.

-- gild (jess@listbot.com), May 18, 1999.

Gilda, you first.

'Cleometric' is a recently coined term, from Cleo, muse of history, and metric, the application of quantitative measurements and calculations. It applies to doing history metrically, by quantitative rather than qualitative methods.

And if you wish to draw a distinction between mercenary and convenient, I don't mind. To me, they both mean (in this context) profitable. Redefining the slaves as people would have cost them their livelihood, just as redefining fetuses as people would cost you some economic convenience (children consume large quantities of time and money you may not care to spend.) And when enough people agree with you, we change the laws to outlaw slavery and legalize abortion. Nothing sacred about the definitions, they are adopted and discarded at our convenience.

Unc, you are getting a bit dense again, I think. Consider:

["And this is religion's role."

No, I think that idea has it's own faults. If it was religion's role, Northern Ireland would be a very peaceful place all of the time. There would never have been the Crusades, or witch burnings, or throwing Christians to the lions or a thousand other horrors enacted in the name of religion.]

Southern Ireland is peaceful. One religion, and all agree. Northern Ireland has TWO religions, in conflict. The US has many. And I'm talking here about religion as a repository and teacher of moral codes, in a general sense. As you point out, it's not difficult to pervert *any* code to justify what you wanted to do anyway. You did that with your *own* code, but weaseled around it on the grounds that exceptions are permitted whenever it pleases you. You can hardly argue that those thousand horrors would have garnered Christ's approval, I don't think.

["Your suggestion about going to Iran is a good illustration -- had you been born and raised there, you would find the system congenial."

Me? Nah! I would hate it there! Why? Because I wish to live as I see fit, so long as I do not cause harm to others. Plus they don't have any good beer in Iran.]

You aren't thinking. I said born and raised there. Your philosophy is very American. Imagine that. If you'd been raised in Iran, it would be different, and congenial. I don't know about their beer.

["And if you tried to plunk down your Libertarianism on the Iranians, you'd be rejected or ignored, because for them your philosophy is repugnant. It's hardly some Kantian universal."

I'm not trying to do that, though I know in my heart that there are bound to be countless Iranians who hate how they are forced to live, they are just not free to express that this is so.]

This is funny, sorry but I can't help laughing at you. So you believe that somewhere deep in their hearts, Iranians want to share *your* value system. This is fundamentally arrogant. And wrong. This is indeed the very arrogance that gets Americans hated overseas. The unshakeable assumption that everyone *wants* to be just like us, whether they realize it or not.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 18, 1999.

Unc, you're right about the Iranians; a lot of them hate their way of life, even though they were raised in that culture. On my first trip to England, I was seated next to a young man from Iran who had been sent here to get a degree in petroleum engineering. He went to school in Texas, had graduated and was on his way home, with a day's layover in London.

I'd really planned to snooze on the 7 or 8 hour flight, but he wanted to talk. He was miserable to be going back. I asked why he didn't just stay in Dallas, especially since he had a girlfriend. He said he didn't dare, for ARAMCO had paid for this education, and he had to return to work for them in repayment. He drank continually through the whole night. Booze is not allowed in Iran, or much of anything else according to him, and he would be stoned if they knew he had an American girlfriend.

His girlfriend had persuaded him to move into her aparment, which he resisted for a long time, out of fear. He said the first night he slept at her apartment, he woke up sweating out of fear.

I have never seen anyone so distressed. His layover in London was to be his last fling. That is religion carried to the restrictive extreme.. Their moral code is so punitive that women may as well be slaves. He said he couldn't even confide in his mother, for it would put her at risk. I've always heard the phrase "palpable fear," and that is what I saw in him. He said that we can't even imagine what he would face if he'd refused to return to Iran, and although many people hated it, most were afraid to speak out.

And that's the way I've felt most of my life about religion. I believe there's something more than this life, but I just refuse to believe the dogma of the Christian religion. It's emotional blackmail to tell young children that if you don't accept Jesus, and believe, and be saved, and obey, and on and on, you will be lost. You will not go to heaven and be with your loved ones. Some even promise you will go to hell. They say the choice is yours. Yeah, sure. What a choice; believe in me or die and suffer for eternity. This is not running down anyone that believes, or their belief, it is just my personal feeling. I have never regretted my choice, but I certainly know what it feels like to not be part of the accepted circle. But I have no regrets.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 18, 1999.

gilda, thank you for your response.

>>Elbow Grease, why did you say I'm having a temper tantrum? I *did not*, but if I do you'll know it. Evidently your definition of a temper tantrum is someone disagreeing with you.<<

Technically, I did not say "temper tantrum," just "tantrum." And the purpose was to gently chide you, in anticipation that you might take offense at the paragraph containing my anthropo comments, nothing more. In the spirit of this civil discussion, I would like to keep the emotion and temperature at a moderate level. Sorry to mislead you.

>>You say I missed the point, well you missed the point of my post on the meat industry.<<

Indeed, I said I missed your point. And still do. Would you concede that you may have missed Flint's?

>>If you'd read my post, you would have known that my concern for animals was only one part of the whole. The point, since you obviously didn't read it, is that the meat industry affects the health of millions of people and it affects the environment, which affects all of us, and animals. Whereas abortion only directly affects one half of the population, women, and only a small percent of those. Yet people scream, harass and kill people over abortion which affects few. Get it?<<

Condescension does not work well for you. I *did* read your post. Surely, you are not saying your argument is based solely on the number of people affected. Um, how many murders should one man commit before you would condemn him? From my perspective, one is enough. I don't consider the slaughter of meat animals to be murder by any stretch of the imagination. I don't consider the choices of other people making their livelihoods by raising animals, or those choosing to eat the meat of those animals to be my problem or concern. (That's libertarian) You have to bend way over backwards to create a moral problem from that. So, no, I still don't get it.

>>And by the way, name me one instance where the pro-abortion side has ever killed doctors, bombs or committed other violence that you claim to have occurred. Facts please.<<

Sorry, again. On re-read, it could be interpreted that way. I wrote:

"In addition, civil disobedience and demonstration are justifiable with this issue as they have been with many other issues. The pro-abortion side has done their share of these things too. Killing doctors, bombs, violence: no justification whatsoever."

Meaning: the pro-abortion side has used civil disobedience and demonstrations in like manner. My final comment was that there is no justification for *anyone* to kill doctors, use bombs, or any other violence as the means to an end.

Hope that helps.

BTW, I am most interested in your thoughts regarding these questions:

Since you know the scriptures and doctrines, what does it take to be a *good* Christian? And, how long could you wear those shoes?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 18, 1999.

No Flint, I am not getting dense again, not even a bit. You, OTOH are remaining as dense as you were when this debate first began.

"As you point out, it's not difficult to pervert *any* code to justify what you wanted to do anyway. You did that with your *own* code, but weaseled around it on the grounds that exceptions are permitted whenever it pleases you."

No Flint, I did not "weasel" around it because it "pleased" me. I was and still am consistent that force against others is justification for force to be used against you. You choose not to see that consistency.

And I don't mind you laughing at me Flint, it reflects upon your arrogance, not mine. I did not say that deep in their hearts they wish to share my value system, I merely stated that I believe many Iranians hate how they are forced to live, and know that there are other ways of living, but cannot talk about it because of fear.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.

Gilda, somebody must have hurt you pretty badly in the past to generate all that hatred in you after all these years. I'm sorry for that, really. I'll chalk your whopping double standards and blind spots up to that hatred:

Gilda says, "But my personal belief is that we should harm NO living thing" but, as we've seen in this and other threads, forced abortion in China, forced sterilization, and abortions by the millions, are no problem to her. In fact, she seems to see them as good; does the world a favor to off the little buggers. And apparently not only does she not consider a fetus to be a human being, she doesn't even consider it a living thing.

When confronted with the reality of little human bodies systematically cut apart or immersed in burning saline solution Gilda says: "Spidey, once again you have brought up a typical pro-life response; the emotional, hit `em in the gut, bring on the gore and guilt, and the appeal to rage instead of reason tactic. I could respond in kind you know,..."

But seemingly without noticing her double standard, she pontificates on her pet (no pun intended) topic, the slaughter of animals: "Third, the inhumane way that animals are treated in feed lots and confinement houses is a disgrace. What kind of a civilization are we that claims to be so compassionate when we raise animals in such deplorable conditions, then haul them to slaughter houses that are dens of horror and filth, (I've been there) kill them inhumanely as they scream in terror, and then sell the excrement splashed meat to the public."

Gilda, if you think that an unborn child suffers nothing and fears nothing during an abortion - and if you have the balls -- you should watch a video called "The Silent Scream". More than one abortionist has given up the trade as a result.

Now,

Uncle D says: "I stated before that abortion is a tough one even for Libertarians. It involves a fetus that will eventually become a human life, and I will ignore for now the debate about when the fetus becomes so. In the meantime that fetus is a part of the womans body, and while it is still a fetus, and it is still a part of her body, we would leave the choice to her. See how that works?"

No, it doesn't "work" at all. You cannot possibly mean that because you don't know when a fetus "becomes human" you'll just ignore the question and carry on to support its death. If there was a box sitting in the street on which children were playing, would you run it over with your car because, after all, you can't know for sure whether there was a child in there? The bottom line is that if there is even a possibility that it is a child, you can't kill it. Period. That seems like a pretty obvious, and pretty Libertarian, idea to me.

C'mon, folks. Those of you who are parents, look me in the eye across this Internet and tell me that the child you saw on the ultrasound wasn't really a child at all; just a blob of sometimes inconvenient tissue like a wart or a mole, right? (I have a wonderful video of my son Christopher sucking his thumb at 21 weeks in utero). Tell me that your child was fair game for execution right up until the time he or she took that first gasp of air (oh, or does the umbilical cord have to be cut else the infant is still "part of the woman's body"?).

Speaking of that, this "part of a woman's body" business has got to go. An unborn child has a different DNA pattern, different chromosomal structure, often different blood type, possibly even a different gender for crying out loud! Most of those are true from the moment of conception. We're not talking about an appendix or kidney here. How many pieces have to be in place before people will accept the obvious; it's a separate entity who happens to reside inside another person. And I'm sorry to tell you that you can't just sign somebody up for a death sentence (without due process, no less) if his or her present location happens to be inconvenient. Seems like Libertarians would agree with that in spades. No?

I don't mean to turn this thread into a free-for-all on abortion. But there's just too much fuzzy thinking from ordinarily bright people when it comes to this all-too-emotional issue. Me included, of course; I get furious when we can so blithely speak of the death of millions as "choice." I hope I've kept that anger under control and contributed something useful here.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.

>>I was and still am consistent that force against others is justification for force to be used against you. You choose not to see that consistency.<<

Sorry, Unc, can't agree. I'm sure that in Northern Ireland, all sides concerned are using that justification. Also, it certainly sounds like a direct contradiction to "Live and Let Live" as a political platform.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 19, 1999.

Mr. Palm,

>>The bottom line is that if there is even a possibility that it is a child, you can't kill it. Period. That seems like a pretty obvious, and pretty Libertarian, idea to me. <<

Most excellent post! I would like to add that that is the moral high ground. Anything less is just expediency.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 19, 1999.

Ok Elbow Grease,

Live and let live. Sounds good of course, but what about when others will not let you live? I have stated before and do so again now; You are free to live as you see fit as long as you do not harm or infringe the rights of others. Now where does that leave us if you do use force and infringe against others? If you infringe upon or cause harm to others through use of force there are two ways to stop you. Beg you to stop or force you to stop. Which one gets better results? Well that depends on you and how willing you are to listen to reason and negotiate. But ultimately might makes right, an ugly truth about the human condition is that some people will not stop screwing with others until they are stopped through use of force. Would Libertarian ideals end the bloodshed in N. Ireland? I will not presume to answer that in the affirmative, but "live and let live" would, in an ideal world.

Of course we do not live in an ideal world, but even so we as Libertarians are trying to make America a place where peaceable people can live free from having their private lives overly regulated by the state. The Republicans talk a good game when it comes to a sound fiscal policy and shrinking the size of government, but after having a majority in the house for some years now, they have shown me that it is talk only. They also are bent on blurring the separation of church and state, and have shown me that they are quite interested in dictating to me how I should live my private life. Forget the Democrats, while they take some positions in favor of privacy rights, they are the kings of tax and spend policies that promote socialism. That is why I joined the Libertarian Party. Are we going to see every Libertarian ideal put into practice? Of course not, we will have to compromise with others. But if those of us who feel this way do not join forces with others that feel the same way, we will continue to be under-represented, if not totally ignored.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

My wife reminded me that often people can't or won't hear the arguments in favor of the unborn child because they have an abortion (s) in their past; the possible reality of what that means is too awful to accept.

Just to let you know that the Catholic Church has a program called Project Rachel to help women or men who are struggling with difficult post-abortion emotions. Contact your local Catholic diocese office and they can put you in touch with the right people to help.

A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning. Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

First, I wish to apologize for my failure to explain Libertarian values and philosophy as clearly as others who are better debaters than I would have done. And also for appearing to lose my temper with Flint at times. I am normally the sweetest, kindest, happiest, most non-confrontational fellow you will ever meet. (LAUGHTER! as Decker would say)

However the thing that upsets me the most is: I fear that I may have turned away potential Libertarians because of my inability to articulate why I feel ours is a better philosophy for determining when government may step in to regulate how people can conduct their private lives, and conduct their interactions with other consenting adults. I sincerely hope I have not done that.

About the abortion and slavery conundrums, The Libertarian Partys position of leaving the choice up to the woman will appear inconsistent if you believe that life begins at conception. If you believe that all abortion is murder we will appear to be hypocritically supporting the use of force against innocent human beings. I dislike abortion intensely, more so because of the availability of contraception devices that should make abortion a moot point, except in the cases of rape. No matter what the Partys position on this subject, it is bound to displease one side or the other. I did attempt to explain how this position is arrived at for us, and freely admit that the single most divisive issue facing our society today is no less so for many Libertarians. We would not stop the pro-life side from doing anything in their power to stop abortion through reasoning, debate, and any method they wish to employ to end abortion. Short of using force against others, which of course leads us down the path of debating when life begins, and spliting philosophical hairs again. I must say that I would like to shoot the bugger who brought the subject into this conversation. Oh, sorry Big Dog, never mind the shooting comment!

I would also like to say thanks to all of those who have contributed to this thread, and kept the level of civility high, and to those of you who have forced me to think, and too, thanks to all of the little people upon whom I trampled on my rise to the heights of mediocrity.

More to follow later, even if I end up talking to myself.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

Gilda's philosophy of life, and the philosophy espoused by the pro-abortion crowd, is beautiful: if it can't talk, it can't feel pain, so you can kill it. That includes infants, my two-year old, people in comas, people with aphasic strokes, that accident victim over there, people under anesthesia, on and on and on. David: she won't watch Silent Scream. The reality of murder is too gruesome for her to contemplate. I call them witches because pagans sacrificed their children to Molech (throwing them into iron ovens at the base of the idol) to obtain abundant crops or other success. Modern women are deluded into killing the child in their wombs to obtain abundant clothes, or other success. Would that our insane government stopped spending billions to cluster bomb Yugoslavia, and prop up corporofascist regimes, and spent the money on children in this country. But children aren't profitable: bombs are, abortion is. But God is not mocked. Mother Theresa (a real nut) once said that "the fruit of abortion is nuclear war." Wound cautery, I guess. What is left of Western Civ. when women are compelled to murder their young for (presumed) material gain?

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), May 19, 1999.

Hey troops-- I hate to suggest this, but this is now the third or fourth time around the circle. IF you go back and reread yourselves, you just MAY find it amusing. Don't get me wrong, I am enjoying the by play but maybe Flint needs to ride the horsie and Unc needs to ride the giraffe this time around??

chuck Who hasn't had QUITE this much fun watching in a while.

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 19, 1999.

Chuck,

We made progress each time around. Perhaps the nuances and subtleties were too intangible for your taste. I was especially encouraged by the general tone of the conversation, even though some *very* volatile issues surfaced. Can't say anyone's opinion changed with regard to abortion, naturally, but I for one have a substantially different, and more favorable view of Libertarianism now.

Thanks, Unc D. If all Libertarians were like you.... but that's a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 19, 1999.

Uncle D, Flint, I've enjoyed the debate with both of you. And Unc, I'm very glad I have changed my political party to Libertarian. I'm reading up on it, and printing out the material, in case someone is interested I will know a little more about it. I have a friend who said she never intended to vote again as both parties were so "self-serving." She thinks the government is too much in our face and this party would appeal to her.

I'm not going to post anymore. I heard all the hatefulness I wanted to hear on a very interesting post that Hallyx made on a thread called "For My Christian Friends." I think that was the title. Anyway he posted an article, which I thought was very interesting, but David Palm, another David and Spidey just tore it apart, and ridiculed anyone who disagreed, especially Hallyx and me. I haven't seen a post by Hallyx since, and I miss him as he was such a decent guy. David and Spidey only care about their hateful agenda, and calling people witches and other mean names. I feel l've been ganged up on because I don't pull my forelock enough, and bow to their superior morals, or maybe it's because they hate women who don't bawl and blubber over abortions. I'm one of those feminists you know--witches. But until men can experience pregnancy, they have no right to judge women in that condition.

If you two are examples of Christians, then I'm proud to be a witch. I know what the Bible says about witches. It probably bothers you tha you can no longer burn them in the name of your religion.

Now David's wife has said that we who defend abortion, probably have abortions in our past, and are probably suffering from guilt and cannot accept the reality of the act. How astute of her, and how wrong. However, I had two cousins who were raised by an Aunt because their mother died from a botched abortion long before it was legal. Of course, those sanctimonious Christians on this forum, who have usurped God's job, surely feel she got what she deserved and should even have suffered more, and should have been grateful to live with her drunken, abuser husband. I would never suggest that anyone contact the Catholic Church, or any other church, unless they specifically asked for help. It's called minding your own business.

I don't mind debate. And I didn't mind Flint thinking my post about slavery was hilarious. But I do mind having people read my post about the meat industry and then focusing on just one point, totally ignoring the more drastic points about children's health and the overall effect on the environment, and the effect this has on many more people than abortion ever touches.

I was not trying to start a "Save the Animals" crusade, nor promote vegetarianism, nor suggest a ban on cattle ranching. I was just trying to open up a topic where emotions and religion didn't influence the debate as much as abortion does. But all I heard was that I was an animal nut, and they wouldn't touch the issue of how many more people it affects than does abortion. That issue might have called for some logical debate on issues that touch everyone, but have no religious significance.

Spidey I belong to Planned Parenthood, and I have seen Silent Scream, and yes it is gruesom, and it was an appeal to the emotions for the anti-abortion crowd. I have also seen, Just a Woman which was similar, only featuring dead mothers, and yes it too was gruesome, and it was an appeal to the emotions for the pro-abortion crowd. And I've seen the numerous pictures of the dead children shot in the various school shootings, an appeal to the emotions of the gun control crowd pushing more legislation. But I have yet to see a bunch of maimed bodies of men, women and children which have been killed in auto accidents. And yet there are hundreds more people are killed in autos every year than all those other groups I mentioned combined, and no one is name calling and calling for a ban on autos.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 19, 1999.

Psssssst, shhhhhhhh, Hallyx is a she, pass it on....

-- ????? (who@me.?), May 19, 1999.

I said I wasn't going to post again. But having been told that Hallyx is a she, I'm stunned once again. Because when I first read his/her posts, I assumed it was a woman, and said something that indicated I was talking to a woman Then, another poster told me Hallyx was a man and I was quite surprised. So since then, I've been assuming Hallyx was a man. Now I hear, pssst, Hallyx is a she! Hallyx, whatever you are, I think your're a fine, decent person. We need more like you.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 19, 1999.