<You are correct: those farm price supports are TERRIBLE!>
"Terrible indeed. There wouldn't be a need for them if Americans had learned that you can't get something for nothing."
>>> Actually... with subsidies, it isn't 'Americans getting something for nothing', it is ONE GROUP of Americans getting a subsidy paid by others.
<Wouldn't know: since I never said anything like that!>
"Well, you did. You just don't know you did."
>>> Prove your fantasy or withdraw it.
<You are 'reading chicken entrails' again. Since I never took that position.>
"See above."
>>> Again: I am not responsible for your self-delusions.
<If you think only money will improve your position in our society: have at it!>
"It is obviously not money, but power that is the ultimate goal - power to live as one thinks best. The left aims to acquire power by extracting it from others via money. That is why the painting "Piss Christ" exists. It could not survive in the market, so leftists stole money from me and then insulted me with it. That is, of course, wrong. There is nothing wrong with my countering them by using the law to keep what I earn legitimately - even if it means destroying the institutions whereby they do their wrong deeds."
>>> Whatever. Money is just a measure.
<<G> Well, at least I can come up with a list of PLENTY of names of EXISTING societies that function economically while permitting abortion rights... while I'm sure you can't come up with ANY examples for societies where 100% of the wealth is in 1% of the citizen's hands....>
"Well Nazi Germany functioned economically while permitting the post-birth abortion of Jews. So you don't really say anything impressive here at all, Buddy. It is easy to function economically at the expense of human life."
>>> So you agree with me on one of my statements (easy to find plenty of EXISTING societies that function economically while permitting abortion rights)... while totally failing to provide any evidence for your wild and illogical claim that societies can exist --- and function --- stably with 100% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the citizen's hands.
>>> So, you must be conceding that point as well.
<Yep: "the worst of all forms of government... except for ALL the OTHERS!">
"Not really. By "Democracy" I had in mind the system that requires the infringement of the natural rights of others. Real Democracy allows no such thing.>
>>> Two points: 1) next time, define your terms: we are not mindreaders. 2) You are wrong: of course Democracy (as ALL forms of government do) 'infringes' some individual's freedoms to do or say certain things! But, as my reply implied: it does less of that than other governmental forms.
<That's a definitional argument: what is a child? When is a fetus a 'child' with legal rights.>
"There is not the least arbitrariness in my argument. Our legal rights are arbitrary. Nature is not. And all definitions flow from Nature. When legal rights run contrary to Nature, they are immoral."
>>> So, tell me what 'language' 'Nature' uses... so we may hear from her ourselves whether she is ever 'arbitrary'.
<Actually, no! I explained your choices.... Under our Democratic form of governemnt... your rights are fully equal to other citizen's rights. Sounds like what you want is to be MORE 'equal' than other citizens... or to have a personal veto over government actions. (I'd like that, too, for myself... but, what are the odds? <G>)>
"We have no right to equal power. We only have equal right to pursue power. There is nothing wrong with my exploiting my abilities to their fullest to influence policy and acquire wealth. Leftists have the same right to use the system to do what they think is best (that is why they murder children over my constant protest and now are about to force me to support Sodomites). They will best me in some areas (like murdering kids and supporting Sodomites), and I will best many of them in others. But contrary to them, I do nothing against their natural rights. I take nothing from them and I kill no one."
>>> Re: "I do nothing against their natural rights. I take nothing from them" --- I remain unconvinced of that assertion.
<As you prove... morality is relative.>
"Only if it is not directly grounded in nature. If not, it is religion."
>>> You seem to be saying that 'morality derived from nature' is absolute, and not ever 'relative' (while agreeing with me that all other sources for morality are relative).
>>> So, OK, if morality derived from natural laws is not ever relative... I repeat my previous answer: tell me the language used by nature whereby we may ascertain these 'natural rules for morality'... and see them ourselves... agree what they are... and then decide if they are ever 'relative'. |
