Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (673705)	3/1/2005 1:05:54 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

True, a federal preemption of what had traditionally been regarded as a matter for the States and localities... whether a Constitutional basis for an individual's right to privacy, or 'control over their own body' can be found is debatable. I think the science on this issue will lead any disinterested and rational person to only one essential conclusion where abortion is concerned: that rank murder takes place in the vast majority of American abortions. Nevertheless, society insists on the right to these murders and though the murders represent an assault upon my nature they themselves do not directly infringe upon my particular right to life, nor do they necessarily infringe upon the right of anyone allied with me. I have no logical basis to accept abortion, no basis to tolerate it in the least. But I have no obligation to force others to reject it. My natural obligation is to myself, to the interests of those allied with me and to those who embrace my ideals. Therefore, I have the right to ignore, reject, fire, discriminate against, withhold all acknowledgment and support of those who should decide to murder their children (or who assist them). This is true even in cases where born children are being murdered. The government must never take funds that I have in any part contributed, and force me to support the execrable practice by using those funds to support it. My self-evident right and obligation is to life, since I am life. I have no obligation to support that which is objectively contrary to what I am. This is the philosophically libertarian solution to the abortion issue. Absent a federal definition of the starting point for citizenship or legal 'personhood' --- which, to my knowledge has never been legislatively established --- then the constitutional presumption is that such definitions are matters for the States to establish. Such talk of “personhood” is just religion, hocus pocus magic. Between you and me, there is no such thing as “personhood.” I tell you the truth: to me, you aren’t even a person, since you are already dead and bound for hell. We must keep religion out of it. Science (i.e. philosophical naturalism) knows exactly when a new human organism develops and begins expressing here with us. That is all there is – and it is us. See the solution to the thing in my note above. I believe you are reading tea leaves in some sort of alternate reality on this one. To my knowledge there is no federal law establishing either... in fact, the one piece of relevant federal legislation (the 'Defense of Marriage Act') specificly BANS all federal recognition of non-heterosexual pairings. I did not say the law federalizing sodomite marriage exist, but that there are so-called “conservatives” pushing for and/or accepting it, which essentially makes them leftists. I never said the two sides were equally matched! Well then it really is worthless here to claim there is an even split between big government and small government conservatives but that the small government guys are just too weak to make themselves known. If they are that weak, they are insignificant and may as well not even exist. My point stands. Money is REAL. Deficit spending, fiat currency debasement are REAL, and serve to feed and enable the continuous growth or the bureaucracy and it's intrusiveness. Ever expanding money consumption does enable intrusiveness. I do not gainsay it. What I am saying is that if you pair down government without first eradicating the philosophy that permitted the bloating in the first place, you have accomplished nothing. We must restore the right to real liberty and begin fighting each other over how we can best achieve the maximum freedom. Maximum freedom needs to be our mutual goal, not how best to get free stuff to everybody. I find that the Libertarian Party, and the many Libertarian commenters upon our current ethos, are some of the FEW who consistently speak out against the continuous growth of the governmental bureaucracies, the fiscal imprudence, and the constant backdrop that the diminution of our individual rights has become in this era of increasing Authoritarianism. Of course you do. If you know of a political movement that betters their record in these areas, I'd like to hear of it. They have no record, Buddy. They are just a bunch of talk and compromises. Immigration is just one of a long line of worthless compromises that has destroyed your party such that it is no longer libertarian at all. Ah... a CYNIC! :) (Never-the-less, you will have only suppositions and pre-judgements, no hard facts, to establish this sweeping claim of yours... until and unless the Libertarians --- or some other reform grouping --- ever get their day in the sun to have the opportunity to establish the strength of their convictions....) I am watching the party as it is. It can’t even hold to its values while it is free of a beckoning public. LOL!!!!!!! Surely you aren't arguing that there are no no* major differences in philosophy of government AT ALL among these three?????????* I am absolutely arguing this. I am not looking at the feathers of the chickens, however they may claim to be eagles, and then getting carried away with the superficial differences between them. I am ripping off their feathers and seeing that underneath them, they are nothing but chickens – all of them. If you ARE making that rather startling and counter-intuitive claim... I'd like to ask you: OK, so WHO ARE THE WHITE HATS, in your view? There are too few to even put a name on them. No movement exists – and likely never will. No KIDDING! (Aside from a certain bent towards a renewal of social conservatism that is... certainly no fiscal conservatism is in view, no factions clamoring to conserve our constitutional liberties are at the front of the stage....) You really have missed the boat here. But I gotta go. I’ll probably share more on this issue when I get back. Except that Hamilton favored a strong central government... even favored a Constitutional Monarchy for America... and Jefferson did not. Don’t mean to sound as if I generally support Hamilton. I don’t. On this issue I am more Jeffersonian than anything. But I see Hamilton’s aim, though I reject his proposed method. I reject today’s aims and methods. That was the point. Er... exactly WHAT IS your governmental vision for our society????? Can you put a name to it? A set of principles? A creed? I will try. Gotta go. But this is a very good question that will require more time than I have at the moment.