Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Busybody politicians, get off our backs
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


If you want to buy or sell foie gras in a Chicago restaurant, you'll have to break the law. Not that this stops anyone. Restaurants all over Chicago sell the French delicacy -- even restaurants that never sold it before. They openly thumb their noses at the new law.

City officials say cracking down on foie gras pushers won't be a high priority. But the law is on the books, ready whenever the authorities want to harass some troublesome restaurateur. The ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said, "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

In this case the politicians are catering to the animal-rights lobby, which complains that geese and ducks are force-fed to make the fattened-liver paste. (The American Veterinary Medical Association investigated the process and has abstained from condemning it.)

Political leaders say they work hard to advance the general welfare. What they really do is help vocal and well-organized special interests.

Sometimes I think the type of people who run for office are the most dangerous people. Most of us want to run our own lives, or help people by offering them charity, or selling them things. The people who want to run other people's lives are . . . different. In pursuit of their vision of the perfect world, they justify even absurd restrictions on our freedom. For example:

In Belton, Mo., it is illegal to throw a snowball.

In New Jersey and Oregon, it is illegal to pump your own gas.

In Kern County, Calif., it is illegal to play bingo while drunk. In Illinois, it is against the law to hunt bullfrogs with a firearm.

In Massachusetts, it's illegal to deface a milk carton.

In Fairfax, Va., the use of pogo sticks is outlawed on city buses. In Palm Harbor, Fla., it is illegal to have an artificial lawn.

Some of these silly laws are old, but dumb as they are, they are still on the books. The bureaucrats' bad ideas never go away. They don't repeal old laws; they just pass new ones.

Plan on painting your porch on your day off? Don't do it in Spring Hill, Tenn. The city council banned any "alteration or repair of any building" in a residential neighborhood on Sundays, even do-it-yourself work.

The mayor of the tiny community of Friendship Heights, Md., said he had to protect his citizens from cigarette smoke. So several years ago, he got his town to pass the most stringent anti-smoking law in America. It banned cigarette smoke not just in restaurants, bars, and offices, but outdoors, too.

The mayor is a doctor who should have known that only the flimsiest of data suggests secondhand smoke hurts people. The suggestion of slight risk came from studies of people who lived with smokers, and were exposed to lots of secondhand smoke at home and in cars. The idea that outdoor cigarette smoke is a meaningful health risk is silly. Granted, secondhand smoke is a nuisance. But so are many other things.

But the mayor was a zealot, and Friendship Heights banned smoking anywhere on city property, which meant no smoking on the sidewalks, the streets or the parks.

I said to Mayor Alfred Muller, "You're another of these busybody politicians who want to tell other people how to live their lives." He replied, "Well, we're elected to promote the general welfare, and this is part of the general welfare."

The mayor seemed very sincere, and the citizens of Friendship Heights felt protected by his concern. However, shortly after I interviewed him, he had to register as a sex offender after touching a 14-year-old boy's genitals in a restroom at Washington National Cathedral. The mayor got probation, and the village council repealed his law. Now we finally know what it takes to get a law repealed.

The people who have the biggest passion for restricting other people's behavior are the very people we should worry about most. Unfortunately, they keep running for office.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Is this RIGHT ON!
"Now we finally know what it takes to get a law repealed."

SO SAD, SO TRUE.

We should repeal 99.9% of all laws. We would be better off and not hassled as much.

Just a thought (the poster): Yep
Every law takes away a little freedom, by definition.

We need a LOT fewer.

Great column by Stossel, as usual.

I wrote "There Oughtta Be a Law!" on my blog about exactly this issue; meaningless laws, the busybody approach to total control of people's lives.

Sunset Clause
We ought to pass all new laws with an automatic "Sunset Clause", where it's only good for 7 years or something like that. After that, it has to be elected back in with another vote.

If elected out, or if the legislators don't bother voting it back in, it automatically becomes null and void.

Probably put that in the State Constitution, or even the Federal one, for all new laws.

"BUT WAIT, UncaAlby", I hear somebody say, "won't that make the legislators too busy voting on old stuff to get busy on the new stuff?"

Well, yes -- consider that a side-benefit.

Dumb Laws
I heard about what was reputed to be an actual law somewhere. To wit, if two trains were to meet each other on the same track, they are both required to stop and remain there until the other is moved out of the way.

UncaAlby: Great idea
A sunset clause is a terrific idea. Not only would it clear some deadwood off the lawbooks, but the side benefit you mention is even better than the the upfront benefit.

Make them rejustify their idiotic laws every few years.

Hear! Hear!
The Author wrote:
"The people who have the biggest passion for restricting other people's behavior are the very people we should worry about most. . ."

Amen.

The "Religious Right" with their holier-than-thou, no-sin-shall-be-legal mentatlity comes quickly to mind...

Ayn Rand said it best
From Atlas Shrugged: "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."

Worthless legality.
The examples are trivial, but there are very real consequences to dumbed-down legislation.

First, the "laws" give lawyers, litigants, and power groups tools to use to bludgeon normal citizens. Examples will come to mind quickly. The one I remember is that the Ruby Ridge massacre was set off by the selling of a shotgun sawn a quarter of an inch below the "legal" limit.

Second, Law itself becomes trivial. We're forced to distinguish between the "real" laws, and the "trivial" laws. With the decline of religion in some places, many people actually do rely on the government to define right and wrong. How many times have you heard "legal" and "illegal" equated with "right" and "wrong"?

The other chilling example that comes to mind is a recent survey I read, in which 30% of high school boys surveyed said they would rape a woman if it was legal.

With Folded Hands
If you are a person who reads books, read "With Folded Hands" by Jack Williamson. It's science fiction, but is the ultimate Marching Mommy wet dream and a real horror story for the rest of us -- about police robots designed "To serve and obey and protect men from harm." Ultimately they end up preventing humanity from doing everything.

It constantly amazes me that the people who refuse to prevent their own children from making life h*ll on earth are out there trying to restrict the freedom of everyone else.

Get that plank out of your own eye, madam, before you start pointing at specs in mine.

The 'don't talk about politicians law'..
I don't remember the name of it, but isn't there a federal law that limits who can say what about politicians a couple of months before an election?

CS Lewis Quote
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.


politicos are just like us...
We all want to determine how to best live our lives.

Policitians also want to determine how best to live our lives.

CMoore: Baseless conjecture(ie lies).
The ATHIESTS are the ones driving religion out, not the other way. Nice try though.

Old Timer

Sunset laws
I also like the idea of requiring politicians to review their own laws.Politicians most always serve themselves and always try to justify their existence by passing new laws.By the way,if you break down the word politics,poli(taken from the word poly) means many,and tics,well they're bloodsuckers.So what ARE politicians?

People should't be afraid of government
Government should be afraid of the people! Unfortunately, our elected officials have absolutely no fear of anything because they think they are above the law and above the rest of us as well. It's good to see some incumbants from both sides of the aisles get ousted as a warning.

I like...
...the sunset ideas. Sometimes laws that are passed to deal with certain situations need to sunset after that period is over. Take water restrictions for example; they are a good idea when you are in a severe drought but serve no purpose any other time. Why not just enact temporary measures to deal with the problem at hand instead of creating a law that stays on the books forever?

CMoore
I honestly have come to expect more of you than what you gave in your last post. We have not always agreed on issues, but I have never known you to throw out baseless accusations against large groups of people. In fact, I remeber you calling me out for a bit of a personal attack that I launched without a real basis. Your comments about the 'religious right' seem to be out of character, judging by the things you have written in the past here.

I am one of those members of the "Religious Right" and do not appreciated being characterized as some holier than thou type. I do believe that all laws that are written should have a strong moral basis, and I believe that most laws that are passed do take some moral stand. Why is it wrong for me as Christian to want to see laws passed that reflect my moral values? Why is it that everyone else gets to have a voice in the political arena, but the minute a Christian voice is heard it is shouted down as trying to 'legislate morality' or establish a 'theocracy'?

I am a believer in the Thomas Aquinas philosophy of there being civl and natural laws that all trace their origins back to eternal law. Does that make me some theocrat, or is it just another way of living and looking at life?

I have always enjoyed your posts, even if I disagreed with your position, because they were always well thought out, reasoned, supported, and written. I hope to see the return of that CMoore soon, and hope that this broadside at the "Religious Right" is just an aberration.

Busybody Politician
Does my Swiss cheese memory recall a movement I seem to recall in PA that would not allow lawyers to serve in the state house or senate due to the fact that any law that they voted on would either be advised on, defended or prosecuted after they lost their job & went back into private practice....becoming either the origination or the ultimate in conflict of interests... nevermind, just daydreaming...

Foie Gras is a vicious act of cruelty
I am sorry that you made this error in your article. I respect you and your advice. But one trip to a foie gras farm will settle your misunderstanding. I cannot begin to describe it to you because that would torture the rest of the readers here. Please go yourself and look. I am not giving you a hysterical, busybody response. When you see what happens at foie gras farms, you will see my response here as an extraordinary instance of self-control. I am one of the NYC lawyers that drafted a response to this hideous and unnecessary practice.

Foie Gras is a vicious act of cruelty. First look, then feel free to contact me.

Another amusing Massachusetts law
In Boston, Massachusetts, a law that is still on the books requires anyone who crosses the Boston Common (the big park in the middle of Boston) to carry a shotgun with them.

The problem is that you'd get arrested and tossed in jail for following this law (and I HIGHLY doubt the 'but, your Honor, I was only following the explicit written law' excuse would prevent you from the inevitable lengthy prison sentence either).

The bottom line is that at any given time, every single man, woman, and child in the US (and perhaps the world) is in violation of some law, and all it takes is some maniacle fascist to just up and decide to enforce said law. Such laws are simply the weapons of tyrants, and are used to silence anyone with whom they disagree.

Mavirek
Animal testing of drugs could be considered a "vicious act of cruelty". Please tell me you're not one of those kooks who thinks that we should instead torture our children to test these medicines instead of lab rats, or that we should simply stop developing new drugs.

a "vicious act of cruelty"
You do not need the quotation marks. Nor the name-calling. If you swing a chair at someone's head, it's a deadly instrument. But you can also sit on it, so it's a uselful instrument. You can test a drug on an animal, so it is a useful instrument. You can also be inflicting horrific suffering, which would be appropriately described as a vicious act of cruelty. If you believe some cruelty is justified, then I hope we are talking about terrorists at Abu Graib and not an innocent animal in a cosmetics lab. Either way, sir, you have not simply done what I asked Mr. Stossel to do. Go look for yourself. Why you lash out is because you know what you will see will sicken you.

Duck, duck, goose!
Wrong website. Animals aren't people.

The unrepeatable horror seems to be that the ducks are caged and force-fed to be fattened until they are morbidly obese and then killed.

Honestly, that's a bit much, even for me. Nevertheless, it's a big world and there are many other more important causes than the plight of the industrial food duck.

It's one thing if you want to inform the public and pressure the manufacturers into more humane duck-treatment, it's another to use the force of government to enforce your duck morality.


Marriage and sex
Inter-racial marriage was illegal in 16 states until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled such laws unconstitutional. What's astonishing is that the Virginia Supreme Court upheld such a law in 1966, forcing a U.S. Supreme Court appeal.

It was illegal in Virginia until just last year for unmarried couples to have sex.

Oral sex is still illegal in Virginia, despite the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas in which Justice Thomas called sodomy laws "uncommonly silly."

Then there are the other laws
Of course it is ok to hire illegal aliens, be an illegal alien, locate subsideraries off-shore to avoid taxes and sell services to Iran, etc. It depends who you are, how much money you have and who benefits from the lawbreaking. Foie Gras will always be available to some, especially billionaires, politicians and judges.

Busybody politicians
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws"

AYN RAND, "Atlas Shrugged"


Maverik: Foie Gras
All I can say is:

Yum yum!

Flagwaver
Flagwaver wrote:
“I honestly have come to expect more of you than what you gave in your last post. . . and hope that this broadside at the ‘Religious Right’ is just an aberration.”

Touché! You are absolutely correct and I apologize. I have no legitimate excuse. Yes, it was an unfair generalization of the "Religious Right".

There is, however, a vocal component of the "Religious Right" that, should it ever gain control of the Legislative process, would not hesitate to use to force of Law to dictate morality and criminalize "sin".

I cannot agree about "morality" being the basis of Law. "Morality", generally, carries a connotation of religious values and I do not believe that religious values since they are NOT universal, even within the same religion, should be the foundation or basis of Law.

The question I would ask people when considering any sort of prohibitive law is, "Does it commit aggress against the Equal Rights of others?" If the answer is "No", then there is no legitimate basis, in my not-so-humble opinion, for infringing upon the People's Freedom and Liberty.

The fact that it may be "immoral" or a "sin" (as defined by one religious group or another) is not enough to justify using the police power of the State to prohibit it.

I offer you my blood
I would like these politicains, judges, law makers, and the N.E.A to meet a challenge, The offer of a Christians Blood or choose a gay man's blood to save the life of their child or themselves. This is a test I would like demonstrated to the public eye. Then and only then can they say they are for whatever it is they stand for.

In my hometown...
It is illegal to give your dog, cat, or other domestic animal a cigar or cigarette.

Laugh. There's a form of logic at work here.

My town started as a religious colony (the preacher was run out of Chicago - he'd be called a fundamentalist now). They banned spitting on the sidewalk, selling shellfish and pork, drinking or selling alcohol, and smoking anywhere in the city limits.

People got around that by saying they were holding the cigar for "my dog". So the city commissioners passed the ordinance.

CMoore, Flagwaver, and DavidM
Before this gets out of hand, I'll chime in with the risk of inflaming it further, though I hope not.

We, the not-so-religious, see certain laws propounded by certain Right-wingers, who are religious, based on certain scriptures to be a force-feeding of religion on the rest of us, just as the banning of foie gras by PETA et al is forcing their views on the rest of us who may not really give a flying you-know-what at a rolling donut.

Not all of us are willing to grant the premise that a certain religion's morality should be applicable to the rest of us. I see that when the religion is Islam there is little dissension here, but let it be Christianity and the flames start flying.

That said, there are BROAD categories where the religious and non-religious can agree. Our law should be based on that. The rest is personal choice. Incest is wrong, child molesting is wrong, I think we can all agree (except for maybe NAMBLA adherents). Abortion is allowable/morally indefensible. That's personal choice - nobody's forcing you. You see where I'm going?

Did I point something out or just muddy the water further?

CMoore and Flagwaver
I don't know your ages but i am 61 and my first view of a presidential election was Kennedy vs. Nixon. The fear about kennedy was he would become a token and the Pope would rule the U.S.

The U.S. no longer has statesmen, only politicians who job depends upon sending enough crumbs back to his district. Truman, Eisenhauer were the last presidents who made decisions based upon what was needed.

Truman weighed the cost of U.S. lives verses using the atomic bomb. He did not have opinion polls to support his decision. But, in Korea, where the military wanted to use it again against the north Koreans, Truman fired McAuther and after 4 years it was a stalemate. What would history be like if we used the bomb against North Korea and China. Might there be democracy in Asia? What if?

Eisenhauer sent troops into Arkansas to force intergration. What if he left it as a local issue? Would there still be segregation?

There are laws, and there are morals. I judged my business practices not by just what I could get away with legally. I built my business by treating my #1 assets (employees) as I would want to be treated. They inturn treated customers correctly.

Laws are the minimum standards of morality, it is up to us to raise the bar of standards.

BS Detector writes: Wednesday, September
re: Marriage and sex

This is a non sequitur:

'Oral sex is still illegal in Virginia, despite the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas in which Justice Thomas called sodomy laws "uncommonly silly."'

Oral sex and sodomy are not the same thing. The ruling did not declare every law regarding sexual activity unconstitutional. Justice Thomas was dissenting in the case, you might recall. His position was that the law was perfectly constitutional (a minority opinion) but he thought it "uncommonly silly" as you said.

I think "uncommonly silly" is a mischaracterization myself. It ignores (as do many of these type of comments) that there is a public health issue involved in many of these laws. This is especially odd to me in that one of the "public health" concerns is now a literal mater of life and death. Extremely odd that we are doing everything possible to deal with an epidemic other than to treat it like an epidemic. I guess no other epidemic disease had a constituency before.

What I don't get...
'It was illegal in Virginia until just last year for unmarried couples to have sex.

Oral sex is still illegal in Virginia, despite the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas in which Justice Thomas called sodomy laws "uncommonly silly." '


...is why do people and governments get so bent out of shape over who's smoking a pole or eating tacos? It seems they have more important things to do.


Sunset Laws
I have long agreed that all laws should expire. The major reason is the law becomes out of date. However, another reason is whole industries grow and over time there is "an industry" which will be eliminated if the law changes.

My son recently bought a house that was built in 1955. The hot water heater needed to be replaced. Mind you the house is 50 years old, the hot water heater was 15 years old. He could not buy a hot water heater until a inspector from the county inspected the current set up, venting, (gas heater), and water pressure to the residence.

The inspector issued a citation to my son for his existing hot water heater being out of compliance with local law. The citation is $200 along with a $75 inspection fee.

My question is, if the house was build under code in 1955, and the law changed between then and now, how is that a violation?

I guess I went off on a tangent, but laws need to expire and be renewed.

Religion versus beliefs
I think the major confusion is the difference between religion(which is a man-made organization) and beliefs of a faith.

Christians believe murder should be illegal, but that doesn't mean that we cannot make it illegal because it violates the church-state separation.

Church-state separation was intended to stop government involvement in religious organizations and vice versa. Church of England is a good example. You had to be a member to serve in government. Another example is forbidding people from being a member of a particular denomination.

When people within a city outlaw prostitution and they are Christians people cry church-and-state! But the matter does not involve the church whatsoever, but the beliefs of the lawmakers.

Likewise putting the 10 commandments on the wall in your courtroom does not even mean the judge is of the Christian faith. Nor does it require patrons to pay homage to it, no more than the Atlanta Braves poster in my room means you have to be a Braves fan when you see it.

And no, I wouldn't object to some Koran passages on the wall of an Islamic Judges' courtroom. As long as he doesn't use them in session, its fine.

BS Detector
The CDC will track you down if you have a sexually transmitted disease other than HIV. If you have HIV are become protected and your privacy is guaranteed.

Also, do you know that more people die from Hepititus than from HIV? They are both transmitted the same way, Blood, oral, vaginal, and anal sex.

Nobody goes after the Hepitits infected person as they do an HIV infected person. Does that bring Homophobic to mind?

Gays bring a difficult decision for the homophobic person. The homophobic person believes gays made a choice. They have to believe that because to believe Gays were born with a genetic difference would create a problem with their religious belief that God created Gays. Yes, God did create gays, Islamic facists, nazis, Catholics, et el.

Just having fun, stiring the pot.

Sir Michael
Sir Michael wrote:
”. . . Oral sex and sodomy are not the same thing. . .”

Please check your definitions. See #1 below.

sodomy – noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sodomy&x=0&y=0


Similarly, many anti-sodomy laws prohibit any “unnatural” sex act. In other words, anything OTHER THAN straight, heterosexual coitus. The catching point with the Texas Law was that it specifically targetted same-sex sodomy NOT heterosexual activity. The Supreme Court struck it down as a violation of Equal Protection, NOT as a privacy issue.



“. . . that there is a public health issue involved in many of these laws. . .”

The government is not legitimately tasked with ensuring “the public health”. Whether or not someone engages in otherwise peaceable but risky behavior is absolutely none of yours or anyone else’s concern. The “public health” red herring could be applied to all sorts of things – eating junk food, not exercising, etcetera. The simple fact that obesity is NOT banned even though, with associated heart disease diabetes and other maladies, it kills more people (purportedly) than HIV/AIDS, puts the lie to your "public health" justification.

The ONLY reason fornication, sodomy, and adultery laws exist is to criminalize "sins". In other words, busybody politicians and electorates dictating how other people should live their lives.

Another Homocrusader
To accept that homosexuals are "born" homosexual would be to deny our faith in order to accept something that has yet to be proven for the sake of political correctness. It would also allow us to believe that other sexual deviancies like rape, pedophilia and bestiality are genetic conditions.

Stir, stir.


DavidM
DavidM wrote
“Christians believe murder should be illegal, but that doesn't mean that we cannot make it illegal because it violates the church-state separation. . .”

You’re quite right. Murder can be made illegal because it is an act of violence committed against the Equal Rights of another, namely their Right to Life.

Most (if not all) acts of aggression committed against the Equal Rights of others are “sins”. Criminalizing those deeds BECAUSE they are acts of aggression against the Equal Rights of others is NOT synonymous with criminalizing “sin” or legislating morality. Rather, it is protecting, through Law, the Rights of Individuals.

“- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” – Declaration of Independence.

Conversely, many “sins” are NOT acts of aggression against the Equal Rights of others. Consentual sodomy, adultery, promiscuity, gambling, prostitution, etcetera are all “sins”. However, they are otherwise peaceable conduct. In other words, the do NOT commit aggression against the Equal Rights of others. IMNSHO, there is NO legitimate justification for criminalizing such “sins”. Doing so ONLY legislates morality. It does NOT secure and protect the Equal Rights of others and simultaneously interferes with the Right of Individuals to peaceably live their lives according to their own consciences.


“No man has the natural right to commit aggression against the Equal Rights of others and this is all from which the Law ought to restrain him.” – Thomas Jefferson



“. . . When people within a city outlaw prostitution and they are Christians people cry church-and-state! But the matter does not involve the church whatsoever, but the beliefs of the lawmakers.”

( A ) The lawmakers are representatives of the people, (supposedly) legislating the will of their electorate. Thus, their laws (supposedly) represent the beliefs of the people.

( B ) Such laws are generally pushed for by the people and Church organizations. (See A.)

( C ) Regardless, consentual prostitution is an otherwise peaceable act that does NOT commit aggress against the Equal Rights of others. See Above.

Gurky . . .
please allow a minor correction: Gen. MacArthur wanted to nuke Red China, not North Korea. He perceived (correctly) that Red China was the real enemy. His 8th Army had already decimated the NKA, captured Pyongyang, and was mopping up remnants of the NKA when the ChiComs jumped the Yalu River.

The essence of his firing was that he argued with his commander-in-chief after Truman decided on a course of action (ill-advised IMHO).

Simple law
IMHO, all law can be simplified into two laws:

1. Don't take anything that doesn't belong to you.

2. Don't hurt anyone without their permission.

There, that covers it. Congress, pass those two laws and repeal all the others, then go home and get real jobs.


Good laugh
"The mayor got probation, and the village council repealed his law. Now we finally know what it takes to get a law repealed. "

I didn't see anyone commenting on this. Stossel is a hoot.

On a more serious note I live in the Chicago area and every day there's a body count in the local papers, while the local gov. is worrying about a goose and his liver. Hey if you nitpick on the small inconsequential stuff that makes you look busy so no one is supposed to notice you aren't getting the important things done. Political systems are the devil's recycling center.

Non Sequitur
Post-It wrote:
“. . . It would also allow us to believe that other sexual deviancies like rape, pedophilia and bestiality are genetic conditions.”

Genetic conditions, mental disorders, or not, it makes no difference. Those practices are acts of aggression against others.

RAPE: Rape is a violent assault against an individual. There is no such thing as consentual rape.

PEDOPHILIA and BESTIALITY: Children and animals lack the necessary intelligence, wisdom, experience, and faculties to adequately understand the nature of the proposition and to evaluate and consider it in order to arrive at AND express informed consent.

HOMOSEXUALITY: Homosexual behavior is, by and large, consentual, peaceable conduct. That means that homosexuals, generally, engage in their “deviancy” of their own free will and without committing aggression against the Equal Rights of others.


This allegation is simply a non sequitur (a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premise) and is intellectually dishonest (by equating consentual, peaceable conduct to non-consentual acts of aggression). Tolerating homosexuality – minding your own business and not worrying about whether or not two men are loving each other – does NOT (A) require that you accept or condone homosexuality and (B) will NOT lead to tolerating acts of aggression committed upon others.

Who's morals
I must confess. I have tomato plants that are caged. I also give them large doses of fertilizer (yet I can still get on a plane). I is horrible to see the plant suffer and sometimes I cry. But it is necessary to get the tomatoes, particularily the big ones.

As to those who want to make morals into laws. Who's morals. Mine are very different from yours. Much as my praying. The same crowd wants prayer in schools, whose prayer? Governments one function is to keep us from killing each other. It is preachers who should be concerned with morals and teaching you what your responsibilites are in that respect. Of course I have taken care of prostitutes in my medical practice. They often try to get diet pills to look better for certain conventions. Their biggest convention is the Baptist preachers converntion!!

In Louisiana, I can buy a politician for about $10,000. Do you really want these people telling us what to do?? When are we going to put a stop to our excessive government??

Gurky
Gurky wrote
“. . . Laws are the minimum standards of morality, it is up to us to raise the bar of standards.”

While that idealogy sounds quite pretty, I must disagree. Laws should not be “standards of morality” at all. Laws should ONLY be used to secure and protect the Rights of Individuals from aggression. To do anything else unduly interferes with the Freedom and Liberty of Individuals.

Busy body democrats, Massachusetts
With all the Laws changing fast before our eyes, it no wonder Americans are reluctant to be fruitful and multiply. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gay Indoctrination into the sex grounds, school grounds, is a horrifying reality. It only makes perfect sense that these atheist are going to try to convince us that they are of the religious group. Only one big problem for them is the fact that true christians, of the living word can spot a foney, a mile away. God grants wisdom, insight, morals of faith to the faithful. This is a lesson they, the unholy can-not comprehend. To accept Jesus, is to accept God's living word, which in turn through The Grace of God, changes one hardened heart and gives mercy to them, healing them and bringing them to a higher ground of understanding.

Jay_in_Milwaukee
Jay_in_Milwaukee wrote:
“. . . That said, there are BROAD categories where the religious and non-religious can agree. . .”

Agreed. Specifically, acts of aggression, through force or fraud, against the Equal Rights of others (eg: rape, murder, assault, vandalism, robbery, theft-by-scam, theft-by-taking, sexual-assault-by-manipulation, etcetera).



“. . . Our law should be based on that. . .”

Amen!

“No man has the natural right to commit aggression against the Equal Rights of others and this is all from which the Law ought to restrain him.” – Thomas Jefferson

CMoore
I understand your viewpoint, but I think you err in assuming that I advocate making prostitution legal or illegal. I make no such claim for or against such a position.

My point is that religious _organizations_ should not mingle with government entities (outside of normal means like lobbying, fundraising, campaigning) but religious beliefs/values can ; just like other kinds of secular beliefs/values.

We all operate on our beliefs, whether we admit it or not. Argue for or against laws on their merits, not their source.

Church and State
I think this issue is partly confused because of the work of lawyers (both pleaders and judges) and partly because of inadequate and superficial educations.

First of all, the meaning of "establishment" has been twisted into shapes and out of shape such that the Founders would never recognize what is being discussed. Back in England the Anglican Church was the official, established church, the "Church of England." It was supported by taxation and the jobs, from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the poorest country church curate were determined by the government. The government at various levels determined who had the position, what the pay was, and the government paid the person. Taxes were specifically collected for this purpose. At the time the Constitution was written, most, not all, but most, of the States had such "established" churches.

The Constitution specifically states in the First Amendment that the US Government would have no Established Church: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." (It did not outlaw the States' Established Church. Some argue that the Bill of Right's prohibitions are now been imposed on the States by the 14th Amendment, but that is another discussion.) The States all disestablished their churches voluntarily over time. (This issue was one that Jefferson worked hard on in Virginia. He was adamant that churches should be free of government control and that no one should have to pay to support a church he didn't believe in.)

The First Amendment continues, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The other place religion is mentioned in the Constitution is in Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." As someone mentioned here, there is no requirement to belong to any particular religion (or none for that matter) to be a member of Congress.

There are a number of issues regarding religion. The Religious Right came into being because Christians were being told that their viewpoints were based on religious beliefs and were therefore somehow not valid. If a group is silenced because of religion, is this not “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (to have to, in effect, give up one or the other?) There was a case this summer in which in the midst of a speech, the valedictorian's microphone was turned off because she mention "Jesus Christ" (at a public High School graduation.) There have been cases about use of public facilities for religious purposes. If one group can use public facilities, is prohibiting another using it for a prayer service or a bible study a case of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" Or is it "establishing" a religion to allow it? Is it “establishing” a religion to have religious symbols on public property? (Generally "No" and "Maybe, depending" to the last 2 questions from what I've seen recently.)

The Constitution does not say in any place, “wall of separation of church and state” or any variation. That came from Jefferson and found its way into a Supreme Court ruling and has plagued us ever since.

DavidM
DavidM wrote:
"I understand your viewpoint, but I think you err in assuming that I advocate making prostitution legal or illegal. . ."

I actually made no assumption. I apologize for not communicating more clearly.

Rather, my purpose was not to refute any perception of advocacy, but to offer rebuttal to the satement, “But the matter does not involve the church whatsoever, but the beliefs of the lawmakers.”

Since (A) lawmakers are representing the “will of the people” (supposedly), the matter reflects (supposedly) the beliefs of the people NOT the JUST those of the lawmakers. Furthermore, since (B) such laws are generally pushed for by religious advocates, those laws, generally, reflect religious beliefs of those people (See A). Finally (C), since those laws do NOT protect the Equal Rights of others, there is generally another “moral” reason for those laws (See B).

Therefore, such laws DO indeed involve the Church as it is the Church that molds those beliefs of the people that (A) seek elected office and (B) elect officials to impose “their will” based upon their religious beliefs.


“. . . My point is that religious _organizations_ should not mingle with government entities (outside of normal means like lobbying, fundraising, campaigning) but religious beliefs/values can . . .”

I would tend to agree, EXCEPT that those religious beliefs and values should NOT influence Law to the point of legislating morality for morality’s sake. In other words, if the Law has no OTHER (legitimate) purpose than to criminalize immoral or “sinful” behavior, it is NOT an appropriate application of the Police Power of the State.


“. . . Argue for or against laws on their merits, not their source.”

Ah, but the merits of a Law frequently include their Source, Intent, and Motivation.

That notwithstanding, using your prostitution example, the Merits of the law, IMNSHO, rest on one simple question, “Does the behavior in question commit aggresion, through force or fraud, against the Equal Rights of others?” If the answer is “no”, then the law has no merit.

For Gurky -- Water Heaters
Gurky, your water heater anecdote reminds me of another "weird" law in California. I put "weird" in quotes because it's not the best name for it. Somebody give me the better name after you read the story.

Recently, California passed legislation dictating EXACTLY how a water heater was to be mounted against the wall to keep it from tipping over in an earthquake.

Sounds like maybe a good idea, huh? This is, after all, primo earthquake country.

Well, the law goes further in that it stipulates ONE SPECIFIC EARTHQUAKE STRAP which is MADE BY ONE SPECIFIC COMPANY.

No, no, no, it's not a "kind" of strap that can be made by almost anybody -- it's ONE strap made by ONE company -- the only variance being the size of strap to fit the size of water heater.

In other words, in EVERY new house built in California today, this ONE company is getting some $$ from selling their earthquake strap -- if you need to replace an old water heater, the new one has to have THIS strap so you have to give some $$ to THIS company -- if you live in an old house, and decide, "Yes, an earthquake strap *would* be a good idea," well, you can't just wrap it with "plumber's tape" the way they used to do (and the *old* law stipulated) -- you have to give some $$ to thie ONE company to buy *THEIR* earthquake strap.

As Dave Barry would say, I am NOT making this up.

"Weird", huh?

Sir Michael
Sir Michael wrote:
“. . .The Religious Right came into being because Christians were being told that their viewpoints were based on religious beliefs and were therefore somehow not valid. . .”

I disagree. The issue is NOT the validity of the beliefs BECAUSE of their source.

The issue is the validity of using LAW to IMPOSE Christian-like behavior (by criminalizing “sinful” acts) upon EVERYONE, through the Police Power of the State and with no regard for others’ Religious Beliefs, thereby infringing upon their Religious Freedom.

There is a perception that, to the “Christian Right”, the only tolerable Freedom of Religion is the Freedom to Choose Which Flavor of Christianity or Judaism to Follow. There is also a perception that, for a faction of the “Religious Right” at least, the Freedoms to Choose NOT to Believe and will the Freedom to Self-Determination (to choose to live peaceable, but otherwise “sinful” lives) will NOT be tolerated.

For example, I am not an adherant to Christianity. I do not “keep the sabbath”. Since I am not Christian. Forcing me to respect the Christian sabbath, by prohibiting me from buying alcohol on Sunday, violates MY Freedom to Choose NOT to be Christian.

This is what *I* oppose.


Busybody politicians
I think we ought to throw out all the stupid laws and go back to the original Bill of Rights and Constitution and go from there. Those documents seem to cover everything we need to live by and the Ten Commandments too.

A Libeal's Veiw on Childhood
I like to give the youths some coke and keep them company....

CMoore
Well I must thank you for expanding my definitions to a broader one.

On the matter of, "The government is not legitimately tasked with ensuring “the public health”. Whether or not someone engages in otherwise peaceable but risky behavior is absolutely none of yours or anyone else’s concern."

That sir is your opinion. Much of history and practice argues against it. (Keep in mind that in our system of governments as designed, your local and state governments SHOULD matter much more to your everyday life that the Federal Government.) For example, what communities exist that do not have an agency of some kind that keep you from dumping your toilet into the local river? Where can you go without any kind of building code? Food and restaurant inspections? There are many such laws that are "public health" issue laws.

Then too are the laws regarding specific health issues, covering epidemics, vaccinations, and other requirements such as licensing of medical personnel.

There are many government functions that are not legitimate Federal Government concerns that are referred to in Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Lacking Federal authority in an area does not mean that State and local governments are prohibited. IMO, public health and safety are one of the earliest and most basic causes for government to come into existence.

I've always said...
When it comes to electioneering/campaigning, the mere desire to hold elective office should be an immediate disqualification for said office.

Here's my idea: All elections at the local/district level should be strictly write in. No campaigning, no party endorsements, nothing like that. If I think my neighbor Joe would make a great representative for my neighborhood at the state house I would write in his name. If enough people thought the same and wrote in Joe's name more than any other then, BANG, Joe is elected. Even if he only got 5 votes.

For federal offices our choices for write ins would be be from the pool of currently serving state level legislators. Only candidates for POTUS would be allowed to campaign.

Obviously this is a very rough outline of this idea, but I truly believe that we have to do something to bring back the true citizen legislator as opposed to the career legislators we have today. They are all self-serving busybodies who are ill deserving of respect.

CMoore again
You are getting ridiculous. By what right do you demand to do what the majority had legislated against? If the community you live in does not want to buy and sell alcohol on Sunday, by what right do you demand they change the law to suit *you*? Have you never heard about "majority rule?" This is not some Constitutional right like Free Speech you are arguing about, regardless of how you construe the community's motives to have that law. If you don't like the law, try to get it changed. If you can't get enough people to agree with you, go somewhere else that suits you better.

Don't you realize that that is part of the genius of our system as designed? If you don't like the local community, you can try to change it or go somewhere else! If all communities are made uniform by making EVERYTHING a Federal Case, there will be no place for dissenters (or even just wanting some different flavor) to get away to. We have 50 different experimental systems going with God-only-know how many smaller experimental communities within the 50 states with a relatively small (at least by design) Federal framework. Ohio is considering a TABOR law as in Colorado and in Georgia you can go to college free to a state college if you have good enough grades (paid for by their lottery.) The Federal Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was based on what was done in Michigan. OTOH, in Nevada you can prostitute yourself if you wish and I sure don't want that here, nor Oregon's assisted suicide.

Sir Michael
Sir Michael wrote:
“. . . On the matter of, ‘The government is not legitimately tasked with ensuring ‘the public health’. Whether or not someone engages in otherwise peaceable but risky behavior is absolutely none of yours or anyone else’s concern.’

”That sir is your opinion. Much of history and practice argues against it. (Keep in mind that in our system of governments as designed, your local and state governments SHOULD matter much more to your everyday life that the Federal Government.) . . .”

Critical Thinking Exercise:
Just because something has history and practice that does NOT, in and of itself, mean that said something is appropriate. History and practice argued against freeing the slaves. Did that make slavery right, proper, and/or just?


Actually, that is far more than just my opinion, however. It WAS, at one, long forgotten time in foggy history, a principal philosophy of governance as applied in America.

As Thomas Jefferson said, echoing the philosphy of many statesmen, not JUST federal, “No man has the natural right to commit aggression against the Equal Rights of others and this is all from which the Law ought to restrain him.” Nowhere was it suggested that the Law ought to restrain individuals from risky behavior for the “public health” or the “public good”.

Quite the contrary, it was argued extensively that the overriding purpose of government (not JUST the Federal, but ALL government) is to secure the Rights of the People, NOT to secure the People’s welfare (“public health”)


“. . . For example, what communities exist that do not have an agency of some kind that keep you from dumping your toilet into the local river… Then too are the laws regarding specific health issues, covering epidemics, vaccinations, and other requirements such as licensing of medical personnel. . .”

Just because there ARE such laws, agencies, and whathaveyou, that does NOT mean that they ARE proper and legitimate. If that were the case, then no law would ever be overturned on constitutional grounds, either in the States or the Federal. After all, by your logic, if it HAS been done it MUST be proper (ie: constitutional).

Just because government HAS assumed certain roles, that does NOT mean that it is appropriate or proper for government to assume them.


“. . . Amendment X: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ Lacking Federal authority in an area does not mean that State and local governments are prohibited. . .”

Lacking Federal authority in an area does NOT mean that the State and local governments are EMPOWERED, either. You seem to miss a very important part of Amendment X, to whit: “… or to the PEOPLE” (emphasis mine).

Just because it is NOT prohibited to the States, that does NOT mean that it is granted to the States.


“. . . IMO, public health and safety are one of the earliest and most basic causes for government to come into existence.”

Perhaps, but “the earliest and most basic causes for government” have little bearing on the intended purpose of American government. Specifically, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

Read that last sentence until it sinks in: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

NOT to ensure “public health and safety”, but “to secure these rights”.

To Post-it
(S)he said: "To accept that homosexuals are "born" homosexual would be to deny our faith in order to accept something that has yet to be proven for the sake of political correctness."

An experiment last year doing brain scans of straight men (control group) and women (comparative group) and homosexual men (study group) found that the brains of homosexual men react to the scent of men's sweat in very much the same way as women's, which are both very different from the straight men's brains react.

The areas involved were outside of the neocortex, so were at a more "instinctual" level. This _may_ indicate a genetic component or there may be an as yet unknown influence of the neocortex on lower regions of the brain. It does need more study, but may eventually destroy the "made-not-born" argument. I'm on the fence but starting to lean toward genetic.



Post-it also said "It would also allow us to believe that other sexual deviancies like rape, pedophilia and bestiality are genetic conditions."

Rape is a crime of violence, not sex. The others are some sort of psychiatric condition IMHO. I'll argue they aren't genetic because breeding with someone not of breeding age has no biological point, nor does bestiality, therefore evolution would not support such behavior as "normal" because it is counterproductive.

To UncaAlby
"I put "weird" in quotes because it's not the best name for it. Somebody give me the better name after you read the story."

How about ASININE?


I forgot this
Homosexuality has been noted at least among chimps and giraffes, but (so far as I know) only among young males who cannot compete for mates. It does not seem to be habitual or preferred in the long run. It is only an outlet for the youth.

Not looking at the foundation
When it comes to making certain laws, some people scream "you can't legislate morality" and try to make a case that certain activities don't violate the equal rights protections of the Constitution.

You're not looking deeply enough in many instances.

Why should prostitution be illegal? It's a concensual act, so nobody's being hurt. Wrong!

Anytime you have someone with multiple sexual partners, you risk the conduction of disease. Prostitutes are conduits for all sorts of STDs. Homosexuals are rarely monogamous and, therefore, are conduits for disease. In most adulteries, there are two concensual partners, but one or more unconcensual partners. While we can reasonably argue if the concensual partners are truly harming themselves, we should be able to find common ground in that place occupied by the non-concensual partners to the infidelty -- the spouses and children of the adulterers. When that "fling" results in the transmission of a disease that can kill whomever gets it, harm is very much in evidence. Therefore, sometimes, when we want to "legislate morality" we are calling for good sense laws that make it clear that conduct that harms innocent bystanders should be curtailed. At the very least, society should say these things are illegal unless you can show with 100 percent certainty that no diseases will be transmitted to unsuspecting spouses and that no children will be harmed during the resultant dissolution of marriage.

In my grandparents' day, they understood these "morals" to be a good way to lead your life even if you weren't "religious". Now, far too many libertines think nobody should be able to tell them how to live their lives, never thinking about how their lives affect the lives of those who they claim to love and even, in many instances, people they've never even met.

Sir Michael
Sir Michael wrote:
“. . . By what right do you demand to do what the majority had legislated against? . . .”

Um! By the Right to Peaceably Live My Life as I Damned Well Please.

Talk about being ridiculous. How about the Right of Shop Owners to peaceably manage their businesses as they see fit?

Just because the Majority wills it that does NOT mean it is proper, just, valid, or legitimate.

By what right do you demand to allow the majority to disregard the Equal Rights of the minority, particularly individuals?


“. . . If the community you live in does not want to buy and sell alcohol on Sunday, by what right do you demand they change the law to suit *you*? . . .”

To expand: Because those laws violate individual freedom, liberty, and Rights. They violate:
-- MY right to NOT keep the sabbath;
-- MY right to CHOOSE to purchase/drink alcohol on Sunday;
-- STORE OWNER’S rights to choose to sell and server alcohol on Sunday;
-- The Freedom of Individuals to peaceably engage in commerce by buying and selling alchohol on Sunday;
-- And etcetera.


“. . . Have you never heard about ‘majority rule?’ . . .”

Um, yeah. Have you never heard of the “Rule of Law”? You do realize that America is a Republic NOT a Democracy, don’t you?

Majority rule (Democracy) means that the mob can trample the rights of the minority. I reject it forthwith.



“. . . This is not some Constitutional right like Free Speech you are arguing about, regardless of how you construe the community's motives to have that law. . .”

That’s where you are most wrong.

Amendment IX of the United States Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Just because it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that does NOT mean it is NOT a “Constitutional right”.

There are a number of Rights and Freedoms interfered with in my one example.

-- Freedom of Religion. Sunday Liquor laws violate individuals’ freedom to NOT “keep the sabbath” by prohibiting them, by law, from purchasing alcohol on Sunday.

-- Right to Life / Freedom of Self-Determination. They interfere with the Right of individuals to peaceably conduct their own lives in accordance with their Consciences, by prohibiting them from electing to purchase alcohol on Sunday.

-- Property Rights. They interfere with the rights of business owners to manage their properties as they see fit, including the freedom to choose to sell (or not sell) alcohol on Sunday.

-- Privacy Rights. It is none of anyone else’s business whether or not private individuals choose to engage in a transaction to transfer/purchase alcohol on Sunday.



Another Critical Thinking Exercise: Just because the majority of the people believe somethat, that does NOT magically legitimize the belief. Plurality does NOT, in and of itself, make it right, proper, just, or even correct. It MERELY makes it the popular opinion.

CMoore, thanks for the laugh
Actually, first I should thank Flagwaver for calling you out on your Religious Right Comment. But then you earned even more thanks yourself, with this passage:

"History and practice argued against freeing the slaves. Did that make slavery right, proper, and/or just?.... As Thomas Jefferson said, echoing the philosphy of many statesmen, not JUST federal, “No man has the natural right to commit aggression against the Equal Rights of others and this is all from which the Law ought to restrain him.”

The thanks is due to this: as most "Natural-Law-Without-Christianity" apologists do, you quoted SLAVEOWNER Thomas Jefferson to support your position -- but you're the first such adherent I've read to do so WITHIN A PARAGRAPH of asking the (presumably) rhetorical question about the rightness, propriety and justice of SLAVERY ITSELF.

Oh dear, I'm STILL chuckling...

Please visit
Please visit my Blog by clicking my name

CMoore the last time
You are a waste of time.

You might be an anarchist. You certainly do not understand our system of government, either as designed or in practice. You certainly do not seem to understand that there is a need for government. Your are espousing the destruction of civilization for your own whims in that you have no regard the society you are living in.

You do not understand the difference between Freedom, which in our system is "Liberty under Law" and License, which is "Do What You Want."

You make up nonsense to support your arguments. You do not deal with what is in front of you.

Assuming you are not a fool and a fraud, you need an education in both History and Civics.

aurorawatcher
aurorawatcher wrote:
“. . . try to make a case that certain activities don't violate the equal rights protections of the Constitution.

”. . . Why should prostitution be illegal? It's a concensual act, so nobody's being hurt. Wrong!

”Anytime you have someone with multiple sexual partners, you risk the conduction of disease. Prostitutes are conduits for all sorts of STDs. . .”

Please aurorawatcher, take the time to actually LEARN the arguments you’re attempting to refute. No one ever said that nobody is being hurt. The argument is that – barring prostitutes forced into service (eg: sex-slaves) – the transaction between two (or more) consenting adults to exchange services for money does not COMMIT AGRESSION AGAINST THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS. The NATURE of the services (or products) are, really, none of anyone else’s business.

Do you understand the distinction between “committing aggression against the Equal Rights of others” and “hurting someone”?

The lie to your line of reasoning is that we do not criminalize rampant promiscuity. There are far more individuals “hooking-up” and having “booty-calls” WITHOUT exchanging cash – those some do exchange other goods and services like “dinner and a movie” – than there are prostitutes and customers. There is a far greater risk of conduction of disease from club-hopping one-night-stand seekers, “friends with privileges”, middle and highschool “head parties”, swingers and swing-parties, wife-swappers, and etcetera than from prostitution.


“. . . When that ‘fling’ results in the transmission of a disease that can kill whomever gets it, harm is very much in evidence. . .”

Wait! First, you said “can”, not “will”. Harm is only in evidence when there IS transmission of disease. There is no harm (to health) whatsoever if no disease is transmitted.

If we ban everything that “can” or “may” cause harm, men should be illegal. After all, the vast preponderance of violent criminals are men and nearly all rapists have penises. And women too! After all, the majority of divorces are initiated by women. Therefore, since women “can” and “may” initiate divorce, and since we all know how much divorce harms the children, women should be illegal!

/sigh

Regardless, contracting and transmitting a disease UNKNOWINGLY is NOT committing agression against the Equal Rights of others. If such were the case, then a man could be thrown in jail for contracting pneumonia at the office, bringing it home, and infecting his child that died from complications.

Oh, but going to the office is not knowingly engaging in risky or unhealthy behavior. All right. If such were the case, then, when a man goes whitewater kyaking on an Autumn day and contracts pneumonia and infects his child who later dies, he has committed a crime. We should ban fall whitewater kyaking post haste!


“. . . society should say these things are illegal unless you can show with 100 percent certainty that no diseases will be transmitted to unsuspecting spouses and that no children will be harmed during the resultant dissolution of marriage. . .”

Following your threshhold, NOTHING should be legal.

Can you show, with 100% certainty, that no accident will occur that will harm someone else while driving and that no children will be harmed in said accidents AND by losing a parent in an accident? Or that no unsuspecting spouses will be injured when you crash? No? Ban automobiles!!

Can you show, with 100% certainty, that no one is going to open a bag of peanuts around or unknowingly serve a dish with peanut oil to a child allergic to peanuts, thereby unwittingly killing the child? No? Ban peanuts, peanut byproducts, and any substances, materials, matter, or food-stuffs that may, even in the most remote possibility, have been contaminated by peanuts!!

Can you show, with 100% certainty, that going diving with a giant sting ray won’t kill a father (re: Steve Irwin, “Crocodile Hunter”), thereby harming a spouse and children with the loss of a parent? No? Ban diving with giant sting rays!

Can you show, with 100% certainty, that going diving in general won’t kill a father, thereby harming a spouse and children with the loss of a parent? No? Ban diving in general!!

Can you show, with 100% certainty, that eating poorly and not exercising won’t result in obesity that causes emotional harm to a spouse AND/OR loss of life through heart disease or diabetes causing harm to a spouse and children with the loss? No? Ban junk foods and mandate exercise regimes!!


This line of logic is nothing more than just another flavor of nanny-stateism.

Sir (I use it loosely) Michael
Sir Michael wrote:
“You are a waste of time. . .”

You’re right. I am a waste of time, but only because you are too stupid to understand basic principles and history of our government. I certainly hope you don’t vote. You’re too stupid to be allowed a voice in our electoral process.


“. . . You might be an anarchist. . .”

Libertarian (little el) actually.


“. . . You certainly do not understand our system of government, either as designed or in practice. You certainly do not seem to understand that there is a need for government. . .”

I quite understand, and respect, the need for government, primarily to protect my Rights from santimonuous SOB’s like you that think you know better than *I* do about how *I* should live *my* life.


“. . . Your are espousing the destruction of civilization for your own whims in that you have no regard the society you are living in. . .”

You haven’t the foggiest clue what I espouse.


”. . . You do not understand the difference between Freedom, which in our system is ‘Liberty under Law’ and License, which is ‘Do What You Want.’. . .”

Again, you haven’t the foggiest clue.

I have NEVER espoused a “Do What You Want” ideology. I ALWAYS include the caveat, “peaceable” or “peaceably”, or the clarifying definition, “… so long as it does NOT commit aggression against the Equal Rights of others”.

No, I have never espoused the Freedom to commit aggression against the Equal Rights of others – I have never once suggested that it is okay to vandalize property, beat people up, rape children and small animals, cheat the elderly, or anything else that commits aggression against the Equal Rights of others.

If YOU understood Freedom half as well as you THINK you do, you would know that Freedom means being able to PEACEABLY engage in activities, even when the Majority disapproves.

What YOU do not understand is that Liberty Under Law does not exist for the Minority when the Majority gets to dictate Law accoring to popular opinion and whim.


“. . .You make up nonsense to support your arguments. You do not deal with what is in front of you. . .”

I see. You cannot argue against my points on their merits, so you call it “nonsense” in order to declare it invalid. Typical of the intellectually deficient, lazy, and dishonest!

”. . . Assuming you are not a fool and a fraud, you need an education in both History and Civics.”

ROTFLMAO

Son, I can run circles around you when discussing history and civics. Indeed, I have, you’re just too stupid and too dizzy to realize it.

Here, just a few examples of my favorite links for your edification and enlightenment:
* http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html
* http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
* http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html
* http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
*http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
*http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm
*http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm
*http://thisnation.com/library/common_sense.html
*http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&page=137
*http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/


You’re out of your league. Go play “Majority Rule” and “Revisionist History” somewhere else!



Thought provoking
If you think gays "choose" to gay, want to be hated, discriminated against, you must really be the preverted one. What really shows your homophobic views is the hatred and discrimination. Your hatred is for males. You probably get sexually aroused watchin two women having sex. Why the double standard?

Just asking?

There are instances I am sure where an individual has made a choice verses genetic feelings. That is the exception, not the rule. I volunteer at an HIV/AIDS agency and see the gays, drug users, and other infected people.

The sorry part is for 15 years transmission of HIV is known yet it keeps spreading. The fastest growing segment of the population is 60+ age group. Because they are out of child bearing age and have not been educated regarding HIV, the ahhh, hummm, gay desease. It is not a gay desease, it is a human Immune Deficiency virus which infects all.

Going back to an earlier post, morals are important, laws are the lowest form of morals, but as indiviuduals, we must reach higher.

Cmoore -- peanut oil
WATCH IT, dude!

Before you know it, they WILL ban peanut oil!

15 years ago I was arguing for drug legalization. And telling fellow advocates, "NO! DON'T use TOBACCO as an example!"

The example being that tobacco has killed far more people in any given WEEK than marijuana has killed IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND. Yet, tobacco is LEGAL, and marijuana is ILlegal.

But I told people, "Don't say that! Rather than using such a sensible argument to legalize marijuana, they'll just make tobacco ILlegal!"

And -- what do we see happening NOW?? Slowly but surely, bit by bit, little by little, tobacco is being made into a "Controlled Substance."

Can I call 'em or what?

DocNoleCat; RE: Jefferson
DocNoleCat wrote:
“. . . The thanks is due to this: as most ‘Natural-Law-Without-Christianity’ apologists do, you quoted SLAVEOWNER Thomas Jefferson to support your position -- but you're the first such adherent I've read to do so WITHIN A PARAGRAPH of asking the (presumably) rhetorical question about the rightness, propriety and justice of SLAVERY ITSELF. . .”


Oh, the age old Jefferson was a slaveowner so nothing he says is valid, argument!

How pathetically lame, Doc! Just because Jefferson owned slaves, that does not mean that he didn’t believe what he said and wrote. Quite the contrary. Try actually researching some history.

Jefferson’s acts equalled his rhetoric:
1769 -- Prepared a bill to abolish the importation of slaves in the state of Virginia. Also promoted the first law in Virginia that allowed the freeing of a slave.

1770 -- Howell vs. Netherland. Jefferson argued for a slave's freedom on basis that all men are born with inalienable rights to freedom. This slave had been transported into a free territory.

[Inalienable rights? Sound familiar?]

1774 -- "A Summary View of the Rights of British America" detailed how the king had opposed colonies on control and reduction of slave trade.

1776 -- "Declaration of Independence" had one section condemning George III and his support of slavery. This was eliminated by Congress in order to conciliate Georgia and South Carolina.

1776 -- Proposed Constitution for the state of Virginia had provision to eliminate slavery gradually beginning in 1800.

1778 -- Presented a proposal to Virginia General Assembly to abolish slavery. Helped pass a Virginia law preventing the importation of any slaves.

1783 -- Proposed all slave children born after 1800 be freed

1784 -- Northwest Territories Bill, provision to eliminate slavery in those territories.No one would be born into slavery after 1800 in any new state admitted into the union. This provision lost by one vote.

1785 -- "Notes on the State of Virgina" details detrimental effect of slavery on both slave and master.

1787 -- Northwest Ordinance, passed while Jefferson was in Paris, was based on his earlier Bill (1784)

1808 -- As President, signed Act banning slave trade with Africa.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson


Morals - Laws
Morals are the code we live with ourselves. Laws are the code which we live with others. If we choose not to live with morals then the law is the only code which restricts our lives.

If the law keeps "lowering the bar", then the deeper we sink. Television is welcome in my house but only selectively. I no longer go to movies as the language and sexual content are not of my moral values but are legal for the community.

Because I choose to restrict content for my entertainment, why are you fearful of my viewpoint. Why do you press your views upon me, part of the religious right? Remember, history often repeats itself as most do not remember the lessons. When Kennedy ran and won the presidency, the rumor was the pope was going to give him his orders. The religious right have as much of a right to discussion as the liberal left spokespersons of Barbara Strisand, and others from hollywood.

Fear or bigotry, what is it.

UncaAlby
I never smoked but I do not want tobacco banned as it weeds out the long lived people so i will get some social security. Drugs are expensive because of government. If the government legalized drugs, they would become so cheap, crime would drop, police could just give me speeding tickets to raise money.

My Caveat to legalizing drugs is an adicted user would get one chance to get clean if he/she wanted then a repeat offender would be on their own, responsible for their habit, welfare and I would not have to support them.

DocNoleCat; RE: Natural Law
DocNoleCat wrote:
“. . . The thanks is due to this: as most ‘Natural-Law-Without-Christianity’ apologists do. . .”

Heh! Typical historical ignorance or revisionism (which one?) to suggest that the Natural Law philosophy REQUIRES Christianity. In fact, the Natural Law philosophy has it’s roots in the Classical Greek Philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, dating back to BEFORE Christianity.

Also, you are aware, aren’t you, that a number of the Founding Fathers and the some of the strongest proponents of Natural Law were NOT Christian, but, rather, were Deists.

In case you don’t know, Deists believe(d) that there IS a Creator, but that He takes no active role in the affairs of our existence.

Noteable Deists Include: George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Ethan Allen, and even Benjamin Franklin.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_America
* http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism.htm
* http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/
* http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html
* http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#franklin
* http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#madison
* http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#washington
* http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#paine
* http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#Adams
* http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen
* http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=6083

And, http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1682
“. . . The instances of writers stretching the facts of the past to make them fit into some preconceived Christian model are legion. For example, Whitehead declares that neither Thomas Jefferson nor Benjamin Franklin were deists and that ‘they at least believed in the personal God of the Scriptures even if they denied the deity of Christ.’. . .”

CMoore -- 2 small points and one big one
First, C, if after the hundreds of words you've written here, Sir Michael -- or anyone else -- indeed "haven’t the foggiest clue what [CMoore] espouse," the fault MAY not lie with the reader.

Second, beginning a response with "How pathetically lame" does NOT make the reader MORE open to your arguments. Perhaps I'm only speaking for myself, but I'll go out on a limb and generalize here.

Third, all your citations of Jefferson's historical acts seem to be historically accurate. But I looked for just one, and didn't see it, because it never happened:

"17XX -- Jefferson freed ALL of HIS OWN slaves."

What you "Natural-Law-Without-Christianity" proponents can't stand is that, on THE central violation of "Natural Rights" of his time (slavery being unrighteous, improper and unjust, to rephrase your own characterization), your primary source is nothing but a hypocrite.

And you know it. I can only imagine the scorn you'd heap on anyone who dared to type, "Just because Jim Bakker committed adultery, that does not mean that he didn’t believe what he said and wrote."

Not, OTOH, that this makes Jefferson uniquely evil. In fact Jefferson was a great man, but he was ONLY a man. Thus you will have the same problem for "Natural Law" with ANY human you cite. None of them lived their own standard.

Under true natural law, man is one of two things: predator or prey. He rules, or is ruled by, force and force alone.

And for you, a self-described "Little el" libertarian, to cite all the examples of TJ passing or trying to pass laws to stop other people from exercising their rights as they understood them to "PEACEABLY engage in activities, even when the Majority disapproves" -- well, I don't like to label other posters as hypocrites, but if the footware fits...

Gurky
Gurky wrotes:
“. . . Because I choose to restrict content for my entertainment, why are you fearful of my viewpoint. Why do you press your views upon me, part of the religious right?. . .”

By the same token, because I choose NOT to restrict content for my entertainment, why are [the morality police] fearful of my viewpoint? Why do [they] press [their] views upon me with “decency” and “morality” standards?

It’s a vicious circle Gurky. One side cannot demand security from another’s views while simultaneously demanding they abide by the One. It WILL cause conflict.


Why can’t [the morality police] just be content to allow entertainment produces to make what they will (so long as they do not commit aggression, through force or fraud, against the Equal Rights of others) and leave the Choice to the Consumers and allow the Market to bear the consequences?

cmoore, re republic or democracy
You're right, this is a republic.

Here's my definition of democracy: three foxes and a chicken deciding on what's for dinner.

More for Moore
I wrote, "as most ‘Natural-Law-Without-Christianity’ apologists do. . .”

"Heh! Typical historical ignorance or revisionism (which one?) to suggest that the Natural Law philosophy REQUIRES Christianity."

I simply stated that most of those who believe the NLWC philospohy begin with quoting Jefferson. Which you did. I neither stated not implied that you need Christianity to BELIEVE "Natural Law."

I am well aware that Deists claim the men that you list as their own. Unfortunately, Washington was another slave-owner, as was Madison. Adams said nothing when Jefferson cut the lines against slavery from the D of I. Franklin at least had the decency to eventually free his slaves.

Only Paine appears to have been totally free from the taint of hypocrisy on slavery -- but, since you quoted Wikipedia, you won't mind my observing that the same source states that Paine advocated a "guaranteed minimum income." Once again, a "Natural Law" hypocrite.

You see? Bring up your best men, and any moderately well-read opponent will knock them down -- because, again, they are ONLY men. With no Higher Authority, you are only predator or prey. Or, to quote a more modern source who was assuredly NOT a hypocrite in application of his own philosophy, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

CMoore
Your comments lead to the lowest common denominator. I do not object to you view your entertainment. However, when it is forced on me and my family through TV, movies and ads I object. Your response is turn the channel, When different channels advertise for other channels, and when movie trailers advertise, etc. the intent is to stimulate interest. Who is the easiest to stimulate, children.

CMoore, the comment about two laws, don't harm someone, and don't harm me are great to live by, but now please define harm.

How old are you and have you raised children? Read my eariler comment regarding legalization of drugs. I am open minded, but I raised my children and now enjoy my grandchildren. I want them to enjoy their lives. I am not in your face, but don't force your lack of morals on me and my family.

DocNoleCat
DocNoleCat wrote:
“. . . First, C, if after the hundreds of words you've written here, Sir Michael -- or anyone else -- indeed ‘haven’t the foggiest clue what [CMoore] espouse,’ the fault MAY not lie with the reader. . .”

If you really believe that, Doc, then you are either illiterate or you’re not READING what I write. I take great pains to loudly declare that I believe in and espouse the Freedom of Individuals to peaceably conduct their lives according to their own consciences without undue interference from others.



”. . . Second, beginning a response with ‘How pathetically lame’ does NOT make the reader MORE open to your arguments. Perhaps I'm only speaking for myself, but I'll go out on a limb and generalize here. . .”

Yes, but when all you offer is a weak and pathetic attempt to demonize ONE point in order to simply invalidate and dismiss every thing else, I will certainly call it what it is.

Pathetic and lame.

If you have something substantive, specifically, reasoned and substantiated rebuttals, then offer it. But don’t try the intellectually weak tactic of dismissing one point out-of-hand so you can declare victory with no effort.



”. . . Third, all your citations of Jefferson's historical acts seem to be historically accurate. But I looked for just one, and didn't see it, because it never happened:

’17XX -- Jefferson freed ALL of HIS OWN slaves.’ . . .”

So? And this somehow invalidates and repudiates EVERYTHING else? Weak, Doc! Tremendously weak. (Pathetic and lame, even.)



”. . . What you ‘Natural-Law-Without-Christianity’ proponents can't stand is that, on THE central violation of ‘Natural Rights’ of his time (slavery being unrighteous, improper and unjust, to rephrase your own characterization), your primary source is nothing but a hypocrite. . .”

Yes, such a hypocrite that he was an abolotionist.

The problem, sir, is that you are judging his deeds (or lack thereof) from the tinted lense of contemporary understanding RATHER than from the cultural mindset of the time, to whit:

Like most people of the time, Jefferson saw Negroes as inferior, childlike, and untrustworthy. He faced two problems: (1) there was, as far as he could tell, no a “practicable plan” for abolishing slavery and (2) believed that negroes were better off as slaves than Freedmen AT THAT TIME AND ATTITUDE of the Colonies and our fledgeling Nation.


So, tell me, does that mean that everything Washington said on Freedom is also meaningless? After all, he owned slaves too.


“. . . And you know it. I can only imagine the scorn you'd heap on anyone who dared to type, ‘Just because Jim Bakker committed adultery, that does not mean that he didn’t believe what he said and wrote.’. . .”

Then your imagination is quite rampant! Just because a man does not have the courage or character to LIVE his convictions (eg: Jim Baker and adultery), that does NOT mean that (a) he did not believe what he said and wrote and (b), most importantly, it does not invalidate what he said or wrote.


”. . . Under true natural law, man is one of two things: predator or prey. He rules, or is ruled by, force and force alone.


“. . . And for you, a self-described ‘Little el’ libertarian, to cite all the examples of TJ passing or trying to pass laws to stop other people from exercising their rights as they understood them to ‘PEACEABLY engage in activities, even when the Majority disapproves’ -- well, I don't like to label other posters as hypocrites, but if the footware fits...”

Huh?

DocNoleCat
C'mon, Doc, certainly you must have something of substance to offer in rebuttal to my espoused philosophy and my positions OTHER than weakly attempting to repudiate the ideals of Jefferson based upon his flawed moral character (re: owning slaves).

Or will you continue to borrow one from the liberals non-debate playbook? Demonize... Demonize... Demonize... and Declare Victory over repudiated premises.


Good for you, Mavirek!
I find it interesting that so many of you speak on religion and morals but, I believe, I only saw one post taking the duck's side on Stossel's lead to this story. Good for you Mavirek!

How does one attach her/himself to the hip of God, profess to be filled with Christian spirit, and then proceed to be crass about, or dismissive of, cruelty to animals?

Do those of you who find the duck cruelty insignificant have pets? Would you tolerate someone shoving a pipe down the throat of your beloved dog or cat and pouring fattening gruel into its stomach - every day until it became so fat it has to be killed? Picture that, if you can.

Do you think a duck feels less pain?

Yes, we slaughter animals to feed ourselves, but we are technologically advanced enough to find humane (dare I say "Christian") ways of doing it.

As for the laws, we are a world cursed with people who enjoy inflicting pain for the fun of it - animal or human - and people for whom the bottom dollar knows no limit of pain to inflict upon other living beings.

We have these silly laws to protect us from these kinds of people.

My guess is that John Stossel, who makes his living sensationalizing, and mostly taking cheap shots with easy targets, would be livid if someone spat on his shoes while he walked down the street.

I can hear him now. "There oughta be a law!" Well, there is one, John.

And if you have a pet, John, there are some "silly" laws to protect them too.


DocNoleCat
DocNoleCat writes:
“I wrote, ‘as most ‘Natural-Law-Without-Christianity’ apologists do. . .’

. . .

“I simply stated that most of those who believe the NLWC philospohy begin with quoting Jefferson. Which you did. I neither stated not implied that you need Christianity to BELIEVE ‘Natural Law.’. . .”

BULLSHEAT!

The very phrase “’Natural-Law-Without-Christianity’ apologists” does, just that.

The four words together to make an adjective of apologists clearly demonstrates that you believe that I am espousing a false view, am an “apologist”. The choice of words, “Natural-Law-Without-Christianity” to modify “apologist” clearly conveys that the false view being promoted is “Natural-Law-Without-Christianity”.

Thus, IF “Natural-Law-Without-Christianity” is a false premise, then the only logical conclusion is that “Natural-Law-WITH-Christianity” is, in fact, the correct premise.



”. . . You see? Bring up your best men, and any moderately well-read opponent will knock them down -- because, again, they are ONLY men. . .”

Ah, so because they were just men… because they were flawed and may not have had the character to live up to their convictions… that somehow repudiates and invalidates their ideals, their philosophies, their deeds, and their contribution to WHAT American Governance IS and WHY it IS?



“. . . With no Higher Authority, you are only predator or prey. . .”

Wow. What a simplistic notion. So, since I acknowledge no Higher Authority (eg: no God or Creator), then I must be incapable of respecting the Equal Rights of others? I am doomed to either prey upon others – neverminding the fact that I restrain myself from committing aggression against the Equal Rights of others – or I am doomed to be preyed upon?

Gurky
Gurky wrote:
“Your comments lead to the lowest common denominator. I do not object to you view your entertainment. However, when it is forced on me and my family through TV, movies and ads I object. Your response is turn the channel, When different channels advertise for other channels, and when movie trailers advertise, etc. the intent is to stimulate interest. Who is the easiest to stimulate, children. . .”

So then turn off the television and tune-out. That’s what we do. Our viewing is generally limited to DVD’s or nothing. Unless someone is physically restraining you, no one is forcing you to watch anything, even when different channels advertise for other channels and show objectionable movie trailers. If nothing else, you still have the capicity to shut the thing off.

Regardless, you’re correct. My view leads to the lowest common denominator. There’s a reason for that. Simply, there is no HIGHER common denominator. Christian values are not universal, even amongst Christians. Jewish values are not universal, even amongst Jews. Islamic values not universal, even amongst Muslims. Buddhist values are not universal, even, I wager, amongst Buddhists. And etcetera.

The only COMMON denominator, that I believe we can agree upon, is the wrongness of committing aggression, through force or fraud, against the Equal Rights of others.


”. . . CMoore, the comment about two laws, don't harm someone, and don't harm me are great to live by, but now please define harm. . .”

That was not my comment, so it is not my term to define. “Harm” is too vague and nebuluous. By that standard, even something that causes offense can be defined as “harm” – using a dirty word or even passing gas. Read my comments to aurorawatcher.

More properly, *I* would enumerate that as, simply: Do not commit aggression, through force or fraud, against the Equal Rights of others.


“. . . How old are you and have you raised children? . . .”

Not that it matters, but I am 33, have a 21 year-old step-daughter, a 16 year-old step-son, and a 12 year-old son.


“. . . I am not in your face, but don't force your lack of morals on me and my family.”

Lack of morals? Why is it that you self-righteous folks always seem to think that, because I reject CHRISTIAN “morality”, I LACK morals?

Regardless, I am not seeking to use the Police Power of the State to compel YOU to
behave according to how *I* think you should. Quite the contraray. There *are* (not necessarily you or Flagwaver) SOME in the Christian Right, however, that do just that – seek to use the Police Power of the State to compel *me* to behaving according to how *they* think I should.

Tell, me, please, who’s morals (or lack thereof) or being forced upon others, then?

Good call, UncaAlby
The stats I want to see are the ones that show how long it takes to die from smoking tobacco compared to how long it takes to die from smoking marijuana.

From the anti-tobacco PSM's (Public Service Messages)on TV, it appears that looking at a Camel smoking is rather deadly, whereas smoking marijuana makes your brain look like fried eggs.

I'm so confused . . .

Repealing Laws
The first thing I did after my State Senator in California was reelected was to send him an email congratulating him on his reelection and telling him that if he really wanted to represent me he would work towards repealing 1800 to 2000 laws per year rather than passing that many. I didn't hear back and now assume all of my missives go into his "nut" file. You only have to look at the attrocities that the California legislature passed in the last hour, last Thursday and you can see what I mean.

CMoore
Like I stated (much) earlier, I am a believer in the Thomas Aquinas school of law; that being that natural law is that part of eternal law that all men can know through reason. Civil laws are man made and in order for them to be binding they must be in harmony with what we know of the eternal law. Where the civil law and natural law is in conflict, natural and eternal law should stand supreme. That is the philosophy that I am willing to stand by; it was good enough for Aquinas so it's good enough for me.

What I meant by laws being moral is not about some group or other saying that laws should be based on their religious understanding, but they should be based on the natural law as described by Aquinas. All men, whether European, Indian, Thai, or Chinese know that certain actions are simply wrong and cannot be tolerated. The working of natural law is the reason that I believe that certain standards of behavior and conduct are nearly universal, no matter where they are found. The Chinese and Thais all know that wanton killing is wrong, just as the European and Indian recognize this; it has been in the laws of all manner of societies for millenia. That is the morality that I spoke of, not a str

Linda:
Like I wrote to Maverik:

Foie gras: Yum Yum!

CMoore
My (much) earlier reference to morals was not a strictly religious interpretation of morality. I was looking at it from the natural law concept that Thomas Aquinas espoused.

The natural law is what we all know about eternal law, but it is something that all men are able to discern by reason. It's like murder; people from all ancient civilix=zations, regardless of their religions knew that murder was a grave crime. It was codified into laws all over the world for just that reason by Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and Catholics...whatever the religion. That is why I believe that natural law will generally lead to moral laws, not necessarily religious laws, but moral and just civil laws.

sorry...
...for the multi-post. You know how it goes here sometimes. The post went off into cyberspace, so I end up posting twice.

Funny Thing about "Natural Law"
Ok, "murder" is considered to be a crime universally, right?

Wrong. It kinda depends on what you mean by "murder".

In some cultures (particularly the Middle-East, gotta love 'em), there are conditions where, what we Westerners consider "murder", they simply consider as "upholding the family honor".

Such as, for example, if a girl is caught having had pre-marital sex. Her father might kill her. And get away with it.

I've heard of a number of instances in recent years where some "modern-thinking" governments, such as Turkey, were trying to stamp that practice out. Their problem is that it goes against the local customs, and so they can't ever get anyone willing to testify in court. Apparently the entire neighborhood agrees with the vengeful father.

I wonder if Thomas Aquinas ever visited the Middle East.

Foie Gras
beowulf, Since you are such a wonderful humanitarian (with the pain of lesser creatures), please let the world know the first or next time you donate yourself to a painful experiment for the sake of the little children. I want to send you a get well card of appreciation.
And to Sweet Linda, the next time your gorging yourself and you start to gag, let me know if we should just stand by and watch you or would you like a little helpful mercy?

BrianR and Pina
(BrianR) The nature of your posts illustrates beautifully my point that "we are a world cursed with people who enjoy inflicting pain for the fun of it."

(Pina) Your comment makes no sense given the content of my (and beowulf's) post. What the dickens do you mean by that bit of dyslexic unpleasantness? Please - it's a rhetorical question.

foie Gras
BrianR, Next time you get something painfully clogged in your throat, ask the unfortunate creatures how they handle it, since providing you with your yum-yum makes them experts in the matter.
Dear Linda, Again I apologize for addressing yesterday's comments to the wrong person. The dishonor should have gone to yum-yum man himself Brian R.

Hey, I gotta Dumb Law for ya!
How's about that stupid law that mandates LOW FLOW TOILETS??

So you have to flush two, three or four times to make everything go down without backing up and overflowing on to the floor?

Either that, or stop using toilet paper.

They've come up with some great innovations in that area -- namely, they've made the bowl BIG ENOUGH so that it's LESS LIKELY to overflow on to your floor when it clogs! In other words, WHEN it clogs, the bowl will probably hold it all.

Somebody PLEASE show me the wording in the Constitution that gives Congress THAT power!

Two days later...
I usually don't waste time on threads this old. However, the last time I let family & job get in the way fo finishing a discussion w/CMoore, he accused me of ducking the issue. So, as quickly as possible:

First, the fact that CMoore bagan your posts with a slam on the Relgious Right tells me s/he is being disingenuous -- at least -- when s/he loftily denies s/he'd slam Bakker.

More important, Thomas Jefferson is the first source CMoore cited to defend Natural Law. The fact that TJ owned slaves his whole life does not make TJ a hypocrite in CM's eyes, because either a) TJ believed Africans were inferior and b) he tried to pass laws to make other people free their slaves.

So, by CM's own admission, TJ either didn't believe freed slaves could cope with freedom -- in which case he was a monstrous hypocrite for trying to force other slaveowners to free them -- or he DID believe they could cope -- in which case he was a monstrous hypocrite for not freeing his own slaves.

The larger point, CM, is that all your mouthed platitudes come to nothing if they are only based on men, because anyone else can say -- "WHO CARES? THEY'RE JUST PEOPLE LIKE ME." It will ALWAYS come down to FORCE -- as, in fact, it did with slavery. As I said, you don't need Christianity to BELIEVE Natural Law -- you only need it to RATIONALLY JUSTIFY it.

And, to spell it out as clearly as I can -- any "libertarian" who admires someone who uses THE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT to advance MORAL ideals that HE HIMSELF won't live by is no libertarian.

In sum, your opinion of me is that I am "weak," "lame, "pathetic," "illiterate," anbd "simplistic." My opinion of you is that you're a disingenous hypocrite. Let's leave it at that, shall we?




DocNoleCat
You can not equate Thomas Jefferson's owning slaves with his intent and documented efforts to make slavery illegal.

Jefferson was "spoiled brat" (son of wealthy parents) and a lousy businessman. As much as he wanted slavery abolished, he had no clue how he personally could survive without them. That's a personal failing, not an intellectual one.

That doesn't make him any more a hypocrite than advocating the elimination of the IRS, while still dutifully paying your taxes every year. Or, for that matter, even working there as an employee.

When he died, almost all of his estate, including all but a handful of his slaves, were sold off to pay off the debts he'd incurred over his lifetime.

CMoore's arguments are well thought-out and sound. If you wish to refute them, you're going to have to do better than the tired old "Dead White Guys" argument.

Don't believe everything in this article
I can not speak towards the other laws, but Mr. Stossel does NOT know what he is talking about relative to Spring Hill, Tennessee. As one of the so-called "Busy Body Politicians", I can tell you for a fact that homeowners are allowed to repair, paint, build and party on their decks on Sunday's.

SpringHillPolitician -- 100% Certain?
Sometimes these laws haven't been enforced in such a long time (often because they were stupid laws in the first place) until everybody forgets they're still on the books and enforceable.

I have no way of verifying either your claim or Stossel's, because I have no intention of travelling to Tennessee, wonderful place that I'm sure it is, nor investing the time and phone bill to call there -- BUT your Spring Hill website DOES indicate that a house on a corner is not allowed to build a fence higher than 48 inches --

-- I'm *sure* there's a "good reason" for this --
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.