Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Enough Pot Happy Talk

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 04, 2014 4:50 PM
Pot is not physically addictive. If we were to count "psychological addiction" we would have to include, internet blogging, religion, stock market investing, etc. Pot is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Studies are not clear if pot significantly interferes with safe driving, net. Adolescent consumption of alcohol is also especially damaging. If you need government to control your habits, fine, then sign a contract with a government (or a dominatrix) and sign over your free will to them. Just don't make your ignorance and weakness, an excuse to deprive other people of basic liberty. The side effects are far, far less. For starters, do you really want to provide the Taliban with $200+ million/year? Do you really want more violent gangs, and a civil war like in Mexico?
Derek Hunter apparently is of the "tweeter" generation but I won't hold his youth and inexperience against him. He appears to have fallen prey to the Rothbard apocrypha. "Liberty" does not mean, not intervening. It does mean, if you intervene, finance the intervention through user fees not taxes. There is no requirement in libertarianism to withdraw all troops to within US borders. There is a suggestion that to finance itself in the marketplace, the US military must charge user fees for what it now dispenses altruistically. We of the Libertarian Defense Caucus do not accept Rothbard's distortion of the movement, nor his re-definition of competing governments ("Jus Gentium") into "anarcho-captialism" [sic]. Rather, we take the conservative view that the roman republic should be restored.
Yet another reason to ignore the political views of actors.
In response to:

Cruz and Carson in 2016

kevin837 Wrote: Nov 04, 2013 3:52 PM
Here the author uses the phrase "secular humanist" twice, without any indication she has any idea what she is talking about. "Humanism" is a positive thing, and refers to the philosophy that human achievement is good. As distinguished from supernatural achievement, human achievement is something that we can experience and talk about. While we can neither experience nor talk about the supernatural (except in a negative sense of other-than natural). Humanists tend to be secular, because belief in the supernatural tends to interfere with natural achievement. But not all who are secular, are humanistic; because "secular" is purely negative in opposition to the supernatural, without necessarily affirming natural achievement. I see no evidence at all that Democrats are secular, much less humanistic. But if they were, that would be a reason for supporting them, not opposing them. Oh, and if you think that welfare is an example of humanism, where did you get that idea and in what dictionary does that definition appear?
In response to:

Faith and Freedom: An Indispensable Pair

kevin837 Wrote: Oct 27, 2013 10:24 PM
We cannot be sure that religious faith will lead to good actions or a good gov't system. We have seen many contrary examples, from medieval theocracy of Christianity to medieval-like theocracy of Islamism. Gov't should not be based on faith, but on sound principles of liberty and power-sharing that characterize a good republic. That does not mean, religion needs to be confined to a private sphere. Surely people ought to be free to publicly voice their opinions, and organize social groups for the ends they want to achieve. The use of "public" synonymously with "government" and "private synonymously with "freedom" implies that when we socialize publicly we must do so through government, and we are only free when we are alone.
In response to:

The Point of Negotiating with Iran

kevin837 Wrote: Oct 21, 2013 2:31 AM
Economists nowadays seem to think they have a flair everywhere--from military strategy to current events. Yet this article sounds to me like political optimism combined with military pessimism. Not necessary to "occupy" Iran, to destroy the Iran government (which would automatically stop their nuclear program, which is government-funded). Merely destroy as much of their nuclear facilities we can, and then take out their oil export facilities. Without money (from nationalized oil), the mad mullahs would be immobilized and removed from power. Chapman was president of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. The Liberty Supper club, which I co-hosted, had him as a speaker. We share some sympathies, but I think his foreign policy musings are not grounded in sound thinking, but the kind of mystical thinking that leads the Discovery Institute to reject evolution, instead favoring "intelligent design" (aka "scientific creationism").
In response to:

Conservative Reality Check

kevin837 Wrote: Oct 16, 2013 12:53 AM
Once again, Gerson looks for excuses for surrender, while expressing sympathies he does not truly believe. Now we have a constitutional confrontation between the House, which appropriate, and the White House, which spends and enforces. There should be no contest, the House should not appropriate a dime for Obamacare (and much else). If Obama won't sign off, so much the better. We can easily do better with 17% less federal spending. This isn't rocket science, Gerson; get with the program, or get out of our camp.
What Ransom appears unwilling to see, is that this drug is caused by prohibition. It is made from commonly available materials, and that is so because prohibition has made other (safer) materials harder to get. People have always wanted to alter their consciousness, whether through alcohol. cannabis, religion, etc. When natural plant-based substances are outlawed, people will synthesize from chemicals available. Ban one chemical, and they will find another (that maybe more dangerous). Base penalties on weight, and potency will increase. And so on. That much should be obvious, and that I have to point it out to a college graduate, is yet another indication that gov't schools fail to provide good education.
What did you find objectionable? Do you really believe that reality popped into existence out of nothingness, 10,000 years ago? Townhall is a political forum. In this context, promotion of religion hints at religiously-based government. Please provide an example of what you want, the most flagrant example today of religious-based government is Iran. Is that your model?
In response to:

Snowden a Fool, Not a Spy

kevin837 Wrote: Jun 19, 2013 6:10 PM
Snowden is not a contemporary "liberal". He has supported Ron Paul, and sounds like a dovish-leaning libertarian. He is wrong, not evil at heart. He violated his contracts and oaths, and for that should be punished. He should have to pay a big fine and lose all his security clearances. But he should not go to prison. Because the information he revealed, was mostly stuff that Americans and congress have a right to know but were lied to. I don't think foreign terrorists had a reasonable expectation that their communications were secure. If Snowden were sent to prison, he might not be able to raise a family and the human species would be deprived of his superior genes. Further, if in prison, out of boredom he would educate fellow prisoners in computer skills.
Washington State has not "legalized" pot, instead politicians have created a type of crony capitalism with heavy taxes and many intrusive regulations.
Previous 11 - 20 Next