[Wolfman]

Your making me think that it's possibly a time where we had few "modern Liberal" types incapable of competent objective discrimination.
I'm at a loss to articulate the precise word.

Answer the god damn question DDM or admit you're a fucking computer program.

I don't quite see your point Dan

He doesn't have one. He's just a computer program designed to piss off everyone on this site with any form of intelligence.

[Melodramatic]

if the law is based on a morality its not really libertarian. i see morality as a private issue, not a state issue. people can be as moral or immoral as they want for all i care. if the immorality of someone offends thats your problem. morality is utterly subjective, so the state should stay out of it. but thats not really your issue.

you claim that these "immoral people" will change the laws to suit their own benefits or do some thing you don't like with it. but the whole point of libertarianism, as i see it, is that because all law will always serve only a portion of society, while hurting others (otherwise no law will be needed). So you need a small minimal government that is not allowed to serve the interests of no one, not even the majority. only to prevent people for hurting each other directly (hurting their rights, coercing them, harming them physically, etc). so, to serve your mindset, i want to make a government that spends all its time trying to save you form these immoral monsters, as long as you stop hurting them (aka forcing your morality on them).

[Wolfman]

^ Morality is the basis for laws against things like murder.

[DanDaMan]

if the law is based on a morality its not really libertarian. i see morality as a private issue, not a state issue. people can be as moral or immoral as they want for all i care. if the immorality of someone offends thats your problem. morality is utterly subjective, so the state should stay out of it. but thats not really your issue.

My position is the governemtnt can only stay out of morality when the the vast moral majority enforce their own via equal rule of law.

you claim that these "immoral people" will change the laws to suit their own benefits or do some thing you don't like with it. but the whole point of libertarianism, as i see it, is that because all law will always serve only a portion of society, while hurting others (otherwise no law will be needed).

I stopped it there because your premise is based on moral-less law.
You can't have that.
My proof is that our judicial system is perverted and flawed because it has turned it's back on morality and who it was originally meant to protect... the innocent.

I went to court last year and the first thing out of the judges mouth was that " This court is not about what is morally right or who is right, it's about the law". That should be all the proof you need that the law has lost sight of original intent.

Morality is the basis for laws against things like murder.

Correct. If there is no morality there is no need for laws.

[Melodramatic]

Morality is the basis for laws against things like murder.

True, so my claim is that the only moral enforced by the government is that no human being as the right to hurt another directly (unless its by consent i guess). Any or all actions that the government takes should serve that purpose. otherwise is the one hurting.


Dan, I'm still not understanding you (and kinda getting tired of trying). Why must they're be only one morality? as long as their no coercion there can easily be a hundred moralities. furthermore why does the law need to serve the morality of some guys who died two hundred years ago? it shouldn't serve any morality (not even "protecting the innocent") expect no hurting people or coercing them.

[DanDaMan]

True, so my claim is that the only moral enforced by the government is that no human being as the right to hurt another directly (unless its by consent i guess). Any or all actions that the government takes should serve that purpose. otherwise is the one hurting.

So a 13 year old boy or girl can consent to sex with a 45 year old man?

[Melodramatic]

theoretically yes, but he/she is still under the jurisdiction of her parents. a more complex question is whether the parents jurisdiction gives them the right to hurt their child. I'm not totally decided on the issue so I'd leave it to another time.

[Cartertonian]

My position is the governemtnt (sic) can only stay out of morality when the the vast moral majority enforce their own via equal rule of law.

So where is your precious liberty if some can enforce their potentially odious and unreasonable 'morality' on others?

You really are full of it, DanDaMan. You claim to want 'liberty' when in fact all you want is 'your own way' all of the time and to then be able to exercise a perverse 'liberty' to ignore the needs of others.

[DanDaMan]

Everyone's favourite irritant wrote:
My position is the governemtnt (sic) can only stay out of morality when the the vast moral majority enforce their own via equal rule of law.

So where is your precious liberty if some can enforce their potentially odious and unreasonable 'morality' on others?

You're implying Libertarians are hypocritical anarchists. They are not because "anarchy" is not in their self description. Although I agree their logic seems to imply that.
To set the record straight...I'm more of a Christian Constitutional Conservative.

[Cartertonian]

I'm more of a Christian Constitutional Conservative.

So no interest in anyone's liberty at all, then, really?

[DanDaMan]

DanDaMan wrote:
I'm more of a Christian Constitutional Conservative.

So no interest in anyone's liberty at all, then, really?

Liberty to do what... steal and murder?
There are always rules set by morality. My Liberty is that the Fed does not impose on a states or communities ability to set their own constitutionally equal laws. Is it imperfect, yes.
Is is better than the tyranny of a large Fed? yes.

[Cartertonian]

Of course. The nub of the matter is your defence of your liberty to line your pockets...

[PBVBROOK]

DanDaMan wrote:
I'm more of a Christian Constitutional Conservative.

That can't be. Your greed and avarice could not be associated with Christ's teachings.

And your beliefs about the Constitution are counter to everything Jefferson and Adams believed.

[DanDaMan]

Of course. The nub of the matter is your defence of your liberty to line your pockets...

Of course. Who here has no self interest?

DanDaMan wrote:
I'm more of a Christian Constitutional Conservative.

That can't be. Your greed and avarice could not be associated with Christ's teachings.

Just for the sake of argument let's say that's true.
Which is the bigger sin... my own "greed" or your claim of Jesus's will to judge poor men differently and foster class warfare?

[PBVBROOK]

Which is the bigger sin... my own "greed" or your claim of Jesus's will to judge poor men differently and foster class warfare?

Do you really think you are all-that? Do us a favor. Post the quote where I said Jesus would "choose to foster class warfare"? That is you trolling not my statements.

If you knew anything about Christianity you would know that there is really no such thing as a "bigger sin". You would know that Jesus reserved the right to judge people's moral compass himself and admonished us not to.

Now did Jesus judge poor people differently? Let's see:

Luke 16:19-31

[19] "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. [20] At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores [21] and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

[22] "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. [23] In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. [24] So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

[25] "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. [26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

[27] "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, [28] for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

[29] "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

[30] " 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

[31] "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

So the answer to your question is a resounding YES.

It is up to the rich whether or not to consider that "class warfare". If they do, they should be careful to note upon whom they will be waging war. And the horrible cost of victory.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
Luke 16:19-31

[19] "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. [20] At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores [21] and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

[22] "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. [23] In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. [24] So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

Why was the rich man punished?

I'm tired so i will wrap this up...
He was punished because he failed to be charitable.
Explain to me St Peters righteous reasoning for letting us into heaven when you would have the state doing for us what we alone should do ourselves?
Explain to me the righteousness of being Godly when you want us to take our direction from the state and make Gods work second?

Think about it... with what I said there are you not impinging, at the very least, on the first commandment when you put the governments work first?

Then are you not coveting the property of the rich and taking (stealing) in the name of Social Justice?
That makes three commandments you are breaking, eh?

I, personally, need to work on #4.

[PBVBROOK]

He was punished because he failed to be charitable

.

Wrong. He was punished for not obeying God's commandment to care for the poor.

Explain to me St Peters righteous reasoning for letting us into heaven when you would have the state doing for us what we alone should do ourselves?

I think you may not be a Christian. If you were you would know that you can't earn your way into heaven.

Explain to me the righteousness of being Godly when you want us to take our direction from the state and make Gods work second?

DUH! Wrong again skippy. I do God's work first. Then I work to make the state do it also. The state, for me as a Christian, is just an extension of my beliefs. Therefor I am charitable with my personal money and also with my tax money. Why do you assume that the government is first? Obviously a government founded on Christian principles as you often claim ours is must, by definition, put God's work first.

Think about it... with what I said there are you not impinging, at the very least, on the first commandment when you put the governments work first?

Wrong Wrong Wrong. You are exactly backward in your thought process. If a Christian causes his/her government to obey God's will (care for others) then he/she IS putting God first. When we allow governments to tax and spend the money not caring for the poor and needy then we really are putting government before God.

Then are you not coveting the property of the rich and taking (stealing) in the name of Social Justice?

You honestly don't know what couvetousness is, do you? It is not coveting to vote to use your tax money for the poor. It is just the opposite. Taxes are not stealing. Jesus paid them at told us to also. We have been down that road.

I recommend you go to church rather than learn your religion from Glen Beck. You have a very perverted view of Christianity. And some real problems with old fashioned logic.

[anticlimacus]

Every society is posed with the same general problem, to what degree does individual responsibility end, and collective responsibility begin?

I think this is the wrong way to look at things. In other words, this question has built in assumptions about how societies function, which places us in an unlikely dichotomous situation of either X or Y. First it is NOT true that every society is posed with the same general problem. Different societies in different geographical areas and in different historical epochs are riddled with a variety of nuances and structural differences that should neither be overlooked nor boiled down to what we (in the West or the US) perceive to the the "general problem". Second, only a very very grim world poses the false dichotomy between individualism and collectivism. If we cannot at least grasp the fact that human beings are SOCIAL animals, not matter how much individualism has progressed, then we are self-delusional and have entered into a pathological era. If individualism is valued, and it is in modern Western society, then we must at least recognize that any kind of individualism is predicated upon a social foundation that requires just as much, if not more, attention. What I see posed here in this question is whether we should base our civilization off of a Hobbesian world of monadic self-interested antagonistic individuals who require government to regulate their isolated interests or an undifferentiated mechanical world in which the possibilitity of individual development is precluded. Both worlds are depictions of a narrow and hopeless future that spells either an anarchic individualism of a war of all against all, or a totalistic world that is regressive and oppressive at the same time. Finally, I will say that these, unfortunately are the worldviews the propogandists pose us with in the media: to either be collective or individualist. The reason being is because they are aware of the monstrous world of their opposite (the individualist, aware of the lack of freedom in the collective world; and the collectivist aware of the lack of freedom in the indivdiualist world), and they use such negative descriptions in order to stay in power via the promotion of fear.

[DanDaMan]

DUH! Wrong again skippy. I do God's work first. Then I work to make the state do it also.

How are you being Christian when your tool locks up those that fail to tithe to the state?

I think you were born too late. Somewhere along the time-line of the Inquisition would better suit your tyrannical theocratic ideals.

[PBVBROOK]

How are you being Christian when your tool locks up those that fail to tithe to the state?

Oh come on troll. Even you are smart enough to see how stupid this statement is.

You favor taxes and have said so time and again. This is not an arguement about whether the state should tax. It is about how much tax money and for what it is to be used. Even if the government only taxed for defense it would still "lock up those who fail to... (pay taxes)."

You really have to work on your zingers. Try thinking about them first.

I

think you were born too late. Somewhere along the time-line of the Inquisition would better suit your tyrannical theocratic ideals.

Google theocratic. You obviously do not know what it means. No surprise there.