Family Values Still Threaten GOP

[Darrell Hougen]

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Why is that?

--Brant

Do you think it could be otherwise? If we had a government that was unaccountable to the people, do you think it would waste its resources protecting their rights, or would it rather exploit them to pay off the thugs that keep it in power?

That sounds like a false dichotomy. No one is suggesting a completely unaccountable government.

No, not unlimited majoritarian democracy, a representative republic with universal suffrage will do just nicely. (Although, I think an unlimited majoritarian democracy would gradually transform into a representative republic)

Do you know anything about what GB was like before the House of Lords lost most of its power?

It was once said that, "the sun never sets on the British empire." So, it would seem as though British society was pretty successful. Also, Great Britain was one of the main forces for ending slavery throughout much of the world so it was a highly moral society too. In fact, many of the most successful countries in the modern world are descendants of the British empire --- Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. Hong Kong is no longer independent, but is a highly successful territory. India undoubtedly owes its current democratic system to the British. Since WWII, the UK has been in decline though it revived to some extent under Thatcher.

A majoritarian democracy might or might not transform into a republic, but the question is, "Why should it?" Which is superior and why?

A republican form of government puts limits on government and distributes power unequally to various groups. Our system has a House of Representatives that gives equal representation to each person and a Senate which does not. The President is elected by a method that does not weight everyone's vote equally. Supreme Court Justices and other Judges are appointed, not elected and serve for life, meaning that current voters have little influence over who they are. People younger than 18 are not allowed to vote. Earlier, the voting age was higher.

I've often thought that it would make sense to allow people to vote only if they contributed more to the government in terms of tax dollars than they received in monetary benefits. In my view, such a system would do a better job of protecting the rights of everyone than the current system.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Why is that?

--Brant

Do you think it could be otherwise? If we had a government that was unaccountable to the people, do you think it would waste its resources protecting their rights, or would it rather exploit them to pay off the thugs that keep it in power?

Is this your answer to my question? Is this all you have to make your brain turn over?

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Why is that?

--Brant

Do you think it could be otherwise? If we had a government that was unaccountable to the people, do you think it would waste its resources protecting their rights, or would it rather exploit them to pay off the thugs that keep it in power?

That sounds like a false dichotomy. No one is suggesting a completely unaccountable government.

George III never suggested a completely unaccountable government either, but that doesn't change the fact that the less accountable the government, the more tyrannical it becomes (particularly to the people who aren't represented). "No taxation without representation!" anyone?

It was once said that, "the sun never sets on the British empire." So, it would seem as though British society was pretty successful. Also, Great Britain was one of the main forces for ending slavery throughout much of the world so it was a highly moral society too. In fact, many of the most successful countries in the modern world are descendants of the British empire --- Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. Hong Kong is no longer independent, but is a highly successful territory. India undoubtedly owes its current democratic system to the British. Since WWII, the UK has been in decline though it revived to some extent under Thatcher.

A majoritarian democracy might or might not transform into a republic, but the question is, "Why should it?" Which is superior and why?

A republican form of government puts limits on government and distributes power unequally to various groups. Our system has a House of Representatives that gives equal representation to each person and a Senate which does not. The President is elected by a method that does not weight everyone's vote equally. Supreme Court Justices and other Judges are appointed, not elected and serve for life, meaning that current voters have little influence over who they are. People younger than 18 are not allowed to vote. Earlier, the voting age was higher.

I've often thought that it would make sense to allow people to vote only if they contributed more to the government in terms of tax dollars than they received in monetary benefits. In my view, such a system would do a better job of protecting the rights of everyone than the current system.

Darrell

Jesus Christ dude! Do you seriously believe that India and the US owe their freedom to the British Freakin' Empire? Do you know anything about its abuses of its colonies and citizens in the 18th and 19th centuries?

I've often thought that it would make sense to allow people to vote only if they contributed more to the government in terms of tax dollars than they received in monetary benefits. In my view, such a system would do a better job of protecting the rights of everyone than the current system.

Suppose that that government eliminated taxes for everyone below a certain income level. Would those people then be able to vote?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Great Britain was one of the main forces for ending slavery throughout much of the world

Great Britain was the most successful of all slavers. The profits of the British slave trade and of West Indian plantations amounted to 5% of the British economy at the time of the Industrial Revolution. By the 1690s, the English were shipping the most slaves from West Africa. They maintained this position during the 18th century, becoming the biggest shippers of slaves across the Atlantic. [Wikipedia]

[Darrell Hougen]

George III never suggested a completely unaccountable government either, but that doesn't change the fact that the less accountable the government, the more tyrannical it becomes (particularly to the people who aren't represented). "No taxation without representation!" anyone?

Well, you already said you weren't in favor of unlimited democracy and this line of discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

It was once said that, "the sun never sets on the British empire." So, it would seem as though British society was pretty successful. Also, Great Britain was one of the main forces for ending slavery throughout much of the world so it was a highly moral society too. In fact, many of the most successful countries in the modern world are descendants of the British empire --- Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. Hong Kong is no longer independent, but is a highly successful territory. India undoubtedly owes its current democratic system to the British. Since WWII, the UK has been in decline though it revived to some extent under Thatcher.

A majoritarian democracy might or might not transform into a republic, but the question is, "Why should it?" Which is superior and why?

A republican form of government puts limits on government and distributes power unequally to various groups. Our system has a House of Representatives that gives equal representation to each person and a Senate which does not. The President is elected by a method that does not weight everyone's vote equally. Supreme Court Justices and other Judges are appointed, not elected and serve for life, meaning that current voters have little influence over who they are. People younger than 18 are not allowed to vote. Earlier, the voting age was higher.

I've often thought that it would make sense to allow people to vote only if they contributed more to the government in terms of tax dollars than they received in monetary benefits. In my view, such a system would do a better job of protecting the rights of everyone than the current system.

Darrell

Jesus Christ dude! Do you seriously believe that India and the US owe their freedom to the British Freakin' Empire? Do you know anything about its abuses of its colonies and citizens in the 18th and 19th centuries?

Absolutely. Do think India would have developed democratic institutions at the time it did if it had not been controlled by Great Britain? Where did the U.S. get its institutions and traditions? The Constitution even mentions the "common law," a concept from English jurisprudence.

I've often thought that it would make sense to allow people to vote only if they contributed more to the government in terms of tax dollars than they received in monetary benefits. In my view, such a system would do a better job of protecting the rights of everyone than the current system.

Suppose that that government eliminated taxes for everyone below a certain income level. Would those people then be able to vote?

Is this going to devolve into a discussion of whether to use ">" or ">="? Who cares? If people had to pay a little tax in order to vote, then the lowest income people would be clamoring to pay $10/year of tax in order to be able to vote. If they received zero services, perhaps they could pay a dollar when they registered to vote. In the larger scheme of things, it makes very little difference.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

In the larger scheme of things, it makes very little difference.

Exactly. It's impossible to undo Jacksonian democracy and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Wave goodbye to the Republic.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Absolutely. Do think India would have developed democratic institutions at the time it did if it had not been controlled by Great Britain? Where did the U.S. get its institutions and traditions? The Constitution even mentions the "common law," a concept from English jurisprudence.

What about France, Germany, Spain or Japan? It's not at all necessary to be a subject of Great Britain in order to become a democracy. The US and India did not become democracies because of Great Britain but rather in spite of it. I don't recall Washington or Ghandi ever saying anything like "Hey isn't GB so wonderful and democratic? We should be more like them."

Is this going to devolve into a discussion of whether to use ">" or ">="? Who cares? If people had to pay a little tax in order to vote, then the lowest income people would be clamoring to pay $10/year of tax in order to be able to vote. If they received zero services, perhaps they could pay a dollar when they registered to vote. In the larger scheme of things, it makes very little difference.

Darrell

Why would anybody want to pay $10 a year of tax in order to be able to vote when the most they can get from the government is about $10 before losing the right to vote?

[moralist]

This is completely unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, and itself evidence of profound ignorance.

Nevertheless, it is my view that childhood molestation causes homosexuality when the emotional trauma is not internally resolved in adulthood. It's the dirty little secret of which no one dares to speak. So there... I've just said it again.

I couldn't care less what you or anyone else says, because morality is not determined by popular collective societal consensus. Leftist political correctness has no relation to morality other than to be a fake version of it, tailor made for fools who worship consensus.

Greg

Some homosexuality? Most? All?

Most all, as there are always some physical gender abnormalities, for example, caused by parents who abused enough drugs to cause them in their offspring.

But as to the rest... homosexuality is the result of failing to deal with the emotional trauma of childhood sexual molestation. Notice that it is not directly from the molestation itself... but from the failure to deal with it. The failure to give up hatred and to move on with life freed from the past.

So, yes... homosexuality is a matter of moral choice, but not a direct choice concerning the symptom (homosexuality) but the choice of whether or not to deal with the hatred from the violation of childhood molestation. For it is hatred that makes the imprinting of a foreign gender identity stick.

To see the proof of what I say, simply observe leftist homosexual political activists. You would be hard put to find angrier uglier more vile vindictive hatefilled people.

If you "couldn't care less" why do you keep replying?

Just because I don't care about what any of the politically correct popular collective societal consensus kool aid drinkers say...

...doesn't mean that I don't care about what I say.

Greg

[moralist]

It is also a statistical fact that people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats 100% of the time. Why don't we just make it so that people who vote in a way that we don't like lose the right to vote?

I can offer a different view on this...

I want the Democrat political majority to freely choose to vote for Democrats... so that they can get the fat bloated government they created in their own rotten image rammed right down their throats just as they deserve.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

This is completely unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, and itself evidence of profound ignorance.

Nevertheless, it is my view that childhood molestation causes homosexuality when the emotional trauma is not internally resolved in adulthood. It's the dirty little secret of which no one dares to speak. So there... I've just said it again.

I couldn't care less what you or anyone else says, because morality is not determined by popular collective societal consensus. Leftist political correctness has no relation to morality other than to be a fake version of it, tailor made for fools who worship consensus.

Greg

Some homosexuality? Most? All?

Most all, as there are always some physical gender abnormalities, for example, caused by parents who abused enough drugs to cause them in their offspring.

But as to the rest... homosexuality is the result of failing to deal with the emotional trauma of childhood sexual molestation. Notice that it is not directly from the molestation itself... but from the failure to deal with it. The failure to give up hatred and to move on with life freed from the past.

So, yes... homosexuality is a matter of moral choice, but not a direct choice concerning the symptom (homosexuality) but the choice of whether or not to deal with the hatred from the violation of childhood molestation. For it is hatred that makes the imprinting of a foreign gender identity stick.

To see the proof of what I say, simply observe leftist homosexual political activists. You would be hard put to find angrier uglier more vile vindictive hatefilled people.

If you "couldn't care less" why do you keep replying?

Just because I don't care about what any of the politically correct popular collective societal consensus kool aid drinkers say...

...doesn't mean that I don't care about what I say.

Greg

Needs data, Greg. Numbers and from whence they came.

--Brant

[moralist]

Needs data, Greg. Numbers and from whence they came.

My conclusion is drawn from my own personal observations of the lives of others, and does not rely on collective politically correct societal consensus. So there's obviously no need for me to try to convince anyone to change their chosen view when only the objective reality of life possesses that power to convince. It's enough for me to clearly and simply state my view. What anyone else chooses to do with it is their own business and not mine, because they are the ones who get what they deserve as the consequence of their own free choice and not me. For each of us can only reap what they sow.

The problem of believing lies arises when people drink the politically correct kool aid instead of calmly observing the world for themselves and using their own common sense to see things as they are. It is this fundamental error which invites disaster into their own lives.

The combination of calm objective observation and trust in your own common sense is called wisdom. Even when the whole world around you is shrieking the collective lie, it's an acquired taste to choose to trust what you actually see for yourself instead of what others tell you...

...but this is that makes all the difference in how your life unfolds.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Needs data, Greg. Numbers and from whence they came.

My conclusion is drawn from my own personal observations of the lives of others, and does not rely on collective politically correct societal consensus. So there's obviously no need for me to try to convince anyone to change their chosen view when only the objective reality of life possesses that power to convince. It's enough for me to clearly and simply state my view. What anyone else chooses to do with it is their own business and not mine, because they are the ones who get what they deserve as the consequence of their own free choice and not me. For each of us can only reap what they sow.

The problem of believing lies arises when people drink the politically correct kool aid instead of calmly observing the world for themselves and using their own common sense to see things as they are. It is this fundamental error which invites disaster into their own lives.

The combination of calm objective observation and trust in your own common sense is called wisdom. Even when the whole world around you is shrieking the collective lie, it's an acquired taste to choose to trust what you actually see for yourself instead of what others tell you...

...but this is that makes all the difference in how your life unfolds.

Greg

I suspect it was a while ago you changed from learning something important into just telling what you learned. I don't think you learned the need to keep learning for you seem automatically reactive. The second part of your first sentence, btw, is completely disingenuous, a gross failure to back up your "most." You have no studies. You have no data. You have no numbers.

--Brant

[Reidy]

For what it's worth, I was never molested as a child, and I'm queer as a coot (as Noel Coward used to put it). Depending on how strongly you assert the thesis, this is at best a piece of evidence against it and.at worst a drop-dead counterexample.

Even if you could show a correlation, that is notoriously not enough to show causation. One possibility, were you to present the requested data, would be the one under examination: molestation causes homosexuality. Another, at least with victims subteen or older, would be that these children were so inclined in the first place. Whether or not they were born that way, their sexuality is in place by the time some perv puts the moves on them. Every child has heard from his parents don't talk to strangers, don't get in cars with strangers, if anybody touches you there, run away and so on. Most of them will follow this advice, so we might wonder why some of them don't.

(Is this supposed to cause female homosexuality as well? My understanding is that women are virtually never molesters of pre-adolescent children.)

[moralist]

Needs data, Greg. Numbers and from whence they came.

My conclusion is drawn from my own personal observations of the lives of others, and does not rely on collective politically correct societal consensus. So there's obviously no need for me to try to convince anyone to change their chosen view when only the objective reality of life possesses that power to convince. It's enough for me to clearly and simply state my view. What anyone else chooses to do with it is their own business and not mine, because they are the ones who get what they deserve as the consequence of their own free choice and not me. For each of us can only reap what they sow.

The problem of believing lies arises when people drink the politically correct kool aid instead of calmly observing the world for themselves and using their own common sense to see things as they are. It is this fundamental error which invites disaster into their own lives.

The combination of calm objective observation and trust in your own common sense is called wisdom. Even when the whole world around you is shrieking the collective lie, it's an acquired taste to choose to trust what you actually see for yourself instead of what others tell you...

...but this is that makes all the difference in how your life unfolds.

Greg

I suspect it was a while ago you changed from learning something important into just telling what you learned.

What I've learned is important... to me. Whether or not it is important to others is not my concern. So thanks for the offer, Brant... but I'll pass on the politically correct kool aid.

I don't think you learned the need to keep learning for you seem automatically reactive.

Non reactive is more accurate. I do learn... just not from what you or anyone else tells me about collective societal consensus. Rather, I trust what I see with my own eyes... and I've seen plenty.

The second part of your first sentence, btw, is completely disingenuous, a gross failure to back up your "most." You have no studies. You have no data. You have no numbers.

That's right, Brant... only my own observations of how the lives of others unfold. Only the politically correct with the need to try to convince others of the collective societal consensus believe in data, numbers, and "studies".

So I have a couple of questions for you to consider... How many "studies" have been subsequently overturned by other "studies"? Hmmm? And how many "studies" are driven by political correctness and government funding?

If you want to use "studies" as moral guidance for your life, please be my guest. Go right ahead. For no matter what you choose, it is impossible to escape getting exactly what you deserve. The process of correction is completely self inflicted. So your only real choice is whether to learn the easy way... or the hard way.

Greg

[PDS]

Needs data, Greg. Numbers and from whence they came.

My conclusion is drawn from my own personal observations of the lives of others, and does not rely on collective politically correct societal consensus. So there's obviously no need for me to try to convince anyone to change their chosen view when only the objective reality of life possesses that power to convince. It's enough for me to clearly and simply state my view. What anyone else chooses to do with it is their own business and not mine, because they are the ones who get what they deserve as the consequence of their own free choice and not me. For each of us can only reap what they sow.

The problem of believing lies arises when people drink the politically correct kool aid instead of calmly observing the world for themselves and using their own common sense to see things as they are. It is this fundamental error which invites disaster into their own lives.

The combination of calm objective observation and trust in your own common sense is called wisdom. Even when the whole world around you is shrieking the collective lie, it's an acquired taste to choose to trust what you actually see for yourself instead of what others tell you...

...but this is that makes all the difference in how your life unfolds.

Greg

I suspect it was a while ago you changed from learning something important into just telling what you learned.

What I've learned is important... to me. Whether or not it is important to others is not my concern. So thanks for the offer, Brant... but I'll pass on the politically correct kool aid.

I don't think you learned the need to keep learning for you seem automatically reactive.

Non reactive is more accurate. I do learn... just not from what you or anyone else tells me about collective societal consensus. Rather, I trust what I see with my own eyes... and I've seen plenty.

The second part of your first sentence, btw, is completely disingenuous, a gross failure to back up your "most." You have no studies. You have no data. You have no numbers.

That's right, Brant... only my own observations of how the lives of others unfold. Only the politically correct with the need to try to convince others of the collective societal consensus believe in data, numbers, and "studies".

So I have a couple of questions for you to consider... How many "studies" have been subsequently overturned by other "studies"? Hmmm? And how many "studies" are driven by political correctness and government funding?

If you want to use "studies" as moral guidance for your life, please be my guest. Go right ahead. For no matter what you choose, it is impossible to escape getting exactly what you deserve. The process of correction is completely self inflicted. So your only real choice is whether to learn the easy way... or the hard way.

Greg

I believe Brant was asking about "studies" to see if there are any "facts" to back up the claims you are making, Greg.

This is a seperate issue from the question of moral guidance. But you know that, don't you? Move 2A in your dog-eared playbook is to conflate issues so you are better able to wiggle out of the arbitrary assertions you are almost constantly making.

How's this for a arbitrary assertion: I often get the impression that your "you get what you deserve" mantra is a cover for your having been subjected to sexual abuse as a child. Unlike the global assertions you are making about an entire group of people you know nothing about, I am basing my "facts" on the roughly 1,000 posts I have read of yours (God help me),

This conclusion gives me a warm feeling inside, and that is good enough for me. Moreover, if you try to dispute this or argue otherwise, here is my prospective advice: mere words on a screen never convince anybody of anything. And besides, you reap what you sow.

Sound familiar? More important, does this sound the least bit respectful?

[Darrell Hougen]

Great Britain was one of the main forces for ending slavery throughout much of the world

Great Britain was the most successful of all slavers. The profits of the British slave trade and of West Indian plantations amounted to 5% of the British economy at the time of the Industrial Revolution. By the 1690s, the English were shipping the most slaves from West Africa. They maintained this position during the 18th century, becoming the biggest shippers of slaves across the Atlantic. [Wikipedia]

According to Wikipedia, Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery throughout the empire in 1833, some 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States. Upon abolishing the slave trade throughout the British Empire, It also worked to end the slave trade in other European countries.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Absolutely. Do think India would have developed democratic institutions at the time it did if it had not been controlled by Great Britain? Where did the U.S. get its institutions and traditions? The Constitution even mentions the "common law," a concept from English jurisprudence.

What about France, Germany, Spain or Japan? It's not at all necessary to be a subject of Great Britain in order to become a democracy. The US and India did not become democracies because of Great Britain but rather in spite of it. I don't recall Washington or Ghandi ever saying anything like "Hey isn't GB so wonderful and democratic? We should be more like them."

Your examples aren't very convincing. Although Europe has a long tradition of democratic institutions, they wielded more or less power or were more or less existent in some places than others. France was almost completely autocratic from the time of Charlemagne to the French Revolution, which came after the American Revolution, which was really a war of independence. So, France probably didn't get its ideas on democracy and proper governance from internal sources, unless you want to go all the way back to the Roman Empire.

Germany was a collection of warring principalities until Napoleon conquered them and they subsequently unified into the German Empire under Prussian leadership. It wasn't until 1918 that the first Republic was established.

Spain was conquered by various groups but remained under various forms of central control until 1810. However, various attempts at forming a Republic failed. The modern Spanish state formed after the death of Franco in 1975 as the result of the leadership of King Juan Carlos who worked to preserve Spanish democracy.

Japan didn't establish a democratic state until after it was defeated in WWII and forced to establish a democracy by the U.S., a progeny of Great Britain.

Great Britain has one of the most convincing histories of democratic rule.

Other places that have had democratic institutions since Medieval times are the middle kingdoms such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.

I'm not saying the Britain is single-handedly responsible for bringing democracy to the world. Democracy and pro-freedom institutions have a long and complex history. However, to ignore the contributions of Great Britain shows no sense of history. The ideas that animated the Founding Fathers didn't just fall like manna from heaven, they were seen as an improvement on the systems of British, Dutch and others.

Is this going to devolve into a discussion of whether to use ">" or ">="? Who cares? If people had to pay a little tax in order to vote, then the lowest income people would be clamoring to pay $10/year of tax in order to be able to vote. If they received zero services, perhaps they could pay a dollar when they registered to vote. In the larger scheme of things, it makes very little difference.

Darrell

Why would anybody want to pay $10 a year of tax in order to be able to vote when the most they can get from the government is about $10 before losing the right to vote?

You're not supposed to get more out of government in monetary terms than you put in. The current danger is that more than half of the voters are getting more out than they're putting in so they have a built in incentive to vote for more government. It's called a death spiral.

Da

[Wolf DeVoon]

Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807

-- because the Americans took all the profit out of it in Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

It was very nearly abolished at the Federal Convention:

Many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin (a former slave-owner) and Alexander Hamilton (who was born in a slave colony in the British West Indies) became members of antislavery societies. Luther Martin of Maryland, a slaveholder,... also considered the slave trade contrary to America's republican ideals. "It is inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution," he said, "and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution." A Virginia delegate, George Mason, who owned hundreds of slaves, spoke out against slavery in ringing terms. "Slavery," he said, "discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves." Slavery also corrupted slaveholders and threatened the country with divine punishment: "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country." [source] Quaker John Dickinson argued forcefully against slavery during the Convention. Once Delaware's largest slaveholder, he had freed all of his slaves by 1787. [source]

[moralist]

I believe Brant was asking about "studies" to see if there are any "facts" to back up the claims you are making, Greg.

I know.

Brant thinks I'm trying to convince him of my view that homosexuality is only a symptom of failing to deal with past sexual emotional trauma. When the truth is that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm only stating my view drawn from my own observation of the lives of others. I've been around in the world long enough to see what I see and to know what I know. Everyone else is free to drink the koolaid. I choose not to follow the politically correct collective societal consensus of what's right and wrong. I choose to live by a different moral standard.

This is a separate issue from the question of moral guidance.

No it isn't.

"Studies" support the popular politically correct social consensus that homosexuality is not a moral choice. If you choose to guide your life by "studies" that's fine by me. I choose not to.

Move 2A in your dog-eared playbook is to conflate issues so you are better able to wiggle out of the arbitrary assertions you are almost constantly making.

That's my view. And it is exactly as subjective as your view that homosexuality isn't the moral failure to deal with past sexual emotional trauma.

How's this for a arbitrary assertion: I often get the impression that your "you get what you deserve" mantra is a cover for your having been subjected to sexual abuse as a child.

You are free to make that arbitrary assertion even though it's a lie. If I said stealing was morally wrong, you'd say that it was because I was a thief. I have no control over what you say. I can only point out what you're up to.

Unlike the global assertions you are making about an entire group of people you know nothing about.

You're only saying that because you disagree with my view. The view not chosen will always be labeled as being ignorant...

...and I'm ok with that.

You can live guided by your knowledge, and I'll live guided by my ignorance... and objective reality will sort out who's right and whose wrong by the consequences of our actions.

More important, does this sound the least bit respectful?

It's a common error to confuse agreement with respect. Liberals do that all the time.

Greg

[Darrell Hougen]

Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807

-- because the Americans took all the profit out of it in Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

It was very nearly abolished at the Federal Convention:

Many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin (a former slave-owner) and Alexander Hamilton (who was born in a slave colony in the British West Indies) became members of antislavery societies. Luther Martin of Maryland, a slaveholder,... also considered the slave trade contrary to America's republican ideals. "It is inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution," he said, "and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution." A Virginia delegate, George Mason, who owned hundreds of slaves, spoke out against slavery in ringing terms. "Slavery," he said, "discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves." Slavery also corrupted slaveholders and threatened the country with divine punishment: "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country." [source] Quaker John Dickinson argued forcefully against slavery during the Convention. Once Delaware's largest slaveholder, he had freed all of his slaves by 1787. [source]

That may be part of it, perhaps an important part, but the history of English opposition to slavery extends from times before the writing of the U.S. Constitution. For example, slavery on English soil was never supported by English law as affirmed by a decision of the English Court in 1772.

Darrell

[moralist]

You're not supposed to get more out of government in monetary terms than you put in. The current danger is that more than half of the voters are getting more out than they're putting in so they have a built in incentive to vote for more government. It's called a death spiral.

Yes it is...

...because the moochers (as well as the government public union looters who service them) now comprise the political majority. This explains why the government keeps growing. It has been created by the moochers in their own image, and so it is the government they deserve.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

Great Britain has one of the most convincing histories of democratic rule. Other places that have had democratic institutions since Medieval times are the middle kingdoms such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.

Among the "other places" you forgot to mention medieval Iceland (which David Friedman hung his hat on) and the Hanseatic League.

I marvel at your affection for Britain -- or rather, England -- which, to this day, is dogged by hereditary class privilege and during the American Revolution was tyrannical master of Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Australia, the West Indies and West Africa. The Crown and Lords were hereditary and Commons constituencies notoriously "rotten." The only thing our Founders took from England was their common law, which had no constitutional basis in Britain.

When Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty, he had trouble with some of his admirals at a strategy meeting. One of them accused him of having impugned the traditions of the Royal Navy, provoking the reply: 'And what are they? They are rum, sodomy and the lash'.

Of all the causes for the War of 1812, the impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy was the most important for many Americans. The British practice of manning naval ships with "pressed" men, who were forcibly placed into service, was a common one in English history, dating back to medieval times. Under British law, the navy had the right, during time of war, to sweep through the streets of Great Britain, essentially arresting men and placing them in the Royal Navy. [source]

[moralist]

For what it's worth, I was never molested as a child, and I'm queer as a coot (as Noel Coward used to put it).

It takes a shock to become imprinted with a foreign gender identity, but that foreign identity is only the symptom and it is impossible to deal with directly. It takes an unresolved emotional reaction to the shock to keep it there. Sometimes it's easier to choose to simply embrace that identity as your own and to live out your life with it rather than to choose to discover how it got there and what keeps it there. No matter which choice... each brings its own consequences.

Greg

[Darrell Hougen]

Why would anybody want to pay $10 a year of tax in order to be able to vote when the most they can get from the government is about $10 before losing the right to vote?

While we're on the subject, I'd like to expound a little further on the beauty of my idea: Only people that pay in at least as much as they get from the government shall be allowed to vote.

Let's say that the productive members of society got fed up with paying taxes to people that were loafing around and abolished all of the welfare programs including Social Security. Then, since none of those people would be receiving anything from the government in the way of handouts, suddenly they would be able to vote. So, there would be an incentive to give moochers at least a little in order to prevent them from gaining political power.

Once the moochers got the right to vote, they could vote themselves large benefits, but if they did, they would once again lose the right to vote. So, there would be a built in incentive for them to vote for only modest benefits for themselves. If they did enough work, they could potentially keep the right to vote. And, at any rate, they would know that they would be at the mercy of the productive people once they could no longer vote.

Of course, there are other incentives for productive people to maintain programs like Social Security. After all, they will retire some day and may want a minimum guaranteed income in their later years. However, they would be less likely to greedily vote themselves large benefits because they would know that they wouldn't be able to vote to keep them later and would be at the mercy of the producers once they retired.

The result would not be to eliminate all government aid for the poor, but to keep the amount manageable. The same would be true of pensions.

Government handouts would become more like charity. A person cannot go to a charity and demand a certain benefit. It is up to the charity to determine how much to grant him. The same would be true under my voting scheme.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Shall be allowed. Shall be allowed. Shall be allowed.

Something seems out of freedom whack here.

Are we imagining ourselves masters of the wrong world? My brain trips out.

--Brant