Family Values Still Threaten GOP

[Wolf DeVoon]

The parasites took over and the producers fled, incuding blacks.

--Brant

a white mayor started it over 50 years ago--there's not been a white mayor since

Not to quibble, but

In 1940, Whites were 90.4% of the city's population. As of the 2010 Census, the city was 89.5% Black and Hispanic. [Wikipedia]

[Wolf DeVoon]

One distinctly American value is "making money".

The value that you can actually do honest productive work to create your own wealth by bettering the lives of others

That's Dutch, Chinese, Patagonian, Polish, South African, and Swiss, too, if memory serves. Not distinctly American. Try again.

[Brant Gaede]

The parasites took over and the producers fled, incuding blacks.

--Brant

a white mayor started it over 50 years ago--there's not been a white mayor since

Not to quibble, but

In 1940, Whites were 90.4% of the city's population. As of the 2010 Census, the city was 89.5% Black and Hispanic. [Wikipedia]

Yeah, but the total population fell through the floor.

There were race riots in 1943, I think, with whites against blacks.

--Brant

the auto industry pulled blacks off southern farms into Michigan factories

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Darrell reacts to my suggestion that if his theory is correct (homosexuality is clearly a conscious choice), then all things being equal he should be able to find evidence in the world to support his theory. He disputes this on several grounds.

I note again that in attempting to prove one's assumptions it is necessary to devise a test or series of tests that challenge the assumptions. One seeks to falsify the hypothesis.

So, I have to ask Darrell -- what would tend to falsify your theory to your own satisfaction?

I am aware of some of the empirical evidence.

[...]


The problem with looking for evidence of choice is that most scientists begin their studies with a preconceived notion that there is only nature and nurture, that humans have no capacity to make choices.

[...]

But, if that is the starting point of a scientific study, how is the scientist ever going to find evidence for choice?

I have to unpack your assumptions, first of all. I do not dispute a generalization that "humans have capacity to make choices." I just do not see support for your notion that homosexuality is the product of conscious choice in each individual. In any case the generalization is so broad as to be meaningless. The very question is not whether human beings make conscious choices, but whether human beings -- all of them -- make a conscious choice to be heterosexual or homosexual (or bisexual). If one puts it in a form that can be tested or verified or supported by research, we get "Is homosexuality generally a matter of conscious choice?"

It is not obvious that "most scientists begin their studies with a preconceived notion that there is only nature and nurture" on the subject of homosexuality. It makes no sense to bifurcate using terms that you do not yourself use. You use 'choice' not nurture, and so the corollary pole in the continuum would be 'non-choice' not 'nature.'

But let's remember where you are starting from.

If -- as you assert, Darrell -- each individual makes a conscious choice to be homosexual -- how would you know if your contention is wrong? There must be some evidence, counter-evidence, that would overturn your theory. I ask, what would that be? I would also like to know at what time in development you think that homosexuals are pre-homosexual, meaning at what age does any sort of sexuality choice first emerge? Your theory is opaque on these details so far.

Another door to answering your question about conscious choice is to ask homosexuals and lesbians themselves about choice. You might argue that I myself did in the past make a conscious choice to be homosexual. Same with Reidy. You might ask of the bisexual OLer, Brant the same, and also ask the one or two others here who have noted their homosexuality.

I think you would agree that if your theory is correct, and that it applies to all sexual beings, then it would logically apply to me, Reidy, Brant, Stephen B. If it turns out that none of us gays/bisexuals reports a conscious choice to be non-heterosexual, how would you adjust your theory accordingly? I imagine you might say that each of us is misremembering -- in hindsight -- or that each of us is lying or misrepresenting our actual development, or even that you know the hearts and minds of others much better than they do!

That question could be extended as a research question: how many gays and lesbians report a 'conscious choice' of their sexuality? How many heterosexuals report a 'conscious choice' of their sexuality?

Now, another thing that stands out in your discussion is how you adopted the theory of Greg's. He is straightforward: Child Sexual Abuse is the Foundation of homosexuality. This theory is in opposition to yours, no? Which makes me wonder why you wrote this:

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say it is the foundation, but it does seem to play a large role. In a recent interview, Camile Paglia talked about homosexuality and mentioned her observation that most male homosexuals come from messed up families. A relative of mine announced that he was gay a couple of years after his father died and a friend of my son announced that he was gay a few years after his parents divorced.

You say that Child Sexual Abuse of boys and girls seems to play a large role in the development of homosexuality. What I don't understand is how you keep both balls in the air. Your variable is conscious choice, Greg's is child sexual abuse. If Greg's theory is "largely true" then it upsets your own theory, no?

As for the rest of the paragraph, 'messed up families' does not mean child sexual abuse, nor does a father's death constitute child sexual abuse, nor does a divorce indicate child sexual abuse.

So, you seem to offer partial support for Greg's unwarranted theory, while clinging to your own unwarranted theory. I would expect this to cause some cognitive friction.

In any case, I still entertain your theory, and am willing to test it against my own life-course. Given what you believe are causative (now an unwieldy amalgam of child sexual abuse, troubled families, divorce, death of loved ones, unspecified trauma), could anything I tell you about my own sexual development change your theory?

Besides, in today's political climate, any scientist that entertains the notion that homosexuals have choices is likely to be branded a bigot and a homophobe.

Well, this strikes me as special pleading. You have claimed not that homosexuals have choices, but that a conscious choice resulted in each/most homosexual's adult orientation. You haven't presented any hard evidence to support the claim. The special pleading suggests that you will cannot find evidence in support of your theory in any of the vast literature, because the scientific enterprise is corrupt. Again the cart leads your horse.

Look at the politics surrounding global warming funding and publication of unpopular results. The results is that there might or might not be a significant amount of scientific literature on sexual choice. You can't say it must exist. That's a non-sequitur.

I can say it must exist in the people you are talking about, Darrell! If you theory is correct, then I made a conscious choice of sexuality. In other words, your theory predicts that gay people will report "choice" and never "non-choice." Why not test your prediction? Are you afraid of being wrong on this issue? I would hate to think that an Objectivish person would not put his own notions to a rational test.

The easiest way to do your own research would be to ask homosexuals and lesbians you know in your family to help you out. You might start by asking "can you please tell me in detail how you came to consciously choose to have a homosexual orientation?"

Of course, you might also put it in a less biased way: "Would you say your orientation was the result of a conscious choice?" "Can you tell me the story of how you came to believe you were gay? Was anytime when you felt that you chose being gay over being heterosexual?"

So, it becomes an appeal to common sense. If identical twins don't behave identically, then homosexuality is not merely genetic.

You are misstating the research. There is no 100% concordance between identical twins/identical sexual orientation. That does not mean there is no genetic contribution to homosexuality. As for "merely genetic" -- no one is arguing so far that homosexuality is due only to genes.

For common sense, I will restate my challenge to your theory one more time:

If your theory is true, what to do with the reports of homosexuals and lesbians themselves on "conscious choice"? Can you give us a reasonable argument that we should set aside this kind of evidence?

Greg is trying to attribute homosexual behavior to environmental factors. However, we've seen counter examples for his theory. So, if it's not genetic and it's not environmental, what does that leave?

Bullshit, Darrell, seriously. Greg does not posit some fluffy 'environmental factors,' he clearly states Child Sexual Abuse as the foundation of homosexuality.

Now, about 'genetic' -- you don't seem willing to explore beyond a simplistic model. Some genetic contributions to homosexuality have been discovered, although as you point out, particular genes are not 100% determinative. If you insist upon your own terminology of choice/non-choice, and also if you use the unhelpful nature/nurture distinction, there is much you have not noted or accounted for.

Look at it this way: genes are considered only part of what comes under the rubric natural/non-choice. Your theory still needs to account for other plausible non-choice processes. Maybe the extended theory would account for heritability by saying there is none, account for epigenetic factors (they are meaningless), it may account for anti-natal hormone effects (irrelevant), and it may account for other areas of study (politically-tainted). The male-brain/female brain/homosexual brain (formed by choice). Etcetera.

You might even account for early 'indicators' of future homosexuality in children, the so-called gender-nonconforming behaviour. I would expect you to assert that young Timmy femme-job and young Trixie butchgirl's non-conforming behaviour is not a predictor of adult homosexuality.

One of the ways humans survive is by imitating other humans. If a person sees another person doing something, the natural question is, should I be doing the same thing? Well, if I can't subject the actions of the other person to any sort of internal criticism because that would make me a bigot and a homophobe, then how am I supposed to determine whether or not I should be imitating that person?

This is just garble. Imitation of what, sexual feeling? A person sees another person experiencing sexual feelings? How does the first person peer into the mind of the other person and accurately describe their sexual feelings?

Let's say you are the first person, Person A. You want to survive. Right. You see by occult means person B doing something interior to themselves (having homosexual thoughts and desires). You then subject yourself to a natural question: "should I also have homosexual thoughts and desires?"

Then you want to subject B to internal criticism, whatever the heck that means. There is Person A having homosexual desire (maybe expressing it to you in stark behavioural terms, like rubbing your crotch or saying, "I'll give you a blowjob, Darrell. I'd really really like to. I am attracted to you"). Or maybe you observe B having sexual intercourse with person C. Whatever, you have Person B's thoughts or behaviours revealed to you.

If I read your scenario correctly, after this kind of assay or initial assessment you then would subject the homosexual behaviour/thought to some murky thing called "internal criticism."

How would this work in the real world?

Frankly, none of what you said makes any sense to me if you are trying to organize an argument for your contentions about "conscious choice." But ...

Let's say there you are there in the above scenario, and you have finished a round of cogitation upon poor B. You have criticized the behaviour in your own mind, and you have decided not to imitate B. You have chosen not to grab other males' crotches or initiate a sexual encounter with another guy.

Here's the problem -- nowhere in your argument have you yet dealt with the question of B's desire or A's sexual feelings. It's unaccounted for and undescribed in the context of time, development, emerging object attraction. So, your theory is woefully incomplete in its scope. I should add that none of what you said makes you a bigot or a homophobe. You obeyed your own orientation. You didn't feel a pull of sexual desire or excitement at the prospect of gay sex.

Should I just leave it up to my feelings? Is reason banned from the domain of sexual orientation or sexual choices? To me, that sounds like a prescription for personal disaster.

I would suggest that you long ago left it up to your feelings. You felt a strong attraction to the female. Your object choices of fantasy were based on the female form. Breasts were exciting, as was the curve of a woman's haunches, her feminine face, etcetera.

I would think you might apply reason after the fact. Since you didn't and don't feel any attraction to males at puberty or any time beyond, then there was no conscious choice necessary.

Of course, I would change what I have said above if you actually had ambivalent sexual feelings, attraction to both genders, and you have struggled with your choice in terms of sexual behaviour (indulging your bisexuality would destroy your marriage, etc).

Maybe I read you entirely wrong, but the only way your argument makes sense is if you struggled with bisexual orientation and decided that you would never let your homosexual feeling, urges, desires become actual homosexual behaviour. You may be somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale. You noted to Jonathan that most homosexuals have had at least one sexual encounter with the opposite sex, thus it would be wrong to think that anyone would be repulsed by the idea of same-sex encounters in the straight population.

Are you maybe reading too much from your own particular life choices, Darrell? If you as a young teen or young man consciously weighed the options and rejected expressing your male/male sexual attraction, choosing a future happy monogamous straight marriage to channel your urges over a disastrous gay life -- then how would your bisexual orientation unexpressed speak to homosexuals and lesbians?

All in all, you seem to be telling me something about myself that isn't true.

Edited June 7, 2014 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

the auto industry pulled blacks off southern farms into Michigan factories

You mean with hooks and ropes?

The thousands of African-Americans who flocked to Detroit were part of the "Great Migration" of the twentieth century. Between 1916 and 1930, an estimated one million Black Southerners migrated to northern cities. African-American newspapers, most notably the Chicago Defender, were instrumental in glorifying life in the North and providing information about available jobs there.

White employers, though willing to hire Blacks for unskilled positions, were reluctant to employ skilled Blacks. At the same time, defacto segregation characterized northern school districts. Intelligence tests branded many migrants handicapped by poor southern schooling as "retarded". Finally, restrictive covenants forced Blacks to settle in certain areas of the cities -- areas in which housing conditions were abominable. Ever increasing demand for housing in African-American neighborhoods enabled landlords to charge exorbitant rents, often higher than those exacted in newer white neighborhoods. The scarce supply of housing in Black districts made landlord expenditures on upkeep or improvement unnecessary. As a result, the rooms available in apartment buildings and rooming houses were ramshackle, unsanitary, and severely overcrowded. Such conditions made Black neighborhoods breeding grounds of crime and disease providing segregationists with evidence to justify the continuance of restrictive covenants...

Sadly, these Black migrants, who had come to Detroit with vague but grandiose dreams about prosperity in the North, were the most disappointed during times of recession, as in 1920 and 1921, when there were not enough jobs in the city for even the natives. Working-class whites came from the South in search of the same jobs as African-Americans. After the war, immigrants also began to arrive in Detroit in large numbers again. The city's population nearly doubled between 1910 and 1920, rising from 465,766 to 993,678, with most of that increase coming after the war began.

In 1925 the city was home to three thousand major manufacturing plants, thirty-seven automobile manufacturing plants, and two hundred and fifty automobile accessory manufacturing plants. Factories employed over three hundred thousand people... African-Americans were largely confined to domestic and personal service occupations. In the interests of "efficiency," many of Detroit's largest factories hired only members of a single ethnic group, and that group was almost never Black. In fact, in 1910, only 25 out of ten thousand auto workers in Detroit were African-Americans...

African-American leaders knew that whites had a propensity to see every African-American's behavior as representative of the entire race. They feared that the influx of rural migrants would cause whites to see all Blacks as dirty, loud and disrespectful. They tried to remind white citizens that before the war the Black population of Detroit had been mainly families of a high grade, both in intelligence and well-being. Some of them held responsible places in the commercial professions and community life of the city. Despite their efforts to distinguish themselves from the migrants, however, all Black residents of Detroit soon found themselves treated by whites as a single entity.

http://bentley.umich.edu/research/publications/migration/ch1.php

[moralist]

In addition to moralist's refusal to provide evidence, which several have called him on, I see an additional problem in his theory that child molestation causes homosexuality: it flies in the face of prima facie common sense.

I'll repeat what I had said before so that you can readjust your critique to address what I had actually said instead of what you thought I had said.

Homosexuality is only a symptom, not a cause. And this is why it is impossible to deal with it directly. This inability to deal with it directly is what leads to the mistaken conclusion that it is not a choice and thus not a matter of morality. It is this very point of disconnecting homosexuality from morality which is the prime directive of militant politically correct leftist homosexual activist organizations. This explains the current legally punitive oversensitivity to language where even a perceived emotional offence can be deemed a word-crime. Ever wonder why today there are so many lingually oversensitive offended angry victims with hurt feelings suing for emotional damages? These are the same folks who have failed to resolve their emotional traumas of the past. Failing to resolve the anger from being violated in the past merely redirects that same anger onto others in the present.

Homosexuality is the consequence of the failure to resolve emotional sexual traumas of the past. It only takes the shock of a violation to displace a child's natural gender identity with the imprinting of a foreign gender identity... but it requires the violated one's own hatred to retain that unnatural identity. Without the emotional energy of hatred to keep the imprinting "alive", the identity cannot endure.

There, Reidy. I have stated my view again. Now you can critique what I actually said. And as you do, I'll be happy to use the opportunity to continue to further clarify my view.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf: "You mean with hooks and ropes?"

__________________

Suction?

--Brant

I gotta hand it to you, Wolf-man, you really come up with a lotta quick and impressive data

[Brant Gaede]

In addition to moralist's refusal to provide evidence, which several have called him on, I see an additional problem in his theory that child molestation causes homosexuality: it flies in the face of prima facie common sense.

I'll repeat what I had said before so that you can readjust your critique to address what I had actually said instead of what you thought I had said.

Homosexuality is only a symptom, not a cause. And this is why it is impossible to deal with it directly. This inability to deal with it directly is what leads to the mistaken conclusion that it is not a choice and thus not a matter of morality. It is this very point of disconnecting homosexuality from morality which is the prime directive of militant politically correct leftist homosexual activist organizations. This explains the current legally punitive oversensitivity to language where even a perceived emotional offence can be deemed a word-crime. Ever wonder why today there are so many lingually oversensitive offended angry victims with hurt feelings suing for emotional damages? These are the same folks who have failed to resolve their emotional traumas of the past. Failing to resolve the anger from being violated in the past merely redirects that same anger onto others in the present.

Homosexuality is the consequence of the failure to resolve emotional sexual traumas of the past. It only takes the shock of a violation to displace a child's natural gender identity with the imprinting of a foreign gender identity... but it requires the violated one's own hatred to retain that unnatural identity. Without the emotional energy of hatred to keep the imprinting "alive", the identity cannot endure.

There, Reidy. I have stated my view again. Now you can critique what I actually said. And as you do, I'll be happy to use the opportunity to continue to further clarify my view.

Greg

So Reidy suffered an unresolved emotional sexual trauma as a child?

--Brant

he said he didn't

[moralist]

One distinctly American value is "making money".

The value that you can actually do honest productive work to create your own wealth by bettering the lives of others

That's Dutch, Chinese, Patagonian, Polish, South African, and Swiss, too, if memory serves. Not distinctly American. Try again.

Come to think of it, you're right, Wolf. The wealth creting power of private sector Capitalism is not unique to America, it's a symptom of something else. The principle that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights granted by God and not by government is an American value.

Dennis Prager summed up American values very succinctly by noting that they are on every minted US coin.

"In God we trust." The American affirmation of a good God Who is worthy of our trust.

"E Pluribus Unum." The American value of one nationality made up of many nationalities, because it is not one of birth or blood, but of a common moral standard of behavior.

"Liberty." The American value that the right to liberty is granted to us by God not by government.

Europe's Statist antithetical counterparts to American values are:

Secularism

Multinationalism

Equality

Greg

[moralist]

In addition to moralist's refusal to provide evidence, which several have called him on, I see an additional problem in his theory that child molestation causes homosexuality: it flies in the face of prima facie common sense.

I'll repeat what I had said before so that you can readjust your critique to address what I had actually said instead of what you thought I had said.

Homosexuality is only a symptom, not a cause. And this is why it is impossible to deal with it directly. This inability to deal with it directly is what leads to the mistaken conclusion that it is not a choice and thus not a matter of morality. It is this very point of disconnecting homosexuality from morality which is the prime directive of militant politically correct leftist homosexual activist organizations. This explains the current legally punitive oversensitivity to language where even a perceived emotional offence can be deemed a word-crime. Ever wonder why today there are so many lingually oversensitive offended angry victims with hurt feelings suing for emotional damages? These are the same folks who have failed to resolve their emotional traumas of the past. Failing to resolve the anger from being violated in the past merely redirects that same anger onto others in the present.

Homosexuality is the consequence of the failure to resolve emotional sexual traumas of the past. It only takes the shock of a violation to displace a child's natural gender identity with the imprinting of a foreign gender identity... but it requires the violated one's own hatred to retain that unnatural identity. Without the emotional energy of hatred to keep the imprinting "alive", the identity cannot endure.

There, Reidy. I have stated my view again. Now you can critique what I actually said. And as you do, I'll be happy to use the opportunity to continue to further clarify my view.

Greg

So Reidy suffered an unresolved emotional sexual trauma as a child?

--Brant

he said he didn't

So what?

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights granted by God and not by government

And you know that how? -- by revelation? stone tablet? golden plates?

[Brant Gaede]

In addition to moralist's refusal to provide evidence, which several have called him on, I see an additional problem in his theory that child molestation causes homosexuality: it flies in the face of prima facie common sense.

I'll repeat what I had said before so that you can readjust your critique to address what I had actually said instead of what you thought I had said.

Homosexuality is only a symptom, not a cause. And this is why it is impossible to deal with it directly. This inability to deal with it directly is what leads to the mistaken conclusion that it is not a choice and thus not a matter of morality. It is this very point of disconnecting homosexuality from morality which is the prime directive of militant politically correct leftist homosexual activist organizations. This explains the current legally punitive oversensitivity to language where even a perceived emotional offence can be deemed a word-crime. Ever wonder why today there are so many lingually oversensitive offended angry victims with hurt feelings suing for emotional damages? These are the same folks who have failed to resolve their emotional traumas of the past. Failing to resolve the anger from being violated in the past merely redirects that same anger onto others in the present.

Homosexuality is the consequence of the failure to resolve emotional sexual traumas of the past. It only takes the shock of a violation to displace a child's natural gender identity with the imprinting of a foreign gender identity... but it requires the violated one's own hatred to retain that unnatural identity. Without the emotional energy of hatred to keep the imprinting "alive", the identity cannot endure.

There, Reidy. I have stated my view again. Now you can critique what I actually said. And as you do, I'll be happy to use the opportunity to continue to further clarify my view.

Greg

So Reidy suffered an unresolved emotional sexual trauma as a child?

--Brant

he said he didn't

So what?

Greg

So why did you say he did?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights granted by God and not by government

And you know that how? -- by revelation? stone tablet? golden plates?

Hint: when Greg says "God" substitute "reality." He's something of a pantheist, but "God" has a lot more focused punch than "reality." Gravitas.

--Brant

I've just saved you 50 posts

[Wolf DeVoon]

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights granted by God and not by government

And you know that how? -- by revelation? stone tablet? golden plates?

Hint: when Greg says "God" substitute "reality." He's something of a pantheist, but "God" has a lot more focused punch than "reality." Gravitas.

--Brant

I've just saved you 50 posts

I must be stupid. How does reality grant inalienable life and liberty? Seems to me those "rights" are violated daily, hourly, ceded and bargained away, denied entirely to the stupid and to helpless infants, wiped out by storms, earthquake, tornado, fire and flood. In the United States, arguably the freest and fairest nation, life and liberty are taxed, regulated, pursuit of happiness prohibited, unless you belong to a "protected class."

In April 2014, the number of those NOT in the U.S. labor force hit a record high of 92,018,000.

The power to coin money has become an unfunny joke.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, your human nature is reality incarnate and it has need for rights hence natural rights in thought then in law.

--Brant

but I'm not Greg, so it's his turn to answer your question

[Wolf DeVoon]

I follow. Man's rights flow from conditions necessary to his survival as a being of volitional consciousness; the freedom to think and act on the evidence of his senses, to provide for his needs -- and correspondingly to suffer if he blanks out, doesn't work (ant and grasshopper), doesn't prepare for adverse events. Where do you see any of this in effect in the current state or in American history?

The doctrine of inalienable rights was never incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, and expressly enumerated powers were thrown overboard in Washington's first term, in favor of "implied powers." In 1937 the common law right to property was shredded.

[moralist]

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights granted by God and not by government

And you know that how? -- by revelation? stone tablet? golden plates?

Excellent question.

I know it by the objective reality of the consequences which unfolded as a result of the actions taken by those men who risked their lives putting their signatures underneath those words. That's one way you can know for certain what's morally right or wrong... by observing its consequences. For they are the final verdict handed down by objective reality.

...and even today we are both still enjoying the remnants of those consequences.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

even today we are both still enjoying the remnants of those consequences.

?

The Obama administration said Friday that it was starting a program to provide lawyers for children facing deportation as it scrambles to deal with the soaring number of unaccompanied minors illegally crossing the border from Mexico. Under the plan, the federal government will issue $2 million in grants to enroll about 100 lawyers and paralegals to represent immigrant children making their way through the immigration court system. “We’re taking a historic step to strengthen our justice system and protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of society,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement. “How we treat those in need goes to the core of who we are as a nation.” [New York Times]

[moralist]

I must be stupid. How does reality grant inalienable life and liberty? Seems to me those "rights" are violated daily, hourly, ceded and bargained away, denied entirely to the stupid and to helpless infants, wiped out by storms, earthquake, tornado, fire and flood. In the United States, arguably the freest and fairest nation, life and liberty are taxed, regulated, pursuit of happiness prohibited, unless you belong to a "protected class."

You are conflating amoral natural physical events and the immoral actions of people. Since this only clouds the issue, I'll solely address your comments in regards to people's immorality. This greatly helps me to respond more clearly. If you would like to discuss natural events, I'll be happy to respond to that in a separate thread of your choosing.

First, these are the words you disagree with, and to which I agree. So that it is clear that we both are reading exactly the same words, while each of us holds a completely antithetical view of them:

"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."

There is a moral condition to enjoying those God given rights, and that condition is living a life which is deserving of those rights.

The present intrusive growth of government exactly matches peoples' failure to govern themselves. The Americans who have properly ordered their own lives already enjoy those rights simply because they have earned the privilege of enjoying those rights. And those who haven't... can't. So regardless of whether or not people govern themselves... each person's individual experience of government is exactly what they deserve. This is because the government answers to the same higher moral law to which everyone else answers.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

"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."

There is a moral condition to enjoying those God given rights, and that condition is living a life which is deserving of those rights.

The present intrusive growth of government exactly matches peoples' failure to govern themselves. The Americans who have properly ordered their own lives already enjoy those rights simply because they have earned the privilege of enjoying those rights. And those who haven't... can't. So regardless of whether or not people govern themselves... each person's individual experience of government is exactly what they deserve. This is because the government answers to the same higher moral law to which everyone else answers.

Many people confuse morality and legal rights.

The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs.

Moral choices have consequences proportional to one's capacity to exercise liberty, come hell or high water, no matter what the law happens to be. In that sense, I agree with your statement that "each person's individual experience of government is exactly what they deserve." It takes courage (or stupidity) to deliberately defy (or ignore) government. I have done both and suffered the consequences.

Broadly speaking, the free exercise of liberty is a limitless horizon, if you have the courage and capacity to take action, accept the risk and suffer accordingly. There is no such thing as a free ride. [The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch, p. 17]

Like yourself, I admire the Founding Fathers. Five of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were captured by the British during the Revolutionary War. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. 8,500 Americans died in British prisons during the Revolutionary War. It is undeniable that many believed God had ordained the right of colonists to defy the Crown and "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Thirteen years after the Declaration, a new Constitution was ratified by a slim margin among the 20 percent of colonial population who were eligible to vote for assemblies of state politicians who narrowly approved it: Pennsylvania 46-23, Virginia 89-79, New York 30-27. The U.S. Constitution did not provide any definition of justice. It was a charter of power that grew more monstrous in every aspect after its ratification in 1791.

Your "higher moral law" has nothing to do with U.S. Federal, state, or local power. It is purely a question of votes.

Today, all business owners are compelled to serve as tax collectors (income tax withholding, Social Security, and Medicare). Global income is taxed, all investment gains are taxed, and an immense code of rules govern the operation of banking. The result is a nation of political sheep, following the most conservative in our midst. It is a tragedy of unequaled horror, that the meek are led routinely by dangerous and devious charismatics.

It is in this context that Ed Hudgins proposes to kick Evangelical Christians out of the Republican Party, as if their moral objection to abortion and gay marriage was fatal to our future "safety and happiness." In reality, nothing can be done to reverse the slide to tyranny at this stage of our history. A majority of voters are deaf to reason.

[Brant Gaede]

I can never quite get my head around Greg's epistemology and politics consequent to one's own thinking, behavior and existence, but I see a lot of value in the muck, so I simply take what I can use. I am cognizant, however, that his small world can be destroyed by several different tidal waves out of nowhere existential to all prior thoughts and preparations. Its atomistic existence is somewhat delusional and ignorant. As for how to deal economically and personally with other people, he strikes considerable real excellence loud and clear--a regular Thanksgiving feast, but don't over eat and avoid some dishes completely or at least get a food taster in there first.

--Brant

bring the food, leave the rest

(I'm on my fifth food taster so far in my life--they don't last very long)

[PDS]

I can never quite get my head around Greg's epistemology and politics consequent to one's own thinking, behavior and existence, but I see a lot of value in the muck, so I simply take what I can use. I am cognizant, however, that his small world can be destroyed by several different tidal waves out of nowhere existential to all prior thoughts and preparations. Its atomistic existence is somewhat delusional and ignorant. As for how to deal economically and personally with other people, he strikes considerable real excellence loud and clear--a regular Thanksgiving feast, but don't over eat and avoid some dishes completely or at least get a food taster in there first.

--Brant

bring the food, leave the rest

(I'm on my fifth food taster so far in my life--they don't last very long)

You are a fundamentally kind man, Brant.

[Brant Gaede]

I can never quite get my head around Greg's epistemology and politics consequent to one's own thinking, behavior and existence, but I see a lot of value in the muck, so I simply take what I can use. I am cognizant, however, that his small world can be destroyed by several different tidal waves out of nowhere existential to all prior thoughts and preparations. Its atomistic existence is somewhat delusional and ignorant. As for how to deal economically and personally with other people, he strikes considerable real excellence loud and clear--a regular Thanksgiving feast, but don't over eat and avoid some dishes completely or at least get a food taster in there first.

--Brant

bring the food, leave the rest

(I'm on my fifth food taster so far in my life--they don't last very long)

You are a fundamentally kind man, Brant.

Yeah, but all the fun and juice is on my dark side--I'd call that "evilly without the evil" (self quote).

--Brant

rubbing my hands in glee, chortling, ~shivering~ in delight, a tear in my left eye

[moralist]

Many people confuse morality and legal rights.

The law was designed to serve morality which is greater than itself. And as more and more people become immoral, there needs to be more and more laws to restrict their immorality for the protection of society...

...but what happens when society itself becomes immoral?

"All bets are off."

Greg

[moralist]

I can never quite get my head around Greg's epistemology and politics consequent to one's own thinking, behavior and existence, but I see a lot of value in the muck, so I simply take what I can use. I am cognizant, however, that his small world can be destroyed by several different tidal waves out of nowhere existential to all prior thoughts and preparations. Its atomistic existence is somewhat delusional and ignorant. As for how to deal economically and personally with other people, he strikes considerable real excellence loud and clear--a regular Thanksgiving feast, but don't over eat and avoid some dishes completely or at least get a food taster in there first.

--Brant

bring the food, leave the rest

(I'm on my fifth food taster so far in my life--they don't last very long)

You are a fundamentally kind man, Brant.

Yeah, but all the fun and juice is on my dark side--I'd call that "evilly without the evil" (self quote).

--Brant

rubbing my hands in glee, chortling, ~shivering~ in delight, a tear in my left eye

I truly enjoy your dark side, Brant.

So...

Greg