Question: What is the best thing a philosopher can do to further mankind

[kiaer.ts]

Frediano:

Your fatal mistake Frediano is in not understanding that Shayne is in possession of completely superior argumentation than anyone else here at OL except George, who he grudgingly admits is better read than anyone [certainly true as far as I can determine].

Moreover, you also seem to be incapable of understanding how intuitive Shayne is at being able to accomplish a pseudo-Vulcan mind meld which allows him to read meaning into other posters words.

You, as I have realized, just must accept his clear superiority in all matters great and small.

Adam

My estimate of you just dropped from "neutral" into the sewer Selene.

Shayne

Join the club, Adam.

For those of you still confused by Shayne's whipped dog hostility, hear is the thread on Borderline Personalities where all is explained.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Selene]

Shayne:

I will take that as a no.

Thanks.

Now I am comfortable with my judgment.

Adam

Edited September 25, 2010 by Selene

[sjw]

Frediano:

Your fatal mistake Frediano is in not understanding that Shayne is in possession of completely superior argumentation than anyone else here at OL except George, who he grudgingly admits is better read than anyone [certainly true as far as I can determine].

Moreover, you also seem to be incapable of understanding how intuitive Shayne is at being able to accomplish a pseudo-Vulcan mind meld which allows him to read meaning into other posters words.

You, as I have realized, just must accept his clear superiority in all matters great and small.

Adam

My estimate of you just dropped from "neutral" into the sewer Selene.

Shayne

Join the club, Adam.

For those of you still confused by Shayne's whipped dog hostility, hear is the thread on Borderline Personalities where all is explained.

Where's the thread that defines "Stalker Personality", there is this worm following me around in every thread on OL attacking me wherever he finds that I am crossing swords with someone.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You put yourself on the side of the nutcase who can't read, it's a question of judgement who escalated to what level first, and your judgement hardly has much weight with me after what you did.

Shayne,

You misunderstood.

I don't recall taking any side.

I simply made a suggestion: knock it off.

All this name-calling is going nowhere and it is boring for readers to read.

Don't make me make that more than a suggestion.

This is a discussion forum. Let's keep it that way.

Michael

[sjw]

You put yourself on the side of the nutcase who can't read, it's a question of judgement who escalated to what level first, and your judgement hardly has much weight with me after what you did.

Shayne,

You misunderstood.

I don't recall taking any side.

I simply made a suggestion: knock it off.

All this name-calling is going nowhere and it is boring for readers to read.

Don't make me make that more than a suggestion.

This is a discussion forum. Let's keep it that way.

Michael

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Selene.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Sorry. I goofed. I saw my name with the same formatting and didn't even read the quoted post.

Anyway, what do you think about the suggestion?

How about calling an idea a "wacko idea" if you think it is instead of calling the person a "wacko"?

Of course, this suggestion applies to everyone.

Michael

[anthony]

"What in hell do you call the bad guys? There's no where to go." (MSJ)

Fair comment. In 18 months of O'ist scrapping that I've seen, I've still to accept it. Don't know about anyone else, but I am more in accord with the ideas put out here then, at many times, with the ideas of personal friends.

Considering we are 90+% in agreement across the board, it is utterly, stupendously, downright amazing what can be screwed up with the remaining >10%.

(N. Branden said something about "most of the problems of the world could be taken care of with good manners"...I must try to find that quote.)

[sjw]

Shayne,

Sorry. I goofed. I saw my name with the same formatting and didn't even read the quoted post.

Anyway, what do you think about the suggestion?

How about calling an idea a "wacko idea" if you think it is instead of calling the person a "wacko"?

Of course, this suggestion applies to everyone.

Michael

It's not fair to drag you through all the context of all the threads on OL to justify why somebody said this or that. I'm sorry you have to deal with this. At root I think it's a technological problem, this forum technology doesn't really work that well, it puts the owner/moderator between a rock and a hard place.

There are some really good people on OL but there are some real creeps too and I'm getting tired of the creeps. E.g., Ted is now stalking me in every thread and tossing in ad hominems claiming I have "borderline personality" disorder, listing my full name even though he knows I don't want it in every thread, etc.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shyane,

My suggestion extends to Ted.

I have clashed with him, too, when he gets bossy, but he has a good mind. I value the mind more than the behavior (within limits).

Just ignore people you don't like. I assure you that nobody takes anybody's opinion of other posters as gospel.

If you click on your name on the upper right of the screen, a drop down window opens. You can select "Manage Ignored Users" and include the name of any person you don't want to bother with. That person's posts will simply not show up on your screen if you do that.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Michael

[Frediano]

So suppose also that this group of geniuses believe that it is in their own interest to advance mankind in the best way they can devise.

For all I knew, Shayne was ridiculing the same 'this group of geniuses' as I was. I have characterized such as 'paternalistic megalomania', and I have linked 'paternalism' to 'the Fatherland' and the kind of paternalistic megalomania which characterized 20s Gernamny and the Great Volksgemeinschaft.

If I am one of the boys mentioned above who has called anybody anything, can you refer me to the post where I directed any such insult at Shayne the person? If so, I will immediately off to remove it and replace it with an apology to Shayne the person.

regards,

Fred

You are 100% pure whacko. The only point in my phrasing it the way I did was to say "what is the best possible approach that the most intelligent sensible people might come up with for freeing us from this tyranny that runs across the globe."

George Smith, reasonable person that he is, interpreted my question in a sane manner and in the intended manner. Could I have asked a better-phrased question? Sure. But that doesn't give you license to read like a deranged lunatic.

Shayne

You phrased the question perfectly, and exactly identified the freedom-eating urge that runs through 'mankind.' It is precisely the overwhelming urge one feels at 3am in the dorm, when one is overwhelmed with the latest incarnation of The True Religion Truth, sufficient to cause one to launch the latest crusade to Save Mankind -- by ruling it -- that is the freedom eating disease. It is precisely characterized by the phrase 'Paternalistic Megalomania.' It is sophistry to characterize the ideas of freedom promulgated by this nation's founders without fully acknowledging what those ideas mean, in their full context. They were not advocating endless campaigns by self-proclaimed elites to 'save mankind' by ruling it.

They were brilliant in creating the 1st Amendment, and referring to 'religion' and not 'Christianity' or any big 'R' 'R'eligion, and making that the first amendment in a bill of individual rights, not a bill of collective rights.

There are many instances of big 'R' religions, but that isn't the Congressional prohibition in the 1stA: the prohibition is regarding the meta-concept 'religion.' Resulting in a kind of conundrum reflected by no such definition in the US Code, from even defining 'religion.' Not even with a ten foot pole will one find "The term 'religion' shall mean..." anywhere in the US Code. But this is not a practical problem because of the 1stA in total. Congress has no need to define 'religion' for any purpose--including, the curious act of prohibiting it's free exercise anywhere in America. Which begs the question, when anyone petitions government to remove 'religion' from the public commons, on what basis does government rule that the activity either is or isn't 'religion?' Does our government maintain a list of some kind? Approved religions? Not even in the IRS code. Not even with a ten foot pole. Must the petitioners themselves actually believe that the religion in question is 'real?' (Athiests..no.) Is there a God-O-Meter of some kind involved, that tests the 'validity' of supernaturtal beings, such that Congress 'knows' that the Christian God is a 'real' supernatural God, but the Gods of Theatre or Football or Durkheim's foaming at the mouth "S"ociety are 'unreal' supernatural Gods? But that statutory conundrum is just interesting, not nearly the point of religious freedom.

The prohibition is very broad -- against the meta-concept 'religion,' not a particular 'R'eligion, an instance of freely definable 'religion.' So, what is the meta-concept 'religion?'

It is not nearly as simple as 'belief in a supernatural being or God' or else Taoism is not religion. It clearly overlaps philosophy as a meta-concept, and literally does so in many universities.

The fact is, in our political context, I don't get to define 'religion' for you. And, vice versa. Lather, rinse, repeat. Feel free in any instance of religion to worship Tuna fish. Or "S"ociety, for that matter. Knock yourself out. But in our political context, with its individual BoR, I and a sufficiently motivated gang of my fraternity brothers don't get to define it for you, even as you are free to freely associate with as many like minded Tuna/"S"ociety worshippers as you see fit. At least until this becomes the Tuna Theocracy. We would not be fooled if a bunch of Tuna worshipping long liner fishermen suddenly showed up with "Tuna Scientology" and foisted that as "science/not a religion" to become the basis of a national Tuna Theocracy. On the other hand, if a bunch of "S"ociety worshipping Social Scientologists pulled the same stunt, we might actually fall for it, and did, over a hundred years ago.

For me only, I define the meta-concept 'religion' as a philosophical peer concept: Any conscious pondering of the questions, "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" Individually, we all answer those questions by living our lives--even when we don't consciously ask the questions, we answer them. Our lives, in the end, are the answer to those questions. (Which is the genius of making that prohibition the 1stA in an Individual BoR, in the constitition of Liberty.)

But when we consciously ponder those questions and apply the answers to our lives, we are engaged in the meta-concept 'religion.'

I chose the form of those questions carefully. Notice that I do not bias 'religion' by posing those questions in the following aggressive form: "Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" That form of those questions presupposes that there is a singular answer, for 'all of mankind', to those questions. That is a particular instance of a religious belief-- a particularly virulent, freedom eating, infectious instance. The unsubstantiated belief that there exists a single answer for all of mankind to those fundamental questions of 'religion' is a naked assertion by some of those who set out to answer those questions for all of mankind. In order to rule it, even if it is deeply religiously believed, 'for its own good.' That is the freedom eating paternalistic megalomania of elites, smitten with The True Religion.

Under our political context and definition of individual freedom, free association is possible, and folks who freely share answers to those questions are freely able to associate, and more power to them. But, it is a naked act of political aggression for any such religion to claim universality to those answers, sufficient to advocate the implementation of forced association in order to impress those religious beliefs on others. The fundamental individual answering of those questions are the very foundation of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' and the naked assertion that there are universal answers impressible upon all of mankind is exactly the freedom eating disease that freedom must be defended from.

All of which is easily wrapped up in 4 words: "one skin, one driver."

Which condones neither 'my skin uber alles' nor 'most skins uber alles.' Which embraces free association, and condemns forced association.

And, phrasing that as 'one skin, one driver' readily illuminates the alternatives for what they are, which are, naked acts of agression by others against individuals.

regards,

Fred

[Frediano]

DP

Edited September 26, 2010 by Frediano

[sjw]

I hope you like your new bud Selene. Now he seems to have gone so far as to say, or to almost say, that claiming universality to political answers is "naked aggression." *Claiming* mind you. Now under the usual theories, one who aggresses is put down by force. The implication for freedom of speech is clear. Frediano has revealed himself for what he is: a Nazi-like thug.

Shayne

[Frediano]

I hope you like your new bud Selene. Now he seems to have gone so far as to say, or to almost say, that claiming universality to political answers is "naked aggression." *Claiming* mind you. Now under the usual theories, one who aggresses is put down by force. The implication for freedom of speech is clear. Frediano has revealed himself for what he is: a Nazi-like thug.

Shayne

This is just basic logic:

The subset of answers to:

1] "Why am I here? What am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

includes the possibility of the subset of answers to

2] "Why are we here? What are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

that imply only universal answers to those questions. "Universal, OneSizeFitsAll answers only" 2] is clearly the more restrictive, freedom eating alternative. (It in fact defines Totalitarianism.)

As long as the answers to 1] are modulated by the morality of 'one skin, one drive', I can sleep like a baby advocating it.

Freedom ultimately means, freedom from each other, except via free association. So feel free.

That you can find 'Nazi thug' in any of that is perplexing. The only conclusion I can reach is, I squarely hit a nerve. You've taken personal offense to some idea I've expressed. I get it, we disagree. I can live with that. Well.

regards,

Fred

[sjw]

"Universal, OneSizeFitsAll answers only" 2] is clearly the more restrictive, freedom eating alternative. (It in fact defines Totalitarianism.)

Your universal answer is to avoid universal answers. I get it. You're a walking contradiction and a hypocrite. And it is contradictions in basic ideas and with reality that leads to totalitarianism, not questions about how we might voluntarily work toward liberty (as many have in the past).

You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. You just have a hot-button item on "universality" and "one-size-fits-all" and this nonsense has worked its way to the core of your psycho-epistemology, such that you can't even have rational conversations anymore, you can't read without what you see being distorted through this pure nonsense.

Shayne

[Frediano]

I hope you like your new bud Selene. Now he seems to have gone so far as to say, or to almost say, that claiming universality to political answers is "naked aggression." *Claiming* mind you. Now under the usual theories, one who aggresses is put down by force. The implication for freedom of speech is clear. Frediano has revealed himself for what he is: a Nazi-like thug.

Shayne

in response to what I said, in total:

But, it is a naked act of political aggression for any such religion to claim universality to those answers, sufficient to advocate the implementation of forced association in order to impress those religious beliefs on others.

Freely claim universality all you want. In church. On the commons. At my front door, when I freely answer the door and engage with you, as here. Just, in the full context of what I actually wrote, stop short of advocating the implementation of forced association to impress those religious beliefs on others. As in, stay away from the guns of state with any such religious based beliefs in universality, beyond the basic tenets of freedom. An expensively maintained free political context does not and should not freely embrace ideas and concepts that are tantamout to the destruction of a free political context. That is not a paradox, that is not a conundrum, that is common sense.

I did not say YOU the person did that, or even, advocate the forced association of your claims of universality on others. I have no idea if you the person do or do not, my bias would be, since you are posting here at this instance of free association that you do not.

regards,

Fred

[George H. Smith]

This is just basic logic:

The subset of answers to:

1] "Why am I here? What am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

includes the possibility of the subset of answers to

2] "Why are we here? What are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

that imply only universal answers to those questions. "Universal, OneSizeFitsAll answers only" 2] is clearly the more restrictive, freedom eating alternative. (It in fact defines Totalitarianism.)

As long as the answers to 1] are modulated by the morality of 'one skin, one drive', I can sleep like a baby advocating it.

Freedom ultimately means, freedom from each other, except via free association. So feel free.

You appear to believe that freedom is good for everyone. If so, isn't this the kind of universal, one-size-fits-all, freedom-eating statement that "defines Totalitarianism," according to your statements above?

Why don't you merely declare that freedom is good for you and refrain from universalizing? We wouldn't want you to lapse into totalitarianism, after all.

Ghs

[Frediano]

"Universal, OneSizeFitsAll answers only" 2] is clearly the more restrictive, freedom eating alternative. (It in fact defines Totalitarianism.)

Your universal answer is to avoid universal answers. I get it. You're a walking contradiction and a hypocrite. And it is contradictions in basic ideas and with reality that leads to totalitarianism, not questions about how we might voluntarily work toward liberty (as many have in the past).

You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. You just have a hot-button item on "universality" and "one-size-fits-all" and this nonsense has worked its way to the core of your psycho-epistemology, such that you can't even have rational conversations anymore, you can't read without what you see being distorted through this pure nonsense.

Shayne

My universal answer is to qualify universal answers. If they are consistent with 'one skin, one driver', if they are consistent with free association and do not involve forced association, then you got my vote.

regards,

Fred

[Frediano]

This is just basic logic:

The subset of answers to:

1] "Why am I here? What am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

includes the possibility of the subset of answers to

2] "Why are we here? What are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

that imply only universal answers to those questions. "Universal, OneSizeFitsAll answers only" 2] is clearly the more restrictive, freedom eating alternative. (It in fact defines Totalitarianism.)

As long as the answers to 1] are modulated by the morality of 'one skin, one drive', I can sleep like a baby advocating it.

Freedom ultimately means, freedom from each other, except via free association. So feel free.

You appear to believe that freedom is good for everyone. If so, isn't this the kind of universal, one-size-fits-all, freedom-eating statement that "defines Totalitarianism," according to your statements above?

Why don't you merely declare that freedom is good for you and refrain from universalizing? We wouldn't want you to lapse into totalitarianism, after all.

Ghs

Good grief no. There is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people from forming a communist commune in Vermont, and freely giving it the old college try. Again.

In fact, there is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people in Alabama from forming a plantation with slave labor-- as long as the slaves freely associated with that universal idea. (If they were in fact involuntary slaves, then in our political context, I'd support showing up and freeing such unwilling partners in slavery.)

Plantations. Board rooms. The concept is the same.

regards,

Fred

??? Now I get it. You thought my view of 'freedom' was like a vanilla alternative to the chocolate of totalitarianism. No, I think I've been clear on my axiom. "One skin, one driver." Not "my skin uber alles." Not "most skins uber alles." I'll leave the alternatives for others to justify, when they come knocking on my skin to justify their naked agression. I'm not telling anyone not to go form the next failed Marxist pisshole on earth.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Frediano

[sjw]

My universal answer is to qualify universal answers. If they are consistent with 'one skin, one driver', if they are consistent with free association and do not involve forced association, then you got my vote.

regards,

Fred

So, universal answers are bad, unless they're not, then they're fine, because they are "qualified", which makes everything all universally good. You're batty.

Shayne

[sjw]

Good grief no. There is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people from forming a communist commune in Vermont, and freely giving it the old college try. Again.

Wow, something we actually agree on.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

This is just basic logic:

The subset of answers to:

1] "Why am I here? What am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

includes the possibility of the subset of answers to

2] "Why are we here? What are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

that imply only universal answers to those questions. "Universal, OneSizeFitsAll answers only" 2] is clearly the more restrictive, freedom eating alternative. (It in fact defines Totalitarianism.)

As long as the answers to 1] are modulated by the morality of 'one skin, one drive', I can sleep like a baby advocating it.

Freedom ultimately means, freedom from each other, except via free association. So feel free.

You appear to believe that freedom is good for everyone. If so, isn't this the kind of universal, one-size-fits-all, freedom-eating statement that "defines Totalitarianism," according to your statements above?

Why don't you merely declare that freedom is good for you and refrain from universalizing? We wouldn't want you to lapse into totalitarianism, after all.

Ghs

Good grief no. There is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people from forming a communist commune in Vermont, and freely giving it the old college try. Again.

In fact, there is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people in Alabama from forming a plantation with slave labor-- as long as the slaves freely associated with that universal idea. (If they were in fact involuntary slaves, then in our political context, I'd support showing up and freeing such unwilling partners in slavery.)

Plantations. Board rooms. The concept is the same.

regards,

Fred

Your reply merely reaffirms the universal value of freedom. You claim that all human associations should be freely entered into, including voluntary communism and voluntary slavery. (The latter is a contradiction in terms, btw.)

My point, therefore, remains the same as it was before, namely: You have no hesitation to assert what is good for every person, and not merely for yourself, when it suits your purpose. Yet this is the kind of universal, one-size-fits-all statement that you condemned as totalitarian.

Ghs

[Frediano]

Good grief no. There is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people from forming a communist commune in Vermont, and freely giving it the old college try. Again.

Wow, something we actually agree on.

Shayne

The Amish are relieved that you agree to their voluntary form of association. That is, they would be, if they knew you agreed.

Funny thing about the Amish. I live within minutes of some of them, and not once have they insisted I live according to their vision, or accessed the guns of government to impress their True Believer Religious Views on Mankind. They are very respectful of 'one skin, one driver.' As I imagine that theoretical communist commune in Vermont would be.

regards,

Fred

[Frediano]

This is just basic logic:

The subset of answers to:

1] "Why am I here? What am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

includes the possibility of the subset of answers to

2] "Why are we here? What are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

that imply only universal answers to those questions. "Universal, OneSizeFitsAll answers only" 2] is clearly the more restrictive, freedom eating alternative. (It in fact defines Totalitarianism.)

As long as the answers to 1] are modulated by the morality of 'one skin, one drive', I can sleep like a baby advocating it.

Freedom ultimately means, freedom from each other, except via free association. So feel free.

You appear to believe that freedom is good for everyone. If so, isn't this the kind of universal, one-size-fits-all, freedom-eating statement that "defines Totalitarianism," according to your statements above?

Why don't you merely declare that freedom is good for you and refrain from universalizing? We wouldn't want you to lapse into totalitarianism, after all.

Ghs

Good grief no. There is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people from forming a communist commune in Vermont, and freely giving it the old college try. Again.

In fact, there is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people in Alabama from forming a plantation with slave labor-- as long as the slaves freely associated with that universal idea. (If they were in fact involuntary slaves, then in our political context, I'd support showing up and freeing such unwilling partners in slavery.)

Plantations. Board rooms. The concept is the same.

regards,

Fred

Your reply merely reaffirms the universal value of freedom. You claim that all human associations should be freely entered into, including voluntary communism and voluntary slavery. (The latter is a contradiction in terms, btw.)

My point, therefore, remains the same as it was before, namely: You have no hesitation to assert what is good for every person, and not merely for yourself, when it suits your purpose. Yet this is the kind of universal, one-size-fits-all statement that you condemned as totalitarian.

Ghs

I claim that all human associations should be freely entered into, and sleep like a baby advocating that. Exactly. And I support the use of state force in response to violations of that principle, and that principle only. If others want to justify the alternatives to that -- slavery, forced association, coercion, etc., then let them justify that, and let them wear it, too. Proudly, as I do my advocacy of freedom. Without a moment's doubt.

There is a clear moral axiom -- violation of 'one skin, one driver' -- that I can personally apply to justify the use of state force. (State force ultimately does not require sanction, it just is. I am referring only to my personal sanction of its use, as in, a political/philosophical argument in support of.) It is easy to apply, in the cases of slavery, coercion, murder, rape, stealing, fraud -- the foisting of crap as value, etc.

And it is equally easily applied when someone shows up with specious arguments based on the 'quintile/decimile/percentile' distribution of income in America to apply the use of guns to forcefully redistribute 'quintile' statistics, or some similar Marxist gibberish.

I'm still waiting...after 20 years of asking the same question -- for one of the quintile social justice warriors to illustrate a single example of either of the following:

1] An example of an economic entity acting primarily as a 'quintile.'

2] An example of any individual acting primarily as a member of a 'quintile.'

And yet, I'm assured that 'quintiles' are real. They exist, after all, in the Excel spreadsheets at Census. Well, then it shouldn't be difficult to dream up just one example of what I am asking for. In exasperation, I don't even limit the request to 'real' examples. Any lost episode of 'Star Trek' would do. How do 'quintiles' acts as economic actors? Alas, it is easier to find pictures of UFOs and BigFoot on the in-ter-net than it is for the social justice warriors to come up with an example of 'quintiles' acting as economic actors.

And since that is the basis for all the 'redistributive science', that science clearly has no basis, and so, is not justification for the use of real state guns aimed at real individuals to adjust the 'quintile' distribution of anything.

I think the advocates of redistribution should feel free to make all the arguments and advocacy for that they want. Including "we are our brother's keepers." Including "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." In church. On the commons. At my front door, when I freely answer the door and freely engage with them, as here. And, if their arguments are intellectually sound, if they are poltitically convincing, then I will freely associate and contribute to their cause.

And when they fail in that polite debate, and reach instead for the guns of state, I will do what I've done for the past 25 years, and simply dodge the fork to the best of my abilities, and sleep like a baby.

regards,

Fred

Edited September 26, 2010 by Frediano

[sjw]

The Amish are relieved that you agree to their voluntary form of association. That is, they would be, if they knew you agreed.

They could easily know. It's ironic that you attacked me here, I explicitly support such views in my book, in fact I am critical of Rand for too narrowly focusing on capitalism when she should have been focussed on all individual rights, including the right to starve in Vermont (assuming one does not foist ones view on ones fellow human beings, like the Soviets do).

Funny thing about the Amish. I live within minutes of some of them, and not once have they insisted I live according to their vision, or accessed the guns of government to impress their True Believer Religious Views on Mankind. They are very respectful of 'one skin, one driver.' As I imagine that theoretical communist commune in Vermont would be.

The "funniest" thing about the Amish is that they are only permitted to exist for historical reasons. Anyone else trying to set up a new kind of community will get shot.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I claim that all human associations should be freely entered into, and sleep like a baby advocating that. Exactly.

Fine. Then you don't really believe that universal, one-size-fits-all value judgments are somehow totalitarian. This leaves me wondering what the point was to all your blustering about Shayne's original question. If ever a mountain was made out of a molehill, this was it.

There is a clear moral axiom -- violation of 'one skin, one driver' -- that I can personally apply to justify the use of state force.

How on earth did you come up the godawful metaphor of "one skin, one driver"? I googled the expression, thinking it might be from an obscure movie or book, but all I found were more repetitions of it by you. I would say that the metaphor is too clever by half, but that would be an unwarranted compliment.

Ghs