Freedom, Liberty, the Principle of Non-Aggression, what they mean in the context of groups

Now both the dictionary definitions for both the words, freedom and liberty, are similar, and in common parlance, are used interchangeably.

freedom:

noun 1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.

2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.the power to determine action without restraint.
4.political or national independence.
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

liberty:

noun, plural lib·er·ties. 1.freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4.freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, especially in the navy, to go ashore.

There are two “manifestations” of freedom from my perspective.

One is described simply like the dictionary definition, and refers to a state where one is not enslaved, in which one can go about his business freely.

The other is more spiritual, more philosophical.

For the more “earthly” one, describing the external conditions under which one lives, it would be a state in which natural individual rights are respected. The best explanatory term for that I’ve seen is the “principle of non-aggression“.

The best description of that is found here. It is an ethical stance regarding a person’s dealings with other human beings:
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

That web page also provides a more extensive examination of the principle, and answers the most common objections, and some that are not so common.

So the goal is a culture, or society, that adheres to this principle. It recognizes that any rule By which we guide ourselves involves aggression. Fraud is recognized as a kind of aggression.

Having five tons of gold more than your neighbor or five square miles of real estate more than your neighbor is NOT aggression, unless you STOLE it or got it with theft by FRAUD. (sorry for caps for emphasis)

Here’s another description of the principle, including a definition of aggression to help clarify.

A group with voluntary membership and based on what both parties (or more) agree by contract, however the parties regard such an arrangement as binding, these are “groups” that are perfectly compatible with the NAP (non-aggression principle).

However, when a “group” begins to enforce actions upon one or more members that was not of mutual prior agreement, this is aggression. A code enforcement officer comes to your house and tells you there’s a new law, and your house is painted a prohibited color, so you have to paint it. (This is an actual law in my municipality). If you don’t paint your house a different color, you get a fine. If you don’t pay the fine and don’t pay the house, you eventually lose your entire house. This is a taking. This is theft. This is aggression. Non-aggression is better.

But WHO IS any such “group” anyway? It’s a “collection” of individuals who think that theft of THEIR stuff by force is NOT okay but if they get together a great big gang and call it a “government”, then it’s okay because there is more of them than you.

That’s why groupthink is dangerous. You had Jim Crow in the Old South because there was more of “us” than “them”. But even so we had to make laws to make “some of us”

BUT even in areas where there was more of “them” than “us”, it was already the “law of the land”, the dictatorship of the majority became the dictatorship of the minority, and the ones that would “do the right thing” were prohibited by law from doing it. By the force of a gun and illegal activities protected by law.

Such is the end of all groupthink collectives.

Individuals are what count. Culture has influence, but individuals have changed culture over and over again in history.

In fact, it is through individuals that God has wrought spectacular advances throughout history. Guttenberg, Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon, Michael Faraday, and so on. Nicolas Tesla was a loner.

Eguene Mallove broke free from thinking what was best for his “collective” and quit so he could blast MIT for lying about the success they had seen with the low-cost high-energy processes like the ones announced by Fleishmann and Pons. So he founded the Infinite Energy Foundation and a Magazine to promote the new technology.

Related articles

• The non-aggression principle: (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Zero Aggression Project – The Zero Aggression Principle (libertarianhippie.com)
• Practical Libertarianism: Peace Keepers vs. Police (ericpetersautos.com)
• The Non-Aggression Principle may need a broader definition of aggression. (onesquarelight.wordpress.com)

Advertisement

Why Darwinians Crash and Burn in Debates with Creation Scientists

English: Isaac Newton Dansk: Sir Isaac Newton Français : Newton (1642-1727) Bahasa Indonesia: Issac Newton saat berusia 46 tahun pada lukisan karya Godfrey Kneller tahun 1689 Lietuvių: Seras Izaokas Niutonas 1689-aisiais Македонски: Сер Исак Њутн на возраст од 46 години (1689) Nederlands: Newton geboren 4 januari 1643 Türkçe: Sir Isaac Newton. (ö. 20 Mart 1727) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Now, please show me how this works in creationism? As far as I can tell, the inadequacies of the creation hypothesis never get corrected.”

–I’ll bet for any “inadequacy” in Creation science you think you can “tell”, it’s been refuted ad infinitum.

This is one reason darwinians crash and burn in any debate with fair rules. Antony Flew‘s atheism crashed and burned, felled by the digital, symbolically coded, DNA.

Long-ages faith avoids dealing with

polystrate fossils,
the absence of any “punctuated’ in their “punctuated equilibrium”,
with Isaac Newton‘s recognition that rational rules requires a rational Creator,
the fact that ALL the major areas of scientific study were initiated by young-Earth Creationists,
the total lack of fossil evidence for darwinism,
the anthropic principle,
the Goldilocks planet,
the long history of long-age theories shattered by discoveries,
the ubiquity of irreducible complexity in biological structures,
the utter lack of even a speculative hypothesis of how life could have ever evolved from non-life,
the appearance of sex in a spontaneous world,
the correct predictions of today’s creationists like Russ Humphreys,
the censorship of creationism in Establishment publications by Defenders of the Darwinian Faith,
red-shift anomalies by the dozens, catalogued by Halton Arp
evidence of light-speed slowing down in light from the stars, quoted by Joao Magueijo in “Faster than the Speed of Light”,
debates with equal-treatment rules with Creation scientists,

and last but not least, the very idea that the Intelligent Design theories might not be young-earth creationist.
and more last but not least, panic hits them at the very thought that creationism might be the truth.

Which is why the topic was selected in the first place, no doubt, somebody may have wanted to get a ridicule fest going, to strengthen his faith in the untenable.

As to schooling, the best thing is to let parents educate their own kids, or have them educated, as they see fit. Nobody has a higher moral right in this world to force anybody to pay to have their kids told the parents are wrong.

Related articles

• Creationists respond to Lawrence Krauss: Teach evolution in religion class (rawstory.com)
• Watch evolutionists stumble over theory’s ‘proof’ (mobile.wnd.com)
• Darwin debunked at Hollywood High (mobile.wnd.com)
• Darwin debunked at Hollywood High (wnd.com)

One student prays, atheist claims “religious bullying”. Poor thing, let me count the ways…

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (Credit: Wikipedia)

KJV Bible (Credit: knowhimonline)

Here’s the link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/28/atheist-graduation-prayer-its-religious-bullying/

Poor guy, right. The anthropic principle, inverted fossil strata, polystrate fossils, the very long list of quotes from darwinian believer scientists that call evolution a “fairy tale for adults”, a “scam”, that it does not meet the traditional requirements of “the scientific method, these are all robbed from the texts, thrown out with God from inside. Students get failing grades on papers for believing the Bible on origins, for believing the Bible on homosexuality, for believing the Bible on history.

Isaac Newton is even bullied and his reasons for doing science are not allowed in a science class. What he thought about science and what it proved are not allowed. What Isaac Newton thought was his most important work is not allowed.

I’ve been subjected to more religious bullying for being a Bible-believing Christian in one day than this kid will ever get in his lifetime for being atheist, take it to the bank. One place was so bad, where they put me and three other contractors in one conference room. One New Yorker and a Russian played one-up-joke tag on me when the topic came up –mind you I never push when somebody’s not interested but I do reply even some flippant questions when asked.

I just pointed out one day how it was officially atheist regimes that had done more mass genocide in one century than all the monotheistic regimes in history combined. And pointed to Hitler‘s reference to a religion that was so dangerous that they had to kill them all. (And he did point to the religion, and he said Christianity was the “bastard stepchild” of Judaism and he would wipe it out too).

The other guy I think was Jewish and must have gotten so offended at those guys that he must have told somebody, because the development manager delivered a strong rebuke and warning. It slowed down but never stopped.

We are told we cannot set up in front of a government-funded school that teaches that our religion is wrong.

We are told that we cannot thank our God for our blessings.

We are told that a five-year old kindergarten student is expelled for SILENTLY bowing his head in prayer over every meal in one place (where they had to be forced to apologize to the parents by legal action).

We are told that the money we pay in taxes or that our employers or where we buy from have to pay in taxes to support teachings that tell our children that their religion is wrong.

We are told that when we share our faith and speak out loud we are hating others.

We are told that our Bible is racist, misogynist, genocidal, and that our fellow believers in the past were too.

We cannot escape the news feeds that tell us every stupid insult against Christians that proselytizers of militant anti-theism like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens can think of, epithets of stupidity, ignorance, and dangerous they say. Therefore, they say, it is a form of child abuse to teach our children what we believe.

We are subjected to the most ridiculous and idiotic “theories” of history than no historian believes and whose purpose it is to tell more lies about Christ and Christianity.

And we are the bullyers? Hello? What’s next? They’ll accuse us of war crimes because Christopher Hitchens said Christianity was to blame for the mass genocides of atheists like Mao Tse Tung and Josef Stalin??

Who are the insane ones here?

Jeremiah 2:27

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

 

Presenting: A debunk of the mother of all “conspiracy theories”

English: Isaac Newton Dansk: Sir Isaac Newton (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Allow me to debunk the mother of all “conspiracy theories” that says the disciples of Jesus Christ master-minded a hoax for the centuries to beat all hoaxes of all time.

One thing is that often “skeptics” make the same mistake that believing Christians often make. Many of them don’t bother with evidence, despite that fact that the very New Testament tells them to learn the evidence.

Simon Greanleaf, once known as the father of the rules of evidence, was the Dean of the Harvard Law School, one day declared he didn’t believe in the silly Resurrection story. A student challenged him to apply his own rule of checking the evidence before declaring confidence in something. He did and the result was “The Testimony of the Evangelists“, the subtitle declaring his newfound faith.

In Acts Paul shared the evidence in every testimony of his faith to rulers and kings, and eventually the Emperor. The New Testament has him debunking the accusation of fable, pointing out the fact of 500 witnesses. The gospels are a record of Thomas’ own testimony as to the evidence, and more blessed are those who must check the evidence of historical fact and logic, not just a thrust through the side.

Roman guards that fell asleep on the job or would allow the disciples to steal the body would be executed on the spot. How can the disciples steal the body right under their nose? Those Roman soldiers went to the priests instead of their commander for that very reason, and that’s why the priests took on the task of dealing with their commanders. That’s evidence that the HIGH PRIESTS KNEW he had risen from the dead too. Their cover story went into the Talmud, by the way, Jesus’ enemies confirm his miracles in the Talmud, claiming they were witchcraft of Beelzebub, like the Bible says.

The description of Jesus’ medical symptoms after the beatings, the sword thrust in the side, the blood and water, etc, confirmed by medical doctors today as accurately describing what the reaction would be to what he went through, including the death while still on the cross.a

The first witnesses to the resurrection were women, something culturally counter-intuitive at the time. Any hoax or made-up fable, even one that “evolved”, would have had men being the first ones to bear the news, not women.

THE REFERENCES TO SKEPTICS AND MOCKERS in the last days refers to those who REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE.

God says this:

“Prove me now herewith”

“Concerning the works of my hands, command thou me”.

He commands believers to “have an answer” for those who question our faith. That means we must learn the facts that validate the faith.

The faith of Hebrews 11 describes a “fact-based” faith. We have learned so much to count on God’s Word to be true, that it surpasses everything else. So much evidence piles up. A spontaneous universe with dozens of precisely calibrated universal constants, and that cultivates spontaneous bio-generation of life, with its enormously programmed digital coded language and interpretation machinery, and saying nobody designed it, now THAT is truly BLIND faith.

THE END-TIMES HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN LIKE ITS SKEPTICS SAY.

Isaac Newton said it’s not for that time. Paul wrote 2Thessalonians 2 to DEBUNK the any-minute hysteria. For THEN. He said wait, the Antichrist comes first. (Contrary to the mythical Left Behind series fiction)

For two thousand years, Bible scholars said it “the End” would not happen until israel was reestablished as a nation. That’s only one reason so many evangelicals get their theology all screwed up and think God wants them to support the political and secular nation of Israel so much. Christian Zionists are as confused as some of the Jews.

www.trutherator.wordpress.com

Related articles

• The Nexus of Tyranny: The strategy behind Tucson, Aurora and Sandy Hook (veteranstoday.com)

Reply to a Skeptic

Michael Faraday (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My answer to a libertarian who is also a skeptic of the Bible, of God….

There you go again, talking about stereotype Christians that only exist in the caricatures you’ve been taught in government indoctrination centers (aka “public schools”) and government-financed young-adult indoctrination centers (aka “universities”).  My point was not to convince you of anything except that your holier-than-thou view of Biblical Christian belief manifested in your vocabulary bounces off the intended target, because you’re talking about tings that Bible-believers do not do or believe.

A few hair-brained idiots like the one group you mentioned as if it were typical, even with the billions in warped publicity they got, is only able to get two or three dozen followers, and half of those are the guy’s own family. It shows a nonsensical view to say these are typical or even to use them as a counterpoint to belief. Your mentioning them (in context) is like me saying I’m not an atheist because I don’t believe I should massacre 20 million people. Ad hominem arguments are irrelevant. But you have brought morality into the argument of an existential question (Does God exist?), so I’ve included commentary about it.

Another stupid view of which it is true that many Christians hold, is that all the award is in the afterlife. My life has had big disappointments, as has your own, but my life is super-grand. “Delight thyself in the Lord and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart”. (If your delights are warped it’s not “in the Lord”).

Your comments about burning in hell also show a misunderstanding of the whole thing. If an oven is real, denying its existence is the psychosis. I didn’t ask you to become a believer, obviously you’re not ready and may never be. I just wanted to knock down some ridiculous stereotypes that torture the minds of some unbelievers who have been schooled in same. NOBODY except demons and devils wants you to burn in hell, for example, it was not even made for humans. See, there’s a lot you don’t know about this and it shows when you get into the caricatures.

The caricatures show a bit of doubt about one’s own views on the subject, an aversion to how thinking people like Isaac Newton or Michael Faraday or Mother Theresa or William WIlberforce or Dr. Livingston would believe in a LOVING God that wanted them to help others.

A wonderful world is indeed where people take responsibility for their actions. Thinking that the Bible says otherwise shows a polar opposite understanding of its messages. “God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man seweth, that shall he also reap”. Believers hold it true more than you, because they know they have to give account. But without that, it just bubbles over as an effect of the belief. Like Mother Theresa might say, What else was she going to do? Or Dr. Livingston, the scourge of slavers everywhere, What else?

Your last paragraph does not seem to have any logical connection to the conversation. Christ HATES predation and thievery and ROARED against the money changers in the temple TWO THOUSAND YEARS almost before you were ever born and before Ron Paul‘s presidential campaigns. He is pleading with us to stop this theft and oppression of the poor.

LASTLY, since you wanted to take the conversation in this direction, I did not, keep in mind that the absolute worst regimes for murder and plunder and atrocity in the entire history of mankind has been the officially ATHEIST regimes. They did not permit religion to have any visible influence at all.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Related articles

• Morality, virtue, and a universal definition (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Celebrity Caricatures (gemssty.com)
• jesus Christ: Enemy of Satan, and two thousand years of moral legacy, benefit to mankind (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Mother Theresa on Our Qualifications (amokarts.wordpress.com)
• You: Atheists-Christians and Communists-Oh My! (allvoices.com)
• Christmas in an Anti-Christian Age (flyoverpress.wordpress.com)
• Rick Warrren, False Prophets, Pharisees, and the Praise of Men (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Why the Bible is libertarian (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Have yourself a politically correct Christmas (abc.net.au)

Morality, virtue, and a universal definition

English: Saint Patrick stained glass window from Cathedral of Christ the Light, Oakland, CA. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Religious people” do NOT fit into any such descriptive stereotype as some put forth, not in the real world. Many have a kind of Hollywood caricature of them. Most people don’t understand Christianity. A libertarian society could only come forth from a Christian legacy, expanded on the concept of the sovereign individual. The sovereign individual was always implicit in the laws of Moses and then then the historical, poetic and prophetic books of the Old Testament (the Tanukh). God was their ruler and He was the chief law enforcer of the laws of Moses, with priests only functioning for some immediate arbitration of disputes and to serve betimes as judges in cases of criminal acts.

Those who cry foul at the limited number of “capital” crimes are the same who today scream bloody murder if anybody questions their sacred doctrines or utters some forbidden thought, like maybe homosexuality is not morally equivalent to dark skin. Like David said, “I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war”. (Psalm 120:7)

There is another lie pushed by Parrot Media and Compliant Press, relating to science. St. Patrick‘s legacy is literacy, learning, and the shaming away of slavery in Europe, Isaac Newton and his peers with science based on experimentation, observation, repeatability, Martin Luther and other such peers’ legacy is the INDIVIDUAL’s own responsibility for his own salvation and his life). Christ said he came to “set the captives free”.

The Golden Rule is universal in one form or another, to all religions and even most atheists claim a form of it when challenged for the basis of their own claim to “morality” or to “virtue”.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is pretty strong, but what can be expected of all is to at least expect reciprocity. Everyone knows, when intellectually honest, that it’s wrong to kill, because they don’t want to be killed. Everyone knows it’s wrong to steal, because they get miffed-plus if somebody robs them. And so on. And forcing a conversion is anathema to a true believer, as it is a false conversion.

The difference for truly believing Christians as opposed to the hum-drum  is that the greatest commandment (love God with heart, mind and soul) requires a recognition that they will have to answer to the Christian God for all their works and deeds.

UNFORTUNATELY in this generation the disclaimer is necessary to point out that a “Christian” by mouth and external label is no counter-example to the previous paragraph if his actions are those of one who does NOT believe he will have to answer for his deeds to a loving and merciful God.

Related articles

• Why the Bible is libertarian (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• jesus Christ: Enemy of Satan, and two thousand years of moral legacy, benefit to mankind (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• A Taste of Things to Come (possil.wordpress.com)

Why the Bible is libertarian

Memorial statue of William Wilberforce in Westminster Abbey, London (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rothbard had an opinion on “The Politics of the Apocalypse”, and quite a few had some comments to make on the subject.

http://mises.org/daily/4574/Kingdom-Come-The-Politics-of-the-Millenium

http://flyoverpress.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/rothbard-on-the-politics-of-the-apocalypse/

Wow. All this talk about Christian doctrine variants more especially in the comments from people who don’t know very much about the subject, and repeat talking points from others who don’t know very much either.

Rothbard did understand some of the nuances of the doctrines and how they would relate to libertarians, especially with respect to Gary North, but there was some lack there. And he seemed to completely leave my views out, but then my Biblical views are not too well known even among Christians. (But for those who do it’s closest to “post-Trib”.)

Stay tuned, the only set of laws God mandated for a nation on the planet, was based on no earthly political government at all, and had no enforcement arm except the people themselves (who did a poor job of it in fact). And FORBAD taking a free man slave by the way.

Almost all of us alive today were robbed of the knowledge that THE “father of modern science”, Isaac Newton, was a young-Earth creationists. Oh, and NOW we have science. (Newton didn’t I guess haha).

And robbed of history. St. Patrick‘s legacy is literacy in Ireland, the end of slaving raids between Ireland and England, the saving of Greek and Roman classics by the Irish who learned to love Christ and books from Patrick, the re-introduction of learning and culture to Europe by the Irish and British monks.

And the one man identified with the end of slavery in the British Empire, William Wilberforce, who was sent back to the mission field of the British Parliament for that purpose by the repentant former slaver John Newton (“Amazing Grace”).

Europe’s history of Roman-heritage slavery faded away with the influence of former slave St. Patrick’s legacy, led an entire island of chiefs and serfs, and demon-worshippers and human sacrifices, Druid treat or tricksters, into the people that loved Christ and loved learning and saved many of the pagan Roman and Greek classics we have today.

Libertarianism itself that owes much of its philosophy to the influence that Christ has had in culture for two millennia. The “Golden Rule” has taken a very long time to get to the place where we are now at, and has had the obstacles of many identity thieves who took the credentials of the Prince of Peace to make war on their own people and their neighbors –though never with the savagery of pagans and unbelievers gone before and after.

And this may come as a shock to some Christ-haters, and some who are not so hostile, but the only government God ever really ordained directly was NONE AT ALL, outside the sense in which God is in ultimate control of it all (except where he lets you destroy yourself). Yep there were gobs of rules, and those rebellious and murmuring persnickety Jews in the Exodus that kept whining for how good they had it back in Egypt when they were slaves, they needed them.

There were some penalties ordained that we see today as harsh but you can go read for yourself how fast they quit obeying them and did NOT apply those penalties. And when they demanded a government, God told Samuel to tell them they had rejected HIM.

That’s a real theocracy, with no human mediator except Christ.

There’s more but this is too much already. You can see more of the reasoning when my book comes available on the subject. (Which just needs editing, but that takes a budget of time or money).

As to the relationship of millennial doctrines with political application, please observe that there are LOTS more atheists who are hell-bent on implementing their varied political philosophies and imposing their ways of life on the rest of us –lying platitudes from some of them notwithstanding– than there are Christians trying to run a guerrilla operation to take over. We are still tortured around the world by Christ-haters, along with other dissidents in whatever political geography, while the very loud “fag”-haters and “dominionists” can’t get more than a few dozen followers now.

And I know many devout Christians, born-again believers, who believe the Bible cover to cover, who are some of the most reliable libertarians there are. They have both the spiritual, the Biblical, and the political truths on their side. Some of them condemn homosexuality with the most emphatic language when congregated but exhibited the love and grace of God with homosexuals in their support for Ron Paul, for example.

Jesus did say “Go and sin no more” to the adulterous woman but just before that he said “Neither do I condemn thee”.  Like the early Christians, those who understand among the people shall instruct many, and instead of killing the infidel to spread their message (like pagans, fascists, socialists, and many atheists have done) they lay down their lives like their Christ.

Related articles

• Spiritual Warfare and Libertarianism (seismicmike.wordpress.com)
• jesus Christ: Enemy of Satan, and two thousand years of moral legacy, benefit to mankind (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Tony Evans – The churches of Jesus Christ are too involved in the kingdoms of this world. (rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com)
• A Christian Nation? (myworldintheword.wordpress.com)
• A Prayer of St. Patrick (lifebrook.wordpress.com)
• Mud in the News 8th Edition (menofmud.org)
• Sir Isaac Newton’s Daniel and the Apocalypse (1733) (publicdomainreview.org)
• A Libertarian’s New Year’s Resolutions (cedarrapidsactivist.wordpress.com)
• St. Patrick’s Prayer ~ (lightlovegrace.wordpress.com)
• Rick Warrren, False Prophets, Pharisees, and the Praise of Men (trutherator.wordpress.com)

Libertarians vs. People Who Love to be Told What To Do

Michael Faraday (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now the other stuff.

>>You believe there should be no laws or regulations on drugs? legal or illegal?

Illegal: What is more dangerous? Drugs or the drug wars? Ron Paul questioned the audience at a debate once: If drugs were legalized today, would you rush to get heroin tomorrow? Why should we create an 1000% profit margin for the bad guys?

Legal: What good does it do? It creates an artificial barrier to (a) you getting the drugs you need because the supply is artificially and unfairly limited to keep up profits and help Big Pharma (Oh, you thought they were to stop big mean Pharma from poisoning you?) and (b) it makes the gullible consumers of government-approved media feel “safe” because good old Uncle Sam is “protecting” them.

>>(For instance, since Coca Cola would no longer need to accurately list their ingredients, an addition of some addicting agent, say, cocaine, would be OK with you?)

Do you have any reliable idea about what aspartame (approved by the FDA) does to you. Is that okay with you?

>>Since we are not going to be interfering with auto manufacturers, airbags would not need to be effective, or even installed.

And the Tuckermobile could have been the dominant auto today, still innovating, and who knows if we’d already have skyways instead of highways and skyports instead of carports…

>>You would rely on your church for providing your hospital care.

Like before LBJ messed it all up, and the Catholic hospital he worked at never turned away anybody for lack of money, and before billions of dollars pumped up the demand side of hospital care with free money from a bottomless payer. That payer confiscates whatever it can get and has a backup printing press when honest people run out of money.

My dad was a union welder and pastor, but the church was in one of the poorest neighborhoods in St. Louis, and

My life with a single, poor, Mom after the Dad left was not bereft of health care. Stitches in my jaw once when I fell, an infection, a family doctor that was

(1) affordable and

(2) had an office in a black area, full of sick folks, and

(3) I know he took care of a lot of people free. Free. Just like the our neighborhood lawyer, one Keifhauver or something like that, good man, he did pro bono all over the place for the poorest of us. Tried to help bad guys turn around, let them off near my Dad’s church, hoping they would wander in and change… Some do sometimes..

Everybody was a lot healthier then too. We didn’t see so many fat folks then. People ATE healthier food, didn’t get sick as much. Except for places in the world where government cronies confiscate their “fair share”.

>> Would you be in favor of dropping all highway speed limits?

Do you know how they set speed limits today? You think it’s experts judging “safe”? It’s REVENUE. Confiscation excuses. That’s why they love red light cameras. It’s revenues. And they hit the poor the worst, and we know you love that, because when health care is rationed, the rulers get the best care and poor get leftovers.

Some use a different method. They measure traffic speed on a road and set the limit at a high percentile, say 90 percentile, meaning whatever makes lawbreakers and gets revenue from 10% of the drivers.

Almost all people drive reasonably. There are private farms and roads and how often do you think people drive crazy on them?

>>State universities and colleges would be disbanded? Public education would be eliminated, and there would be no way of knowing how your hot dogs are made.

Speaking of hot dogs, that’s just a bunch of pure baloney. Best thing that could happen to education, and black folks and poor folks are demanding more charters, for a little bit more freedom.

Where would be today without the unfettered, unchained education of Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon and Michael Faraday? The Pilgrims made sure they had schools so the kids would be able to read the Bible. Literacy around 1900 was around 95% in the Protestant nations, about 80% in the Catholic countries, and 30% elsewhere.

St. Patrick led the entire island of Irish to Christ without government help and taught them to read and write without government help and they saved the Greek and Roman classics without government help and without robbing their neighbors like governments do. That’s right, Rome couldn’t help him because they were busy watching the Vandals and the Visigoths burn their books, including Augustine’s.

So when Charlemagne looked for somebody to bring learning back to his dominion, he looked north to the Irish and the British who had been infected by the Irish with education.

Christian schools produce graduates that score way better than the government schools, and home schoolers are walking home with the academic prizes and winning academic competitions and moot court debates in multiple times their numbers.

>> Unions could use secondary boycotts? Bribery of public officials would become SOP, and prostitutes can be recruited in the church Sunday Schools.

Unions are a racket the hurt the poorest of the poor, making the marginally employable into unemployable, and limiting productive activity that could raise all boats for everybody.

Bribery of public officials is done today, except it’s done in “legal” ways handled by the legislators, PLUS there’s no way or reason to bribe a government official that doesn’t exist. You have to bribe somebody in the free market instead by offering him something of real value.

Prostitutes won’t be looking in Sunday schools for their john’s, they’ll wait till the guys are away from their wives and their Moms, just like today.

On 9/26/12 1:56 PM, Bill wrote:

You overreact.

Related articles

• What are libertarians to do with babies? (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Connor Kilpatrick: It’s Hip! It’s Cool! It’s Libertarianism! (nakedcapitalism.com)
• The Libertarian Fad (dustythane.wordpress.com)
• You Might Be A Libertarian If… (tnlibertywatch.wordpress.com)
• Libertarians Do Too Have Morals: Just Different (Better) Ones From Those of Liberals and Conservatives (reason.com)

Rick Warren’s Bible Illiteracy Campaign, and KC Brownstone’s Scientific Illiteracy Campaign

 

Statue of Isaac Newton at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. Note apple. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

K..C Brownstone writes in her blog about the Christian Post report that Rick Warren says he wants to solve a Biblical illiteracy problem: http://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/rick-warrens-illiteracy-problem/

In view of Rick Warren’s flip-flop about homosexual marriage, and his approach to using government money confiscated (“stolen”) from other people to fund his projects, one must ask about his own Biblical illiteracy. His problem with Biblical literacy is most visible in the fact that he quotes liberally from 15 different translations of the Bible in some of his books and pretends they are equally valid.

Most of us would question whether a hippopotamus and an elephant and a behemoth are the same animal, and whether a hippos

That’s one issue. Then Brownstone does an association-link with another issue and says Rick Warren “has a lot to do” with a “scientific illiteracy” problem. Seeing that she brings Darwinism-deniers into the mix and mentions Ken Ham, presumably she sees rejection of Darwinism as scientific illiteracy.

Well, well. That’s news to Isaac Newton and his friends in the heavenlies right now, and it’s causing a laugh riot for a battalion of angels who are also sad to see people who believe in theories created by men who denied Creation and went trying to find a different explanation.

Scientists that believed in the Biblical history of the week of Creation, in fact, have numbered in the tens of thousands in recent centuries, including some of the most outstanding in today’s science textbooks that scrupulously avoid mentioning their declarations of Creation faith. Many are listed at the Institute for Creation Research web site: http://www.icr.org/article/185/

Blaise Pascal, Kepler, Kelvin, Michael Faraday, Pasteur, Linnaeus, the list goes on and on.

So was Isaac Newton afflicted with “scientific illiteracy” for believing in the six days Creation?

Oh wait! You say it’s because he hadn’t come across the brilliant “discovery” of natural selection by Charles Darwin?

New? Hah. Greeks in the 5th and 6th century wrote various similar theories. There have been various version of “Darwinian” theories since Darwin, too.

Maybe, just maybe, Darwin knew about them. One wrote about animals over time having descendants that were different, and all animals were related. Yes, we were not taught this in our public schools.

We were never taught about the strong faith of the founders of the main branches of science of today. “Historically ignorant” science books taught us that Columbus “proved” that the world was round, whereas in the real world every knowledgeable person around the world knew this from the times of the ancient Greeks, and it’s even in a verse in Isaiah.

Not that the tautologies used to stamp Darwinism into young minds are any good explanation.

Here you can find a list of modern scientists who believe the Bible, meaning they believe what it says, including Creation: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2761001/posts

They are many, and the list is growing leaps and bounds as young scientists with open minds discover the facts that were not taught them in college courses, or they apply the logic rules they learned to the issue.

Nobody can accuse Michael Crichton of “scientific illiteracy” but he is so accused of same in the mix because in said article anybody who doubts the unquestionable dogma of global warming is so accused.

He exposed it for what it was, and that was before Climategate exposed the fact that they have to commit fraud to make the thing stick. There is one guy who tore into the infamous Climategate study, tore the methodology to shreds, who now advertises himself as a “convert”, never mind he was recorded as saying he believed in it, just that it needed better methodology. Never mind his own study has been exposed as having its own ugly and untenable and indefensible practices.

Back to “scientific illiteracy’. NASA’s scientists with all their billions of years of wisdom, made predictions for the magnetic field strength of the planets Uranus and Neptune. What a surprise, they were orders of magnitude wrong, wrong, wrong.

Creation scientist in physics and large-scale magnetic phenomena, and inventor with dozens of patents with his name on them, Russ Humphreys, made a different prediction. He was spot on.

His predictions about the rapidity of the decline in the magnetic field of Mercury, also very very close to what it turns out to be, show there is some prediction power in believing that Genesis One is a historical narrative that tells us how God did it.

 

What makes the U.S. Constitution so good?

Ginzberg said countries should look to other constitutions rather than the US Constitution that she swore to uphold and defend. Some “defense”. Thanks a lot!

The U.S. Constitution was a unique consummation of the centuries-long tradition of increasing levels of recognition for basic human rights and freedoms that went back and forth through history, mostly in the British isles, both in written documents and in common law.

The Magna Carta is a good example of this. It was not perfect but it was better than most other arrangements in Europe, and it formalized a set of principles that expanded the idea of the governed having a say in the government that rules them. The expansion was only so far, though, as touching the fellow nobility.

The U. S. Constitution was a further expansion of those ideas, but much more. There were a lot of brilliant minds who were extremely well versed in the writings of other brilliant minds, and they could well have said better than Isaac Newton, that their work “stood on the shoulders of giants” that came before them.

In one study of 15,000 quotes of the founders (the founders quoting other sources) as found in newspapers, articles, letters, and other writings, 34% of the quotes were from the Bible, the most quoted source, and second was John Locke, then Montesquieu, Blackstone, who are known today as a political and legal philosopher.

To try to do something like that today you’d get Harvard law grads and Yalies who have no clue, who think the commerce clause means a government can rob its own citizens to give the loot to a private developer, tell its people what they have to buy and what they can make for sale, and that habeas corpus and court-issued warrants are optional

Like you have now a clueless dictator-friendly Ginzburg saying that the South Africa constitution is superior?

Just looking at the Preamble of it is scary with ‘its stated intention of establishing “a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights”‘.
Well, just like in 1789 everyone knew that the Second Amendment was an individual right and that the militia was volunteers of individuals in a “free society”, it is now 2012, and we all know that “social justice” is a catch-word euphemism for taking your property by force of law and giving it to someone else.

Don’t take my word for it, let them tell you:
http://www.southafrica.info/about/democracy/constitution.htm

In the first chapter, human rights appear in the first of the Founding Provisions of the Republic of South Africa: “Human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms.” Spelt out in detail, they occupy 35 sections of chapter 2.

Among the rights stipulated are those of equality, freedom of expression and association, political and property rights, housing, healthcare, education, access to information, and access to courts.

But “somebody” has to enforce all that and decide what is “fair”. That means government owns all your property and lets you keep whatever it decides is “fair”.

The devil is in the details, and in the end, it depends on who are the deciders in government, meaning, if the “representatives” are corrupt then it doesn’t matter what’s written.

But at least when it’s written “in black and white”, you can make mincemeat of the stupid legalese they use in decisions like Roe v Wade and Kelo v. City of New London. And NDAA. And the Patriot Act.

Karl Marx said once if you can separate a people from its history you can make them believe anything. The Internet has helped a lot of us recuperate some of that lost history, and so we’re a lot more skeptic.

Related articles

• Supreme Court justice Ginzberg: U.S. Constitution inferior (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn’t use U.S. Constitution as a model (foxnews.com)
• Is the U.S. Constitution obsolete? (geneveith.com)
• Canada: Constitutional Superpower? (blogs.wsj.com)
• Justice Ginsburg: Wouldn’t Use U.s. Constitution As a Model (mikesright.wordpress.com)
• Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg to Egypt: When Drafting a Constitution Don’t Look at Our ‘Rather Old’ One (hwnsurf.me)
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Egypt: Don’t Use Our Constitution As A Guide (outsidethebeltway.com)
• NY Times Says the Constitution is “Terse & Old”. (freedombytheway.com)