http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act I don't think it specifically requires sub-prime and interest only, but they fit the bill.
If only teaching people to build their own houses was seen as a better solution to house ownership than extending large amounts of credit to people who couldn't afford it.
Why insist on making people more dependent when you could solve a problem better by making them more independent?
This cuts both ways, you see. If we accept that $purpose must be served, then you must interpret the 2nd ammendment as providing no right to bear arms except in support of a well regulated militia. In exchange for that, you get to eliminate copyrights and patents that can't be proven to have incentivized the creator.
There is significantly different wording and purpose of the clauses themselves.
(1) The copyright clause is granting a right to congress. "The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
That is the congress is given one valid reason for copyright and no other authorization for copyright exists, indeed enacting copyright laws for other purposes is a 10th amendment violation. Congress has power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by copyright, nothing else.
(2) The 2nd Amendment is limiting the power of congress. There is still no authorisation for congress to restrict the rights to firearms not useful to the militia, although such weapons would not fall under constitutional protection and could be regulated by the states.
Both legislatures and courts seem to disagree with me. IANASCJ.
The Second Amendment has a similar preface; does that mean restricting gun ownership is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with a well-regulated militia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Attorneys for the United States argued "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."
That made the "assault weapons" ban unconstitutional by the way.
Also, in the decision: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
It is difficult to see how bans on.50 BMG or automatic weapons can be reconciled to this decision.
If Obama's followers do this while he's a candidate and he can't stop them, we could expect the same thing if he is president. A religious state is against the constitution, going by what you say, perhaps this should be interpreted to include an Obama adminsistration.
Either that, or comparing Obama to Jesus means you're a nut.
Some interesting notes.. particularly the USA's Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate or teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same.
I'm not a lawyer.. but doesn't the preamble of our own declaration of independence state "it is [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw off... Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
And yet there are plenty of people who advocate or teach the desirability of the citizens being capable of overthrowing the US government. If you start to actually take steps towards armed revolution though, why would you not expect to be met with government force? If you are not already in jeopardy of your life from the government and you take up arms, you deserve to be shot. If you are already being hunted by the government, sedition charges hardly change your situation.
As a result, the only thing that Act accomplishes then, is to enable the government to act against people that are irrationally taking up arms against the government. That's a good thing.
Just to clarify my position: I fully support the RKBA, unlicensed and unregistered, in particular military small arms including.50 cal BMG and whatever else it takes to have a well armed militia. However I do not support the idea of government overthrow in any country that has viable elections. Sure there seems to be some tampering of elections, but not so much to do anything but tip the balance of a fairly close election as far as I can tell. If you have enough popular support to succeed in overthrowing the government, you have enough to win an election.
If you are advocating the armed overthrow of your government, you have already decided to abandon appeals to legality, your only recourse is your ability to win that fight. If your position is such that a sedition charge is meaningful to you, you won't.
See anything there that a really little kid can help with?
A 5 year old, yes. Our 5 year old can do his own laundry (requires front loader) washing and hanging out, get cereal, sandwiches and drink for himself and younger siblings. He also unpacks the dishwasher, but I wouldn't like to have him washing dishes in a sink unattended just yet. We decided to put up with some mess (of little kids doing things) for the purpose of getting them more independent earlier. Get them onto those chores with you if they can't do it themselves, there is no rule that your time with them has to be all play, you can work together. Not so much on the phone calls of course.
I would suggest that your time doing chores together may even be more valuable to you as a family and them as developing humans than your time playing.
I'm not in any political party, I vote as libertarian as is available to me, I regularly introduce people to libertarian philosophy and ideals.
What role do you see an Australian Libertarian government have nationally and internationally?
I'm not sure whether you mean US style libertarianism in Aussie gov't, or Aussie libertarianism as you've described it so I'll try to answer both.
(1) US style: couldn't be currently implemented here except in opposition to the will of the people, defeating the whole purpose. What I would see as real libertarianism would probably take a couple of generations to implement as people have been conditioned to dependence on the government and aren't ready for the responsibilities of liberty and probably wouldn't cope. The philosophy of liberty needs to become mainstream first. I don't think it couldn't work here as you seem to, just that it would take time.
(2) What role nationally and internationally?
Nationally: It's still difficult. There has been a long term campaign to reduce the mentality of our citizens and reduce them to consumers and voters. It has been spectacularly successful. Libertarians really need to focus on changing the mentality of people to be more independent and resourceful. As this is our cultural heritage it isn't a hard sell, although it can be a hard process.
One of the top desires of Aussies is to be in business for themselves rather than be in a job. Making this more accessible will be enough to make significant changes in the political landscape here as people tend to take on a different mentality when they become self-employed. Two main obstacles to success in business are compliance with government paperwork and taxes. We should immediately eliminate income tax and GST for non-incorporated sole traders (perhaps partnerships and other categories as well) and have no requirement for business registration or other reporting to the government. You buy/produce a product/service and sell it, that's it. Honest business practices being the only legal requirement, certification available for relevant trades and professions. This will make self-employment more attractive compared to employment, and running a part time business much more viable for the employed. Whatever government programs need to be cut as a result, cut them, no additional fund-raising. Start with foreign aid, potentially leaving the aid infrastructure in place and making a voluntary donation system available.
Stop requiring registration of firearms. Licensing I can see the argument for even though I disagree, but registration of firearms only has the purpose of enabling the government to locate and confiscate firearms. There should be no government record of what guns are owned. Responsibility to obey the licensing law should be on the individual, enforcement on the state, dealers should not be required to be an enforcement agency for the government. Self-defence should be re-established as a valid reason to own a firearm.
The concept of jury nullification should be widely taught. For as long as there is compulsory education it should be mandatory to display an understanding of it to get your school certificate. Every person called for jury duty should have it adequately explained, including its historical significance to our nation, perhaps specifically mentioning its use in opposing the government at the Eureka Stockade trials. Every judge should make sure the jury is informed of jury nullification during his instructions to the jury.
If we must have government schools, make schooling voluntary and the curriculum at private schools at least determined by the school, not the government.
Outlaw the creation of money supply through fractional reserve lending, and refuse to enforce payment of variable rate interest. A contract obligating you to "a sum of money we won't tell you until later" should not be legally bindin
I appreciate any well-thought-out arguments against my highly controversial signature. This category certainly includes yours.
Thank-you.
Unfortunately in America if not in other places, someone writing fantasies about children, drawing and/or selling cartoons or CAD-created CP scenes, or, being a minor, taking pictures of oneself nude, is illegal. It is mostly against these laws that I rail.
I see your point, but your sig does not make that distinction. Perhaps you would consider addressing that. To take what I see as the most clear cut example, I agree a teen taking pics of themselves certainly ought not to be illegal and it is a great injustice to label someone as a sex offender for that.
Furthermore, and this does nothing to diminish your point, I believe that possession of stolen goods should not be illegal. I think only payment for stolen good should be illegal.
Personally I think knowledge rather than payment should be the determining factor. If you get a stolen dvd player given to you by a friend and you know it is stolen I don't see how that isn't being part of the crime. On the other hand, if you pay for a dvd player from a retailer and later it turns out that he stole a truck load of them, I don't see how you are a party to it, even though you paid.
Someone receiving CP though automatically knows the illegal nature of it and are therefore a party to the crime by receiving benefit from it, whether they paid for that benefit or not. I can see a benefit to having sufficient penalty attached to it that it would convince people to betray their source for a suspended sentence or a plea bargain. I believe the saying goes "A house divided against itself cannot stand". I'm not in favor of giving up our civil rights to achieve that, but I don't see viewing porn as a civil right.
The teacher learns, the midwife teaches, and the business woman is useless for everything but being a grandparent.
Useless? A few years after the midwife finishes with you, you go to the teacher. When the teachers done with you, unless you plan on playing paino, golf and going sailing for the rest of your life, that "useless" business woman is going to be contributing some serious value.
And by the way, most of us value our grandparents.
No, thinking about child porn would be thought crime.
Viewing it is an action and also requires you to obtain it, either by producing it or through distribution from someone who produced it. Penalising possession of child porn because of the criminal nature of its production is quite consistent with our laws, such as the law against receiving stolen goods.
You can't borrow a car and sell it, why should you be able to sell borrowed stocks? I've never looked into how short selling works, but from what I have read it's always sounded like another legalized scam to me.
I doubt if any form of libertarian government would confiscate personal property to pay for another's upkeep. That smacks of communism.
We have that in Australia right now. Money is property. Income tax pays for the dole.
A society should look after their aged, poor etc. It's a matter of ethics and morals. You believe in that or you don't.
I do, but morals and ethics are matters of choice, ie: if the government takes my money and gives it to the poor I have done nothing moral at all. Charity ought rightly involve both generosity and gratitude. It's part of what builds the community, yet with government compulsion, both giver and recipient tend towards resentment, or even worse, for the recipients to develop a sense of entitlement. This is the norm in Australia today because people see the money as coming from "the government" and not "my working friends and neighbours". I'm not saying that there is no place at all for government to be involved in charitable works, but the system as it stands has actively destroyed morals, ethics and community.
However in a completely Libertarian society you would have no such need as every member would ensure that they provide for themselves in case times get hard.
People would still help each other in hard times, as we still do voluntarily now anyway. The idea that we need government compulsion to force us to help each other is repulsive to me and not true anyway. Look at the amount of disaster relief that gets raised and the rate of child sponsorships and the like.
After all, by accepting that a portion of your tax dollar go towards public education and public health while still having the right to do as you please, could be a solution.
The Communist Manifesto lists government schooling as one of the 10 central tools for destroying the "old social order" and "entirely revolutionising the mode of
production". I personally regard compulsory government controlled schooling with the same distaste I would have for compulsory government controlled religion. How can you be free if a government agent tells you how to think? If you aren't familiar with John Taylor Gatto's work there's a good introduction here: http://hometown.aol.com/tma68/7lesson.htm
You've got some good ideas, I hope you're not offended. I have you marked as a friend for some time now, so we must have some substantial agreement on some issues.
We look after our unemployed, single mothers, provide basic health care to all and care for our old and disabled. I like that about Australia. Why can't we have Libertarianism as well - Australian style?
it's your choice to smoke cigarettes (Clubs etc) or dope at home, riding bikes without helmets and a myriad of other things all based on the right of individuals. With this comes the concept of personal responsibility.
Ok, I guess I'm a libertarian US style. I'm all for your right to smoke if you want, but there's no way I want to pay for your health care if you do. I don't see how you can have both, because the property of the people who make wise choices will be constantly confiscated to pay for the results of those who make unwise choices. So under that system the unwise have liberty and the wise effectively become the slaves of the unwise and incompetent.
The right to be free shouldn't mean the right to be destitute.
Perhaps, but how do you reconcile forcible uncompensated confiscation of property to provide welfare payments with the concept of liberty? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of helping the poor and I put my money where my mouth is, but I like to choose that rather than be compelled. You know, the liberty thing.
Our rights are being eroded daily and no-one seems to care. A small change would be better than no change at all.
I said "give affordable access", not "give for free."
So you want subsidized contraceptives then? Which doesn't negate my point? Using the word "give" does seem to imply me, you know, giving something.
Still teens can often not get access to them (what if the parents don't agree?) and/or don't know enough to use them properly.
When someone else (like parents) is paying your way, don't complain to me of your lack of freedoms. Pay your own way or appeal to those supplying your sustenance.
That's what leads to teen pregnancies and abortions.
Vaginal sex causes teen pregnancies, nothing else. Even saying give affordable access to contraceptives doesn't solve that because they aren't 100% effective. To return to my original point, you can choose not to get pregnant even without access to abortion. You might not be willing to avoid vaginal sex, but that doesn't mean you don't have the choice. As I said before to someone else: That is not an anti-abortion argument, it's a "anti-incorrect labelling of people who disagree" argument. I'm not making a case against abortion, I'm making a case against saying pro-life = anti-choice.
Sorry, I mistook you for one of the LDP candidates.
Our laws are there fundamentally to protect people. We have gov and semi-gov services that protect people. Our gov looks after us. That's not the case in the US. It's a dog -eat-dog world for them.
I'm not talking socialism here.
I'd be interesting if you can give me something more specific. In what non-socialist ways does our government protect us that isn't available in the US? I'm not sure what the differences are between US libertarianism and Aussie libertarianism. I don't really know any libertarians here except my wife.
... that my point was that without abortion the choice has to be made before sex rather than after pregnancy. As for this:
people will do it regardless of whether it's legal or not, but if it's legal it will be safer
I don't see what that has to do with whether anti-choice is an appropriate label for the pro-life movement. As I said regarding my own post: That is not an anti-abortion argument, it's a "anti-incorrect labelling of people who disagree" argument.
Since you bring it up though: If it was decided that abortion should be illegal, it could only really be on the basis that we had decided to extend legal protection of human rights to the unborn. In that case, it would be regarded as murder or some similar violation of the criminal code. If that was so "people do it anyway" ceases to be a justification for legalisation as we don't accept that reasoning for murder, robbery or any other crime. "It is safer" would be invalid as any successful abortion would be regarded to have resulted in a fatality, rather like a "safe" execution. So if we don't give legal protection of human rights to the unborn, your argument is unnecessary, if we do it is inadequate.
That doesn't require that you have a right to sex without risking the consequence of pregnancy. Nobody has an inherent right to actions without consequences. I have the right to jump off a pier. I also have a right to not be covered in water. If I jump off a pier and get covered in water, or have to refrain from pier jumping to avoid the water, no-one has denied me any rights.
If you're against abortion... then you have to give everybody, including teens, affordable access to contraceptives.
I don't have to give a thing to anybody. There are people in my country who claim that abortion should be paid for by the government, now you claim contraceptives have to be if abortion isn't. How does some-one else's "right to have sex" obligate me to pay money towards it? That's nonsense.
Frankly, I don't see how that is intellectually consistent.
I wasn't stating a position on cases of rape etc, all I was doing was defining the limits of what I was currently discussing, that discussion being for the purpose of examining whether "anti-choice" is an appropriate label to the pro-life movement. I find that usually in any discussion on abortion that one side or the other will refuse to stick to debating a single point in a rational manner, choosing instead to attempt to complicate the issue if it looks like the other has a valid point.
Nevertheless, I don't think it is necessarily intellectually inconsistent to be against abortion in some cases and accept it in others. I agree that to be against abortion does require to see the unborn as humans with rights, but there are examples of when we allow people to be killed. We do not argue that enemy soldiers have to be classified as non-human to be killed, killing in self-defence, executions are other examples. It could be argued that a woman who has consensual sex has a duty of care to any resulting offspring but a rape victim doesn't, so that the duty of care would negate the right to abortion in the 1st case but not the 2nd. Just as I have a legal duty of care for my own children but not yours. I'm sure we could come up with other arguments, probably better ones too. Now again, these aren't my own positions, we really ought to be able to examine and discuss various arguments reasonably without resorting to name calling and propaganda.
pro-life is a lie, they're pro fetus rights over human rights and anti-choice.
Your assertion requires the presupposition that a unborn child is not a human. This is neither biologically correct nor historically supported. The term "with child" has long been used to describe pregnancy, it is not lying to call a fetus a child even if some people disagree.
Those are facts.
No, that's propaganda. If you redefine terms to suit your political agenda, it doesn't make your opposition liars. Whether a fetus is going to have human rights is a legal issue, but it is entirely within the normal use of the language to refer to a human fetus as a child or baby.
Nobody is talking about killing babies and you look like a fool when you pretend that's even relevant.
I didn't say it was relevant, I compared it to using the term anti-choice, which I am arguing against. Your reading comprehension problem is popping up again I see. Nevertheless, while I can see some reasoning behind the idea that a fetus not being given full legal protection of human rights (as even young children aren't, nobody is fighting for suffrage, free speech or the RKBA for toddlers), to claim that it isn't a baby or human has propaganda value only. It's a redefinition of terms that adds nothing to rational discourse but serves the persuasive interests of one side only.
They want to restrict people's *choices* about what goes on inside their own bodies
No, pro-lifers want neither to make pregnancy banned nor compulsory. That choice is left to the individual. One method of implementing that choice, being abortion, is the target of their campaign.
I've never seen any pro-life material that claims we should all live our lives completely under compulsion because having a choice is bad. It isn't about choice, it's about abortion.
Semantics and meaningless.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Semantics semantics
-noun (used with a singular verb)
1. Linguistics.
a. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
Discussing whether a particular word is being used appropriately in a particular context is semantics. So you're claiming that in a discussion about semantics, semantics is meaningless. Good one Sherlock.
Nothing gives those loons the right to crawl up inside another person's uterus.
It is just as I suspected, you aren't interested in rational debate. Be my guest, post last. There is no need for me to reply again.
You could not be so unafraid to criticize a judge in Australia.
I guess you don't know me very well.
Well, I guess I put that badly. You could not be so confident of your ability to criticize a judge without consequences. It isn't that the lawyers here are timid and we have had some good decisions here but I would certainly correct the idea that Australia has some greater degree of freedom than the US, like Black Sabbath seemed to think. We import bad US laws (DMCA) and don't have nearly the constitutional protections.
Try getting one of our non-timid lawyers to argue in court that people have a right to pistols in their home, like DC vs Heller. It isn't a lack of courage on the lawyers part, we simply don't have the rights here that US citizens have.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act I don't think it specifically requires sub-prime and interest only, but they fit the bill.
If only teaching people to build their own houses was seen as a better solution to house ownership than extending large amounts of credit to people who couldn't afford it.
Why insist on making people more dependent when you could solve a problem better by making them more independent?
Only until it becomes practical to do that. [charge for oxygen produced by plants on farms]
The idea has been only slightly modified and is being marketed as "carbon credits".
This cuts both ways, you see. If we accept that $purpose must be served, then you must interpret the 2nd ammendment as providing no right to bear arms except in support of a well regulated militia. In exchange for that, you get to eliminate copyrights and patents that can't be proven to have incentivized the creator.
There is significantly different wording and purpose of the clauses themselves. ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
(1) The copyright clause is granting a right to congress. "The Congress shall have Power
That is the congress is given one valid reason for copyright and no other authorization for copyright exists, indeed enacting copyright laws for other purposes is a 10th amendment violation. Congress has power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by copyright, nothing else.
(2) The 2nd Amendment is limiting the power of congress. There is still no authorisation for congress to restrict the rights to firearms not useful to the militia, although such weapons would not fall under constitutional protection and could be regulated by the states.
Both legislatures and courts seem to disagree with me. IANASCJ.
The Second Amendment has a similar preface; does that mean restricting gun ownership is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with a well-regulated militia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
.50 BMG or automatic weapons can be reconciled to this decision.
Attorneys for the United States argued "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."
That made the "assault weapons" ban unconstitutional by the way.
Also, in the decision: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
It is difficult to see how bans on
Calm, intimidated, what's the difference?
Next you'll be saying there's a meaningful difference between loyalty and fear.
If Obama's followers do this while he's a candidate and he can't stop them, we could expect the same thing if he is president. A religious state is against the constitution, going by what you say, perhaps this should be interpreted to include an Obama adminsistration.
Either that, or comparing Obama to Jesus means you're a nut.
Yea, 2 x 2 is plenty of room if you shackle them vertically...spammers do not deserve the best accommodations.
How about we pack them in like sardines ... every second one upside down?
If the spammers are doing it, I assume thats because the majority of their target customers are aligned similarly with Obama.
but I thought only stupid people responded to spam. What could this mean?
Some interesting notes.. particularly the USA's Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate or teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same.
... Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
I'm not a lawyer.. but doesn't the preamble of our own declaration of independence state "it is [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw off
And yet there are plenty of people who advocate or teach the desirability of the citizens being capable of overthrowing the US government. If you start to actually take steps towards armed revolution though, why would you not expect to be met with government force? If you are not already in jeopardy of your life from the government and you take up arms, you deserve to be shot. If you are already being hunted by the government, sedition charges hardly change your situation.
.50 cal BMG and whatever else it takes to have a well armed militia. However I do not support the idea of government overthrow in any country that has viable elections. Sure there seems to be some tampering of elections, but not so much to do anything but tip the balance of a fairly close election as far as I can tell. If you have enough popular support to succeed in overthrowing the government, you have enough to win an election.
As a result, the only thing that Act accomplishes then, is to enable the government to act against people that are irrationally taking up arms against the government. That's a good thing.
Just to clarify my position: I fully support the RKBA, unlicensed and unregistered, in particular military small arms including
If you are advocating the armed overthrow of your government, you have already decided to abandon appeals to legality, your only recourse is your ability to win that fight. If your position is such that a sedition charge is meaningful to you, you won't.
See anything there that a really little kid can help with?
A 5 year old, yes. Our 5 year old can do his own laundry (requires front loader) washing and hanging out, get cereal, sandwiches and drink for himself and younger siblings. He also unpacks the dishwasher, but I wouldn't like to have him washing dishes in a sink unattended just yet. We decided to put up with some mess (of little kids doing things) for the purpose of getting them more independent earlier. Get them onto those chores with you if they can't do it themselves, there is no rule that your time with them has to be all play, you can work together. Not so much on the phone calls of course.
I would suggest that your time doing chores together may even be more valuable to you as a family and them as developing humans than your time playing.
Are you an active Libertarian?
I'm not in any political party, I vote as libertarian as is available to me, I regularly introduce people to libertarian philosophy and ideals.
What role do you see an Australian Libertarian government have nationally and internationally?
I'm not sure whether you mean US style libertarianism in Aussie gov't, or Aussie libertarianism as you've described it so I'll try to answer both.
(1) US style: couldn't be currently implemented here except in opposition to the will of the people, defeating the whole purpose. What I would see as real libertarianism would probably take a couple of generations to implement as people have been conditioned to dependence on the government and aren't ready for the responsibilities of liberty and probably wouldn't cope. The philosophy of liberty needs to become mainstream first. I don't think it couldn't work here as you seem to, just that it would take time.
(2) What role nationally and internationally?
Nationally: It's still difficult. There has been a long term campaign to reduce the mentality of our citizens and reduce them to consumers and voters. It has been spectacularly successful. Libertarians really need to focus on changing the mentality of people to be more independent and resourceful. As this is our cultural heritage it isn't a hard sell, although it can be a hard process.
One of the top desires of Aussies is to be in business for themselves rather than be in a job. Making this more accessible will be enough to make significant changes in the political landscape here as people tend to take on a different mentality when they become self-employed. Two main obstacles to success in business are compliance with government paperwork and taxes. We should immediately eliminate income tax and GST for non-incorporated sole traders (perhaps partnerships and other categories as well) and have no requirement for business registration or other reporting to the government. You buy/produce a product/service and sell it, that's it. Honest business practices being the only legal requirement, certification available for relevant trades and professions. This will make self-employment more attractive compared to employment, and running a part time business much more viable for the employed. Whatever government programs need to be cut as a result, cut them, no additional fund-raising. Start with foreign aid, potentially leaving the aid infrastructure in place and making a voluntary donation system available.
Stop requiring registration of firearms. Licensing I can see the argument for even though I disagree, but registration of firearms only has the purpose of enabling the government to locate and confiscate firearms. There should be no government record of what guns are owned. Responsibility to obey the licensing law should be on the individual, enforcement on the state, dealers should not be required to be an enforcement agency for the government. Self-defence should be re-established as a valid reason to own a firearm.
The concept of jury nullification should be widely taught. For as long as there is compulsory education it should be mandatory to display an understanding of it to get your school certificate. Every person called for jury duty should have it adequately explained, including its historical significance to our nation, perhaps specifically mentioning its use in opposing the government at the Eureka Stockade trials. Every judge should make sure the jury is informed of jury nullification during his instructions to the jury.
If we must have government schools, make schooling voluntary and the curriculum at private schools at least determined by the school, not the government.
Outlaw the creation of money supply through fractional reserve lending, and refuse to enforce payment of variable rate interest. A contract obligating you to "a sum of money we won't tell you until later" should not be legally bindin
That makes sense. I still wont be using it, but it doesn't sound quite so unreasonable now.
I appreciate any well-thought-out arguments against my highly controversial signature. This category certainly includes yours.
Thank-you.
Unfortunately in America if not in other places, someone writing fantasies about children, drawing and/or selling cartoons or CAD-created CP scenes, or, being a minor, taking pictures of oneself nude, is illegal. It is mostly against these laws that I rail.
I see your point, but your sig does not make that distinction. Perhaps you would consider addressing that. To take what I see as the most clear cut example, I agree a teen taking pics of themselves certainly ought not to be illegal and it is a great injustice to label someone as a sex offender for that.
Furthermore, and this does nothing to diminish your point, I believe that possession of stolen goods should not be illegal. I think only payment for stolen good should be illegal.
Personally I think knowledge rather than payment should be the determining factor. If you get a stolen dvd player given to you by a friend and you know it is stolen I don't see how that isn't being part of the crime. On the other hand, if you pay for a dvd player from a retailer and later it turns out that he stole a truck load of them, I don't see how you are a party to it, even though you paid.
Someone receiving CP though automatically knows the illegal nature of it and are therefore a party to the crime by receiving benefit from it, whether they paid for that benefit or not. I can see a benefit to having sufficient penalty attached to it that it would convince people to betray their source for a suspended sentence or a plea bargain. I believe the saying goes "A house divided against itself cannot stand". I'm not in favor of giving up our civil rights to achieve that, but I don't see viewing porn as a civil right.
The teacher learns, the midwife teaches, and the business woman is useless for everything but being a grandparent.
Useless? A few years after the midwife finishes with you, you go to the teacher. When the teachers done with you, unless you plan on playing paino, golf and going sailing for the rest of your life, that "useless" business woman is going to be contributing some serious value.
And by the way, most of us value our grandparents.
Viewing child porn: Thought crime.
No, thinking about child porn would be thought crime.
Viewing it is an action and also requires you to obtain it, either by producing it or through distribution from someone who produced it. Penalising possession of child porn because of the criminal nature of its production is quite consistent with our laws, such as the law against receiving stolen goods.
You can't borrow a car and sell it, why should you be able to sell borrowed stocks? I've never looked into how short selling works, but from what I have read it's always sounded like another legalized scam to me.
I doubt if any form of libertarian government would confiscate personal property to pay for another's upkeep. That smacks of communism.
We have that in Australia right now. Money is property. Income tax pays for the dole.
A society should look after their aged, poor etc. It's a matter of ethics and morals. You believe in that or you don't.
I do, but morals and ethics are matters of choice, ie: if the government takes my money and gives it to the poor I have done nothing moral at all. Charity ought rightly involve both generosity and gratitude. It's part of what builds the community, yet with government compulsion, both giver and recipient tend towards resentment, or even worse, for the recipients to develop a sense of entitlement. This is the norm in Australia today because people see the money as coming from "the government" and not "my working friends and neighbours". I'm not saying that there is no place at all for government to be involved in charitable works, but the system as it stands has actively destroyed morals, ethics and community.
However in a completely Libertarian society you would have no such need as every member would ensure that they provide for themselves in case times get hard.
People would still help each other in hard times, as we still do voluntarily now anyway. The idea that we need government compulsion to force us to help each other is repulsive to me and not true anyway. Look at the amount of disaster relief that gets raised and the rate of child sponsorships and the like.
After all, by accepting that a portion of your tax dollar go towards public education and public health while still having the right to do as you please, could be a solution.
The Communist Manifesto lists government schooling as one of the 10 central tools for destroying the "old social order" and "entirely revolutionising the mode of production". I personally regard compulsory government controlled schooling with the same distaste I would have for compulsory government controlled religion. How can you be free if a government agent tells you how to think? If you aren't familiar with John Taylor Gatto's work there's a good introduction here: http://hometown.aol.com/tma68/7lesson.htm
You've got some good ideas, I hope you're not offended. I have you marked as a friend for some time now, so we must have some substantial agreement on some issues.
We look after our unemployed, single mothers, provide basic health care to all and care for our old and disabled. I like that about Australia. Why can't we have Libertarianism as well - Australian style?
it's your choice to smoke cigarettes (Clubs etc) or dope at home, riding bikes without helmets and a myriad of other things all based on the right of individuals. With this comes the concept of personal responsibility.
Ok, I guess I'm a libertarian US style. I'm all for your right to smoke if you want, but there's no way I want to pay for your health care if you do. I don't see how you can have both, because the property of the people who make wise choices will be constantly confiscated to pay for the results of those who make unwise choices. So under that system the unwise have liberty and the wise effectively become the slaves of the unwise and incompetent.
The right to be free shouldn't mean the right to be destitute.
Perhaps, but how do you reconcile forcible uncompensated confiscation of property to provide welfare payments with the concept of liberty? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of helping the poor and I put my money where my mouth is, but I like to choose that rather than be compelled. You know, the liberty thing.
Our rights are being eroded daily and no-one seems to care. A small change would be better than no change at all.
Agreed.
I said "give affordable access", not "give for free."
So you want subsidized contraceptives then? Which doesn't negate my point? Using the word "give" does seem to imply me, you know, giving something.
Still teens can often not get access to them (what if the parents don't agree?) and/or don't know enough to use them properly.
When someone else (like parents) is paying your way, don't complain to me of your lack of freedoms. Pay your own way or appeal to those supplying your sustenance.
That's what leads to teen pregnancies and abortions.
Vaginal sex causes teen pregnancies, nothing else. Even saying give affordable access to contraceptives doesn't solve that because they aren't 100% effective. To return to my original point, you can choose not to get pregnant even without access to abortion. You might not be willing to avoid vaginal sex, but that doesn't mean you don't have the choice. As I said before to someone else: That is not an anti-abortion argument, it's a "anti-incorrect labelling of people who disagree" argument. I'm not making a case against abortion, I'm making a case against saying pro-life = anti-choice.
The LDP (no, I'm not a member)
Sorry, I mistook you for one of the LDP candidates.
Our laws are there fundamentally to protect people. We have gov and semi-gov services that protect people. Our gov looks after us. That's not the case in the US. It's a dog -eat-dog world for them. I'm not talking socialism here.
I'd be interesting if you can give me something more specific. In what non-socialist ways does our government protect us that isn't available in the US? I'm not sure what the differences are between US libertarianism and Aussie libertarianism. I don't really know any libertarians here except my wife.
people will do it regardless of whether it's legal or not, but if it's legal it will be safer
I don't see what that has to do with whether anti-choice is an appropriate label for the pro-life movement. As I said regarding my own post: That is not an anti-abortion argument, it's a "anti-incorrect labelling of people who disagree" argument.
Since you bring it up though: If it was decided that abortion should be illegal, it could only really be on the basis that we had decided to extend legal protection of human rights to the unborn. In that case, it would be regarded as murder or some similar violation of the criminal code. If that was so "people do it anyway" ceases to be a justification for legalisation as we don't accept that reasoning for murder, robbery or any other crime. "It is safer" would be invalid as any successful abortion would be regarded to have resulted in a fatality, rather like a "safe" execution. So if we don't give legal protection of human rights to the unborn, your argument is unnecessary, if we do it is inadequate.
Yes you have a right to engage in sex.
That doesn't require that you have a right to sex without risking the consequence of pregnancy. Nobody has an inherent right to actions without consequences. I have the right to jump off a pier. I also have a right to not be covered in water. If I jump off a pier and get covered in water, or have to refrain from pier jumping to avoid the water, no-one has denied me any rights.
If you're against abortion ... then you have to give everybody, including teens, affordable access to contraceptives.
I don't have to give a thing to anybody. There are people in my country who claim that abortion should be paid for by the government, now you claim contraceptives have to be if abortion isn't. How does some-one else's "right to have sex" obligate me to pay money towards it? That's nonsense.
Frankly, I don't see how that is intellectually consistent.
I wasn't stating a position on cases of rape etc, all I was doing was defining the limits of what I was currently discussing, that discussion being for the purpose of examining whether "anti-choice" is an appropriate label to the pro-life movement. I find that usually in any discussion on abortion that one side or the other will refuse to stick to debating a single point in a rational manner, choosing instead to attempt to complicate the issue if it looks like the other has a valid point.
Nevertheless, I don't think it is necessarily intellectually inconsistent to be against abortion in some cases and accept it in others. I agree that to be against abortion does require to see the unborn as humans with rights, but there are examples of when we allow people to be killed. We do not argue that enemy soldiers have to be classified as non-human to be killed, killing in self-defence, executions are other examples. It could be argued that a woman who has consensual sex has a duty of care to any resulting offspring but a rape victim doesn't, so that the duty of care would negate the right to abortion in the 1st case but not the 2nd. Just as I have a legal duty of care for my own children but not yours. I'm sure we could come up with other arguments, probably better ones too. Now again, these aren't my own positions, we really ought to be able to examine and discuss various arguments reasonably without resorting to name calling and propaganda.
pro-life is a lie, they're pro fetus rights over human rights and anti-choice.
Your assertion requires the presupposition that a unborn child is not a human. This is neither biologically correct nor historically supported. The term "with child" has long been used to describe pregnancy, it is not lying to call a fetus a child even if some people disagree.
Those are facts.
No, that's propaganda. If you redefine terms to suit your political agenda, it doesn't make your opposition liars. Whether a fetus is going to have human rights is a legal issue, but it is entirely within the normal use of the language to refer to a human fetus as a child or baby.
Nobody is talking about killing babies and you look like a fool when you pretend that's even relevant.
I didn't say it was relevant, I compared it to using the term anti-choice, which I am arguing against. Your reading comprehension problem is popping up again I see. Nevertheless, while I can see some reasoning behind the idea that a fetus not being given full legal protection of human rights (as even young children aren't, nobody is fighting for suffrage, free speech or the RKBA for toddlers), to claim that it isn't a baby or human has propaganda value only. It's a redefinition of terms that adds nothing to rational discourse but serves the persuasive interests of one side only.
They want to restrict people's *choices* about what goes on inside their own bodies
No, pro-lifers want neither to make pregnancy banned nor compulsory. That choice is left to the individual. One method of implementing that choice, being abortion, is the target of their campaign.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Semantics
semantics
-noun (used with a singular verb)
1. Linguistics.
a. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
Discussing whether a particular word is being used appropriately in a particular context is semantics. So you're claiming that in a discussion about semantics, semantics is meaningless. Good one Sherlock.
Nothing gives those loons the right to crawl up inside another person's uterus.
It is just as I suspected, you aren't interested in rational debate. Be my guest, post last. There is no need for me to reply again.
Well, I guess I put that badly. You could not be so confident of your ability to criticize a judge without consequences. It isn't that the lawyers here are timid and we have had some good decisions here but I would certainly correct the idea that Australia has some greater degree of freedom than the US, like Black Sabbath seemed to think. We import bad US laws (DMCA) and don't have nearly the constitutional protections.
Try getting one of our non-timid lawyers to argue in court that people have a right to pistols in their home, like DC vs Heller. It isn't a lack of courage on the lawyers part, we simply don't have the rights here that US citizens have.