___________________________
This will have nothing to do with stocks, or the market, save for peripherally, so if you want to “Move On” to another blog post, I won’t be offended. We are in electoral season, however, and I wanted to address a point that came up in tonight’s thread (previous post).
This would be the false contention that many registered “Independents” (really Dem leaners) will fall back upon in which they claim they are “socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative,” and therefore cast their vote with those precepts in mind.
You would think this would make many of them libertarians, then, no? Is this not the definition of a libertarian — that one only wants to be left alone, so as to better invest and spend their own hard earned lucre in the most beneficial and economic methods available to them? “Live, and let live,” so to speak?
And yet, largely rational humans will usually provide this explanation in order to justify voting for the greatest statists this country has ever seen. Totalitarian monsters like Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi, who would not only interfere in the ability of these rational actors to save and invest their earnings as they might see fit, but who would also direct their private and personal health care choices from a top down centralized bureaucracy (see above), with little thought to the ultimate consequences such a system might engender here, save for its convenient use as a power aggregator.
I mean, presumably these same rational actors who claim fiscal conservatism have been exposed to other “top down” centrally-directed government systems at some point in their lives. If they are lucky, it’s only been the Postal Service — perhaps the most benign of our Federal bureaucracies. If they are in business, however, they may have had to reckon with the FDA, the Department of Agriculture, the EPA, or God forfend, even the IRS.
Can rational actors ever claim a pleasant experience from dealing with such bodies? And yet, these “social libertarians” will embrace politicians who seek to impose greater and greater bureaucracies such as these on our individual lives, as “the lesser of two evils” over economic libertarians who see such impositions on our freedoms as not only antithetical to our concepts of freedom, but highly impractical and inefficient for the growth and general welfare of our free society.
And why?
Because they have been led to believe that those same people who believe in basic Constitutional freedoms — the Founding principles, for want of a better term — over statist central authoritarianism, are also seeking to impose some kind of “theocracy” on their lives.
What is their main jambon of evidence? The now 40-year old abortion debate.
No question this is a hot issue, and I don’t think it’s going to cool any time soon, especially with the increasing advances of medical technology that drive external fetal viability to earlier and earlier stages of development. But it’s sometimes difficult for me to believe that intelligent and rational people cannot see the link between lovers of liberty and lovers of life.
Perhaps it’s because I’m a parent, but I do not even see this as a religious issue. It’s a moral issue, to be sure, but only in the sense that any crimes of violence against a citizen are moral issues. Just like an assault on a dog, or a horse, or any innocent creature would be considered a moral issue.
But because of some clever marketing, in certain “bluer” areas of the country, it’s become de rigueur to believe that conservatives are closet “theocrats” because they believe a gestating human life should not be considered extinguishable, and rather should be protected like any post-partum child would be.
Never mind if it’s integrated with a belief in economic freedom, private property inviolability, and the rule of law– a fealty to innocent life is considered an automatic disqualifier to a large part of the population who have been convinced this tenet marks a coming cessation of freedom.
The irony, of course, is that the greatest freedom eaters we’ve ever elected use this issue to trumpet their false “libertarianism.” In effect, they are providing our “social libertarians” a trade — responsibility for freedom, in equal measure. You will receive bread, you will receive circuses, and you will hand over the keys to your lives.
But if you believe in the freedom of the individual, you are given a responsibility to every individual. And yes, that means you are to feed the hungry and visit the sick. But it also means that you are responsible as a society to protect every innocent, no matter how forgotten… or inconvenient. I don’t think this means you have to be “theocratric,” dogmatic, or even the slightest bit religious (hat tip to Nat Hentoff, btw)….
Just “responsible.”
Time to shake that Baby Boomer “eternal kid” thing, people. This is part of it.
Kirk out.
________________________________
So it’s not
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
The real irony is that the SLFCs think that abortions are going to continue to be available under a government-controlled medical system.
“gestating human life” =/= human life
It’s elementary logic old chap! The situation that both the “democrats” and “republicans” present is a false dilemma. The legality or illegality (and provision or withholding of designated funding) of abortion should not be federally mandated, rather relegated to the states themselves, individually.
That’s Constitutional federalism and I’m certainly fine with that. However, it still begs the question — are we taking lives here, without discretion?
____________
First, define life.
Different people have different beliefs as to when life begins. That’s not the question. The question is, should you be able to advertise your own particular belief?
Steve — ask a doctor. It’s not really much of an argument. Even an abortionist will tell you he’s ending a life.
________
Yes, but so would an oncologist when they perform chemotherapy.
By that logic you must be a fruitarian. Cancer cells will never amount to something similar to Barak Obama.
Exactly. I can’t imagine anything so antithetical to life as a group of murderous cancer cells.
This sounds like something that wackjob Singer (babies can murdered up to 24 months old since they are not yet “sentient”) from Princeton would think up.
__________
Well put.
So a growing human embryo is the equivalent to a cancer?
Holy….!
I’ve seen some fucked up statements from the pro-abortion side, but this one stands anew in the “gobsmacking” category.
So, I’m hoping you can come by the house one of these days and I can introduce you to one or maybe even all four of my “maturing” tumors.
(WTF???)
________
Which is why I asked you to define life.
Life in a strictly biological sense is a cell that is capable of reproducing. Killing that sort of life happens whenever I scratch my nose.
Many will use the definition of a cell growing inside a woman with a different DNA as Life. The cancer analogy eliminates that scenario.
So when you say the taking of Life, you actually mean eliminating a Person out of existence– from there we can start to define a Person, and whether a single cell is a Person, or if something with the consciousness equivalent to a tadpole is a Person, and so on. Also, the potential for Personhood is what gets many riled up (life at conception, etc.).
This may seem to be strictly about semantics, but I assure you, it’s not. Pro-life (freedom haters) and Pro-choice (baby killers) often argue starting from two different foundations, which generally devolves into some unholy shouting match.
Well it’s not simply semantics, because equating skin cells to a fully chromosoned, developing human embryo is not only biologically inaccurate, it’s morally offensive. It’s not a question of definitions, as one definition is simply untrue. Scratched or unscratched, skin cells from whatever area of the dermis will never become a human being, and irradiated or allowed to grow free, a cancer tumor will never acquire sentience either.
We don’t get to choose our own facts. And we don’t get to choose to obfuscate “humanity” via some vague attempts at defining “personhood.” Again, given that vaguery, we could take Singer’s track and start culling toddlers.
Another thing:
“Freedom haters?” I know you’re being provocative but what greater threat to freedom is there than the threat of personal extinction? Using this distinction, those who would seek to lock up violent offenders are also haters of freedom, because they seek to secure the rule of law.
_____________
The whole abortion conflict stems from the as yet, unprovable with modern technology fact, that the spiritform enters the fetus at 21 days, thus turning an impulse based life form into a human being, capable of evolving/growing based on it’s own thought/knowledge/wisdom. Prior to that the fetus is like any multi-celled organism in a petry dish. Naturally the religious powers that be, and their hijacked politics, religio-politcal; have long ago distorted and used this knowledge for their own purposes to accrue power and influence.
However, this whole debate leaves out the fact that not everyone should be allowed to breed and bring their future little burdens into society. The currently accepted inherent privilege and birthright to breed, must be changed. Just as one needs a permit to build a house or any material construct, one should need a permit before they create a human based on the financial, psychological and genetic health of the parents. But of course religious powers and their special interest groups would raise hell.
Unless the parents have the ability and means to raise self-responsible humans, their birthing privileges should be revoked. There is no freedom without discipline. Such freedom leads to anarchy.
But of course religious powers and their special interest groups would raise hell.
“Special interest groups” meaning rejectors of authoritarian tyranny everywhere? Holy shit, Bruce, I couldn’t have come up with a better example of the statist worldview if I were conducting a parody cartoon starring Samsonite Hamburglar.
You realize that you are limning out the same eugenics “solution” that was so popular with “Progressives” in the early 20th century? The same eugenics movement that was taken up with such enthusiasm by the “big thinkers” of the European fascist parties in the 20’s and 30’s?
Recall for a minute, how all that worked out? For one thing, certain elite government types thought that perhaps it wasn’t such a good thing that “mongrel peoples” should be breeding. You might also recall that they classified your own good people under that rubric.
Geez, but we’ve got some short memories.
Let’s all pledge to reduce statism, no matter how much certain little niggling things about other people’s legal behaviour might bother us, eh?
______________
Nope, I’m sticking to the fact that not everyone should be allowed to breed. If one doesn’t want to have to dole out free handouts to societies little burdens, aka the poor, needy, unfit to care for themselves & social misfits, then one must control the supply of them. We’ve come a long way since Nazi Germany and while this would take much trial, error & learning, to get it right, we must start somewhere and at the source of the problem.
You should definitely be sterilized at once, due to your incurable asshatishness.
I’d be willing to do the honors with a swift ninja kick to your small, shriveled nad-bag.
Seriously, Bruce. You might want to think about some sort of moral rehab center.
Too long hangin’ with the Southhampton swells or something.
Caveat: if you are just fuggin’ w./ me… (Steven, too) , then “Well done.”
__________
not fuggin’ w u. Dead serious.
What is so immoral about increasing the odds of raising responsible, self-capable children? By making sure teens do not reproduce, in fact noone under the age of 25. Don’t you think a little life experience is necessary to raise children?
Do you think that Angelina wannabee who had octuplets after already having 6 kids, should be allowed to reproduce like a rat in a sewer? and btw, she is on all sorts of welfare. You must be for welfare & societal handouts, no?
I think it is immoral and unethical to irresponsibly breed and expect others (ones government) to pay the cost of rearing children. Once the mess is made, it’s everyone’s responsibility to clean it up, so imo, prevent the mess before its made
It’s immoral because you have no right to interfere with others’ personal freedom.
It’s a simple as that, and if you can’t see it, I’m really concerned. If we can just “decide” for other people what’s good for them, we have become participants in a tyranny, and we’re no better than the worst of the Stalinists, who also thought they were “doing the right thing for society.”
___________
No worries, DMG … no plans to breed.
btw, how would you solve the problems of the self-irresponsible, unable to support themselves, who then further reproduce more like themselves, unable to educate them properly in the ways of the world & life?
I assume you must be for social freebies for all.
Oh, this should be fun.
_____
Have you ever heard of Colonel Kurtz?
Juice – Simply, because they’re not “like themselves”. WTF, I can’t even believe I’m responding to this.
“as yet, unprovable with modern technology fact,
that the spiritform enters the fetus at 21 days…”
THIS should have been your tipoff that the boy is just not right.
Fruitboy-
Couldn’t we just get a ride on one of your spaceships to a roomier locale once things get too congested here?
DMG, since you know what is false, why don’t you educate us as to the mechanics of human beings beginnings?
By the time we have the technology to prove the spiritform enters the fetus at 21 days, we will also have the means to relocate to another planet, as happened on this planet ages ago.
Facebook or it didn’t happen.
LOL.
_______
So you are argueing that Obama should have been aborted? If abortion were legal in 1960?
How in the holy HELL did you come to that bizarre conclusion?
Seriously, do you have a processing deficiency? I’m aware that there are now meds available for that.
_________
I think Geoy was replying to Juicy.
I am not for abortion unless it’s in the first 21 days of pregnancy or unless the mother’s life is in danger.
I’ll say it again, we need birth control laws. Not only here, but world-wide. Sure more & more people are good for business & stock markets, creating endless demand for goods but at some point we run out of resources, & wars erupt over limited resources or disease, famines, natural disasters will handle our out of control overpopulation.
Dude, I don’t know what planet you’re from. Birth control laws worked out/are working out real nicely for the Chinese. It will take 200 years to fix that eff’ed up mess.
Obviously, he was asleep in class when they went over Thomas Malthus and the Luddite Movements.
Google those. The “shrinking resource” bullshittery has been around for more than 300 years. Amazingly, things have only gotten better.
________
I get it, planet earth has unlimited resources . or more than enough to handle the 7 billion humans we currently have. Is that why commodities are doubling & tripling?
500 AD there were approximately 200 million people
1000AD 300 mill.
1900 , 1.6 billion
2000, 6.6 billion
2010 8.0 billion
The population has gone up 500% in 110 years. Do you think planet earth has the resources to support 40 billion by 2120?
It will not be that high by 2120. The population of the earth is already leveling off. We should peak at about 8-9 billion by 2050 or so, and that’s it.
Technology and economic advance are the great levelers. Already we have demographic deficits in much of the West… we are running OUT of people in those states!
_____________
Jakegint and others: Before debating further about this issue, all of you need to watch the first 10 or 15 minutes of the movie “Idiocracy”. It is mandatory background for this complex, and volatile subject matter.
Don’t know it… synopsis?
______
Added some ANV this am at 24.22
I may actually back up the options truck here, just waiting to see if the dollar backs off this $78 level.
_________
Your website is running an Ad for the Demo running for congress in my district in Wash. State. The ad is total bullshit lies about his opponent. The lies in election advertising is really over the top this year. And that applies to both sides. The Demo running for Governor in Oregon is saying in his ads that the Republican candidate is the big spender. Unbelievable.
My website? You mean in the GoogleAds part to the right? You’re not talking about the CatholicVote.org thing above, are you?
FWIW — the google ads are blocked from this computer, so I can’t see them. Often they will confirm to your clicking tendencies, however. Been visiting the DNC website recently? 😉
___________
It’s an ad that I presume is targeted on a geographical basis. By google or whoever.
You’re right – I (in CA) am getting a Jerry Brown for Governor ad.
My add says buy bloodbath girl vs frankenstein girl on Bluray. Not sure what that means, but I’m pretty sure that they miscalculated their target here.
Sorry to disrupt the politics, but with regard to the dollar & gold/silver: Fuck.
We-wax, and get some west. It would be far worse if the dollar plummeted straight down without ever taking a breather.
The bus sometimes has to slow down in order to let some passengers off… and on!
______
Nah I know dude, but I just had the urge to hedge up last night… I thought the market owed a dip today today, and got short equities, should have followed my instincts and bought some dzz for today, too. 🙁
Plus, S is fileting my nuts on the table
With that said, I’m looking at some ANV here and some SLW.
Sprint!??
Have you ever spoken with one of their customers??
________
Yes, I am one. $69.99 for unlimited text/data/minutes. Healthy variety of android phones, including my favorite (when I bought mine), the HTV Evo. 4G service. Customer service is great. The entire switch from AT&T garbage and iPhone was pleasant. Immediately bought stock.
The report didn’t seem to bad to me. It’s a favorite of the short sellers, though. Revenue growth & customer growth. Overall though, I think as people realize that android phones are just as good as iPhones, if not better, and that Sprint’s cellular deal is much, much better than AT&T’s and Verizon’s, then customers will switch over.
It actually was more profitable for me to switch, pay the buyout fee to AT&T and buy a new phone. Hmmmmmmm…….
You must be in a major metro. Their coverage sucks outside the highways anywhere else.
_______
We are all just blobs of flesh here for no reason at all, don’t overthink it.
Steven makes some great points, I enjoyed his responses.
What was “great” about his points, exactly? How do they support his (or your) argument?
We may be blobs of flesh, but we are blobs of flesh with a respect for each other — which separates us from the barbaric blobs.
What the hell are they teaching you up there in Canuckistan anyway? Never mind. This thread has been depressing enough as it is.
______
Actually, Jake – I think this is the most surreal discussion I’ve read on iBC ever.
And that, is saying something though I’m not sure what.
I wish I could believe in “rational actors” but, I’ve lived long enough on the planet to question the rationality of humanity in almost all regards.
And 5* to Jake for handling the most bizarre of trolls with pefect aplomb.