This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Over-Reaching Government "Enables" Culture Warriors
Submitted by Roger Barris via Acting-Man.com,
Dispensing More “Free Stuff”
I have just finished reading an opinion entitled “A Birth-Control Morality Play Comes to Supreme Court” by Megan McArdle, the lonely voice of libertarianism over at Bloomberg View.
The thrust of the article is to use philosophical hypotheticals to explain the violent reaction of some religious groups to the seemingly minor certifications required to escape the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act. But the article makes another point, albeit in an oblique manner, which is more important. In the “culture wars,” an overreaching government often fires the first shot.
Cradle-to-grave nannying by the State has certain small drawbacks, but you’ll get used to them, serf.
As McArdle says “My own intuition is that the Obama administration chose this fight….For one thing, contraception is an inexpensive routine purchase that is exactly the sort of thing that insurance shouldn’t cover (for the same reason your car insurance doesn’t cover routine service: you’d just end up pre-paying the service in the form of higher insurance premiums.)” Here, McArdle is making the same point and in fact using the same example – great minds thinking alike, and all that – I used in my 2012 blog entitled “Contraceptive ‘Coverage.’”
As I pointed out earlier, contraception fails any reasonable definition of an insurable risk, being a “random undesirable event, usually of significant consequences.” Since having sex is neither random nor (typically) undesirable, nor are the costs of contraception that significant, it cannot be “insured.”
Frankly, using the language of insurance in this context is a transparent attempt to hide the political belief that the government should be dispensing, or forcing others to dispense, more “free stuff” behind a smokescreen of science and health care. But as the old saying goes, in war, cultural or otherwise, truth is the first casualty.
But there is! Gimme!
The Road to Serfdom
In addition to being economic and linguistic nonsense, contraceptive “coverage” also perfectly illustrates why libertarians like McArdle and me do not want the government engaging in these kinds of activities. It is a reason advanced at length by Friedrich von Hayek, the Nobel Prize winning economist and social thinker, in his book The Road to Serfdom. This was written a long time ago, but in today’s environment of heated partisanship, the argument is well worth repeating.
In the early 1940s, Hayek became disenchanted with the direction economics had taken after Keynes. As a result, he never penned the definitive book on capital theory he had planned as a follow-up to his initial effort, the “Pure Theory of Capital”. This is a pity, but on the other hand, Hayek then focused on political theory and questions of knowledge, bequeathing us a great many influential and interesting works, inter alia “The Road to Serfdom”, an eloquent attack on the tyranny of the socialist welfare state, social engineering and central planning.
Hayek argues that it is relatively easy to reach societal consensus on the basic functions of government. A legal system and the police to enforce it. A national defense. Roads and other services that can be provided most efficiently by a monopoly. Even, more controversially (at least among libertarians), support for basic education and some form of social “safety net” for the small portion of society that is truly unable to help itself. And a relatively modest level of taxation to support all of this.
However, there is no reason to believe that this consensus can be maintained when government pushes well beyond these bounds. And this is precisely what we are observing with the contraception mandate, the funding of Planned Parenthood, and many other facets of the “culture wars.”
Now I personally have no problem with contraception and abortion, but I have to recognize that there are other people who do. In a libertarian world, people with these differing opinions and values can live side by side in reasonable harmony, each side following the famous Voltairian advice to disapprove of what someone says (or does), but defend to the death his right to say (or do) it.
But this harmony breaks down when one group or the other seeks to put the heavy finger of government on their side of the scales. In addition to all the utilitarian arguments for why the government should avoid this type of micro-managed social engineering, we libertarians believe that this is an independent reason for setting a high bar for these practices.
Those who advocate for policies such as contraception mandates and the funding of Planned Parenthood, which almost certainly don’t belong in the government sphere on purely economic grounds, should also be required to justify the “culture wars” they will inevitably unleash.
Home from the war …
This is particularly true when, as in all wars, “tit for tat” quickly becomes the standard. The left shoves Planned Parenthood and a contraception mandate down the throat of the right. Then the right feels doubly justified in trying to impose their views on abortion and “intelligent design.” The end result is a reduced sphere of freedom for everyone, including us innocent bystanders caught in the crossfires of their battles.
For Hayek, the attempt to expand the sphere of government action, with the inevitable discord it produced, was a major factor behind the rise of anti-democratic politics in Weimar Germany.
July 1931: Thousands are queuing at the branch offices of the Post Office Bank in Berlin to withdraw their savings. The Weimar Republic had long ceased to be fun, and both communist and nationalist groups were actively working to bring about its downfall and replace it with a dictatorship. Hitler’s party won this particular contest two years after this photograph was made.
It was a major factor in The Road to Serfdom that led, in the case of Germany, to fascism. However, we don’t have to go this far. We only have to look at the gridlock in Washington and the rise of anti-Washington political candidates to realize that the same dynamic is at work in modern-day America. Although thankfully for now in a less virulent form.
»
- 381 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
At least the kids in college are being taught to be kind, considerate, responsible and intelligent, so there is hope.
Hah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah aha ha han aha ha ah ......
I think they call it 'tolerance' but it seems like a misnomer.
They are very tolerant, in fact quite supportive of the people they like - and literally hostile and actively comabative to the people they don't like. It's pure breed xenophobia rebranded as tolerance and claiming moral high ground.
4chan is showing up to one of their black lives matter protests in Minneapolis to troll the protests in person. They're showing up armed to boot, so the xenophobia won't really matter. This should make for some quality entertainment.
GImMuH muh FrEe stVff and Buh Bitcoin!!
https://localbitcoins.com
Government? The "Progressive" libtards seem to be doing a good job at it also, as especially evidenced by the morons at Missou and Yale?
Yah, they just want to kill everyone now, and let God sort it out.
God will judge our enemies.
We will arrange the meeting.
you keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it does...
Well, most will receive a participation trophy/diploma to hang in the basement.
Obama care is free?
Obama care is free?
Yes is is! It's just the postage and handling charges that send you bankrupt
Not free "Affordable" Says so right in the name of the act. The govt definition of affordable may not represent actual outcomes. Minor side effects such as inability to move freely more than 10 feet for extended periods of time, violence and death at the hands of heavily armed, unaccountable thugs may occur if the "tax" is not paid. Results reported by FSA members are not typical.
Wisdom from 1919:
“In countries with low standards of labor and life, with a government administered by an entrenched autocratic governing class, remote from the life and labor of the wage-earning element, the compulsory insurance principle is quite likely to appeal as a panacea or a solution, even though, as in Germany, it proves merely the means of postponing the inevitable disaster for a generation or two. For the principle itself is unsound and has been proved unsound, because it does violence to the universal law of all social progress, that “Nothing but the slow modification of human nature by the discipline of social life can produce permanently advantageous changes,” and it is equally true, in the words of Herbert Spencer, that “The root of a well-ordered social action is a sentiment of justice which at once insists on personal freedom and is solicitous for the like freedom of others.”
https://unicornpoo.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/flashback-100-years-ago-comp...
Good post, All-out. I have often said the inverse: Government gets us to sell each other out. It essentially asserts that the world is a big bad place and you are absolutely going to get screwed over apart from the protection of the government-man. All that stands between you and abyss is a g-man with a pen, a gun and the power to use it. So, you just vote to give the g-man more power and money and you'll be safe, prosperous and at ease.
Then the go to that other guy and point back at you and assure him that apart from the protection of the G-man, YOU are going to screw this guy over. YOU need rules, inspectors and careful watching. If this other guy gives the G-man power and fully funded "resources", he will protect him from you.
On and on it goes until no one moves, breathes or conducts any human transaction apart from government permission.
Somehow, the safe, prosperous, free and at-ease part of the deal never quite arrive.
Hey Freedomguy, soon you a I and many more will be the only ones who remember when life was "safe, prosperous, free and -ease part of the deal was always there and we assumed it always would be.."
And "less virulent" equals "more durable".
Christians are the first to throw bitch-fits whenever there's a nipple on television - they're more than happy to abrogate the first amendment and scream for government overreach then. Both sides are to blame - they think their pet issue is so important that freedom has to step aside just this once.
I reserve judgement until I see that nipple
Get your head out of your ass.
You dumbfuck leftards don't understand the first amendment at all. There is no freedom from criticism or boycotts by individuals or private groups
I am a Christian and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the female breast exposed...in public...at all.
Breasts are wonderful. The female body is wonderful.
There is nothing indecent about the Human Body unless it is in a diseased and/or in an obese state. Then that is definitely indecent...Yeeeech!!!!
But sex between two adults needs to be kept intimate...private.
Sex is the ACTUAL MARRIAGE after all.
If you have sex with anybody then you become one flesh....even a whore.
For that indisputable fact is declared in I Corinthians 6:16, an INCONVENIENT SCRIPTURE for those who think that you can have sex before marriage...which is having sex before sex??? (And just how would that work?)
If you have sex with a prostitute then you have become ONE FLESH...which is the definition of MARRIAGE.
Even the Roman Catholics will NOT RECOGNIZE any marriage unless it is consummated. (although they created that "sin of fornication" in order to extract "INDULGENCES" from the followers.)
They cannot bring themselves to degrade that sacrament in that fashion...although I will not put it past 'em.
If you have had sex...with anyone...then according to the Bible you are MARRIED.
And you cannot be forgiven of the sin of fornication when it is a complete fabrication in the first place.
I believe thses days Christians are very conserned about skin expose...of the obese! I don't follow any religions, but I fully support the Christian view to cover up rolling body fat!
Horseshit.
We are monkeys with guns, your god is a lie.
The Republicans had HOW many years to do something about health care? But of course they were too far in the pockets of the insurance companys to rock the boat. Obamacare comes along and they figure they can deal themselves in and call the shots, but they never factored in that the Obamambots were soo incompetent they would basically screw the pooch for everybody.
So a pox on both their houses Big insurance ( read banks) D's & Rs.Go ahead and give us single payer and make the best out of it. I mean if the governmet runs it it's got to be done right. Right?
So Obama and the Democrats let the INSURANCE industry write the ACA. How deep in the pocket does that make the D's? And by the way its starting to fail. This is United Health's last year participating. At this rate in 2 years all the companies will stop supporting it. What then?
ZH is at it's best with this type of article. I would like to take the ideas presented one step farther.
Once government mandates something it begins, not to unify us but to divide us...into factions. Let's take public education as an example. Government mandates everyone must go to the same school and get the same curriculum. So, a Jewish kid, an Arab-Muslim, a WASP, an anti-theist, some with leftist parents, some with libertarian, etc. are all mandated to go to the same school and learn exactly the same things.
Now, people who might otherwise live peaceably next to each other with all their voluntary associations at work, church and social groups will be involuntarily forced to associate or pay a freedom-fee. The freedom-fee is you pay for the manatory government school and then pay again for your own private school. Only the relatively wealthy can afford to be free.
More importantly we now have to argue whether or not pork is on the school lunch menu. Then even if it is option do we pay for the pork? Do we have school prayer, to Allah, Jesus, Yahweh or none at all? Do we break for prayer five times a day, celebrate Christmas, Kwanzaa or Cinco de Mayo? Do the girls cover from head to toe or skirts within two inches of the knee, or do we even allow women to be educated?
It is one thing when cultures voluntarily mesh. It is another when government has the bigger and better plan to force the culture...because "government" knows better, right? Government and governors are a lot like lawyers. They profit from the conflict. BTW, what profession outnumbers all the other professions combined in government? Yes, lawyers.
Excellent analysis. The government likes to give us things to fight over.
Yeah, they are always like "dance puppets, dance!"
The endless delusion of mankind is the good king. The prophet Samuel and his God advised the sheeple against it 3,000 years ago. Better a good serf than being responsible for yourself.
Yes!!! Reaper, you are the first person who has referenced this. Book of Samuel.
For those of you who do not know the reference it goes approximately like this:
Backgound: Israel is probably the only people in the world not ruled by a king or monarch of some sort. They just have judges.
Israeli's: Samuel, you are old and your sons (who wlil be the next judges) are morons. Give us a king!
God/prophet: You won't like kings.
Israeli's: Kings are cool. Everyone has them! We want them, too. Kings are in fashion. We are the only advanced people without single payer healthcare, er, a king!
God/prophet: Kings will take your money, your land, your daughters, raise armies and oppress you.
Israeli's: No. Our king will be cool and we will be cool like all the other monarchies.
God/prophet: Okay, dimwits. I'll give you one and you''ll see for yourselves.
By the fourth king the people want to kill the king.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/1.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/2sam/1.html
One of Aesop's lesser-known fables tells a similar story. Frogs enjoying an idyllic life in a little pond ask mighty Zeus to give them a king. So Zeus throws down a lighting bolt, knocking a dead tree into the pond with a great splash. The frogs are delighted at first, but then start complaining that the log just lies there doing nothing.
Infuriated at their ingratitude, Zeus sends them a *real* king: A stork that proceeds to eat every frog in that little pond!
there is a remedy, but the sight of blood must be countenanced .
"This is particularly true when, as in all wars, “tit for tat” quickly becomes the standard. The left shoves Planned Parenthood and a contraception mandate down the throat of the right. Then the right feels doubly justified in trying to impose their views on abortion and “intelligent design.” The end result is a reduced sphere of freedom for everyone, including us innocent bystanders caught in the crossfires of their battles."
Uh... regardless of what one thinks about abortion, the author is (purposely?) being very disingenuous with this paragraph... Unlike the 'imposition of views' on the matter from the 'Right' (views and a bucket of warm spit have about the same value - one disappears into thin air, the other dries up on the ground in minutes, but either way your paycheck wasn't relieved of a few tax dollars to cover the expense of those 'views'...), the 'Left' shoves it's 'views' down your throat with Gusto & Vigor by way of Government Mandate - i.e., the Force of taxation to pay for said services. How in the Bloody Hell does this author equate one's political opinion with what has been in Force for decades...?
Often wondered what life would be like if we split our countries in half and everyone of one political bent moved to one side, the others to the other.
Then we raize an iron curtain and wait to see what happens.
My bet is that the Libertarian/Right Wing side would look over the wall in about 10 years and see a lifeless wasteland.
Edit: Sounds like a plan.
We actually did that once. It was called America. people who liked monarchs could live in Europe. We could live with some universal rules, protection of rights and no monarchs.
The Soviets walled of their section of Germany. One could see the results.
Kim Il Sung did that in the earlier 1950s and we can see that result today.
I should change my name to Nick Word just so I can say my name is "N. Word"
The assessment re Weimar, Hayek or not, strikes me as specious insofar as his analysis of the WR was not particularly good.
Statists left and right are primarily about using force and coercion to infringe on the rights of others. The state monopoly on violence facilitates this, and that mostly is what generates the love of the state - a tool of repression.
College kids have gone from respectably unhinged to batshit crazy
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/13/amherst-activists-demand-reeducation-f...
Free speech has never been under such sustained assault: from the Jewish Lobby to feminists to the racism is everywhere crowd.
Personally, I cant deal with these assholes anymore. They dont demand rights or liberty - they demand everyone agree with them.
Libertarians keep fucking themselves by infighting.
Yes.
The Commies infected higher education.
The Nazis infected corporate America.
I may not approve of torturing abortionists slowly to death, but I will fight to preserve others' right to do so.
toture is a right. i think dick cheney said that.
"In a libertarian world, people with these differing opinions and values can live side by side in reasonable harmony, each side following the famous Voltairian advice to disapprove of what someone says (or does), but defend to the death his right to say (or do) it."
Yeah, sure. In the their Ron Paul Libertarian world, you'll have a crack house, a whore house, shotguns going off at all hours of the day and night, and ten thousand barking pit bulls in every neighborhood.
And your kids will be taught by the sort of people that you'll be barricading yourself and your family against too.
I'm a closet libertarian of sorts. I'd like to legalize murder. Liberate your murderous instincts. We all have them.
You just cannot imagine how polite and well-behaved everyone would be in my murder-liberated world. Crimes like rape and assault would be things of the past. Legalize murder, and peace and harmony won't be far behind.
And the drug dealers will get the hint real quick. Boom!
You confuse libertarianism with anarchy. They are not the same thing.
To a libertarian:
Crack house = okay, unless and until the crack house starts impairing the property values of the surrounding properties.
Whore house = okay, unless and until the whore house starts impairing the property values of the surrounding properties.
Shotguns going off = generally a no-no in a typical neighborhood, as the shotgun blasts themselves harm others' hearing, disrupt others' enjoyment of their peace (a public nuisance) and may damage other private property or public property. If the shotgun-shooter is on private property large enough that no others can hear the shots and the ammo cannot possibly hit any victims nor victims' property, go for it--it is perfectly okay. If some sound-suppression technology for shotguns were being used such that the shots were no louder than a human voice speaking at normal conversational volumes (~70dB), they should be fine shooting their shotgun all they want (assuming the ammo doesn't strike any other person or his/her property).
Murder = banned. By definition murder is the use of force against a non-consenting victim.
These are some reasons why libertarians DO believe in the necessity for government; they just want that government to be as small as possible.
Wrong. Real anarchy is fine, but nobodyhas the spine to be responsible enough.
It's a simple fact of nature that every action A has a consequence C. Unless you're a heartless conservative, you'll agree to alleviate this C with government subsidy S. Now the people who do A are no longer just hurting themselves and their loved ones; they're "freeloaders" depleting the public treasury. Therefore A must be outlawed, or severely regulated.
Repeat this with enough values of A, C, and S, and you'll have a fascist police state with no activity unregulated, no dollar untaxed, and no bureaucrat unemployed. Which was probably the real goal all along.
Which is why I'm a "heartless conservative". I take Ayn Rand's line on this one - goverment should only exist for the maintenance of the armed forces - that's it.
Organisation of society is only one of the issues at play, however.
Ethnicity/Culture is of extreme importance. Mix multiple peoples together and you WILL end up with multiple States. Then those States will war upon each other.
So what is the solution? Not one that we want, that's for sure - which is why we are so reluctant to do it.
We either put and end to the government - violently or not a all.
We either drive out/kill the barbarian invaders or submit and vanish from the Earth as a People/Culture.
The only alternative to these actions is to flee the collapsing Communist/barbarian shithole that our Fatherlands are becoming - but flee to where?
My tip is we're going to have to buck up and kill us a shitload of folks. No other way out of this one people.
The US government should have diverted a chunk of its budget into handing out free condoms to everyone teen age and above and offering free vasectomies. They should have done it 40 years ago when the population moved into the phase when more people than jobs were being created. If they had taken that step, other countries may have copied and the world wouldn't be as fucked as it is now. Only china and thailand, and more recently Bangladesh have had the balls to say to their people, Stop having kids! We can't afford them."
mijev, i gave u a reddie. PRC has recently seen the light and reversed the so-called "one child" policy. Not that they have given up on the internal passport called the menstrual record. But the cultural effects of a) one child plus b) elective abortions lead to c) an unhealthy inbalance between male and female children. Too many males in today's combat-ready cohorts.
The change is "start having two kids".
Who knew?
- Ned
"The US government should have diverted a chunk of its budget into handing out free condoms to everyone teen age and above and offering free vasectomies. They should have done it 40 years ago when the population moved into the phase when more people than jobs were being created."
Native Born Americans have been in decline for about 40 years. So much so the number of newborns was below replacement. However, to make up the difference, the US gov't turned to immigation, which imported mostly sub-100 IQ people. Consider that in the USA, Whites will be a minority in a couple of decades, Even worse is the number of super-100 IQ people left in the USA as whites are also getting dumbed down. The Movie "Idiocracy" is becoming a documentary, not a comedy.
"Only china and thailand, and more recently Bangladesh have had the balls to say to their people"
That didn't work, since Parents culled girls since girls were liability (pay dowry, do not generate income as much as men). China has reversed its One-Child policy because its created other problems.
The likely stems from the end of the traditional family values, when it was forbidden for women to have children out of wedlock. Now we have a country full of single mother families that raise thier children on a gov't check, and no male role.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
When did university become a giant contest to see who can be the biggest pussy?
It used to be a contest to see who could get the most pussy!
14 years after a wheelbarrow load of Reichsbank notes, a wheelbarrow load of Berlin.
Hayek worshippers tend to ignore the fact that VON Hayek wrote primarily to defend the hereditary privileges of his social class against encroachment by the very egalitarian plutocracy that they seek. Hayek was a Juncker, seeking to justify the domination of the landed aristocracy over others, but most especially the working classes who, having been stripped both of capital and the opportunity to amass it for millenia, could not compete on a "level playing field" with those who came to that field with far greater resources.
Similarly, it's interesting how very few females are to be found among Libertarians. While I personally grant the "ordinary" nature of birth control expenses and the inappropriateness of insurance coverage of such predictable costs, there is a substantial difficulty with pricing in this market. The cost of these drugs and the "care" required to obtain them (i.e., unnecessary medical expenses merely to obtain a prescription) is excessive and far beyond what genuine free market pricing would produce. Instead, the combination of controlled access and patent protections makes a 25 cent pill often cost more than $2, at 30 pills per month. Furthermore, the avoidance of unwanted pregnancy is a service not just to the woman, but also to the male partner who does not want to be stuck with child support and to society at large, which ends up paying well over $20,000 in lifetime tax benefits for every child even before the costs of public education are factored in. Given the amount of public funds devoted to subsidizing children, helping women who do NOT want children to avoid them is dirt cheap.
Finally, there is the problem of sexual coercion. Women have far less control over their sexuality than men pretend to believe. Although we are gradually escaping from the assumptions of absolute male privilege over wives and lovers, sex is still an essential currency in the grey market, where women without economic resources resort to bartering their bodies for everything from food and protection to car repairs. And men STILL refuse to use condoms. Liberty? Call it that when YOU can get pregnant and be forced to carry and raise the brat for the next 20 years!
Sorry Princess, but a woman that refuses to earn her own way and rely on her sexuality to sponge resources off a productive male can run the risk of getting pregnant. The parasite can do something for the society she lives in - no-one owes her so much as a crust of stale bread. So if she decides to enter the sex-worker industry to get by, that's her damn choice.
Stop being such a sook/gimmedat apologist.
You are a leftist, correct? I have debated these idiotic points before and I do not have an hour to deconstruct them.
There are lots of female libertarians. I'd say every single political ideology and economic theory was founded by the writings of men. It does not make them patriarchal.
Your entire world view sucks and requires a totalitarian to fix. Your hegelian materialist dialectic is the underpinning of the failed collectivist states.
Being the weaker sex, women desire security more that liberty. In traditional society, this security was provided individually by fathers, husbands, and sons, but less feminine women would prefer that all men collectively support all women and expect nothing in return (I'm looking at you, Emma Watson).
This is why the Founding Fathers did not allow women to vote.
Why don't birth control and planned parenthood belong in the government sphere? Unwanted births and young, single mothers are a huge burden on society. I don't believe for a second that opposition to either is based on economics. Most opposition is based on hypocritical delusional beliefs like Christianity or Catholicism.
If you want to debate what we can afford and not afford, then let's do that. If you want to talk about openness or closedness of cultural debate ("safe zones", free speech, right to opinion), then do that. But this article is poorly disguised attack on policies you apparently disagree with (despite the rather weak attempt to claim the contrary...go ahead, point it out to me again and explain that that one sentence negates the entire sub-context of the rest of the article).
If you don't like funding abortion or birth control, then please fun orphanages and welfare for unwed mothers. Or are you of the "Just Say No" tribe, because we know how well adolescents can control their behavior and hormones?
It's facile to be libertarian when the policies you want the government to change are in line with your personal beliefs. But please give me a list of ALL government supported prgrams you would do away with in the name of Liberty, Free Speech, and Cultural Unity.
Otherwise, I simply call "bullshit" on this.
"Why don't birth control and planned parenthood belong in the government sphere? Unwanted births and young, single mothers are a huge burden on society. I don't believe for a second that opposition to either is based on economics. Most opposition is based on hypocritical delusional beliefs like Christianity or Catholicism."
Why is ANY of that the state's business?
"Christainity OR Catholicism"...is that like water or water?
Have we missed our meds today young expat? We're sure angry, aren't we?
If its murder for convienince sake, I choose you as today's sacrifice....cool with you? :)
"If you want to debate what we can afford and not afford, then let's do that. If you want to talk about openness or closedness of cultural debate ("safe zones", free speech, right to opinion), then do that. But this article is poorly disguised attack on policies you apparently disagree with (despite the rather weak attempt to claim the contrary...go ahead, point it out to me again and explain that that one sentence negates the entire sub-context of the rest of the article)."
Do you think it is moral to spend the taxes of tax payers not yet aborted?
Sorry, bad question...you likely won't get it. You believe is spending the money or children you have not yet spent the money on killing so you can have more free stuff today....did I get that right? I know, I know, I've listented to Bill Clinton before, "Its for the Children". I know, abortion is "for the children"...
National bankrupcy is "for the children".
"If you don't like funding abortion or birth control, then please fun orphanages and welfare for unwed mothers. Or are you of the "Just Say No" tribe, because we know how well adolescents can control their behavior and hormones? "
Why is ANY of that the state's business? You insult the church at the beginning of your rant and it was they that used to handle these things....when the country was solvent. So now, they don't because the country now spends the taxes of persons yet unborn ( some of whom will never be born because they are being slaughtered at an alarming rate with the money we don't have that will supposedly come from the taxes they can no longer pay because they are dead) to do what the church used to handle.
"It's facile to be libertarian when the policies you want the government to change are in line with your personal beliefs. But please give me a list of ALL government supported prgrams you would do away with in the name of Liberty, Free Speech, and Cultural Unity."
Everything except the Navy and the state Militia. Everything else is unconstitutional.
"Otherwise, I simply call "bullshit" on this."
Yes well, please do. Others reserve that right for you as well.
Nice weekend and please, do take your meds on time.
Squid
Expat:
Well, since today they are in the government sphere (despite the views of a majority of citizens), we can examine what is wrong with the policies.
Basically, they are anti-life.
- Ned
Voltaire's sense of critique and liberty, Montesquieu's sense of balance of power and spirit of the laws and Rousseau's sense of the social contract...not a bad trilogy about Enlightenment; based on liberty, égalité fraternité for the "hoi polloi"; along with "la grande faucheuse" for those who were unrepentant "hoi oligoi".