Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rape was already legal in the past and it did not diminish the hurt and pain of being raped so no, legalizing it today would not make it more moral because you're still hurting another sentient being.
I will once again ask all those people offended by Williams rape analogy to explain to me why Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is widely taught in college literature courses.
Neither he, nor you, are a Swift.
He is not that clever, nor did he mean to be. He's just mean spirited and using hyperbole to make an invalid point.
Are you volunteering to be raped to prove your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Williams ain't trying to legalize rape he is trying to delegalize theft. Do you have a problem with making stealing illegal?
Then he should have found a different example.
He knew exactly what he was doing, attempting to incite.
Neither he, nor you, are a Swift.
He is not that clever, nor did he mean to be. He's just mean spirited and using hyperbole to make an invalid point.
Are you volunteering to be raped to prove your point?
Then he should have found a different example.
He knew exactly what he was doing, attempting to incite.
Well, at least he got your attention. Now, think about the principle of self-ownership. Try to understand the concept of personal liberty.
Another example of the brilliant Dr. Williams utilizing the principle of self-ownership.
Quote:
Another very dangerous cost of the war on drugs is that it has given respectability to the violation of our constitutional guarantees. Civil-forfeiture laws have been enacted, in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, under which property can be confiscated without due process. A parent can have his automobile or house confiscated if, even when unbeknown to the parent, his offspring uses it in connection with drug use or sales. Anti-money-laundering laws violate our rights to privacy in our transactions. Murderers and rapists have been freed from crowded prisons to make room for nonviolent drug users.
From the demand, or personal use, side of the drug issue, what should we do? Lysander Spooner (1808–1887), one of the great American thinkers of the nineteenth century, suggested that while vices may be self-destructive or offensive, like all peaceful, voluntary activities they should remain outside the province of law and government. The vices Spooner referred to include “gluttony, drunkenness, prostitution, gambling, prize-fighting, tobacco-chewing, smoking and snuffing, opium-eating, corset-wearing, idleness, waste of property, avarice, hypocrisy, etc., etc.” Spooner added that if practitioners of these and other vices cannot be reformed voluntarily, if they go on to what other men call destruction, then they must be permitted to do so. He reminds us that the maxim of law is there can be no crime without criminal intent to invade the property or person of another.
People practice vices for what they perceive as their own happiness—not to violate the rights of another. In a free society people have the right to destroy their own lives but not those of others. When government coercion is used to promote virtue, there cannot be liberty. However, there is conduct that people might engage in under the influence of narcotics, such as impaired driving, robbery and burglary to fund their habit, and other acts that threaten the rights of others. Such acts are already criminal and should be punished.
We Americans have to ask ourselves if there is a better way to deal with the drug problem. I think there is. We need to focus more on the demand side of the drug problem. After all, most people don’t use marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. The reason they don’t has nothing to do with its price or the fact it’s illegal. Their decision has much more to do with their values and common sense. Rather than near-exclusive reliance on the law and government, I believe greater and longer-lasting gains can be made through civil society, where we can cajole, admonish, and teach people about the destructive effects of narcotics—and ostracize them if necessary.
It is foolhardy to have a public policy that forces people hell-bent on destroying their own lives to become violent criminals and destroy the lives of innocents in the process. It is also foolhardy for society to create circumstances in which official integrity is compromised and our constitutional guarantees are violated.
Eliminate the drug war and cops could spend more time chasing thieves and rapists. Those rapists really need to be in jail instead of that ageing hippie caught with a bag of weed.
Quote:
<H1>Woman forced to watch teen's torture slay
Quote:
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City man kidnapped a 20-year-old woman and forced her to watch others torture and kill another woman so that she would cooperate with a human trafficking ring, police said Tuesday.
Jimmy Lee Massey, 33, was arrested on a warrant for first-degree murder in the death of 19-year-old Carina Saunders, whose dismembered body was found stuffed in a duffel bag in the Oklahoma City suburb of Bethany, Police Chief Phil Cole said. Formal charges are pending
.Carina would most likely be alive today if this country understood the principle of self-ownership.
Have you ever read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?
Who hasn't?
Quote:
Why is it widely utilized in college literature courses?
Because Swift was a very talented writer, knew how to use satire to great effect, and was writing about a genuine tragedy.
Admittedly, it would be unfair to demand that Dr. Whatshisname have the same command of English prose as one of the great British novelists, so peace be upon that. But as for satire, his piece doesn't possess any - well, any of the voluntary sort, that is. And I take it reasonable people would agree that the Irish famines were rather worse transgressions than the concept of income tax.
If you compare this tripe to Swift's writing, I can't help but doubt you understand what makes "A Modest Proposal" a classic.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 01-13-2012 at 11:07 PM..
Elizbeth Warren and others think this way, I see what your saying, kind of an odd way to give an example.............. I guess these people, don't pay enough taxes Below is a transcript of Warren’s remarks:
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Dr. Walter Williams explains the immorality of the liberal position:
"Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property. Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed."
Great POINT! BRILLIANT!
You know what? I say that the United States, whatever state he lives, and his local municipality should stop levying taxes on Dr. Walter Williams! Can't they see they're STEALING his money????
There is however one condition: While the good dr. will not have to pay taxes, he must also agree to never steal from the government. After all fair is fair; If Dr. Williams' City, Country, and State agree to stop stealing from him in the form of taxes he should agree to not steal from them!
In fact everyone who agrees with Dr. Williams should receive the same deal. Congrats whogo! No more taxes for you anymore you shining beacon of brilliance!
Remember just don't steal from the government!
Speaking of that, I hope you weren't planing on sending your kid to school. After all taxes pay for the school and if you didn't pay them and sent your kid there that's stealing!
I also hope you weren't planing on ever calling 911 for any type of emergency. Police, Firemen, EMTs, etc. Using their services would clearly be stealing.
Oh yea and don't forget to not use a road. Those are paid for by taxes too!
A lot of the food you eat is also subsidized by the government... so that's off limits.
also while you may pay your water bill and sewage fees, tax money also goes into maintaining those systems, so that's off limits as well.
So anyway good luck not stealing from the government. I hope you live far away from civilization, and have access to plenty of land to grow and hunt for food as well as a water source. Otherwise I imagine within a few days you'll be forced to steal from the government by using some of their services for free... or you'll wither up and die... a just punishment for being foolish enough that paying taxes equates to the government stealing from you and giving money to the poor.
Rape and murder is illegal because it is an act of sexual or fatal violence against another, perpetrated against their will and without their consent.
When we start viewing our bodies in terms of "property rights," and suggest that autonomy over our bodies is on the same level as an acre of land or a store bought toaster, we're in for a lot of trouble.
When MY body and mind earn money and your huge over-powerful government rob me of that money especially to redistribute to those who choose not to use their bodies or mind to work and earn money it's no different.
Slavery is when others work and you profit from the fruits of their labor. When the slaves work, they cannot keep the profits their work brought it but instead the slave master profits from that work.
Taxpayers are just like slaves. We work but the government decides the fruits of our labor are to be confiscated. We're no longer the ones profitting from our work.
Elizbeth Warren and others think this way, I see what your saying, kind of an odd way to give an example.............. I guess these people, don't pay enough taxes Below is a transcript of Warren’s remarks:
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
But that idiot forgot that the business pays LOCAL taxes for the property protection, and gasoline taxes when they use the roads. The business has to hire it's own security guards, must put in smoke detectors and sprinkler systems themselves.
But that idiot forgot that the business pays LOCAL taxes for the property protection, and gasoline taxes when they use the roads. The business has to hire it's own security guards, must put in smoke detectors and sprinkler systems themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
