tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post3335238633237941526..comments2023-12-13T16:57:33.142-06:00Comments on Blogodidact: Where there's 'No!' smoke, there's fire.Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-26625074718323473752011-06-18T14:14:24.441-05:002011-06-18T14:14:24.441-05:00As Mushroom said in a different forum, and upon a ...As Mushroom said in a different forum, and upon a slightly different topic, economics:<br /><br />"<i>If I had to sum up my own economic theory it would be: Things don't always work out necessarily for the best, but anything anyone does to fix it is guaranteed to make it worse.</i>"<br /><br />Bingo!Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-34293054473937163672011-06-18T14:11:40.733-05:002011-06-18T14:11:40.733-05:00Lance said "Hahahaha In news of the obvious. ...Lance said "Hahahaha In news of the obvious. :)"<br /><br />Spoken as someone completely and fully within his rights to say so!<br /><br />;-)<br /><br />Lance disagree's with much or most of what I say, but he is that most rare of people, he is willing to listen and consider the opposing views of another person, and I respect the hell out of that.<br /><br />(And he's struggled through some of my most extreme bouts of longwindedness... deserves a medal of some kind for that!)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-66455355174841917322011-06-18T14:07:58.738-05:002011-06-18T14:07:58.738-05:00aninnymouse said “Only a very simpleminded person ...aninnymouse said “Only a very simpleminded person could believe something like that. Such a moronic idea of rights has nothing whatsoever to do with legal reality.”<br /><br />Only someone who has failed to look beyond the most shallow of appearances, could attempt to say something such as that with a straight face, and feel impressed with themselves in doing it.<br /><br />Yes, I am against those civil rights laws which tell a property owner who they can and cannot allow in their establishments. While I think it would be highly proper, and even incumbent upon any person who cares about liberty, to publicly denounce, ridicule and boycott any establishment which hung a sign saying ‘___ only’ (you fill in the blank), the government cannot intervene in the matter without destroying the very concept of Rights which they are purportedly seeking to defend.<br /><br />The society which relies upon their government and laws to make themselves enlightened and moral, is a society that is dooming itself to the darkest of tyrannies.<br /><br />“Length is not a substitute for depth. Try thinking more and writing less. “<br /><br />A quip is not a substitute for wit. Try reading more and at the same time considering the extended implications of what you read, and do that before you say much about it; practice that for awhile and you might eventually escape the habit of making such a damned fool of yourself.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-92026347223791002472011-06-18T13:59:11.008-05:002011-06-18T13:59:11.008-05:00Anonymous said “Society has abandoned principles f...Anonymous said “Society has abandoned principles for morality, or the pretense of morality. “<br /><br />First off, thanks for the video link, I enjoyed that, particularly between :52 & 2:00. But while I can agree with the gist of your comment, it is because society has abandoned a respect for reality, and even ceded belief in our ability to know reality at all (for some real longwindedness, see my post on Descartes: <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2009/07/unknown-conspiracies-you-dont-think.html" rel="nofollow">Unknown Conspiracies: You don’t think, therefore, they are</a> (the series of posts it belongs to, <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/Justice" rel="nofollow">Justice</a>, I’m up to 19 posts, and still have several to go, in order to make my case why I am NOT a libertarian, not based upon their intent, Liberty, but their flawed foundation for it), that we have lost the ability to be moral, and have become something like a people who are anti-principle on principle (aka: pragmatism).<br /><br />Also, the phrase ‘we can’t legislate morality’ is one I’ve seen argued both ways by conservative and libertarian alike. One obvious retort is that every Law expresses a deeply moral position, which it most certainly legislates. Laws against theft, murder, etc, are nothing if not moral. And the counter to that is that lying and adultery, etc, are deeply moral issues, but we don’t (any longer) and shouldn’t attempt to legislate those – look at what happened with prohibition, etc.<br /><br />The fact is that both miss the mark. The real issue is that law most definitely should be moral, and <i>must</i> be moral, in every way in order to be good law, but Law is only good law when it is directed against those areas where the interests and actions of individuals not only intersect in society, but where the real property and persons of individuals are involved, threatened, etc, and that requires something more than simply stating principle, it requires prudently applying principles to the moving target of life, which requires a sober, moral and virtuous people (or at the very least a people who see that as a supreme value), in order to do it effectively, as well enough of them in the electorate who are well educated enough (not schooled, mind you, but Educated) in order to elect those who can and will do so. <br /><br />It always comes back to the philosophers and the schoolmen – if they are opposed to reality, and the bulk of ours most definitely are, what else can result but ruin?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-42594143246064802242011-06-18T13:16:40.962-05:002011-06-18T13:16:40.962-05:00Rosemary said “Well, your article as inordinately ...Rosemary said “Well, your article as inordinately long, but I know the point.”<br /><br />Well thanks, but you assume that my point was yours – it wasn’t. The point you went looking for, “You can't separate one assault on personl freedom from another” is certainly a feature of it, and an important one, but it’s not THE point.<br /><br />My point, which this post was far to short to fully make, was that our political rights, all of them, rest upon the how clearly we respect and defend Property Rights, and Property Rights are derived from the makeup of our nature as human beings who engage in a reasoning respect for reality. The Indians were clearly human beings, but absent that reasoning respect for reality, had no rights but that of vague hierarchies of force. That is the direction we are proregressing towards, and if not arrested soon, we will proregress back to a simple Hobbesian nature, red in tooth and claw.<br /><br />You’re also assuming that my post was written for you, it wasn’t. While I appreciate your taking the time to read it, and welcome all to do so, I write my posts for me, and for what I would like to explore in whatever the issue happes to be. If you thought this post inordinately long... you haven’t read too many of mine!<br /><br />But, yes, I tend to be longwinded, no argument. But whenever I’m reminded of Shakespeare’s “Brevity is the soul of wit” I console myself by recalling the prating fool whose mouth Shakespeare put those words into, and then go about my merry way of letting the long winds blow.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-53647631580617039982011-06-18T13:06:01.759-05:002011-06-18T13:06:01.759-05:00"Well, your article as inordinately long,&quo..."Well, your article as inordinately long," <br /><br />Hahahaha In news of the obvious. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04973448750714819716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-11085792567731731852011-06-17T21:39:57.161-05:002011-06-17T21:39:57.161-05:00I take it you oppose civll rights laws as well, si...I take it you oppose civll rights laws as well, since they too impose restrictions on what a property owner can do with their property.<br /><br /><i>One persons Rights (not desires, mind you, but Rights) do not conflict with anothers - if they seem to, you've got an error lurking somewhere in your premises.</i><br /><br />Only a very simpleminded person could believe something like that. Such a moronic idea of rights has nothing whatsoever to do with legal reality.<br /><br />Length is not a substitute for depth. Try thinking more and writing less.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-27531647469150100512011-06-17T19:58:45.757-05:002011-06-17T19:58:45.757-05:00Society has abandoned principles for morality, or ...Society has abandoned principles for morality, or the pretense of morality. Not only does this degrade our rights, but it violates the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was founded. Morality cannot be legislated. Laws should protect one’s person and property from others, but they are no substitute for free will.<br /><br />We would benefit by educating ourselves on the tenets of natural rights. This video is an excellent primer, “The Philosophy of Liberty.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7IAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-81626796617518402662011-06-17T14:39:29.162-05:002011-06-17T14:39:29.162-05:00Well, your article as inordinately long, but I kno...Well, your article as inordinately long, but I know the point. You can't separate one assault on personl freedom from another. When you begin to pick and choose which freedoms you want to protect and which you don't, you are opting for tyranny. NO private establishment should be told by a government what they can and cannot do in their establishment, just as the government should not be allowed to tell the individual what he can and cannot do in his home. Liberals declare their support for "minorities," but only certain minorities that vote for them. I knew all this in 1970 but no one wanted to listen because they bought into all the quasi-science of cigarette smoking causing cancer. Now there are 20% fewer smokers but the cancer rate has not decreased accordingly, but tyrants will always bend facts to fit their ends.Rosemarynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-32562319560268021562011-06-17T10:17:38.645-05:002011-06-17T10:17:38.645-05:00I had this conversation yesterday in a license off...I had this conversation yesterday in a license office with an fellow a little older than myself. He's a smoker who now refuses to enter a restaurant in the nearby city of Springfield where smoking is banned by ordinance. The funny thing is, he didn't smoke in the restaurants anyway. He just hates these "damn communists" telling him what to do. <br /><br />There is always going to be some greater public "good" found to justify the expansion of tyranny. <br /><br />Medicaid expenses are used as a wedge to justify the limitations on personal freedom. I never ride a motorcycle without a helmet nor do I drive without a seat belt, but the cost of medical treatment to the uninsured is what allows government to justify the requirements for seat belts and helmets. <br /><br />Common sense would say that people are responsible for their own individual choices and the consequences thereof.mushroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07651027035577798096noreply@blogger.com