Economics describes the flow of value.

Tags: maxims ∙ respect ∙ individual ∙ label

“"It's obvious you idiot" doesn't cut it.”

Tags: maxims ∙ libertarian ∙ American ∙ personal freedom ∙ economic freedom ∙ responsibility ∙ government ∙ individual

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ progressive ∙ Bernie Sanders ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ Yaron Brook ∙ Ayn Rand Institute ∙ poor ∙ private property ∙ profit ∙ individual ∙ permission ∙ industrial revolution ∙ running water ∙ electricity

““I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.””

— Robert A. Heinlein

Tags: Robert A. Heinlein ∙ free ∙ individual ∙ responsibility

So does that mean that the Decalogue has no value?

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ doctrine ∙ individual ∙ Bible ∙ Christians ∙ slavery ∙ libertarian ∙ government ∙ sponsored ∙ foreign aid ∙ domestic aid

So does that mean that the Decalogue has no value?

Tags: Christianity ∙ individual ∙ people ∙ pagans ∙ atheist ∙ secret of life ∙ Satanists ∙ force ∙ coercive power ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ Christian ∙ Jewish ∙ cross posted ∙ rules ∙ laws ∙ Divine ∙ Decalogue ∙ Nature ∙ World ∙ humanity ∙ colony ∙ organism ∙ cooperation ∙ Chas S. Clifton ∙ label

❝❝Christianity, the Nation of Islam, atheism, Paganism, these are labels. Now people may use those labels as justifications for their actions, but it is not the label that is responsible. As a Pagan I'm not responsible for the actions of every Pagan out there. I'm responsible for my actions. Since I believe strongly that the measure of a man is in the lives he touches, I'll even accept some of the responsibility for the actions of the people I know and love. But someone I've never met? I can't be responsible for them, no matter what the label they choose. The label isn't responsible, the individuals are.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Redux: Christians & Pagan Tolerance

Tags: maxims ∙ Christianity ∙ Nation of Islam ∙ atheism ∙ paganism ∙ labels ∙ justification ∙ responsibility ∙ measure a man ∙ lives they touch ∙ know and love ∙ individual

““The Merriam=Webster Online dictionary defines Libertarian as: “a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.”  I agree with that definition.  The same dictionary defines liberty as:” the power to do as one pleases.”  This definition I do not agree with because it is incomplete.  It differs from the definition that was universally accepted by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  They believed that liberty is the freedom to do as you please, as long as you do not hurt others, or interfere with the rights of others.  It is freedom with the responsibility to not hurt others or prevent them from exercising their rights.

A Libertarian believes that preventing individuals from harming others, or interfering with the rights of others, are the only legitimate functions of government.  They believe that individuals should be free to live their lives as they choose, free from any government interference, as long as they treat others properly.  They believe that government assistance, of any kind, is unacceptable, unneeded, and harmful.””

— Jon Fournier, Why do Conservatives and Libertarians squabble so much?

Tags: Jon Fournier ∙ libertarian ∙ individual ∙ liberty ∙ thought ∙ action ∙ hurt ∙ rights ∙ goverment

❝❝Understand that I am still torn on the subject.

But not every pregnancy results in live birth, even without abortions. Not every pregnancy comes to term.

Under those circumstances, it's hard to call abortion murder or killing babies.

---

I saw it. I also was treated to a film series in high school called Whatever Happened to the Human Race?

I come from a long line of farming stock. Death happens. It's not pretty. But it's a part of life.

Incidentally, the big reason why the US has a higher infant mortality rate than many other nations is because in other nations babies aren't always counted as "alive" until they've gotten through the first year or so.

There are a great many things that our country does that are not civilized. I'm pretty sure that if I were deciding what is and is not acceptable to society, there would be complaints. Public nudity wouldn't go over well. Neither would removing body parts from those who abuse children.

All that being said, if abortions were not government subsidized, I suspect there would be fewer. I think that is a more workable solution than banning abortions outright.

---

Well, that depends. For the most part, yes.

But let's acknowledge that is an artificial distinction. For example, my mother, stepsibs, and I in accordance with my stepdad's wishes from years before decided not to extend his life. Those last couple of years, he was on a feeding tube and incapable of communicating. Years before that, he had lost the ability to understand what was going on around him.

So yes, it was a death from willful causes. But at that point, what kind of life was it?

On another board, I've had talks with people with terminal illnesses who were considering assisted suicide.There were also surviving family members of people who had done that. What kind of life was it? Would you want someone to live with pain and having their body fall apart?

This is not a clear issue. We should accept that if nothing else. People die. Babies die. How much do we mourn? How much do we blame?

There's no absolute here. We should stop pretending that there is.

---

It is a distinction, but I am not convinced it has bearing. It's a while before a baby has awareness of self and even longer before the beginning of language.

I agree it's a fuzzy area and that there are many moral questions that can't be easily answered.

It gets even more complicated when considering the implications. If we accept the sense of self as the defining point of where killing is and is not ethical, what does that say about our companion animals? Or our food animals?

---

I'm not trying to justify abortion. I'm saying it's not easy to justify outlawing abortion and it raises certain moral issues.

The sense of self is different from perception. Humans develop a sense of self as we mature. We can also lose that sense of self.

---

Admittedly it is a fuzzy concept and psychologists argue over it. At it's most basic, it's a recognizing the distinction between "I" and "Other." It's a mental framework that probably arises from brain structure. It's the key to individuality.

As a libertarian, I don't give "society" an ethical justification to do squat. That includes ending lives and mandating clothes in public.

Here's the thing, if we do recognize rights, the only workable way is to make those rights individual rights. Not granted because of some label or gifted by government. You have rights because you are an individual and you share those rights with other individuals.

At that point, we're really defining "personhood" by individuality. That means you must be functionally an individual and accept that others are individual too.

Without individuality, we're hunks of flesh with automatic responses. With individuality,we can choose.❞❞

Tags: abortion ∙ individual ∙ choose ∙ Other ∙ rights ∙ terminal illness ∙ society ∙ justification ∙ infant mortality ∙ awareness of self

❝❝The problem with attacking the label is that there are always remarkable individuals far beyond the box you try to cram them into. Nor are they the exception to the rule.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ label ∙ individual ∙ exceptions

❝❝For years, I've asked the question what makes a "hate crime" worse than another crime for the same offense. I've never gotten a straight answer.

Well, here it is. "Hate crimes" are absolutely justified if it's for the correct reason. Thou shalt not dissent from the approved narrative. Victims are victims unless they strike out against the Man as declared by progressive experts. And collective victimhood counts, especially if it acts against collective oppression. The individual MUST be subservient to the label, all in the name of The Greater Good and to Protect the Children.

So now we know. If it offends progressives, anything is justified so feelings can be protected and any questionable behavior can be ruthlessly suppressed.

Yep, definitely about the hate there.❞❞

Tags: hate crime ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ victims ∙ The Man ∙ individual ∙ subservient to the label ∙ The Greater Good ∙ protect the children ∙ questionable behavior ∙ ruthlessly suppressed

❝❝WH, you are way off base with your opinion about Islam having no Constitution protections. Religion is between you and the Divine and no one else.

That being said, *ahem*





It may be a religion, but if it relies on force, any and all opposition is justified. And if someone chooses to walk away, that's their right.

If your religion depends on force, you're doing it wrong.

---

That's not your place to decide. And Story was wrong.

If you start excluding religions from protection, sooner or later someone else is going to exclude yours. No other nation has America's pluralism. It's what threatens all monotheistic Islam. Religious choice is exactly that, choice,

On the other hand, we must insist on an even playing ground. Islam gets no special treatment and no special protections.

I'd be perfectly happy seeing a law that required anyone, regardless of faith, who participated in an honor killing or female genital mutilation to be executed, wrapped in pigskin, boiled with pig dung, and buried under a pig farm. Of course, the pigs might object…

---

Religion is a hot button topic for me, if for no other reason than I have had Christians use theirs against me, and tell me in no uncertain terms that any religion except Christianity should not be allowed. I'm related to some of those people.

Story himself specifically excluded Judaism. Which is interesting considering (among other things) the history of the Newport, Rhode Island Hebrew Congregation.

Here's what both you and Story are completely overlooking. The English Civil War was relatively recent. No proto-American wanted another church telling their church what to do. But that is minor. No, the big thing is that for the very first time (that we know of) in the history of Western Civilization, the defining document did not say that government power derived from the Divine. Except for the date, there is no mention of any god in the Constitution.

The SCT made a mistake with the Mormon ruling. It wouldn't be the first or last time that the Court goofed. Kelo v. New London comes to mind, as does Pace v. Alabama. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriage, and certainly nothing that gives it authority over religion. Under the Tenth (and yes, I know politicos love to ignore the Tenth), that means the no power, period.

Most importantly, there were many things that did not exist in 1791. Radio, automobiles, telegraph, and baseball come to mind. There were many things that were unknown in 1791. No American had seen the Mariana Trench, the Grand Canyon, Mount McKinley, or a coyote.

---

Story was commenting well after the fact, he was not a signatory to either the DOI or Constitution. The fact that he excluded Judaism reflects on him and not the Founders. Jews may have been a minority faith, but they were a well established faith.

Using law to force the rules of your religion was wrong then and it is wrong now. I'm sure you'd object if Muslim prayer calls were enforced in American law, or if Kosher dietary restrictions were part of the legal system. Almost all of the mala prohibita laws have a religious basis. It's no secret that I believe most of the problems in American society are because of too much government and mala prohibita laws. If your religion says no shopping on Sunday or no selling liquor, that's up to you. Using the law to restrict other's choices based on your religion, well, that doesn't say much for your faith.

Start respecting the "commonalities of Christianity" and you're going to fast approach respecting the commonalities of faith. The Ethic of Reciprocity or "Golden Rule" is the keystone of Western Civilization. It is arguably the single most important and universal basis for human advancement and is the basis for all true liberty. But it did not begin with Judaism or Christianity.

Once you eliminate specific mentions of any god, pluralism between sects pretty much leads to pluralism between religions. It may have been an accident. I suspect some of those Deists took a hand, or pen as it were.

I can't stress that enough. That simple idea takes religion and religious choice out of the public sphere and puts it back into individual behavior where it belongs. The teachings of a faith should matter only to the individual, not to the state. I don't want a Congresscritter demanding that I observe the Christian sabbath, any more than you want another Congresscritter demanding that you participate in ritual sex with same sex partners under the next full moon. And no, I don't do that.

Because that sets up the next bit. Radical Islam demands that the state require and prohibit according to the interpretation of the imams. The state becomes an extension of Islam. There is no provision for other faiths except in very subservient ways. The state becomes religion.

The ideas of liberty expressed in the Constitution reflect the universal ideals well beyond "Judeo-Christianity." Parts of it originated with the ancient Greeks and the Roman Republic as you've pointed out. It's a good idea because it works and not because of it's origins.

When the Founders wanted to limit freedom, be it slavery, restricting the vote to male landowners, or originally not enumerating human rights, it was wrong and it failed miserably. There was no way the Founders could foresee what would follow. We celebrate the universality, the protection of liberty from government and those who would abuse government power.

❝We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.❞

---

It's not your place to decide if you require others to sacrifice their freedom for yours. And as a citizen of this country, that's something I will defend fight against.

Constitutional America was not founded as a Christian nation. Nations are not Christian, individuals are. Yes, even the nations with established churches. Just as one very obvious example, nations can't participate in the Christian rite of communion. If a "Christian nation" goes to war, does that mean that Jeshua ben Joseph signed the marching orders?

Story may have been closer chronologically, but that doesn't mean he was right. I've already told you the biggest piece of evidence. The Constitution clearly states that political power comes from the people and not the Divine. This was unheard of, as far as we know it had never happened before.

Protecting rights means protecting people from the whims of the majority. You don't stop having freedom of speech because your city voted for "free speech" zones.

As I explained to WH above, radical Islam means that the state becomes an extension of Islam. Pluralism is pretty much the only thing that can resist that and not become tyranny.

Radical Islam is depending on special privileges and protections not granted to others. They can't do it on a level playing field.

Since the practices I mentioned are exclusive to the more radical versions of Islam, then the rest of us don't have to fear that punishment, do we?

---

Story was still wrong on this. Veritas. No one person, no one group has all the answers. I distrust anyone who says that they do. I refer back to the source document. The Constitution remains one of the clearest pieces of English ever put to paper. There are reasons why the Founders, some of the best educated people of their time, deliberately chose not to include the Christian Deity in the Constitution. It's not because of their faith. It's not because they were not pious. It's because they didn't trust men when they claimed to speak for the Divine.

❝Religion can not be allowed the coercive power of the state and the state can not be allowed the moral justification of faith.❞ That's one of mine.

I'm not advocating paganism and especially not my version. I am saying that your religion does not govern my behavior. Just as mine does not govern yours.

Our nation was founded on principles that transcended Christianity. Some of them predate Christianity. The Founders were wise enough to know that they didn't know everything. The Enlightenment thinkers did not spontaneously create their philosophy, they drew heavily on history. There's no need to label these ideas as Christian or Hottentotten, it's enough that some very wise men found ways to pass along truths that worked. Civilization rises from wisdom after disaster. You're arguing over the labels so "your side" can take credit. Yes, Christian people (as opposed to Christianity) have done some wonderful things. And Christians have done some terrible things with huge costs to humanity. ❝The vice or virtue is not in the label, it's in the individual.❞ Labels borrow merit, although they do get blamed.

I didn't say the EoR was universal, I said it was the keystone of Western Civilization. Our best law and principles rest on the simple idea that we're fair to others because we expect them to be fair to us.

I've said it before, ❝Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society.❞ Christians are better and nicer when they aren't the only game around. “One path among many” means Christians usually pay attention to what others say. It means Christians have to defend what they say and do without hiding behind scripture or a "higher truth."

Our law should not be defined in terms of A religion. Certainly not if everyone doesn't share that religion.

We should celebrate the ideas, not the labels.❞❞

Tags: faith ∙ religion ∙ Constitution ∙ force ∙ force of law ∙ Joseph Story ∙ Founders ∙ Christianity ∙ islam ∙ Christians ∙ pluralism ∙ Judaism ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ English Civil War ∙ Western Civilization ∙ Divine ∙ Supreme Court ∙ Kelo v. New London ∙ Pace v. Alabama ∙ marriage ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Muslim prayer calls ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ public sphere ∙ individual ∙ behavior ∙ kosher

The Right to Discriminate

““The left has created a macabre myth that runs counter to the whole experience of mankind. The left has persuaded the gullible masses of America, including, sadly, most conservatives, that "discrimination" by individuals and businesses is wrong and that it violates the Constitution.

Precisely the opposite is true. All serious cognition and all honest moral judgments involve discrimination. When individuals and businesses are not free to discriminate, then the power to determine what is true and false and good and bad becomes the sole property of the state – or that even more odious creature, that lobotomized Frankenstein monster, "society."

Instead of diverse opinions and actions freely manifest, which are what happens when the state and society are denied the power to force a certain viewpoint down the throats of private citizens and enterprises, what happens is that all debate, all differences, and all individuality are crushed based upon what those who run the state or manipulate society deem sacrosanct.””
     — Bruce Walker

Tags: guest content ∙ clipping ∙ Bruce Walker ∙ discriminate ∙ left ∙ America ∙ Constitution ∙ individual ∙ business ∙ society ∙ diversity

❝❝The only reason to follow the rules is if the other does too. If they don't follow the rules, you aren't bound to the rules.

Tit for tat.

You play by civilized rules until the individual doesn't. Then you crush them.

Not the group they belong to, the individual. You refuse to treat the label as the enemy. That prevents them from retreating into the safety of the group identity, and it delegitimizes the moral claims of that group. It also demonstrates that rules work only if everyone follows them. And when someone doesn't follow the rules, then they don't have the protection of the rules.

I might have had some small experience fighting this type of battle.

ETA: Oh, it also makes someone who believes in collective identity for the greater good feel very exposed when they can't retreat. Very exposed.❞❞

Tags: tit for tat ∙ rules ∙ Other ∙ civilization ∙ group identity politics ∙ individual ∙ moral claims ∙ collective identity

❝❝If you want to tell me about specific injustices done to individuals, that's one thing.

If you want to tell me about generalized injustices against a given class of vaguely defined people, that's something completely different. Especially when that group routinely excludes many people and constantly redefines who is a REAL member.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ injustice ∙ individual ∙ generalized ∙ class ∙ vaguely defined

❝❝I prefer to assume that people are amazing unless they prove otherwise. Individuals may be awesome or terrible, but men as a group aren't guilty because of the behavior of some.

Treating all men as if they are guilty will not only cost you allies, it means that some good men will stop listening just because being called perpetually guilty is tiresome.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ men ∙ people ∙ individual ∙ group ∙ guilt

““The goal of our culture now is not the emancipation of the individual from the group, but the permanent definition of the individual by the group. We used to call this bigotry. Now we call it being woke.””
     — Andrew Sullivan, We All Live on Campus Now

Tags: Andrew Sullivan ∙ culture ∙ emancipation ∙ individual ∙ group ∙ definition ∙ bigotry ∙ woke

Is it moral for the state to compel a product or service?

Tags: Ursula K. Le Guin ∙ individual ∙ state ∙ power

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: state ∙ individual ∙ product ∙ service ∙ compulsory ∙ consequences ∙ legal framework ∙ religion ∙ civil rights ∙ cosmetic surgery ∙ gender reassignment ∙ service ∙ abortion ∙ minority ∙ religious right ∙ freedom ∙ choice ∙ the public good

❝❝A society is not Christian. An individual is.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Christian ∙ individual ∙ society

❝❝The virtue or vice is not in the title. It's in the individual.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ title ∙ individual ∙ labels

❝❝It's not liberalism, it's the label. And it doesn't matter if the label is progressive, conservative, Christian, atheist, or United States Senator. The label has no virtue or vice, no morality, and no inherent worth. It's the individual that owns the outcome of their thoughts, words, and deeds. It's the individual and the individual alone who can take responsibility.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ liberalism ∙ progressive ∙ conservative ∙ Christian ∙ atheist ∙ United States Senator ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ morality ∙ inherent worth ∙ individual ∙ thoughts ∙ words ∙ deeds

“Small Town Gives Dogs Their Own Pool Day”

Tags: memes ∙ minority ∙ individual

❝❝Government is reactive. What individuals choose is much more important than the credit that politicos claim. Lasting change only happens when enough people got angry enough to demand change.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ individual ∙ choose ∙ reactive ∙ change ∙ politicos ∙ claim ∙ angry

❝❝Individuals are free to be bigots. Just as they are free to be heroes.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ individual ∙ bigotry ∙ hero ∙ choose

I don't agree with everything here, but you should definitely watch.

Tags: Christianity ∙ atheist ∙ agnostic ∙ Hindu ∙ Buddhist ∙ Baptist ∙ Catholic ∙ Mormon ∙ individual ∙ Divine ∙ sin ∙ religion ∙ Higher Truth™