From consent to morality

[Spock]

It seems to me that the Church has a very narrow and very externalised definition of chastity - namely, engaging in sex only within the context of church-sanctioned marriage. It is not apparent to many believers that sex can be non-abusive without this context.

Sex is both a powerful instinct and an expression of acceptance, the means of procreation and a means by which strong social bonds are formed and reinforced. There are many ways in which this can be abused - by treating it as a source of transitory gratification independent of friendship, or as a commodity to be bought and sold, for example. Unfortunately, the Church has chosen to remove the abuse of sex from a personal context and place it in an authoritarian context - one must not have sexual intimacy of any kind without divine sanction, nor without the willingness to procreate (whether the latter is practical at the time or not).

Chastity, even according to the church definition you quote, is an acceptance of sexual expression as part and parcel of the whole of a person, and the practice of sexual intimacy in the context of loving friendship. Again, unfortunately, the Church fails to accept sexuality without artificial limits, and consequently distorts the attitudes of believers towards sex.

How right you are! I have my own little theory about this subject. It has to do everything by grabbing someone by the “short hair”. Such a person will obey every command, because he has no option to refuse, the price of refusal is being too high. And if one accepts those artifical limitations, then the jailer can open the door of the cell and throw away the key, since the prisoner will become his own guard.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Given man and his pollution, garbage problems, over-populating, the ease of a newly evolving super viral bacteria pandemic to spread is very scarry…(air travel…creates a problem)

Its fairly certain or at least reasonable to expect that a cold blooded insect may represent our ultimate successor and later evolutionary proto-organism

So we can accelerate the process if we like with things we know will ensure a good healthy
start for the future takeover Heres a pic from the future,

images.clipartof.com/small/442212-Cartoon-Road-Hog-Driving-A-Car-Poster-Art-Print.jpg:

 

[Shike]

No, the idea of “natural law” - a supposedly inborn set of moral rules is nonsense. It is not an assumption that such laws do not exist, it is a scientific fact. Humans are not born with with factual knowledge (unlike insects), we are born with the ability to learn. Our brain has a propensity to learn, especially languages, which is the basis of all the subsequent developments. It is not something “I say”, it is what all the biologists discovered about us.

This understanding is wrong with regards to what traditional natural law philosophy entails.

The foundation of natural law is rooted in the very nature of the human person, its inherent functions as human, and is not based upon any theological revelation (although you can find those who mix and match revelation with natural law philosophy).

Consequently, it doesn’t have to delve into the debate between innate ideas and tabula rasa. It is perfectly compatible to hold both the tabula rasa position and natural law philosophy (Aquinas did). I happen to hold the tabula rasa position myself, as I think you are quite right that we are born as a blank slate–many of the ancient and medieval philosophers also thought as much. I have no problem saying that we come to know such truths through experience and reflection.

It is also very possible to interpret that ‘we have a natural law inscribed on our hearts’ with such a conception, once the proper metaphorical understanding of “heart” is understood.

You are changing the parameters. The scenario was talking about ONE thing only: two loving people in the privacy of their home expressing their love toward each other which excludes even the possibility of pregnancy. You said that such practice is selfish and inherently harmful to the people and to others. Kindly stick with the stipulated scenario, if you wish to be taken seriously.

It was a relevant example to help illustrate that there exist higher goods besides the mere will of two people. Once you see this, and find out why certain goods are higher in my example, you might see why the two people in your specific scenario would be selfish outside the context of marriage (and even within the context of marriage). I did not change the scenario.

But I think I might have already succinctly addressed your scenario. Basically, two people outside the context of marriage and using contraception are going against natural law. One, because artificial contraception is inherently contrary to the inherent function of human intercourse (not that the couple has to conceive every time). And two, such relations outside the context of marriage are contrary to the inherent function of human intercourse. That one might be harder for someone to see. To illustrate–you yourself talk about the couple in your example as truly loving each other. But it is important to define the word ‘love’. What is it? I hold that it is a total willing the good of the other that is not limited to some arbitrary time-span (ie. sacrifice for the good of the other without limits). For such an act as intercourse, an act that expresses true love, not to be contradicted, it requires a loving relationship that is exclusive and stands the test of time–marriage is the best candidate suited for this as it puts our words in alignment with our actions.

These are only two reasons, I’m pretty sure there are others from a natural law perspective as well as others from different perspectives.

So what is “giving oneself fully”? It seems to be a pompous, but empty phrase to me.

It’s another way of saying true love in the context of human sexuality.

It is complete gobbledegook to me. I use the word “chastity” and “abstinence” in a synonymous manner. If it makes you happy, I will rephrase the original quote: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is abstinence”. Is that better?

You know, you could just say that you don’t understand and humbly look to see if there is anything to it instead of calling it gobbledegook.

And yes that is better. However, the saying is still silly. There are many times when two people should and do practice abstinence. For instance, when the one partner doesn’t feel well and doesn’t want to have intercourse at that moment.

Thank you for the questions.

 

[Shike]

It seems to me that the Church has a very narrow and very externalised definition of chastity - namely, engaging in sex only within the context of church-sanctioned marriage. It is not apparent to many believers that sex can be non-abusive without this context.

I would say, as I have in my last post, that being a believer isn’t necessary to see how intercourse outside the context of marriage is always harmful to the people involved. Also, since natural law philosophy is all about human nature, it isn’t possible to get too much more internalized than that.

Sex is both a powerful instinct and an expression of acceptance, the means of procreation and a means by which strong social bonds are formed and reinforced. There are many ways in which this can be abused - by treating it as a source of transitory gratification independent of friendship, or as a commodity to be bought and sold, for example.

Good points.

Unfortunately, the Church has chosen to remove the abuse of sex from a personal context and place it in an authoritarian context - one must not have sexual intimacy of any kind without divine sanction, nor without the willingness to procreate

Well, I suppose one could see it like that. But the way I see it is that the Church really does have my best interests at heart and always has good reasons for why She says what She says, reasons that someone can grasp and understand. It’s like the 10 commandments: someone could see them as stodgy rules limiting one’s freedom or one could see them as setting out the limits of human nature so that true freedom can reign.

Looking at this through the lens of natural law philosophy, it’s not so much about divine sanction as it is about the wellness of the people involved in the act. When people act contrary to their natural functions, bad things happen.

(whether the latter is practical at the time or not).

There are really good ways to space children without contradicting natural law nor totally refraining from intercourse. So I hope this isn’t much of a worry.

Chastity, even according to the church definition you quote, is an acceptance of sexual expression as part and parcel of the whole of a person, and the practice of sexual intimacy in the context of loving friendship. Again, unfortunately, the Church fails to accept sexuality without artificial limits, and consequently distorts the attitudes of believers towards sex.

I don’t think having intercourse within the context of a loving marital relationship without the use of artificial contraception could be well defended as an artificial limit. I am open to arguments.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

edited

 

[sw85]

I’m sure you’ve all heard the argument, “If X and Y are doing Z, and all involved are of sound mind and consent to the activity in progress, we don’t have the right to evaluate the morality of Z.”

I’d like to know what logical arguments and hypothetical scenarios you would suggest to combat this notion succinctly and effectively. It goes against traditional Christian sexual ethics in particular, and at this secular university knowing how best to respond to this proposition is vital for bringing people to the light of a coherent moral system, especially a Christian one.

God bless,
T.

Hi Trebor,

Basically, the argument itself is self-refuting. Let’s take an example: I take out a $10,000 loan and agree to make payments of $150 a month for 10 years. Now the libertarian would say that this contract is just because I consented to it.

But if consent is what binds me to things, then it itself is unjust – because I never consented to have my consent to something be binding. To say “You ought to do this because you agreed to it” is to introduce a moral element to the system that consent itself does not and cannot provide. Therefore there must be more to morality than the mere act of consent.

This reminds me of the old libertarian “self-ownership principle,” i.e., that you own yourself and that this is the basis of all your rights. But this presupposes that there is such a thing as a right to ownership, without which the whole principle falls apart; but you can’t derive a right to own anything from the principle because then it becomes circular: i.e., I have a right to own property because I own myself; and I own myself because there is such a thing as a right to own property.

 

[Shike]

But if consent is what binds me to things, then it itself is unjust – because I never consented to have my consent to something be binding.

Ha, that is funny in a truthful philosophical way.
Thank you for the insight. Another way to illustrate how contractualism is false.

 

[Spock]

Basically, the argument itself is self-refuting. Let’s take an example: I take out a $10,000 loan and agree to make payments of $150 a month for 10 years. Now the libertarian would say that this contract is just because I consented to it.

You don’t know a lot about libertarianism, do you? The libertarian only says that the contract is binding. he does not care about empty adjectives like “just”.

But if consent is what binds me to things, then it itself is unjust – because I never consented to have my consent to something be binding. To say “You ought to do this because you agreed to it” is to introduce a moral element to the system that consent itself does not and cannot provide. Therefore there must be more to morality than the mere act of consent.

Ah, so you pretend to be bound by your agreement, but you have no intention to carry it out - since you never agreed to be bound by your word. And you must pretend, because without that implicit agreement, you would never get that loan in the first place. Neat little trick, but I am afraid it would be self-destructive, because you will be found out in no time, and your word would not be sufficient any more. So it is your adherence to your word is what makes you a reliable person, who is worthy of consideration. And that is the point of the matter. Walking out on your agreement will remove you from consideration when the next time rolls around, and since we must live in a shared environment, it is in your best interest to keep your word. Who cares if it is considered “moral” or not? Keeping your word is the smart thing to do. “Justice” has nothing to do with it.

This reminds me of the old libertarian “self-ownership principle,” i.e., that you own yourself and that this is the basis of all your rights. But this presupposes that there is such a thing as a right to ownership, without which the whole principle falls apart; but you can’t derive a right to own anything from the principle because then it becomes circular: i.e., I have a right to own property because I own myself; and I own myself because there is such a thing as a right to own property.

This would lead quite far, if we went into the details. Suffice it to say that “rights” do not exist without a “right-giver”, a “right-recipient” and an “enforcer” of those rights. (Which shows that the concept of “natural rights” is just another nonsensical concept.) To put it simply, a “right” is something that the one who is more powerful grants to the one who is less powerful, and it means that the less powerful is “allowed” to perform some actions without fear of retribution. Historically speaking those rights were granted by powerful individuals (kings) or by goverments.

Of course, the “right to self-ownership” should be the basic “right” if there are any “rights”. Without such a right there can be no society, there can be no interaction between individuals. (Funny thing is that the US Constitution never bothered to grant explicitly the right to “ownership” or the right to “privacy” (self-determination), probably because the Founding Fathers (who were a very smart and shrewed lot) never even thought about explicitly declaring that right. It was obvious to them.) If you do not have the “right” to your own body, what do you have? Nothing. Anyone, who is stronger than you can carve up your body, or take all your possessions away. Of course, the “strong one” is not safe either, because the “weaker ones” can gang-up on him. There is no safety for anyone.

That is why the only smart solution is the libertarian one. Let us form a limited goverment, which grants the basic rights and enforces them as much as it can. In that type of environment (a Constitutional Republic and not some idiotic “democracy” - the definition of democracy is: “two wolves and one sheep VOTE to decide what will be for dinner tonight!”) everyone can be fairly certain that they can lead their life without undue interference. It creates the optimal environment for a smooth-working society.

 

[sw85]

You don’t know a lot about libertarianism, do you? The libertarian only says that the contract is binding. he does not care about empty adjectives like “just”.

If you are saying that libertarianism has no concept of justice, then on what grounds should I care that it (or anything) is binding?

That consent may in certain circumstances be binding is true only if you accept certain moral axioms that consent-as-morality doesn’t furnish on its own.

Ah, so you pretend to be bound by your agreement, but you have no intention to carry it out - since you never agreed to be bound by your word. And you must pretend, because without that implicit agreement, you would never get that loan in the first place. Neat little trick, but I am afraid it would be self-destructive, because you will be found out in no time, and your word would not be sufficient any more. So it is your adherence to your word is what makes you a reliable person, who is worthy of consideration. And that is the point of the matter. Walking out on your agreement will remove you from consideration when the next time rolls around, and since we must live in a shared environment, it is in your best interest to keep your word. Who cares if it is considered “moral” or not? Keeping your word is the smart thing to do. “Justice” has nothing to do with it.

I am not interested in addressing this from a consequentialist standpoint.

Again, my point is simply that libertarianism cannot furnish a basis for the notion that consent is the foundation of moral behavior without introducing moral concepts that are logically external to consent.

This would lead quite far, if we went into the details. Suffice it to say that “rights” do not exist without a “right-giver”, a “right-recipient” and an “enforcer” of those rights. (Which shows that the concept of “natural rights” is just another nonsensical concept.)

I don’t agree, except in a very loose sense not entirely true to the one in which you obviously mean it, that rights require any of those things. By contrast our rights derive from our duties – and our duties derive from our own natures. (Hence there is, in a loose sense, a “right-giver,” being God, who designed our natures to be what they are. But it is very easy to imagine those rights existing even without supposing God’s existence).

If it helps we can keep using the usury example. If I take out a loan I have a duty to pay it back, and therefore the right to pay it back. By contrast the lender has a right to be paid back, and a duty to accept my payment.

Of course, the “right to self-ownership” should be the basic “right” if there are any “rights”. Without such a right there can be no society, there can be no interaction between individuals.

Yet libertarian types like Rothbard (and I believe Nozick, but don’t quote me on that) claim that self-ownership is not a right but a self-evident fact, and the basis for all rights. I reject both principles: it is far from obvious that there is any such thing as “self-ownership” (do its advocates even have a clear idea of what the “self” is?). It is not self-evident but controversial; it is not a fact but a supposition; and it is a basis for all other rights only in the narrow and messy philosophical framework within which libertarians are wont to work.

(Funny thing is that the US Constitution never bothered to grant explicitly the right to “ownership” or the right to “privacy” (self-determination), probably because the Founding Fathers (who were a very smart and shrewed lot) never even thought about explicitly declaring that right. It was obvious to them.) If you do not have the “right” to your own body, what do you have? Nothing. Anyone, who is stronger than you can carve up your body, or take all your possessions away. Of course, the “strong one” is not safe either, because the “weaker ones” can gang-up on him. There is no safety for anyone.

Of course you have a (limited) right to your body, in the sense that you have a right, for instance, to claim property so as to discharge your duties to yourself, your family, and community (which includes simple stuff like food and shelter). But this does not entail that self-ownership is obvious, much less that that right is unlimited.

The absence of self-ownership does not imply the absence of rights, unless you presuppose that rights derive from self-ownership, which, again, is far from obvious.

That is why the only smart solution is the libertarian one. Let us form a limited goverment, which grants the basic rights and enforces them as much as it can. In that type of environment (a Constitutional Republic and not some idiotic “democracy” - the definition of democracy is: “two wolves and one sheep VOTE to decide what will be for dinner tonight!”) everyone can be fairly certain that they can lead their life without undue interference. It creates the optimal environment for a smooth-working society.

In other words, libertarianism is consequentialist and utilitarian. So why bother with the fancy philosophical justifications?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t agree, except in a very loose sense not entirely true to the one in which you obviously mean it, that rights require any of those things. By contrast our rights derive from our duties – and our duties derive from our own natures. (Hence there is, in a loose sense, a “right-giver,” being God, who designed our natures to be what they are. But it is very easy to imagine those rights existing even without supposing God’s existence).

Some part of that sounds like legal realism. It’s “based on the idea that law is just one of many institutions in society that is shaped by social forces and needs.” ( Definition from “WEST’S Business Law” Eighth Edition). Though people’s thoughts don’t tend to fit cleanly into a single school of thought on rights and laws.

 

[Spock]

I am not interested in addressing this from a consequentialist standpoint.

Which is just as telling as if you did.

By contrast our rights derive from our duties – and our duties derive from our own natures.

Seems that you have a weird concept of “rights”. Maybe you could address this definition:

To put it simply, a “right” is something that the one who is more powerful grants to the one who is less powerful, and it means that the less powerful is “allowed” to perform some actions without fear of retribution.

In other words, libertarianism is consequentialist and utilitarian.

And as such - reasonable and rational.

So why bother with the fancy philosophical justifications?

Those two words (consequentialist and utilitarian) ARE the philosophical justifications.

 

[sw85]

Some part of that sounds like legal realism. It’s “based on the idea that law is just one of many institutions in society that is shaped by social forces and needs.” ( Definition from “WEST’S Business Law” Eighth Edition). Though people’s thoughts don’t tend to fit cleanly into a single school of thought on rights and laws.

I’m afraid I don’t know enough about legal theory to comment.

Seems that you have a weird concept of “rights”. Maybe you could address this definition:

To put it simply, a “right” is something that the one who is more powerful grants to the one who is less powerful, and it means that the less powerful is “allowed” to perform some actions without fear of retribution.

It is hardly weird; by contrast it was the basis for all rights for the vast majority of the history of civilization prior to Locke and Bentham.

Your description perhaps applies to civil rights, i.e., those rights which accrue to individuals by virtue of their membership in the polity. It is useless when talking about natural rights.

And as such - reasonable and rational.

By contrast, deeply irrational (as witnessed by your denial of essences, the means by which we are able to distinguish between men and starfish) and deeply immoral. It is consequentialism that leads to PRECISELY the kinds of scenarios in which rights are violated.

 

[Spock]

Your description perhaps applies to civil rights, i.e., those rights which accrue to individuals by virtue of their membership in the polity. It is useless when talking about natural rights.

Since all “rights” are social constructs, the concept of “natural right” is just as nonsensical as the “natural law”.

By contrast, deeply irrational (as witnessed by your denial of essences, the means by which we are able to distinguish between men and starfish) and deeply immoral. It is consequentialism that leads to PRECISELY the kinds of scenarios in which rights are violated.

Since you could not give a working definition of “essence”, your criticism is irrelevant. Of course we can find the difference between humans and animals, but that does not presuppose “esences” - which are still undefined.

 

[Shike]

Since all “rights” are social constructs, the concept of “natural right” is just as nonsensical as the “natural law”.

And why exactly are all rights social constructs?

 

[Spock]

And why exactly are all rights social constructs?

What a strange question. As if it were not obvious. What else would they be? Look at the famous Miranda right: “you have the right to remain silent…” means that no one is allowed to force you to speak if you don’t want to. In other societies there is no such “right” granted, and in those ones the police can cheerfully beat the living daylight out of you if you refuse to confess.

It simply makes no sense to speak of “rights” if one is alone on a desert island. Who can prevent you to do whatever you please? If there is another person there, that is whole different ballgame. The stronger one can force the weaker one to obey, and conform his wishes. The stronger one may “grant” some rights, by promising the weaker one, that there will be no repercussion, if he does or does not do something. That is a “right”: “a permission to do something without the fear of punishment”.

 

[Shike]

What a strange question. As if it were not obvious. What else would they be?

Hey, that’s the same thing I think about natural law…

Look at the famous Miranda right: “you have the right to remain silent…” means that no one is allowed to force you to speak if you don’t want to. In other societies there is no such “right” granted, and in those ones the police can cheerfully beat the living daylight out of you if you refuse to confess.

Seems like the miranda right is based upon the more general right that one should be treated fairly, ie. justice. And it is not clear to me how justice is illusory (based solely on power games).

I see people getting away with things just because they can. It doesn’t mean that it’s moral. There’s something more to rights than just power.

It simply makes no sense to speak of “rights” if one is alone on a desert island. Who can prevent you to do whatever you please?

Your own human functions and their limits, what makes you, you, can prevent you from doing whatever you please. If instead you say that freedom is only those things you can do, it seems obvious that what you can do is dependent upon your capacities… sounds like the starting points for natural law.

If there is another person there, that is whole different ballgame.

I think you might be confusing the utility of rights and/or their employment with their foundations.

Basically, if might makes right, morality is destroyed. Utilitarianism even tries to avoid this outcome. Weren’t you supposed to be an adherent to utilitarianism?

 

[Spock]

Seems like the miranda right is based upon the more general right that one should be treated fairly, ie. justice. And it is not clear to me how justice is illusory (based solely on power games).

And this “right” is something that is granted by the US goverment. If you would say that it “should” be granted by all the goverments, I would agree wholeheartedly. But the fact is that this “right” is not granted by all the goverments - which is a pity, but there you go. There is an abbreviation in the books by Larry Niven: “TANJ = there ain’t no justice”.

I see people getting away with things just because they can. It doesn’t mean that it’s moral. There’s something more to rights than just power.

It would be nice, but the fact is that we must play the cards as they are dealt. Every goverment is in the “power game”. They force you to do what they want, and prevent you from doing that they don’t want. It is a “might makes right world” out there. I hate this fact, but that does not cloud my judgment. In the US there are laws which declare that you are not allowed (equals to “you do not have the right”) to import unapproved medicines for your own use, even if those medications are the only hope that “might” save your life. What is that if not the “power game” at its worst? And we are talking about the US goverment here, which is not as bad as most goverments are - not by a long shot. Can you grow medical marijuana for you own use? In most places you cannot. Can the doctors prescribe pain medications as they deem necessary to make you life tolerable? No, they cannot. We are all “hostages” in the “power game” of the “let’s get re-elected game” of the powers-that-be.

If I am not mistaken, the last and ONLY good politician was Cincinnatus, who was called back into power during a war, and who immediately rescinded power, when he finished his job. As a matter of fact, there was great saying: “the only people who should qualify for the presidency are the ones, who are dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, where they would perform an awesome job, so they could get time off for good behavior”. No one who wishes to have power, should qualify to have power. The saying that “power corrupts” is unfortunately very true.

Basically, if might makes right, morality is destroyed.

I don’t consdier it “right” (where “right” means the way it should be). But that is the fact. If you seriously disagree with the goverment on some fundamental point, you will be charged with treason, and dealt with accordingly. Every goverment’s primary goal is to maintain itself, and (almost) every politician’s primary goal is to get re-elected (there might be a few expections out there, though I am skeptical). And “morality” is just another illusion.

Utilitarianism even tries to avoid this outcome. Weren’t you supposed to be an adherent to utilitarianism?

Of course, I am a utilitarian and therefore a libertarian. I would gladly use the sharpest knife (figuratively speaking, of course) and cut the goverment back all the way to the bare bones. The only laws we need would be to protect the population from extarnal and internal predators. A minimum necessary armed force, for protection only, and the necessary police force to maintain those very few laws.

But this is “pie in the sky”. Since the politians pander to those who vote for them, and all the people want to feed from the public trough, it is most unlikely that the current goverment will change any time soon. Besides, to live under a minimal goverment would require self-restraint and acceptance of responsibilites, which most people are not willing to do. Unfortunately, most people are mindless followers - and I have a very good theory where that comes from. You would probably disagree with my theory.

 

[Cristiano]

I’m sure you’ve all heard the argument, “If X and Y are doing Z, and all involved are of sound mind and consent to the activity in progress, we don’t have the right to evaluate the morality of Z.”

I’d like to know what logical arguments and hypothetical scenarios you would suggest to combat this notion succinctly and effectively. It goes against traditional Christian sexual ethics in particular, and at this secular university knowing how best to respond to this proposition is vital for bringing people to the light of a coherent moral system, especially a Christian one.

God bless,
T.

Of course I have the right to evaluate the morality of such behavior. Why would consent take away my right to evaluate something including, as in this case, the morality of a behavior?

 

[Paul1Up]

Ugh, libertarianism and objectivism. I’m sorry, but I must troll now.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. Then, I brushed my teeth with that water, filtered to standards set by the EPA and my state.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank and printed by the Federal Bureau of Engraving and Printing. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

I park my car on the street, paved and maintained by the Department of Transportation, and put quarters issued by the United States Mint into the parking meter.

Then, after spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I drive back to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the Internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right. Keep government out of my Medicare!

 

[Spock]

Ugh, libertarianism and objectivism. I’m sorry, but I must troll now.

It was funny, if not accurate of relevant. It is a nice enumeration of the nanny-state. And the assumption that it could not have been achieved by private means. Have you ever compared the quailty of the state-maintained highways with the privately owned and operated ones? Since most of the areas of life are over-regulated by the goverment, we have only a few examples to make comparisions… Let’s see: US mail versus UPS, which one is cheaper and better? Public schools versus private ones? No contest. I am sure I could come up with more, but I am getting tired.

But it was worth to read it nevertheless for its fun-content.