Tarran, this is nonsense! In the first place, your basic argument regarding the role of majorities in making decisions is essentially opposed to the rule of law. If the majority can never impose its will on anybody, then how do you stop crime?

Second, your suggestion that all scientific funding be eliminated would have the effect of reducing scientific funding to a tiny fraction of its current value. This in turn would have extremely deleterious long-term effects on our economy. The Internet was the result of the DARPA research effort, and the Web was designed by a physicist working at a government-funded lab. If we had embraced your philosophy forty years ago, there’d be no Internet, no Web, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation!

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 25, 2007 @ 2:42 pm

If the majority can never impose its will on anybody, then how do you stop crime?

By victims, or their agents imposing their will on the criminals? Google a guy named Gustave Molinari for an explanation.

Second, your suggestion that all scientific funding be eliminated would have the effect of reducing scientific funding to a tiny fraction of its current value. This in turn would have extremely deleterious long-term effects on our economy.

Chepe, you might want to read the working paper I linked to. Note, the 19th century was chock-full of scientific advances despite a lack of subsidies.

The Internet might have been invented on the government dime, but it displaced some nascent networks, including Fidonet which immediately leaps to mind. The idea that if the government didn’t fund something, nobody would is refuted conclusively by the numerous instances in history where useful, expensive research has been carried out and marvelous inventions have resulted.

Even if you were right, and you are not, I wouldn’t really care. I am a moralist, so spare me your utilitarian arguments. :) As I have said elsewhere, if you could invent a cure for cancer had to steal a penny from someone to do it (the cure wouldn’t work if the penny was donated) I would be condemning it.

Comment by tarran — October 25, 2007 @ 3:00 pm

“By victims, or their agents imposing their will on the criminals?”

I see. The mugger approaches you, snarls “Your money or your life!” and you say “I impose my superior will upon you!” You’re dead. Smooth move.

“Google a guy named Gustave Molinari for an explanation.”

Could you be more specific? I did as you suggested, got 21,800 hits, started reading the first hit, got a few pages in, and found nothing whatsoever that answers my question. You sent me on a wild goose chase.

“Chepe, you might want to read the working paper I linked to.”

The paper you linked to is 47 pages long. Would you at least do me the courtesy of citing the page number that addresses my concern before sending me off on another time-consuming wild goose chase?

“Note, the 19th century was chock-full of scientific advances despite a lack of subsidies.”

Are you serious? The amount of scientific progress being made today is orders of magnitude greater than what was accomplished in the 19th century. I believe I read somewhere that the amount of scientific information coming out in one day would require an individual five years to read. The total scientific output of the 19th century (in terms of published work) would fit in one room.

“The idea that if the government didn’t fund something, nobody would is refuted conclusively by the numerous instances in history where useful, expensive research has been carried out and marvelous inventions have resulted.”

I agree with you that some useful research has been carried out without government funding. However, government funding accounts for about two-thirds of total research funding; if we eliminated it, then total research funding would be about one-third of what it now is. That’s a huge drop. Moreover, it would hit hardest in basic research, which is what provides the foundation for the applied research done by corporations. Thus, we’d experience a subsequent decrease in the overall productivity of the research we do fund. All in all, the results would be catastrophic for our economy.

“Even if you were right, and you are not, I wouldn’t really care. I am a moralist, so spare me your utilitarian arguments. :) As I have said elsewhere, if you could invent a cure for cancer had to steal a penny from someone to do it (the cure wouldn’t work if the penny was donated) I would be condemning it.”

I see. You urge upon us a philosophy that rejects utility in favor of ideology. If we were to accept your philosophy, our society’s greatest contribution to the world would be the lesson we teach the world about the price of placing ideology above utility: extinction. We’d earn a society-wide Darwin Award.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 25, 2007 @ 4:55 pm

Chepe,

Let’s take your points in order:

I see. The mugger approaches you, snarls “Your money or your life!” and you say “I impose my superior will upon you!” You’re dead. Smooth move.

And how does the mugger kill me? If he has access to weapons, then I have access to weapons too. To get me to give up my money he has to somehow impose his will upon me. I would do what you do now: take reasonable precautions to defend myself. If I was in a violent area I might go armed. If I had property that I wanted to protect I might hire a security service to protect it. If I liked police work, I might start a security company and sell security services to clients, much like people hire lawn service companies today.

Could you be more specific? I did as you suggested, got 21,800 hits, started reading the first hit, got a few pages in, and found nothing whatsoever that answers my question. You sent me on a wild goose chase.

I don’t know what version of Google you are using, but the version I used popped up a Wikipedia article on the man as the first hit which is barely a page. It contains a link to the Molinari Institute, which has, prominently displayed, the paper that is at the center of the Wikipedia article, The production of Security. It’s only about 10 pages long, which should be well within your capability.

The paper you linked to is 47 pages long. Would you at least do me the courtesy of citing the page number that addresses my concern before sending me off on another time-consuming wild goose chase?

Of course. Try pages 2 - 5.

Are you serious? The amount of scientific progress being made today is orders of magnitude greater than what was accomplished in the 19th century. I believe I read somewhere that the amount of scientific information coming out in one day would require an individual five years to read. The total scientific output of the 19th century (in terms of published work) would fit in one room.

Yes, and that is an artifact of the fact that in the 19th century, productivity was low and so there was less surplus labor available to devote to non-subsistance activities. yet, despite all of this, the steam engine was invented and perfectd, the automobile was invented, kerosene was invented, then gasoline, was invented. Bessemer blast furnaces were invented. The toilet was invented and the telephone was invented. During that period Newton’s laws were expanded upon until the entire edifice of Newtonian dynamics and Classical Electromagnetism had been constructed. Lorenz started laying the groundwork for the development of special relativity.

That’s just the stuff off the top of my head.

I agree with you that some useful research has been carried out without government funding. However, government funding accounts for about two-thirds of total research funding; if we eliminated it, then total research funding would be about one-third of what it now is. That’s a huge drop. Moreover, it would hit hardest in basic research, which is what provides the foundation for the applied research done by corporations. Thus, we’d experience a subsequent decrease in the overall productivity of the research we do fund. All in all, the results would be catastrophic for our economy.

No. this is a fallacy. A popular fallacy to be sure, but a fallacy nonetheless. Let’s assume that the money spent by the government on scientific research was never taxed in the firszt place, and that there were not tax-policy induced distortions encouraging people to engage in scientific research. This money would represent additional savings in the cash balances of the people from whom it was originally levied. Now these people are going to do stuff with this money. As they spend their newfound wealth, it will migrate to the pockets of people who are interested in investing it. These people will invest the money in areas that they perceive as being most profitable from a psychic perspective. Yes, much of the money will be invested in directions that provide a shorter term benefit than basic research would. But this money would be invested in things that provided a benefit, not a loss. furthermore it would be invested towards producing more of what people want rather than being diverted to areas that are not as desired.

Thus, there is no way it would be devastating to the economy. To the contrary it would be beneficial to the economy, since now people with savings would be investing their money in the things that they actually desired the most.

I see. You urge upon us a philosophy that rejects utility in favor of ideology. If we were to accept your philosophy, our society’s greatest contribution to the world would be the lesson we teach the world about the price of placing ideology above utility: extinction. We’d earn a society-wide Darwin Award.

Uhm, chepe, I advocate for a non-violent society where people are not subject to agression. Such societies, when they have been attempted, have been wildly prosperous especially in comparison to their neighbors. To the contrary, societies with strong governments such as Cuba, England and Zimbabwe, to name a few, tend to be miserable hell-holes to varying degrees. Furthermore, societies where several governments are fighting each other to attain supremacy, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Yugoslavia tend to be the ones on their way to extinction.

I suggest that it is the acceptance of governments that is more likely to put a society in line for a Darwin award, not the absence of one.

Comment by tarran — October 25, 2007 @ 8:26 pm

Well, Tarran, it seems that on every major point I find myself in wild disagreement with you. Let’s go over them:

Your notion of security, and that of Molinari, is good for dealing with violent crime. It is utterly useless against other forms of crime. How do you hire a security firm to protect you against fraud? If somebody sells you a used car and you find that they misrepresented it, do you direct your hired goons go and break his legs? And in fact, how does your security firm handle violent crimes after the fact? Your daughter comes home weeping; she was raped. So what does your security firm do? Lynch the guy she thinks might have raped him? And what if HIS security firm wants to protect him? Does your security firm have a war with his security firm? This is craziness!!!

I read the first 5 pages of the economist’s paper and I skimmed the rest of it. I’m actually impressed — it makes some good points. But it completely fails to support the thesis that the economy would be better off without government funding of research.

I get the impression that the writers of the paper (and you as well) have only a vague notion of how science gets done. First, let me point out that there’s a range of activities that fall under our consideration. At one extreme, we have the mathematician considering really abstruse, pure mathematical concepts. At the other extreme, we have Microsoft building Halo (Yes, in most accounting systems, that work is counted as R&D because it’s software Development.)

Now, industry is very good at handling the stuff closer to the “D” end of “R&D”. They spend a lot of money on it and they do a lot of good work. On the other hand, industry won’t touch the “R” end.

A good way to think about this problem is to consider this in terms of the payback time for any given research task. Over at the “D” end of R&D, the payback time is usually short: a few years. But the further you move toward the “R” end, the longer the payback time. A good industrial research facility operates with a payback time of at least ten years. And that’s still what’s called “applied science”. Pure science has even longer payback periods — decades.

Consider, for example, the integrated circuit. This is a technology that has bestowed hundreds of billions of dollars of economic benefits on us. How’d we get it?

The starting point was atomic physics and quantum mechanics, which got started in the early 20th century. There was roughly fifty years of pure scientific research, unfunded by any corporation, that laid all the foundations. Then came Bill Shockley at Bell Labs, the transistor, the early integrated circuits, Intel, and so on. Integrated circuits were commodity items by the 1970s. In other words, 50 years of basic research and 25 years of corporate research led to this technology. Without the basic research, we would never have gotten off the ground.

Moreover, scientific progress is never linear. It’s easy, after the fact, to trace a line from today’s valuable technologies to yesterday’s pure research. But when you look into the future instead of into the past, you really don’t know what will pay off. And most sciences assemble bits and pieces from different fields to yield their results. You have to pursue all of science on a broad front in order to get individual scientific discoveries.

You claim that a dramatic reduction in research spending would be good for society, because people would spend the money on consumer goods that would make them happier. Yes, it would make them happier — for the short term. But over the long run, a society without a strong scientific foundation will find itself economically depressed. Right now you and I are enjoying the fruits of government research from many years ago. Our parents sacrificed their immediate well-being for our own well-being — and the ROI of their sacrifice is enormous. Sure, we could all have a gay old time if we didn’t invest in the future — but we wouldn’t have a future.

You made quite a leap in the end when you flipped from talking about utilitarianism to strong government. The two have nothing in common. My point remains unaddressed: societies that give higher priority to ideology than pragmatism fail in the real, practical world. They may die nobly, but die they will.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 25, 2007 @ 10:46 pm

I don’t have time to get involved in this one, but I couldn’t help but laugh at this line:

Our parents sacrificed their immediate well-being for our own well-being

We’re still paying interest on their “sacrifice”.

Comment by Jeff Molby — October 26, 2007 @ 12:32 am

Yes, Jeff, in some areas they left us with a debt and in others they gave us a benefit. All in all, it’s obvious that the benefit exceeds the debt — in terms of material well-being, we’re much better off today than they were in the Fifties.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 26, 2007 @ 10:03 am

in terms of material well-being, we’re much better off today than they were in the Fifties.

Ok. Come see me when you get to the “causation” part.

Comment by Jeff Molby — October 26, 2007 @ 7:01 pm

Jeff, do you question the role of technology in the improvement of our lifestyles? Do you believe that the R&D paid for by the government in the Fifties has played no role in the development of that technology? These things seem obvious to me.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 26, 2007 @ 10:50 pm

To me as well. Your 10:03 assertion went farther than that, though. You looked at the increase in “material well-being”, compared it to the cost of the government funding and concluded that it was a worthwhile investment.

You neglected to account for the many other factors that have contributed to the growth in “material well-being” such as the increase in annual labor hours per household, the decrease in transportation costs (paved the way for cheap imports), and god knows what else. You also didn’t account for what the free market would have accomplished in the absence of government funding.

Eliminate all of the ancillary variables, subtract the total cost (including interest) from the total benefit and then we’ll talk about whether “it’s obvious that the benefit exceeds the [cost].”

Comment by Jeff Molby — October 26, 2007 @ 11:35 pm

OK, fair enough. Neither of us have any data proving a direct relationship between government R&D spending and GDP. Lacking such data, we are reduced to broad assessments of the progress of the economy. Me, I look at the technological improvements that are the result of government-funded R&D, and I think they’re worth the money that was spent. You look at the same results — such as the Internet and the Web — and dismiss them as not worth the money spent. OK, different strokes…

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 27, 2007 @ 12:04 am

Oh, Chepe, Chepe, Chepe,

Your notion of security, and that of Molinari, is good for dealing with violent crime. It is utterly useless against other forms of crime. How do you hire a security firm to protect you against fraud?

Uhmmm, you don’t. That’s what consumer protection organizations are for. For example Consumer Union tests products and publishes reports on how shoddy they are. Hell, they used to do drug testing back before there was an FDA. People who depend on repeat custom for their livelihood will work to preserve their reputation, and in the end the only way to do that is to produce a good product. Sooner or later the reputation of a shoddy businessman takes a dive.

If somebody sells you a used car and you find that they misrepresented it, do you direct your hired goons go and break his legs?

In the absence of fraud statutes, fraud prevention can happen in one of two ways. The owner of the market, for example E-Bay or Elance would require people selling goods via their market to put up bonds or agree to other anti-fraud guarantees. Alternately, if two people are doing business, you could put in an arbitration clause into a contract as standard boilerplate.

Of course, in the end should you be defrauded, you would not have the option of breaking legs. The most you could do is to attempt to sue to recover damages. If he won’t cooperate, you publish your accusations against him. If he ends to commit fraud alot, eventually he will have trouble finding people willing to do business with him and will be forced to either take up a life of autarky or to clean up his act.

And in fact, how does your security firm handle violent crimes after the fact? Your daughter comes home weeping; she was raped. So what does your security firm do? Lynch the guy she thinks might have raped him? And what if HIS security firm wants to protect him? Does your security firm have a war with his security firm? This is craziness!!!

Again, you, or your daughter sues her attacker. If he refuses to cooperate in reimbursing her for the injury he caused you publish his name far and wide, and that will make it harder for him to find a victim next time. Contrast this with the present system, wherein a bunch of guys kidnaps the rapist, locks him up in a cage, and forces your daughter to pay a portion of his maintenance.

AS to competing security firms, I suspect since wars between security firms would be very costly to their bottom lines, they would tend to negotiate agreements.

You know, hundreds of very intelligent people have been researching this stuff for well over a century now. They have actually analyzed all of the objections you are throwing out.Here’s a nice little library on the subject.

I know you hate being given lots of reading, but, frankly, this is a complicated subject.

Now, back to the actual topic at hand:

But over the long run, a society without a strong scientific foundation will find itself economically depressed. Right now you and I are enjoying the fruits of government research from many years ago. Our parents sacrificed their immediate well-being for our own well-being — and the ROI of their sacrifice is enormous. Sure, we could all have a gay old time if we didn’t invest in the future — but we wouldn’t have a future.

Except as the writers of the paper pointed out, there is no correlation between GDP growth and funding for basic research. The time-lag they are finding is effectively infinite.

Read pages 19-24 again. They explain the incentives that promote basic research in the private sector.

Again, you are emotionally, and without evidence, that someone has to force people to invest in things that will improve their lives. This is poppycock. What you are doing is substituting what you think people should invest in in place of the investments they would actually desire to make. sure, if you get away with it, you are better off, but by necessity, you have left them worse off since you have prevented them from investing in the stuff that they want the most.

At this point, I ask yo to do a thought experiment. Let us assume that the United States suffers some sort of disaster that wrecks the economy - for example a bacterium that gobbles up all petroleum products such as plastics and oil etc. Overnight, the U.S. economy is thrown back to a level of productivity similar to that of the early 19th century, let us say we need 7 people farming to feed every 10 people again. At this point, would you increase, maintain or decrease the funding for the NSF?

I think most people would say that the funding should be decreased since now people have to devote more of their labor to subsistence and the previous levels of investment are no longer a good idea. So the NSF budget would be slashed, and scientists would go back to working the fields or whatever. Yet as time progressed, the economy would continue to grow and people would invent new productivity multipliers and, who knows, within a century or so, things could be back to 20th century levels of wealth creation.

The point being is that there is some level of investment that you think is a good idea. That level changes depending on changing circumstances. I too have some level of investment that also fluctuates, but is probably different from yours. Extend this over millions of people, and you have millions of different levels of interest in funding basic research. So, Mr Noyon, which of these millions of people is right? What makes you so special that you should be permitted to override their desires with your own? ;)

You made quite a leap in the end when you flipped from talking about utilitarianism to strong government. The two have nothing in common. My point remains unaddressed: societies that give higher priority to ideology than pragmatism fail in the real, practical world. They may die nobly, but die they will.

Chepe sweetie,

Every society eventually falls. The more peaceful anarchic ones tend to survive about 300 years. Compare that with the U.S. which is wracked by war every generation, and suffers massive dislocations such as the Great depression every 50 years or so.

Utilitarianism, as you are arguing for it, is what you get when a persons life or property can be seized based on a perceived benefit to the majority. Let us ignore the fact that what really occurs in such situations is that some elite is making that decision based on their personal judgment. To act, they need a mechanism to actually carry out their thefts. I could, for example, conclude that you should be forced to write a computer game for the benefit of society, but without some mechanism to put my idea into practice, my idea would just be an unfulfilled wish. Thus, a society that is premised upon utilitarian lines must have lots of aggressive violence. Now, the only way one can have lots of aggressive violence, and not have chaos and wholesale death and destruction is in the presence of a strong government. Thus, the ideal utilitarian society is one that has a strong central government.

Furthermore, it is literally impossible to make utilitarian calculations. For example, let us say that I propose to seize your company for the good of society and hand it over to a person whom I judge to be more able at managing it. Obviously this hurts you. How much? Are you 15 Hendrics less happy? Is that offset by me being 6 Hendrics happier and the person who I give the job to being 12 Hendrics happier?

Of course, you could argue that one should look at GDP or some other such measurement. Except that these measurements are quite ridiculous. Take GDP for example. All goods and services produced in an economy are multiplied by some conversion factor to arrive at a dollar figure. How are these conversion prices arrived at? I may judge gold to be a wonderful thing and worth 100 bushels of apples. You on the other hand think that 1 oz of gold is worth half a bushel of apples since you hate gold and really like apples. Whose conversion factor should we use?

Utilitarian calculations are literally impossible. And thus, utilitarianism really boils down to people in group A pushing people in Group B around and laying claim to B members’ labor. In other words, utilitarianism, in practice boils down to oligarchy. Oligarchies tend to be fine and dandy for the oligarchs and a chore for everyone else. Needless to say, oligarchies are not in any ways guarantors of prosperity.

In the end, you are behaving somewhat like a North Korean peasant who thanks “Dear Leader” whenever anything good happens regardless of whether the Dear Leader was involved or not.

Comment by tarran — October 27, 2007 @ 1:11 am

Oh, Chepe, Chepe, Chepe,

Oh, tarran, tarran, tarran, tarran. How’s that for one-upsmanship? ;-)

I’m sorry I don’t have the time to respond to your lengthy post in equal detail. You have taken the time to explain your thinking with thoroughness and civility, and you deserve a commensurate response, but I have a busy day ahead of me, so I must perforce be less complete.

Your arguments in the matter of private versus public crime prevention suffer from several weaknesses. In the first place, you rely heavily upon group economic sanctions to enforce fair play in the marketplace. I remind you that such mechanisms are already in use and still fail to prevent economic crimes. Consumer Reports has been publishing for decades, but criminal prosecutions for fraud have not withered.

A second weakness in your argument is its reliance on civil suits. I have noticed other libertarians relying on civil litigation to replace criminal law. This is a bad idea for four reasons:

1. It makes it easier for the rich (who can afford expensive lawyers) to perpetrate crimes against the poor (who cannot). This is unjust.

2. Civil litigation is slow. A typical criminal case is resolved in about a year; a civil case takes maybe twice that.

3. Civil litigation is expensive. Even when both sides can afford it, taking a case to trial usually costs more than $100K.

4. But most important, civil litigation in the absence of controlling law substitutes the majority opinion of a jury for the majority opinion of all society. How can you possibly be better off relying on the majority opinion of a small group than a big group? How do you know you won’t happen to come up with some oddballs on the jury? If your daughter were raped, and two of the jurors were fundamentalist Christians who held that girls who dress provocatively deserve to be raped, and another three jurors were guys who’ve been turned down too often and regard all women as teases — well, I think you can see where this goes.

Civil litigation is no substitute for criminal law. The history of law shows a clear trend: societies start off with private justice and a rough-and-ready kind of tort law adjudicated by senior leaders; they find that this approach is too time-consuming and fails to command the respect of the losers (who often resort to violence); they attempt to ameliorate the problem by defining the most clear-cut types of crime and handling them according to an established procedure; as they build experience, they add to the body of criminal law, thereby codifying the best practices that have emerged from the case-by-case tort litigation; and eventually they have a large body of criminal law. What you are suggesting is a reversal of this process to the level last seen several thousand years ago.

You express a belief common to libertarians: that all social policies must be based on objectively provable arguments. The problem here is that values are fundamentally subjective. There is no objective basis for even the most elementary social rule. For example, there is no objective way to prove that murder is wrong or should be forbidden. The only basis for our strictures against murder is common social consent — majority rule. Libertarians seem to hate the notion of majority rule, but there is simply no way to determine social values without somebody, somewhere laying down rules, and I prefer the majority to any small group.

Lastly, I couldn’t let this one get by:

Every society eventually falls. The more peaceful anarchic ones tend to survive about 300 years.

Actually, it’s the other way around. The longest-surviving polity was the Byzantine Empire, which lasted for just over a thousand years — and was neither peaceful nor anarchic. Another record-setter was, believe it or not, the Mongol empire founded by Ghengis Khan. A tiny fragment of it lingered in the region east of the Caspian Sea until 1921. Mongols weren’t very peaceful or anarchic, either. By contrast, the more anarchic societies survived only as long as their more organized neighbors didn’t bother to molest them. Among these are the Tuareg of North Africa, the Inuit of North America, the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, and the Bushmen of southern Africa. Yes, it’s possible to have an anarchic society that endures — so long as you live in a hostile environment that nobody else wants to live in and you keep your population density way down.

I must go now. I have enjoyed my time here and I must say, the discussions here have been more civil, informative, and reasoned than I usually find elsewhere on the web. However, you have violated my trust and I therefore deem it unsafe to continue participation here. Goodbye to all, and best wishes.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 27, 2007 @ 11:03 am

However, you have violated my trust and I therefore deem it unsafe to continue participation here. Goodbye to all, and best wishes.

Chepe, what are you talking about?

Comment by tarran — October 27, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

Tarran, you accessed my email address.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 27, 2007 @ 12:37 pm

You’re upset because I googled you?

It can’t be anything else because that’s the only thing I have ever done with your email address. I certainly haven’t emailed you, or given it to anybody. I haven’t broken any confidence because:

I I haven’t said anything about you that you haven’t said publicly on this forum.

II You haven’t given me any confidences to protect, except for your email address which, again, I haven’t given out to anyone.

Why do you feel unsafe? Has someone been threatening you?

Comment by tarran — October 27, 2007 @ 3:03 pm

tarran, you violated my privacy. I post under a pseudonym because the web is full of nutcases. A previous pseudonym of mine was compromised by another blog and a nutcase from a third blog found it and harassed me with nasty emails. If this pseudonym has been compromised (which I am unable to verify at Google), then I must abandon it anyway.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 27, 2007 @ 3:27 pm

Chepe What the hell are you talking about !?!

Violated your pseudonym how?!?

Comment by tarran — October 27, 2007 @ 3:37 pm

Tarran, you identified me. You used your control over the BBS software to penetrate the anonymity that I clearly desired. Sure, you haven’t done anything untoward with that information — yet. But if you violated my privacy once, I have no reason to believe that you won’t violate it again. You yourself operate under a pseudonym and presumably value your privacy — why don’t you accord me the same privacy?

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 27, 2007 @ 4:09 pm

Honestly, rather than posting your bio on the internet, and going apeshit when the server logs show a strange IP address as having downloaded it, why do you bother posting it at all?

If you don’t want someone to know your email address, why do you give it to them?

If you are looking for someone to get angry at, pal, I suggest you get a mirror, because the only one “violating” your privacy is yourself.

Comment by tarran — October 27, 2007 @ 6:11 pm

I came to this slapfight to quote Hanlon’s Razor:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

:)

Comment by CommiePuddin — October 27, 2007 @ 6:16 pm

Good post, Chris…

Comment by Brad Warbiany — June 12, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

Wow, great post, and I agree with every single thing.

Comment by Adam — June 12, 2007 @ 10:35 pm

The white race is dying and declining.

hahahahahahahahah :)

the people of color, made up of black, red, brown, yellow, and multiracial peoples are increasing rapidly. we are having a baby boom and the non-white masses in asia, africa, latin america, the carribean islands, and in the pacific islands are multiplying.

on top of that the non-white plurality in usa, canada, australia, new zealand, and europe are expanding and by 2050 non-whites will be majority in USA (hawaii, new mexico, california, texas, and DC are already majority non-white :) hahahahah) by 2050 non-whites will be majority in new zealand, by 2055 non-whites will be majority in canada and by 2070 non-whites will be more than whites in australia.

demography is indeed destinty. the same way that the evil and genocidal and thieving and racist white settlers stolen land from native americans in usa and canada and from aborigines in australia, and from maoris in new zealand, the coming nonwhite masses of hispanics, black comrades, asians, and native americans together will make the white race minority by 2050 in usa, canada, australia, and new zealand.

long live socialism!!! viva hugo chavez, rafael correa, evo morales, fidel castro, daniel ortega, lenin, mao, comrade ROBERT MUGABE, and so forth!!!

Comment by Gringo_Is_Evil — June 19, 2007 @ 6:04 pm

“We’re a federalist system of government and states can make their own decisions.”

Had he stuck to simply that line of thought, he would have dodged the question a bit more effectively.

Comment by Saul — May 5, 2007 @ 5:59 pm

My nieces have the same speech pattern when they try to get out of answering “Why did you hit your sister?”

It’s not a pattern I trust in an adult.

Comment by Ted — May 5, 2007 @ 6:05 pm

It is, however, a pattern common to politicians.

Comment by Saul — May 5, 2007 @ 6:16 pm

Great Libertarian? Guiliani is the guy who lead Wall Street traders off in handcuffs. He is a bigger authoritarian than Bush — one who doesn’t support the natural right to life.

Comment by Private Dude — May 6, 2007 @ 10:02 am

Private Dude,

I’m guessing you didn’t click the hyperlink when I called Giuliani a libertarian hero. If you had, you would have know I was being sarcastic.

Comment by Kevin — May 6, 2007 @ 12:01 pm

[…] this post confirmed what I suspected for long time. While the issue of abortion in general, and late term […]

Pingback by It looks obvious » They are not life lover — May 1, 2007 @ 8:46 am

Abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances. In that context, it’s just the agreed upon definition of words. Nevertheless, I don’t believe there is a right to life for anybody, and certainly not one that can trump the basic concept of property rights, and I certainly would not support an incompetent regime to enforce whatever ‘rights’ they dream up.

The question then is can American ‘pro-choicers’ allow political liberty for the communities who reject the practice all-together. Can “pro-lifers” do the same? Or is it just a phony debate designed to go on forever?

I think the whole logic of “save the life of the mother” is from the same playbook that ushered in the era of pre-emptive war in this country.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 9:06 am

“Abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances. In that context, it’s just the agreed upon definition of words. Nevertheless, I don’t believe there is a right to life for anybody,”

How are these two statements compatible? They appear to be diametrically opposed.

Comment by David Z — May 1, 2007 @ 9:44 am

They appear to be diametrically opposed

How so? Murder, the calculated taking of another innocent human life, is a fact of earthly life, so it would appear, based on definitions of words, that there is no ‘right to life.’ If one lived in a community that recognized a tradition of life, it would be logical to find the practice outlawed, but that doesn’t mean that there is a universal “right to life.”

China and India seem to get by with a tradition of infanticide, so we should be able to be adults about it and no hide behind claims to ‘abstract rights.’

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 10:33 am

I disagree, abortion is homicide, not necessarily murder.

In some cases, homicide is justified. Murder however is not.

Sometimes, abortion can be justified. Even though abortion is always morally abhorrent, it can be done to prevent an equal or greater wrong, and therefore it is sometimes justified. Just as war is morally abhorrent, war can be justified, to prevent greater wrong.

Abortion as retroactive birth control is ALWAYS morally wrong, and there is never any justification for such. Abortion to save the life of the mother MAY be morally justified; though still abhorrent.

The real problem is, who gets to decide what is justified, and what is not; and how do they decide.

(I should note, I am catholic, but I felt this way even when I was not)

Comment by Chris — May 1, 2007 @ 2:37 pm

Oh and one more thing

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So, are babies not created equally? Are mothers?

Comment by Chris — May 1, 2007 @ 2:57 pm

So Charles, are you suggesting that the government should force a woman to have a baby even if it would put her life at risk? Why can’t you answer my original question?

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 1, 2007 @ 3:07 pm

I don’t support governments doing anything; where do you get that from?

If you were to ask me whom would I admire more, the woman who gave up her life to bring a new one into this world, or the one who killed her baby so she could eek out a few more years, which one do you think I would choose? And you?

You asked a question in leftist dialect to others speaking in leftist dialects, so I merely spoke as a rightist. There is no ‘right to life.’ I fully respect our cultural tradition of property rights, but I also respect political liberty and small-scale rule, the old City-State model. If the City-State wants laissez-faire abortion services, so be it. If the City-State doesn’t want abortionists setting up shop, that is fine too.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 3:16 pm

Abortion as retroactive birth control is ALWAYS morally wrong

Chris,

What would you say if the fetus was severely deformed or had extreme brain damage? What if the fetus could survive but with no chance of a ‘normal’ life? If this child was born, but could not be properly cared for by its parents, what should be come of it? Should the state be responsible for its care?

Comment by David T — May 1, 2007 @ 3:22 pm

Chris;

Point taken, though your example exists more as a theoretical example than practical. I am all for families getting the final say on the issue, which often comes down to the woman in our degraded states.

So long as I am not paying for it (i.e. subsidizing homicide) I don’t have enough time in the day to worry about it.

The culture in America, unlike say in the Netherlands, is still very much against killing post-utero undesirables, but that too could change in the years to come.

I do not support in anyway shape or form, opening the door for the State to come in as final arbiter, claiming some right they dreamed up. The State plays the role of vampire, just waiting to be invited in.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

“How so? Murder, the calculated taking of another innocent human life, is a fact of earthly life, so it would appear, based on definitions of words, that there is no ‘right to life.’”

I’m afraid I misunderstood. Or maybe I didn’t. Do you conclude that there is no such thing as a right to life? because if you argue that the woman is obligated to bear full-term, then you are affirming the foetal right to life, while simultaneously denying the mother’s.

Furthermore, your claim that etymology can somehow supersede the notion of rights is patently retarded. The concept of “murder” (i.e., the unjustified taking of another’s life) can only exist within a framework that affirms a “right” to life.

Comment by David Z — May 1, 2007 @ 3:39 pm

David T.;

What if you discover after the child is born, say 3 months old, that there are a host of expensive problems, and no chance of a normal life for the child, shouldn’t you have a right to kill the baby–in the most pleasant way possible of course?

The abortion apologist crowd is using arbitrary political maneuvering when they imply something magical happens right after birth when the Rights Fairies arrives, I suppose.

If nothing else, the Marquis de Sade, a big fan of abortion as a means of population control, was honest. It’s murder, but so what?

We too, shall be as the gods.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

David Z.;

The concept of “murder” (i.e., the unjustified taking of another’s life) can only exist within a framework that affirms a “right” to life.

Um, no, I am quite sure Cain and Able pre-date any “right to life” phraseology, and the Ten Commandments mention nothing about ‘rights’ only what folks can’t do. Try again?

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 3:45 pm

Post-partum is different, and we have treated it as such for years.

To answer your question, Charles, death of the infant after birth is indeed murder or at the very least, homicide.

It is not a maneuver to see pre- and post-delivery as distinct. If a mother give her child alcohol or drugs after birth, it is abuse. If she does it while she is pregnant, she’s irresponsible, but not charged with a crime. If a mother doesn’t eat and makes poor nutritional choices for the fetus, we do not insert an IV into her arm and force her to take the right vitamins. If she maintains this behavior with her child after birth, then she is guilty of neglect. We make a legal distinction if the fetus has been born and have for several hundred years.

I do not see it as murder if the fetus is aborted at 8 hours, 8 days, 8 weeks, or 8 months, although an abortion that late in the process is unsettling to me. However, I’m not about to contend that we should eliminate the practice and return to the days of the coathanger.

Comment by David T — May 1, 2007 @ 3:56 pm

David T;

Because you said so? Because the law say so? I don’t know if I buy that.

So basically, rights are arbitrary ‘philosopher stones” and as a word, have no real meaning, then indeed, that was my point. Hiding behind legalisms, and this collective ‘we’ is in the same league.

But your red herring refence to the bad old days of coathangers, the Reefer Madness device of the abortion crowd. What if all the person could afford was a back-alley coat hanger job?

By your logic, wouldn’t society have an obligation to pay for her decent abortion? Or would a hospital job be only open to the rich who could afford to fly to another country…? Lets put it to a vote?

Comment by C Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 4:13 pm

As a mother, the thought of being TOLD I would have to give up my life for the life of an unborn baby, which would mean leaving my other 3 kids behind and my husband with now 4 kids is appauling. Imagine if it was your wife or your daughter or your sister that was going through a life threatening pregnancy. Would you just let her die so that you would be a single father since after all “it’s not the baby’s fault”, would that help you sleep at night? News Flash: in most cases it isn’t the mother’s fault either that their life is in jeopardy. This post isn’t even about whether or not abortion is murder or should be legal, it’s about people thinking it is more than okay to FORCE a mother to continue with a pregnancy that will kill her. How in the hell is that fair to her, and the rest of her family? Just imagine the guilt it would put on that poor kid, don’t you think there would be some resentment from the father/rest of the family? Yes, it would be very sad to lose a baby, but without the mother still around, there are no second tries (if they received the all clear), there is no adopting to complete their family. This is just absolutely disgusting, I can’t even get everything I want to say out because it is so infuriating that there are people out there with this kind of thinking.

Comment by Aimee — May 1, 2007 @ 6:06 pm

“Cain and Able (sic) pre-date any “right to life” phraseology, and the Ten Commandments mention nothing about ‘rights’ only what folks can’t do. Try again?”

The concept of murder cannot arise without a pre-existing notion that men own their respective lives. To posit anything to the contrary is complete unlogic, since you’d be attempting to define a term without a necessary component of the definition. You would argue that murder is the unjust taking of one’s life, yet concurrently state that there is no such thing as a right to life. Well, if there was no recognized right to life (however incomplete or imperfect) no judgment can be passed as to whether the life-taking action was justified.

Let’s see…

If Theft to be defined as the unjust taking of another’s property, viz., taking or otherwise disposing of, or exercising control over property that belongs to someone else. Since “theft” is defined in terms of property rights, we can conclude that theft cannot exist without a right to property.

Now, replace “theft” with “murder” and “property” with “life.”

Comment by David Z — May 1, 2007 @ 9:46 pm

Abortion as retroactive birth control is ALWAYS morally wrong, and there is never any justification for such.
Vasectomies are morally right and only should be undone for the purpose of reproduction.

Comment by VRB — May 1, 2007 @ 9:52 pm

Wow, a lot has been written since I last commented. I think I need to clarify a few points…

One of the philosophies all of us contributors at “The Liberty Papers” share is that every individual has three basic rights from which all other rights are derived: life, liberty, and property. These are natural rights that all humans have. Unfortunately, not every government recognizes these rights. The only way these rights can legitimately be taken away is if an individual violates these same rights of another person. For example: If person A takes person B’s life, liberty, or property, justice demands that person A’s life*, liberty, or property be taken away in a fashion which “fits” the crime.

The above philosophy has nothing to do with the 10 commandments, Cain & Able, or any other commonly believed myths. This philosophy is derived from Classical Liberal thought (for lack of a better term) by such philosophers as John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and others. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these basic rights of life, liberty, and property. Citizens of a government which violates these rights have a moral obligation to overthrow such a government.

Okay, now that everyone knows where I am coming from, let me get back into the discussion. This post wasn’t as much about abortion as it was about the idea that government should place one individual’s rights above another’s. For discussion purposes, let’s take the subject of abortion off the table for a moment (don’t worry, I’ll come back). In what other circumstance could the government force an individual to sacrifice his or her life to save the life of another? I cannot think of one.

Now back to the abortion issue. Most of the debate on the abortion issue is the question of when a person truly becomes a person complete with the three basic rights I have just described. On one extreme, we have those who believe that the second the sperm splashes the egg at conception, a life has been created and thus already has these rights. On the other extreme, there are those who believe a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy up until the due date. I am not going to get into where exactly I am on this spectrum (I will say I am not on either extreme); but regardless of the stage of pregnancy, the government still has no right to tell a woman that she must sacrifice her life for her baby.

On a less philosophical level, as a concerned father of a young girl I find Sen. Sam Brownback’s disregard for the rights of pregnant women appalling. I simply cannot support anyone whose personal believes could become policies which could effect her if she were ever raped or had a pregnancy with complications which would threaten her life.

The government simply cannot tell anyone to sacrifice his or her life to save the life of another.

*There is plenty of room for argument about whether or not the state or anyone else should take a person’s right to life away even if the person is guilty of taking someone else’s life. This is a question I continue to wrestle with because there are very good arguments on both sides of the issue of the death penalty.

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 1, 2007 @ 11:46 pm

Hmmmmm, straw men, and false equivalence; ahh the salty taste of logical fallacies.

Comment by Chris — May 2, 2007 @ 12:00 am

Chris, whose straw men are you referring to? I know I have seen a few in these comments but did you identify any in my comments? I know I got a little off track but I think the readers need to know where I’m comming from.

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 2, 2007 @ 12:33 am

David Z.;

The concept of murder cannot arise without a pre-existing notion that men own their respective lives.

Just plain silly. One can derive a theory on property rights based on a declaration that murder is wrong, but then “Property rights” would exist at best in the metaphysical realm. Property rights are something that must exist in order for a society to survive, that is observable. But even the Commies in the USSR had property rights; the Party hacks had them all of course, but they had them nonetheless.

Well, if there was no recognized right to life (however incomplete or imperfect) no judgment can be passed as to whether the life-taking action was justified.

You contradict yourself here (as I read it anyway), but that is close to my point and by all means it extends to the young baby as the Netherlands, complete in the thralls of “liberalism” have discovered. If Rights are Imperfect, the State will volunteer to be the arbiter, and as we know, the State has a vested interest in keeping us at each other’s throats to justify it’s existence.

Stephen is agnostic on when life begins and yet it would seem central to his (and others) philosophy who hold of the Holy Trinity of Rights as the basis of his philosophy.

It’s okay to be agnostic on such issues, it’s hiding from it that causes problems. I’m just speaking as an ancap, but it would seem the real issue with ‘abortion’ is that when its politicized in a State the size of the US of A, no truth can be derived, but we can accommodate one another best by not enforcing “rights” at the point of a gun, either way.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 6:17 am

Charles, “One can derive a theory on property rights based on a declaration that murder is wrong”

From whence comes this “declaration” if not based on some axiomatic first principle? You can’t define a term in itself - and you can’t merely “declare” things to be universals.

But I don’t want to get into an argument off-topic, it seems we’re very much in agreement, especially your last paragraph or so.

Comment by David Z — May 2, 2007 @ 8:44 am

In what other circumstance could the government force an individual to sacrifice his or her life to save the life of another? I cannot think of one.

The case of a suspected terrorist attack using aircraft as missiles would be one. It is rumored that the military could be ordered to shoot down a commercial airliner to avoid an attack on a fixed target (skyscraper, government building, etc.) This seems to be utilitarian: the greatest good/least harm for the greatest number of people.

It seems like “abort the child to save the life of the mother” is a false choice. I have a cousin who had a c-section before full term because of complications of the pregnancy that threatened the life of the mother and child. They both doing fine now. “Kill the unborn” is presented as the only alternative in this hypothetical. In the real world, aren’t there usually more possibilities?

A federal law that preempts state and community law on abortion (and many other subjects) is the worst: the federal government has more power than granted under the Constitution and the states are unable to respond to the needs/wishes of their citizens. Taking a family decision and making it a federal edict is not liberty.

Comment by Mark T — May 2, 2007 @ 8:53 am

I encourage whoever believes that fatal pregnancies cannot happen to read this, all of it.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610160007

This is in response to Bill O’Reilly’s claim in October of 2006:

On his radio show, Bill O’Reilly falsely claimed that it “is never the case” that a “mother’s life is in danger” during pregnancy because “you can always have a C-section and do those kinds of things.”

That is about as ignorant as one can get, next to Sam Brownback that is.

Comment by Aimee — May 2, 2007 @ 9:16 am

David Z.

I was illustrating the historic basis for deriving natural rights. The more Right you go on the ideolgical spectrum, the fewer abstractions one will allow in reasoned debate. I am comfortable with a few abstractions (putting me to the Left of paleocons, but still safely in the Right on the libertarian scale), that I believe came from the combined historical experience of the English and Celtic peoples, their unique history and experience, and fully unleashed in the American civilization (which does predate the founding fathers whose agenda is not necesarily in line with ‘libertarian’ themes.)

I think the key here is delineating between “political langauge” and philosophical pursuits in the realm of linguistics and philosophy. My purpose was demonstrating that libertarians (or whomever who leads with ‘rights’) hold an apolitical philosophy, but when they try to turn it into a politic (or ideology) they often encourage the State, always looking for a way in.

As to Thomas Jefferson’s unfortunate phraseology, borrowed from a couple of Continental sources, in a secession document no less, our rulers interprate (and reinforce in public schools etc) as they please so we are, afterall ruled by men and we become subject to their rule. As the check on these men is alleged to be the ‘vote’, we have been witness to the failure of democracy which seems to push forward the worst sorts of characters, including Mr.Brownback (but excluding Dr. Paul and maybe a handful of others.)

Comment by C Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 9:30 am

“I was illustrating the historic basis for deriving natural rights”

Historically, we came up with a concept of “property” because “theft” pre-existed it? We came up with a concept known as the “right to life” because we were appalled by “murder?” No. We were appalled by murder because we recognized at some basal level, a right to life - whether it was made explicitly clear is beside the point. We didn’t simply wake up one day, declare that murder is wrong, and then go about creating a right to life in light of that arbitrary decree. Think about what you’re saying - unless I’m totally missing you here - is that you can develop propositions based on a conclusion, which is syllogistically backwards.

If this is in fact how things developed, i.e., backwards, then it is purely by accident that we arrived at a set of rights which are in any manner consistent with those derived from first principles. But still further, we’ve evolved past the point of using the incorrect logic of our predecessors - even if it leads to the same conclusion. We have much better arguments now than pointing to Hammurabi’s code, or Moses’ tablets.

Comment by David Z — May 2, 2007 @ 10:00 am

Who is this ‘we’ you speak of? I have contributed zero in original philosophy, a mere consumer am I.

Rights logic, promoted in the 18th Century, has led to these nation-states that commit acts of mass murder on levels that are hard to fathom.

My guess is that as the homo sapien started farming, he needed a place to store crops and a system of protecting the crops while not pissing off the proletariat who might slit his throat in his sleep. (The story of Cain and Able do a decent job of getting the point across, but that’s a story about murder.)

There was property before that, but the need for a system of law, natural law, seems obvious and in the natural interest of survival. These are things, traits, that are observed, not ‘discovered.’ Systems and custom around property would then develop, becoming ever more complex, perhaps with the introduction of trade. I am sure there are some primitive examples even today, bushmen tribes, that have no real property, but even that I doubt as hunting and gathering seems to require boundries.

It would be millenia before folks would start with real political philosophical works, like Aristotle, but his interest is not so much ‘property rights’ but defending the ‘republic’ from tyranny–which should be our chief concern.

Rights “logic”, while an often poetic expression of the Anglo-Celt world, can be used by folks like Brownback, or the leftist equivalent that wants laissez-faire infanticide, so it doesn’t appear that strong to me.

Virtue seems to be the key.

Comment by C Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 10:16 am

“My guess is that as the homo sapien started farming…

Systems and custom around property would then develop…”

So clearly, the concept of property even on a primitive level preceded the concept of theft - or at the very least is corequisite. Thank you, that wasn’t so hard.

Rights “logic”, while an often poetic expression of the Anglo-Celt world, can be used by folks like Brownback, or the leftist equivalent that wants laissez-faire infanticide, so it doesn’t appear that strong to me.

And if he’s wrong (and he probably is) you ought to be able to beat him at that game, because I don’t think you’re denying logic or reason - which are required to find the virtue you speak of. I have a terribly limited knowledge of the ancients, but from what I recall, reason was of paramount importance in identifying morally good actions, virtuous deeds, etc.

Comment by David Z — May 2, 2007 @ 11:32 am

Steven, I wasn’t referring to your comments; just the direction of some of the commenters.

Comment by Chris — May 2, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

That is the ‘trick’ of Leviathan. Logic dictates that if the definition of homicide is the taking of another innocent human life, A=A, then abortion is homicide (and granted there are degrees.)

We should all be dubious of folks and their ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ who cannot nail that one down.

This does not mean that there is a “right to life” that does not logically follow.

Once you start down the path of ‘rights’ its fairly hard to control and philosophers have been dreaming up rights ever since.

Abortion, as a culture war issue, is best dealt with via historic federalism (which means overturning at least in practice R v W), otherwise it will continue to divide already very thin ranks.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 1:08 pm

Logic dictates that if the definition of homicide is the taking of another innocent human life, A=A, then abortion is homicide (and granted there are degrees.)

How would you characterize miscarriages? Are they also homicide?

Comment by David T — May 2, 2007 @ 1:24 pm

David T.;

Please, are you joking? You have discredited your other posts. In the off chance, you are asking in good faith, miscarriages are obviously not homicide.

A better angle, if you want to test me, is: the Birth Control pill which can sometimes act as an abortifacient and cause the newly fertilized egg to be simply flushed down the water closet, is that murder?

I get squeamish myself, fallen creature am I, thinking about the consequences of what we do in this world. I could plead agnostic on the question, “I don’t know if it’s murder” and go against logic, or seek a legalism like “lack of malice aforethought “, but ignorance, while comforting in this world, might not be of much use in the next. All the more reason to leave such issues to the family not governments and their indoctrination centers.

Property rights seem the only logical way to satisfactorily deal with such issues.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 2:06 pm

Aimee,
Amazing isn’t it? How easily womens lives can be toyed with by men as though we were mere bargaining chips! This is what comes from male centered religions, women are at the bottom of the food chain! Statements like this: “If you were to ask me whom would I admire more, the woman who gave up her life to bring a new one into this world, or the one who killed her baby so she could eek out a few more years, which one do you think I would choose?”
Eek out a few more years, this is how he respects a young woman who may have other children, her job is simply to produce and she should not want for more! With this type of male in the US why worry about the Taliban? Women today must pay very close attention all across the globe less they become lower than an animal by the male worshipping religious cults.

Comment by Madmimm — May 2, 2007 @ 2:26 pm

Not everything is a challenge or test, Charles.

I was honestly asking if you percieved miscarriage as homicide - because, after all, it is taking of an innocent life, however accidental or unintended. You are resolute - and absolute - in your points to the degree that an unintended death is not much different than a deliberate one.

All the more reason to leave such issues to the family not governments and their indoctrination centers
Yep, and that’s why it should be allowed for people to make choices for themselves, and not have it banned. That’s why I don’t buy into Brownback’s thinking either.

Comment by David T — May 2, 2007 @ 2:43 pm

David T;

If I have to explain the difference between homicide/murder, and accidental/natural death, then we are scarcely speaking the same language, apparently. I had, incorrectly, assumed I was speaking to someone familiar with the English language beyond mere utilitarian concerns.

You are resolute - and absolute - in your points to the degree that an unintended death is not much different than a deliberate one.

Absurd conclusion. Logic, try it, or don’t, no worries.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 2:56 pm

You don’t have to explain any differences between between intentional or not, nor do you have to assume that someone is unfamiliar with the language.

What you were asked is thus: “Woul