The Next Phase of the Kathryn Johnston Saga Begins
(WSB Radio) Opening arguments begin today in the trial of an Atlanta police officer charged in connection with killing of Kathryn Johnston.
Arthur Tesler is the only cop to go on trial for the shooting of the 92 year old woman in her Atlanta home.
Tesler did not fire a shot during the November 2006 […]

RSS 2.0 Feed
Yet another article that shows that libertarians clearly have not developped mentally enough to grasp the concepts of Civilization.
Comment by Jean Naimard — April 24, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Wow, Mr Naimard, what a substantive rebuttal!
So, where did I go wrong?
Was I wrong when I said that there should be freedom of association? Should you be forced to hire skin-heads? Room with neo-nazi’s?
Was I wrong when I said that governments shouldn’t artificially limit the number of doctors in order to keep their wages artificially high?
Or was I wrong when I argue that tax laws that compel people to depend on their employers for medical coverage should be repealed because it harms both the employer and employee?
Or am I being uncivilized when I argue that we should not have laws on the books that are largely unenforceable, are easily evaded by the politically connected, but provide yet another club with which political appointees can harass businesses and organizations that oppose the dominant political party’s political aims?
Where, pray tell, did I go wrong?
Comment by tarran — April 24, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
I love it when statists try to insult our intellectual capacity while filling their comments with typos, non-sequiturs and grammatical errors. It’s like having a four-year old tell you he can beat you up. :)
Comment by UCrawford — April 24, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
I will never mock anyone for type-o’s; people in glass houses, you know.
Comment by tarran — April 24, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Normally it’s a short-sighted strategy…blogs just sort of invite hasty typing, which leads to mistakes (I’ve made more than a few myself). However, people who call other people stupid in a comment that looks like it was written by a guy who slept through high school English class never fail to amuse me :)
Comment by UCrawford — April 24, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
This looks like a privacy issue to me. No one has the right to invade another persons privacy.
Comment by uhm — April 24, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
uhm,
The government shouldn’t have a right to invade your privacy. When you get into private individuals and private employers, however, it’s a much grayer area.
Comment by UCrawford — April 25, 2008 @ 5:31 am
Tarran wrote:
Excellent points. I completely agree. Larger, freer markets are a consumer’s best friend. They always mean the best possible goods and services at the lowest possible prices.
As far as employment…
How many of us have been asked by a prospective employer to pee in a cup? I have always agreed, but known I could decline to offer that information when entering the employment contract if I chose. I can contract with another employer if it’s a deal-breaker for me.
I ask the employer questions about their financial solvency, management principles, and turnover. So far, they always choose to answer my questions as well. They can hire another employee if my questions are too intrusive.
I am not forced to give more information than I choose, nor are they. I am not forced to ignore aspects I uncover about the company that are unfavorable, and they…hmmm. Well that’s probably going to change now, isn’t it?
For me, this is more a question of information privacy, not discrimination.
As far as anti-discrimination laws, I’ve never been a fan of any government intrusion into willing agreements (or disagreement) between private citizens.
Comment by Akston — May 2, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
So you would rather be pure with association than pure with someone taking care of a perfectly capable person with a genetic disease weather they were sick or not. There would be no associations that could care for everyone in that situation, so would it be the impure government who would take care of them or the moral purity of death for those persons.
Comment by VRB — May 7, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
I’m sorry, but I am not certain what “pure with association” and “pure with someone taking care of a perfectly capable person” means.
The points that I am tying to make are:
1) The laws prohibiting discrimination based on certain criteria are immoral.
2) These laws are largely unenforceable.
3) People would be more eager to be tested if the government weren’t making medical care unaffordable.
4) Employers would not care about a person’s predisposition towards genetic illness if it was easier to fire sick people and if they weren’t paying medical insurance premiums for their employees.
I have no problem with people hiring people who are predisposed to suffer from genetic illnesses. I have no problem with people taking care of sick family members, in fact I encourage it. just because I don’t think something should be prohibited does not mean I think it should be mandatory.
Comment by tarran — May 7, 2008 @ 7:41 pm