Father Ashcroft protects us from porn
- Thread starter Jrob24
- Start date
- Status
Chris Rhines
Member
Maybe a better way of putting it would be, "People who try to enforce their morality on others are terrorists, and should be treated as such." More clear?
- Chris
- Chris
deanf
Member
Sounds like tyranny of the majority to me.
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." -Ayn Rand
RealGun
Member
Hill v Colorado:
"Also, the statute deals not with restricting a speaker’s right to address a willing audience, but with protecting listeners from unwanted communication." - upheld
Regardless of context, I believe this US Supreme Court reasoning will carry across to protect parental rights. The FCC is already enforcing standards that are below the threshold of numerous complaints. I think what you will see is the requirement enforced that there must be a direct parental elective mechanism, so open airwaves broadcasting will be subject to legislation. Beyond that, a network may drop a program for personal reasons of an executive or simply to respond to the weight of complaints, avoiding the hassle and possible effect on more important business objectives.
Since moral standards are being continually tested these days by radio and television, the ubiquitous nature of this material will force cable companies to unbundle their channel offerings, allowing individuals to completely control what channels are available in their homes and to enable them to immediately exclude any one channel that presents a problem to them by their own standards. While channels may be able to be individually blocked, there may be a desire to withhold any form of funding for such content, i.e. not pay for any part of a subscription that isn't desired or used, in effect boycotting certain channels, reducing their undeserved funding.
The only way to overcome that is by the tyranny of the majority, still relying on networks to not care what image they project. To stand back and obstinately describe how things should be could be considered your own brand of tyranny.
This really is a no-brainer for responsible parents and others who care about wholesome child rearing environments. Adults can watch, hear, or otherwise experience anything they want to, as long as it is strictly in private and does no demonstrable harm to anyone else (and is otherwise lawful).
"Also, the statute deals not with restricting a speaker’s right to address a willing audience, but with protecting listeners from unwanted communication." - upheld
Regardless of context, I believe this US Supreme Court reasoning will carry across to protect parental rights. The FCC is already enforcing standards that are below the threshold of numerous complaints. I think what you will see is the requirement enforced that there must be a direct parental elective mechanism, so open airwaves broadcasting will be subject to legislation. Beyond that, a network may drop a program for personal reasons of an executive or simply to respond to the weight of complaints, avoiding the hassle and possible effect on more important business objectives.
Since moral standards are being continually tested these days by radio and television, the ubiquitous nature of this material will force cable companies to unbundle their channel offerings, allowing individuals to completely control what channels are available in their homes and to enable them to immediately exclude any one channel that presents a problem to them by their own standards. While channels may be able to be individually blocked, there may be a desire to withhold any form of funding for such content, i.e. not pay for any part of a subscription that isn't desired or used, in effect boycotting certain channels, reducing their undeserved funding.
The only way to overcome that is by the tyranny of the majority, still relying on networks to not care what image they project. To stand back and obstinately describe how things should be could be considered your own brand of tyranny.
This really is a no-brainer for responsible parents and others who care about wholesome child rearing environments. Adults can watch, hear, or otherwise experience anything they want to, as long as it is strictly in private and does no demonstrable harm to anyone else (and is otherwise lawful).
Maybe a better way of putting it would be, "People who try to enforce their morality on others are terrorists, and should be treated as such." More clear?
- Chris
So if I & the vast majority of people believe members of the "man boy love association " belong inn jail for practicing what they believe is perfectly morale we're terrorists? Hmmmmm
- Chris
So if I & the vast majority of people believe members of the "man boy love association " belong inn jail for practicing what they believe is perfectly morale we're terrorists? Hmmmmm
Andrew Rothman
Member
Straw man. Having sex with minor is illegal. It is not the same as pictures of nekkid people.
And you know it.
longrifleman
Member
Debates like this are what brought me to libertatianism in the first place. No matter where you draw the line on forcing other people to follow your moral code it always ends up requiring corecion by the govt to enforce it and people wind up dead or in jail for doing things that hurt no one or no one but themselves.
I understand the necessity of a shared morality to keep the country together but whose morality do we use? The Taliban had an idea about that for Afghanistan. Is that the kind of system we want here?
I'm not comparing Ashcroft to the Taliban; those charges have been made before and are simply not accurate. But, what standard do we use? Thats where the live and let live of libertarian thought appeals to me.
Nothing about this approach prevents defending minors from exploitation, even though the strawman argument has been made trying to do so.
Terrorism is becoming a VERY overused word.
I understand the necessity of a shared morality to keep the country together but whose morality do we use? The Taliban had an idea about that for Afghanistan. Is that the kind of system we want here?
I'm not comparing Ashcroft to the Taliban; those charges have been made before and are simply not accurate. But, what standard do we use? Thats where the live and let live of libertarian thought appeals to me.
Nothing about this approach prevents defending minors from exploitation, even though the strawman argument has been made trying to do so.
Terrorism is becoming a VERY overused word.
deanf
Member
Yes. The ultimate imorality is using the threat of physical force to imtimidate people into complying with your demands. Physical force (taken to it's logical full extent, the barrel of a government agent's gun) is the underlying threat in all laws, and it's ultimately what causes people to obey all laws (absent a moral desire to do so), whether they realize it or not, and it's wrong.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if I & the vast majority of people believe members of the "man boy love association " belong inn jail for practicing what they believe is perfectly morale we're terrorists? Hmmmmm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Straw man. Having sex with minor is illegal. It is not the same as pictures of nekkid people.
And you know it.
Yes its illegal because a large group of parents don't want some 40 yr old banging there 8 yr old son. There forcing the morality on those people through the legal code. Which is why the libertarians are ultimately pure gibberish. You cannot have a society that is libertarian, there mutually exclusive . To have a society you have to have rules that the majority will follow. No rules, you have anarchy at best.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if I & the vast majority of people believe members of the "man boy love association " belong inn jail for practicing what they believe is perfectly morale we're terrorists? Hmmmmm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Straw man. Having sex with minor is illegal. It is not the same as pictures of nekkid people.
And you know it.
Yes its illegal because a large group of parents don't want some 40 yr old banging there 8 yr old son. There forcing the morality on those people through the legal code. Which is why the libertarians are ultimately pure gibberish. You cannot have a society that is libertarian, there mutually exclusive . To have a society you have to have rules that the majority will follow. No rules, you have anarchy at best.
__________________
longrifleman
Member
The olde circular argument coming 
Our law and order folks are going to say the only way to keep people from hurting each other is force of law. When that fails (when not if) they will demand more laws... and the beat goes on.
Every argument for more govt control of personal behavior is based on the same logic that the antis use for more gun control. Most folks on this board don't seem to have any trouble understanding why the logic is faulty with regards to guns. I am always puzzled why it is so hard for the connection to be made between the two.
edited after rich2u posted
Anarchy and libertarian are very different breeds of cats. No libertarian I know of would condone abusing children and would approve of govt force to protect the innocent. Also, any attack on a child would justify defense by the parent and other friends/family. Nothing about lib prevents folks banding together for mutual benefit, just demanding at gunpoint said help.
Personal note: If somebody attacks your child call me and I'll hold him down while you do the surgery.
Our law and order folks are going to say the only way to keep people from hurting each other is force of law. When that fails (when not if) they will demand more laws... and the beat goes on.
Every argument for more govt control of personal behavior is based on the same logic that the antis use for more gun control. Most folks on this board don't seem to have any trouble understanding why the logic is faulty with regards to guns. I am always puzzled why it is so hard for the connection to be made between the two.
edited after rich2u posted
Anarchy and libertarian are very different breeds of cats. No libertarian I know of would condone abusing children and would approve of govt force to protect the innocent. Also, any attack on a child would justify defense by the parent and other friends/family. Nothing about lib prevents folks banding together for mutual benefit, just demanding at gunpoint said help.
Personal note: If somebody attacks your child call me and I'll hold him down while you do the surgery.
The child molestation was an extreme example & not the best. However I have the perfect example. Guy I know rides bikes, hates wearing a helmet. He doesn't believe the goverment should tell him he has to wear one. Fine he should have the right to not wear a helmet buuuuutt when he's out & has a spill & hits his head minus the helmet the general public shouldn't have to foot the bill. Now if he wants to pay a higher insurance premium along with others fine. But I can just here the whining about that already but hay if you smoke your health insurance costs more so to bad hey. Otherwise when he hits the ground & does severe damage to his head due to the lack of a helmet. He or his famaily should have to pay out of pocket for his stupidity not me & everyone else. Assuming he isn't paying extra for his insurance. Which considering the cost & small pool of willing victims
is gonna really cost.
when he's out & has a spill & hits his head minus the helmet the general public shouldn't have to foot the bill. Now if he wants to pay a higher insurance premium along with others fine. But I can just here the whining about that already but hay if you smoke your health insurance costs more so to bad hey. Otherwise when he hits the ground & does severe damage to his head due to the lack of a helmet. He or his famaily should have to pay out of pocket for his stupidity not me & everyone else. Assuming he isn't paying extra for his insurance. Which considering the cost & small pool of willing victims is gonna really cost.dustind
Member
The law, NAMBLA, and immorality should not be used as an example because you do not know what the other person means by "immoral."
Is it immoral as in "homosexuality is immoral?" Or immoral as in, "violating the rights of children is immoral?"
I do not think morality in the sense of porn, homosexuality, drinking, and sleeping around is the same as morality as in the sense of harming innocent people. It would be nice if they were two separate words.
Is it immoral as in "homosexuality is immoral?" Or immoral as in, "violating the rights of children is immoral?"
I do not think morality in the sense of porn, homosexuality, drinking, and sleeping around is the same as morality as in the sense of harming innocent people. It would be nice if they were two separate words.
[blockquote]Straw man. Having sex with minor is illegal.[/blockquote]
It is not, usually. This was pointed out in a recent thread. Here's a recap:
Many jurisdictions have an "age of consent", a "child" age, and an age differential. As an example, TX has those set at 17, 14, and 3. This means that anyone over 17 may have sex with anyone else over 17. Furthermore, anyone over 14 who is within 3 years of age of another person, also over 14, may have sex with that other person (sex between people aged 18.4 and 15.5 is legal, or more accurately it's a defense against prosecution and such activities are rarely prosecuted -- obviously, given pregnancy rates). What is illegal without exception is sex with or between children who are under the low-cutoff age, in this instance, 14. Very few States have the age of consent set at 18.
If you don't understand the law, go to http://www.ageofconsent.com, pick a state, and read one or two State laws (which are almost always excerpted on each State's summary page).
It is not, usually. This was pointed out in a recent thread. Here's a recap:
Many jurisdictions have an "age of consent", a "child" age, and an age differential. As an example, TX has those set at 17, 14, and 3. This means that anyone over 17 may have sex with anyone else over 17. Furthermore, anyone over 14 who is within 3 years of age of another person, also over 14, may have sex with that other person (sex between people aged 18.4 and 15.5 is legal, or more accurately it's a defense against prosecution and such activities are rarely prosecuted -- obviously, given pregnancy rates). What is illegal without exception is sex with or between children who are under the low-cutoff age, in this instance, 14. Very few States have the age of consent set at 18.
If you don't understand the law, go to http://www.ageofconsent.com, pick a state, and read one or two State laws (which are almost always excerpted on each State's summary page).
Andrew Rothman
Member
What you don't seem to get is this: libertarian "morality," if you care to call it that, is simple.
"Your right to swing your fist ends at my face."
So diddling infants is clearly out.
What it comes down to is this: We agree that no one should force their ideas about sex onto a child. But we disagree in that you want to force your ideas about sex on me.
- Status