Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77

Thread: Because you must be responsible for yourself

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Pretty much lays out why we carry, and what the alternative to armed citizens is, I think:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul383.html
    The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
    Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.

    The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.

    Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

    I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government-mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.

    Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Statesboro, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Pardon my language, but *******, I love that man.

    Shame he won't ever be President.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Monroe, CT, ,
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    Something HAS TO BE DONE to put him in the white house!!!!

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    I'm glad he can't win...his voting record on other more important issues leaves him wanting.

    -- John D. (not a one-issue guy)




    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    I'm glad he can't win...his voting record on other more important issues leaves him wanting.

    -- John D. (not a one-issue guy)



    +1
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    cloudcroft wrote:
    I'm glad he can't win...his voting record on other more important issues leaves him wanting.

    -- John D. (not a one-issue guy)



    +1
    -2

    RKBA is #1 on my list, and so far, this guy is the only one who actually believes in it. All the rest are full of crap. Plus he's a wacko libertarian like me, so he fits into my strange world.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Columbus Area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    A very Libertarian article if I may say. I liked it.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    cloudcroft wrote:
    I'm glad he can't win...his voting record on other more important issues leaves him wanting.

    -- John D. (not a one-issue guy)



    +1
    May I ask, what more important issues?...please elaborate. Not meaning to be sarcastic etc. but, what could be more important than our lives and our ability to protect said lives?
    I admit to not knowing much about Congressman Paul at present but, he would get my vote above ALL others that are "in the race" now......is there something about him that I should know?




  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech wrote:
    Tess wrote:
    cloudcroft wrote:
    I'm glad he can't win...his voting record on other more important issues leaves him wanting.

    -- John D. (not a one-issue guy)
    +1
    May I ask, what more important issues?...please elaborate. Not meaning to be sarcastic etc. but, what could be more important than our lives and our ability to protect said lives?
    I admit to not knowing much about Congressman Paul at present but, he would get my vote above ALL others that are "in the race" now......is there something about him that I should know?
    In my case, although his web site "on the issues" says we need less government, not more, he has introduced legislation designed to legislate morality (see below). Now, many conservatives agree with the first below, but in my mind that's a religious stance, not a scientific one. I believe Mr. Bush has pushed us as closely toward a theocracy as I'm willing to go.

    Second bill below is way too limiting. Mr. Paul is attempting to legislate his sense of "right" on others.

    Further, Mr. Paul, like most Representatives and many senators, has such limited experience with issues other than domestic social issues that I don't believe he can be effective at foreign policy, long-term strategy, or economic issues.

    Just my $0.05.

    -----------------------------------

    21. H.R.1094 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
    Sponsor:
    Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/15/2007) Cosponsors (3)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 3/19/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

    [line]


    22. H.R.1095 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
    Sponsor:
    Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/15/2007) Cosponsors (3)
    Committees: House Foreign Affairs; House Energy and Commerce
    Latest Major Action: 2/15/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

    ------------------------------------------------------
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    Wow. #21 and #22 above would definitely cost him my vote, as well as everyone else I can convince not to vote for him. I have no problem with a church espousing such beliefs for its members. I DO have a problem with the government trying to do the same.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

    Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Interesting, I guess.

    But I have to wonder, if a guy this libertarian can't get a bunch of gun nuts to stick up for him, it's no wonder the republicrats continue to take turns raping us every other election. You have to ask yourself, if this guy isn't good enough, who is? Rudy Guliani? Barak O'Clinton?

    Election after election, I hear right-wingers trash libertarians, and libertarians trash constitutional party people, and republicans whining about how the democrats will screw us if we don't vote for their pissweak Bush-McCain-Romney-types, and Democrats trying toshow offtheir new stripes, and on and on it goes. In the end we get what we will always get: screwed.

    I think partof the problem is that getting independent-minded people to agree on one thing for more than five minutes is like trying to herd cats past a catnip factory.

    So I will continue to waste my vote on candidates that have no shot, and I'll see you all at Hillary's or McCain's inauguration party.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    oops

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Interesting, I guess.

    But I have to wonder, if a guy this libertarian can't get a bunch of gun nuts to stick up for him, it's no wonder the republicrats continue to take turns raping us every other election. You have to ask yourself, if this guy isn't good enough, who is? Rudy Guliani? Barak O'Clinton?

    Election after election, I hear right-wingers trash libertarians, and libertarians trash constitutional party people, and republicans whining about how the democrats will screw us if we don't vote for their pissweak Bush-McCain-Romney-types, and Democrats trying toshow offtheir new stripes, and on and on it goes. In the end we get what we will always get: screwed.

    I think partof the problem is that getting independent-minded people to agree on one thing for more than five minutes is like trying to herd cats past a catnip factory.

    So I will continue to waste my vote on candidates that have no shot, and I'll see you all at Hillary's or McCain's inauguration party.
    I'm still wishing for a candidate I could support enthusiastically. Haven't seen one in many many many years - wait, I don't think I've ever seen one. The only reason I don't (usually) waste my vote on someone with not a snowball's chance is that I've for years voted AGAINST someone (can you say John Kerry, or Billary Clinton?) instead of for a candidate I truly wish to see in office.

    The problem is in being a fiscal conservative, a social liberal, a defense republican and a local libertarian, I guess.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote
    I'm still wishing for a candidate I could support enthusiastically. Haven't seen one in many many many years - wait, I don't think I've ever seen one. The only reason I don't (usually) waste my vote on someone with not a snowball's chance is that I've for years voted AGAINST someone (can you say John Kerry, or Billary Clinton?) instead of for a candidate I truly wish to see in office.
    +1

    I kinda' feel the same way....but to vote for someone that I don't like just to vote against someone I like even less seems a waste.
    While I don't agree with him on the issues that you've pointed out, I still think enough of his views on other issues to give him my vote over the other choices.....if they can be called choices. There was talk of him running on something other than the Republican ticket.......I would like to see that happen.
    I think it's time that we send a message to the Depublicans AND the Republicrats that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
    Move away from the two controlling parties......take back our country, so to speak.
    Just my .02

    BTW, here's where I've learned what I know of him... http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

  16. #16
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Someone like Ron would do so much good domestically in standing up to a Republicrat/Demolican congress that I could over look #21 and foreign policy, if those were my concern, and in some ways they are. But alas....lets see how long he is included in the debates. He knows he has no chance of winning but is in it for the good fight. I admire his resolve at 70 y.o. !! and consistent principles. I even recall hearing him say that he entered his second presidential race just to push 2Aissues. He's a good man.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

    Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
    I disagree that question of life beginning is moral or philosophical; if science can not provide an answer to a biological question, what good is it?

    I agree that abortion should be privately funded; I don't want my tax dollars paying for it.

    I feel strongly that federal funds should NOT be withheld from an entity simply because it engages in family planning. If someone doesn't help some of these idiots figure out how to stop squirting out babies, ALL of our tax dollars are going to be paying for welfare bums.

    While the government is not, and should not be, responsible for funding these types of organizations, the withholding of all funds simply because an organization participates in "family planning" is ridiculous and petty.

    I voted for Bush (mostly to keep Gore and Kerry out), but I don't think I can vote for another religious nut like that.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    mzbk2l wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

    Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
    I disagree that question of life beginning is moral or philosophical; if science can not provide an answer to a biological question, what good is it?

    <snip>
    Well, science, like any other discipline, is only good for what it's good for. Astronomy is no help in making cookies, and biology describes chemical processes in living things -- it doesn't define life, it merely observes its processes. Science is good for that much, but it's no good when it comes to defining what life is and when it begins.

    Scientific methodology is useful for gaining empirical knowledge of certain aspects of the natural world -- and that's about where its usefulness ends. It relies on the principles of observation, falsifiability, and repeatability. We can observe things happening, we can come up with falsifiable theories about what we're observing, and we can repeat the observations to test the theories.

    But none of this tells us the meaning of the biological processes we're observing. That is a value judgment that has nothing to do with empirical reality. Rather, when we ascribe meaning to the biological process of conception and call it life (or not), we're making a moral judgment about the inherent value of that thing we're observing.

    So scientific methodology is a way of gaining empirical knowledge -- size, weight, composition, temperature, activity -- about the pack of cells, and then we move on the the question of what it is and what it's worth.

    And that inquiry is entirely outside the scope of scientific methodology.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    mzbk2l wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

    Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
    <snip>
    I feel strongly that federal funds should NOT be withheld from an entity simply because it engages in family planning. If someone doesn't help some of these idiots figure out how to stop squirting out babies, ALL of our tax dollars are going to be paying for welfare bums.

    <snip>
    Orthodoxy is the basis for orthopraxy. In other words, what you believe determines what you will do.

    If you believe that babies in the womb are alive and innocent and defenseless, then you will be horrified at the thought of subsidizing the doctors and parents who tear them into little bloody pieces and throw them in the garbage.

    I have some friends, they have 12 children, and I gotta tell ya, that is social security. The four oldest work in the family business, but the entire family produces.

    The solution is not to subsidize killing babies in the womb -- the solution is to abolish the welfare system and train the next generation to be productive. If people absolutely insist on "family planning," then go fer it, mate, but don't make me pay for it.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ocean Shores, WA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    mzbk2l wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

    Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
    I disagree that question of life beginning is moral or philosophical; if science can not provide an answer to a biological question, what good is it?

    <snip>
    Well, science, like any other discipline, is only good for what it's good for. Astronomy is no help in making cookies, and biology describes chemical processes in living things -- it doesn't define life, it merely observes its processes. Science is good for that much, but it's no good when it comes to defining what life is and when it begins.

    Scientific methodology is useful for gaining empirical knowledge of certain aspects of the natural world -- and that's about where its usefulness ends. It relies on the principles of observation, falsifiability, and repeatability. We can observe things happening, we can come up with falsifiable theories about what we're observing, and we can repeat the observations to test the theories.

    But none of this tells us the meaning of the biological processes we're observing. That is a value judgment that has nothing to do with empirical reality. Rather, when we ascribe meaning to the biological process of conception and call it life (or not), we're making a moral judgment about the inherent value of that thing we're observing.

    So scientific methodology is a way of gaining empirical knowledge -- size, weight, composition, temperature, activity -- about the pack of cells, and then we move on the the question of what it is and what it's worth.

    And that inquiry is entirely outside the scope of scientific methodology.
    Wow. You explain things very well.I like that.

    You're a lot smarter than I look. :P

    LoveMyCountry

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ocean Shores, WA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    The only person I know who agrees with me on every issue is married to my wife, and I'm not too sure about him. He looks weird.

    LoveMyCountry

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Columbus Area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    Absolutely, we should abolish welfare. How soon can we start?

    I believe that abortion is ethically wrong in most cases (perhaps all cases?); however, I wouldn't support laws to abolish it as that is forcing my viewpoint on someone else. I say let it remain legal. I don't want the gov't deciding what I can and can't do with my body.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    mzbk2l wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

    Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
    I disagree that question of life beginning is moral or philosophical; if science can not provide an answer to a biological question, what good is it?

    <snip>
    Well, science, like any other discipline, is only good for what it's good for. Astronomy is no help in making cookies, and biology describes chemical processes in living things -- it doesn't define life, it merely observes its processes. Science is good for that much, but it's no good when it comes to defining what life is and when it begins.

    Scientific methodology is useful for gaining empirical knowledge of certain aspects of the natural world -- and that's about where its usefulness ends. It relies on the principles of observation, falsifiability, and repeatability. We can observe things happening, we can come up with falsifiable theories about what we're observing, and we can repeat the observations to test the theories.

    But none of this tells us the meaning of the biological processes we're observing. That is a value judgment that has nothing to do with empirical reality. Rather, when we ascribe meaning to the biological process of conception and call it life (or not), we're making a moral judgment about the inherent value of that thing we're observing.

    So scientific methodology is a way of gaining empirical knowledge -- size, weight, composition, temperature, activity -- about the pack of cells, and then we move on the the question of what it is and what it's worth.

    And that inquiry is entirely outside the scope of scientific methodology.
    I don't want to keep going too far off topic here, but as a quick reply: are you saying that the science of biology cannot tell us if something is alive or not alive (without regard to the something's value)?

    Naturally everyone's values are different; for example, I place more value on a candidate who will not try to force his religious values on me than I do on a candidate who only supports 2A rights.

    Still, the family planning/funding issue would keep me from voting from someone. Here's an example: when I was living in Virginia in the early 90's, I had a female friend who seemed to get pregnant very easily. I kept trying to convince her to get that contraceptive that was implanted under the skin. She could not find any easy availablity of it, so she didn't get it. Now the good citizens of Virginia are paying for her and all six of her boys. FAMILY PLANNING does not have to mean abortion, and limiting funds for such organizations just because they also perform abortions only serves to increase the welfare state.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    mzbk2l wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    mzbk2l wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

    Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
    .
    ....And that inquiry is entirely outside the scope of scientific methodology.
    I don't want to keep going too far off topic here, but as a quick reply: are you saying that the science of biology cannot tell us if something is alive or not alive (without regard to the something's value)?
    I think what he's saying is that science cannot tells us the definition of "alive". We decide what that criteria is and then science can tell us if a particular biological system meets that criteria based on hard observation.

    For instance, if I define "life" to be any natural machinethat moves under it's own power, than a sperm cell is a living organism before conception ever takes place. Most people would not say that is true; they have defined a tighter criterion for "life".

    So then, is an embryo a living organism? Science cannot tell you this; you must define what you think it means to be "alive" and then, using scientific methods and instruments such as an ultrasound machine, you can determine if the embryo in question is alive or not.

    The definition of life is the heart of the argument between pro-lifers and pro-choicers, and it's based heavily on emotion and religious or philosophical beliefs, which makes it very hard to write a law which will satisfy everyone.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    "...which makes it very hard to write a law which will satisfy everyone."
    Exactly why there should not be any law concerning it. Taken as a moral decision, each person must make up her or his own mind, and live with the consequences ofthat decision.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •