Debate Growing Over Religious Freedom & Birth Control «

lol im from an occult poly theistic religion we are reviled and hated by the christian dominated city groups. pagans we are called. most of our children are bullied in school and in our times of warship we are hit with stones from the naborhood kids.

no its not free religion any more and it is not right

no religion is not free

Neale. The Catholic Church considers the imposition of the death penalty to be murder. As a practicing Catholic, do I get to not pay taxes just because a minute portion will go to support a judicial system that imposed capital punishment. A miniscule portion of any insurance premium will be used to pay for birth control. This is not about the church not wanting to pay for birth control, it is about the church trying to force its employees, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who reject the church's moronic attitude towards sexual matters. The hierarchy seems to have more concern that some may enjoy sex for its own sake than they showed when too many of its clergy abused children.

gatoralum
Neale. The Catholic Church considers the imposition of the death penalty to be murder. As a practicing Catholic, do I get to not pay taxes just because a minute portion will go to support a judicial system that imposed capital punishment. A miniscule portion of any insurance premium will be used to pay for birth control. This is not about the church not wanting to pay for birth control, it is about the church trying to force its employees, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who reject the church's moronic attitude towards sexual matters. The hierarchy seems to have more concern that some may enjoy sex for its own sake than they showed when too many of its clergy abused children.

Gatoralum, the Bible itself instructs you when to commit murder. It also list numerous stories about when God has killed innocents for perceived slights.

So how can the Catholic church be opposed to specific things expressed in the Bible itself?

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT

I am not even touching on how the Bible also allows raping and slavery.

Neale- so, by your logic, should a Quaker be exempt from paying taxes, since Quakers are pacifists and taxes pay for wars?

As a Pastafarian, do I still have to pay the 1% Meals Tax if I order spaghetti & meatballs on a Friday?

maybe they are not catholics.

The highlighted section of Lady Saidy's comment is : 98% of US Catholic women are using BC....

James. "They" are Catholics. I am a Catholic. Everyone in my family is. I attended Catholic Schools for 12 years. The vast majority of Catholics reject the Church's teaching on contraception. That is a fact. Other than that huge embarrassment to my home state of Pennsylvania, (P)rick Santorum, I know of no Catholic who actually has sex who does not think that contraception is proper.

why does the Catholic Preisthood hate women? and why do they think along with the rightwing evangelicals can mandate what the rest of us do and practice?

whats even more stunning is that the so called "protestants" (i.e evangelicals) side with the Catholic hierarchy on anything?

they don't HATE women - they just want women kept barefoot, broke and PREGNANT (emphasis on pregnant because of the increase in the HERD) - more adherents = more income for the church. Do they or ANY OTHER CHURCH care about the INDIVIDUAL? OF COURSE NOT - it's ALL ABOUT MONEY (nothing else) and marshall's rationalizations demonstrate that quite well.

Waitaminute!!! "they also believe in preemptive war which is against the Bible also"

Really? What Bible are you reading? We're talking here about the christian thing, you know... Genesis through Revelation. Abraham, Moses, David, Jeebus... what book are you talking about?

Go tell the folks of Sodom and Gommorah how "against preemptive war" the bible is. Go tell it to the 1000 men who Samson killed with the jawbone of an ass in Judges 15. Go tell Dr Tiller how against preemptive war christians are.

"Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war , and my fingers to fight." - Psalm 144:1

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." - 2 Chronicles 15:12-13

I know I know - some people argue that that was the way of the Old Testament, but Jeebus changed all that, right?

The words of your christ: "Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall by any means hurt you." - Luke 10:19

James, Demo does not agree with your support of the Church's attempt to force anyone employed in their many non-religious institutions to abide by Catholic doctrine. He supports freedom. Too bad you don't.

What do you have against proper grammar and punctuation. It would make it easier to understand what you post. You do no support freedom. You support the Catholic Church being able to dictate to their employees what they do in their personal life. But, since you are a libertarian, you have no problem with private entities interfering with freedom.

These Catholic Hospitals and Catholic Universities get billons of dollars of tax money. Medicare, medical assistance and tax exemptions pay for the majority of the care provided at most Catholic Hospitals. Billions more in federal financial aid to students goes to Catholic universities. That makes it my damn business. If my church wants to impose its beliefs, it can do so without my tax money. Until they refuse payment from all but Catholics, they can follow the law like everyone else.

and I, for one, am interested in TAXING THE CHURCH JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS. That business is "intangible" and is "increasing their adherents" so as to increase their INCOME

sounds like a plan. I don't want my premiums to pay for Viagra. Can that be one of the first things on the list?

or maybe christian science hospitals - where everyone admitted gets to PRAY that their condition cures itself...

What makes no sense is your inability to understand that no one is being forced to partake in anything. Anyone who does not want to use birth control, does not have to. What you support is forcing non-Catholics, and Catholics as well, who want to use birth control to not be able to because they happen to work for a college, hospital or social service provider that happens to be operated by the church.

what don't you understand we are in no way forcing Catholics to get BC but as an employer in a non-religious aspect of society the church will end up with employees who do not believe in their religion and if those people want BC and every other hospital(example) covers it but not the church run one because of their belief system which is not shared by the person getting care, it thus violates that persons rights.

That is the problem what don't you get there

how is this so hard to understand????

What's hard to understand is the point your trying to make. Repeating yourself over and over again with CAPITAL LETTERS and ?!?!?!?!? EXCLAMATION POINTS ?!?!?!? doesn't advance whatever argument you're trying to make.

The only person having difficulty understanding here, James, is you. That arrogance is so typical of libertarians. Those who disagree with them simply "don't understand". Bull@!$%#. There is no group more lacking in understanding of the world, more clueless about human beings than libertarians. You know, there is a good reason not nation, not state, no county has ever given libertarians the power to rule.

insanity is when you keep repeating the same thing over and over again with the identical set of conditions expecting DIFFERENT results.

Exactly. Alot of women use birth control to relieve medical issues. To not cover it is discrimination against women. We already know the catholic church considers women disposable, but this government is not ran by them.

its freedom people....for gods sakes.

That is your opinion NOT fact.

how is not offering coverage of contraception against women???

Check the many court rulings on it over the years. I'm sure there are plenty available via Google.

Gee, does the religiously mandated medeval practice of circumcision get covered even though I abhor this barbaric practice?

The medications (and yes it is medication) that is commonly used for birth control is also used to relieve severe menstrual problems in women, such as regulating a cycle, severe cramping, heavy bleeding.

What the Church is complaining about it not covering the medication. Would an exception be allowed if the medication was to be used for something other than birth control? I was on the pill for a couple of years in high school because of the severity of my bleeding and the horrid cramps. I was not sexually active. I wasn't using the pill for birth control, but for other medically viable issues.

Think of it this way: Would you feel the same way if a company (any company) decided that it was against their ethics to cover antibiotics? Antibiotics can be extremely useful and can make a person's quality of life much better because they are able to heal faster from infections. The medication found in a birth control pill can make a woman's quality of life much better even when not used for birth control, but for other medical reasons.

I do understand where you are coming from. But there are some things that the Government has the power to mandate when it is for the greater benefit of society as a whole. Health Insurance is one of those things, in my opinion. Personally, I would have preferred seeing a National Health Care system in place.

The question I have is whether or not the Catholic Church is self-insured or do they offer their employees a generally available plan from an insurance company such as BCBS or Aenta?

What is evil is the abject ignorance from which your view flow, James. The evils of history were not about the greater good; they were about preserving power for those who had it. Those with power have always defended their power with fake appeals to freedom and liberty; freedom and liberty for them to do what they want without having to be bothered with what the citizens thought or how they are affected. They have always had useful idiots willing to shill for them. Today, there is no greater group of useful idiots than those in the libertarian movement.

godwin's law has been invoked - now we know where this discussion is heading...

godwin's law has been invoked

That was fast, wasn't it?

James. I don't know where you learned your history. Does Alex Jones teach history somewhere? And no, murdering the disabled and Jews was not for the greater good. Tragic that you think it was.

James. I don't know where you learned your history. Does Alex Jones teach history somewhere? And no, murdering the disabled and Jews was not for the greater good. Tragic that you think it was.

<sigh> I'm not really sure why I'm still posting on this vine. I think I understand what Marshall is trying to say here (if poorly). Those things were done in the name of "the greater good." In other words, people believed they were necessary, but in reality they were just obscene.

The problem is that when something is done for "the greater good," it is not automatically wrong.

Marshall seems to believe that if we all just went about our business with no government oversight, people would be happier and the country would be more successful. Somehow. I never really understood Libertarian logic. I don't think most people do, which is why they can never get more than a few people elected at any given time.

It would also explain why there appear to be only two people on this vine arguing his case, Marshall being one of them.

"always ends in failure"? In what alternate reality is that true? And what is the government there to protect us from? The infringement upon our rights, correct? Theft is illegal because it is one person infringing upon the right of the other by taking his property. It is a dispute between two individuals, but the government steps in and chooses sides; it chooses to protect the person from whom the property is taken. How is that different from a law that tells a place of public accommodation that they are not allowed to take from black persons the right that white persons have to the services being offered? Again, it is a dispute between two private persons. It is the stronger person, i.e. the one who owns the business providing the services to the public, taking from the less powerful person. If there is one grocery store in a community, you would support that store refusing to sell to african americans. If there were one hospital in a community you would support the right of that hospital to refuse to provide care to African Americans. Go down the line of every service that Americans get from other Americans and you see no problem in allowing anyone providing that service to deny it to others simply on the base of their ignorant hate. There is right and there is wrong and the government, speaking for the people, have the right to prohibit that which is wrong. The only restriction on that right are those provided for in the constitution. There is nothing about anti-discrimination laws that violate any constitutional right of those who wish to discriminate. Of course, the libertarian will argue that they personally oppose discrimination. That is a cop out. If you support the right of others to discriminate, you support discrimination.

"Forcing us to do anything is wrong." What utter tripe. I suppose you ignore stop signs, red lights and zoning laws? Right? You do not have a driver's license, your car is not registered and you do not have motor vehicle insurance, right? The view that the government cannot tell us what to do is juvenile. The slogan for the Libertarian party should be, "You're not the boss of me!!". The symbol should be a four year old sticking their tongue out or holding their breath.

don't try LOGIC and FACTS gator - that just confuses them.

Your comprehension is rather limited, isn't it. You are forced to do many things to preserve order in society. When are you going to stop being a hypocrite and refuse to submit to the "tyranny" of the stop sign? or zoning laws?

you are being forced to purchase insurance...insurance companies are being forced to cover contraceptives.

They are also forced to cover a lot of of other things. Mammograms, colonoscopies, blood pressure

Other preventive services that must be covered, without co-payments, include screening for gestational diabetes in pregnant women; DNA testing for the human papillomavirus as part of cervical cancer screening; and annual preventive-care visits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/health/policy/02health.html?_r=1

Now here's my question for you.

What if someone is religiously against any of these?

What if someone believes screening for gestational diabetes is "against their religion" - what would you do then?

there generally are not against religous beliefs.

Right - religious preferences are rather fickle, aren't they?

One more line in the Bible - "thou shalt not perform preventative medicine" - and the entire idea is shot, right?

that is exactly why the government should not be in the business of providing services for the people...

The governments role should be the protection of all rights...

Protection is a service.

You'll just end up running into people that believe the specific rights the government is protecting "are against their religious beliefs."

You see - there have been religions in the past that would think religious freedom itself is against their religious beliefs. Maryland had a law on the books in the late 1600s, early 1700s, that said to put to death anybody who didn't acknowledge Jesus as the son of God.

This is why society tries to establish a standard, independent of whatever whims random people desire, and find a reasoning for that standard independent of *religious belief.*

that is exactly why the government should not be in the business of providing services for the people

Government must provide services where such services would be cost prohibitive for a business to perform - this list is really not that long. In Washington, we passed a law to get state government out of the liquor business because it could be better done privately.

What we are talking about here is not government providing services - it is about government regulating services.

Under the US Constitution, the government is required to provide for the general welfare of the people. This includes protecting people from predatory or sub-standard industry, particularly where lives are in the balance. This is why religious parents cannot simply rely on faith healing if their kid has cancer. It's why hospitals cannot refuse patients. It's also why insurance companies must provide a certain minimum coverage.

The government is doing its job here, and religious freedom does not supersede civil responsibility.

in regards to protecting the rights of americans under the us constitution...that doesnt mean protecting you from making wrong decisions...because that is antifreedom.

what it means is protecting you from others harming your body or property.

It is still a service. Provided by the government.

This service can conflict with the religious beliefs of others - which is your focus.

its really quite simple.

If there was a religion against preventative medicine at all, would you be against the government requiring covering preventative medicine as well as contraception?

it does not interfere with the rights of any religous group I know of.

So the minority has to be vocal enough to have rights?

killing is not accepted in any religion I know of...

Killing has long been accepted by Christianity around the world - and still is.

and since the government is for the protection of rights....even though a religion may advocate killing of everyone...since you would kill someone who doesnt believe in it....it would be violating their rights..therefore government needs to step in.

So - you accept that a government has set a standard independent of religious belief.

are you aware that you have a right to live??? because it seems to me you are arguing that we do not have a right to life.

Who recognizes or established this right? Who guarantees it?

that doesnt mean protecting you from making wrong decisions...because that is antifreedom.

what it means is protecting you from others harming your body or property.

These two concepts are frequently mutually exclusive. When making a wrong decision does not harm your body or property, or anyone else's, the government is not typically involved. Nobody is required to use birth control, even though doing so might be a "wrong" decision for the circumstance.

When that wrong decision does harm you or others, the government does step in. Not providing coverage for birth control is a wrong decision that has great potential to harm people. More and more states are recognizing this concept.

by putting in regulations to control the size and amount of places to sell...in effect making it so only corporations will make huge profits...not the little guy....that is why costco was so much behind it. How many times did we try before without those regulations???

Please. Those regulations in no way prevent small businesses from selling liquor - they pretty much just prevent people from selling it out of their basement. The large corporations will make more because they are better positioned to buy and sell wholesale. Not sure how familiar you are with the food supply chain, but this concept is not new. Small businesses will do fine. I'm actually surprised that you would be opposed to it the idea - less government involvement is more "FREEDOM".

fear drives everythign.....we do not need to be afraid of freedom....by so doing we are propping up corporations and making the rich superrich.

That'd be comical coming from the opposition, if it didn't make me want to puke. The state was inundated with ads from both sides, but the only one using the scare tactics was the opposing lobby - trying to get people to believe that passing the bill would lead to dead and inebriated little children.

Let's not rehash it here. In political terms, the bill passed resoundingly.

lol...thanks for proving me right. by restricting the poor from selling it you are decreasing competition and therefore increasing cost and making it so only the rich make a profit.

Dude, the rich will make a profit regardless. Liquor distributors were making a bundle via sales to the state. Now they're forced to complete with wholesalers and co-ops. This doesn't decrease competition - it increases it. Dramatically. In fact, now food outlets and wholesalers get to complete, whereas before they didn't.

This way the state brings in much more money in taxes and the liquor market now has an incentive to be competitive. Win-win for everyone.

The 10,000 sqft requirement is not absolute - there are exemptions for locations without other liquor distribution options - the very places that lack the population to support a Walmart or Costco.

Let's put all that aside for a moment because I think this is the important point:

this was just transferring this from the state to corporations....nothing else....

I don't think it's this simple, but let's say it is. So what? Business drives the economy and local markets are very good at competing. You'll see growth for Trader Joes, Haggen & Top, Metropolitan Markets, Brown & Cole, Red Apple. All of them heavily benefit the local economy. To say that only major out-of-state corporations benefit is disingenuous at best.

Can't argue with you there. I can't claim the bill is perfect. I think the 10,000 sqft minimum is a little high myself, but it's better than what we had.

I would also argue that true capitalism is one of the reasons that corporations are taking over. True capitalism does not benefit the little guy. The invisible hand only works when there is competition - it assumes that there are no mergers, buyouts, or monopolies that allow the giants to run roughshod over the ants. These are also things that government control curtails. Otherwise there would be no recourse. That's not to say that big business can't massage the system - they do it all the time. But compare the business environment we have today to what it was in 1900 (Upton Sinclair) and tell me that big business hasn't lost a lot of ground.

The thing about freedom is that it's a double-edged sword. In true freedom, the weak and powerless lose. Real freedom doesn't care who has the leverage. This is why I always cringe when people argue from a position of freedom rather than equality. The two co-exist uneasily at best.

The Catholics asking to be excluded from paying the additional premium for birth control are not asking for equality. They are asking for an exception, and I believe a rather unique one. Even the Amish pay for services they will never use.

only freedom is the answer....as imperfect as it is.

So, where was this "right to life" ?

Marshall -

Hmm... Let's try a different tack. Perhaps I'm assuming too much.

Do you agree that the rule of law is predicated upon the forfeit of certain freedoms? That is to say, where there is law, the individuals governed by that law cannot simply do as they wish.

Hold on, give me a minute here. I'm trying to backtrack because I think we are looking at the same word in two very different ways.

Do you agree that the rule of law is predicated upon the forfeit of certain freedoms? What I am asking here is will you grant that in order to have laws, we must forfeit an aspect of freedom?

You have mentioned a number of times that government actions are laid down by force. You are correct - they are. Laws, by definition (and the rule of law by extension), are an expression of force. They cannot be any other way because otherwise people would not follow them.

I think I might have underestimated you, and I apologize for that. I'm just looking for common ground by going back to the basics.

Very well. I have a few examples for you:

I believe the maximum allowable BAL to operate a vehicle in the state of Washington is 0.08%. This law is set to prevent people from driving drunk. Driving with a BAL over this limit is subject to severe penalties. You don't actually have to hurt anyone to go to jail. You lack that freedom.

In the dry season, the county can institute a burn ban. When a burn ban is in effect, open fires are subject to fines, even if they are on your own property. In the same vein, the county can declare a water shortage and place limits on how much water you are allowed to use. When I was growing up, the county required residents to purchase water efficient shower heads for the same reason. You lack that freedom.

Major construction projects require enough permits to flatten a horse - even if the project in question is 100% on your property. If any permits are held up or denied, tough luck. You lack that freedom.

In short, laws are essentially a list of things you cannot do. They deny individual liberties with (hopefully) the large picture in mind. Does that help clarify my perspective?

are you aware that you have a right to live??? because it seems to me you are arguing that we do not have a right to life.

Were my questions regarding this just to be ignored?

Marshall -

I read your article. I guess you won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with you, but for the purpose of this particular discussion, I don't think it's all that material. I didn't bother reading all the comments, but I'm pretty sure you got called a lot of names.

I could also bring up the FCC (which talkshow hosts rail against all the time), and you mentioned the ADA.

These are all laws (or federal commissions in the case of the FCC) that regulate liberty to a specific purpose, whether we think they are justified or not. Even the water conservation and burn ban policies limit what an individual can do, even if the risk of harming others is minimal. You might not agree on the purpose (I'll bet anything that you're opposed to the FCC), but as a matter of definition, can we agree that this is what they are?

I think we have a different definition of "the rule of law" too, but if we can get past my last question, I'll address that. If not, I'm not sure it matters.

Marshall -

I'm trying to avoid a debate on case-by-case issues because it's going to pull us away from the issue at hand. The subject of this article is that religious businesses that provide insurance for their employees are being required to pay premiums on a service they don't want to support - namely contraception. This became a big discussion about the definition of liberty and the limits of government.

This debate is very difficult because we appear to be operating on different definitions. I am trying to get to a common set of definitions so that we can build up from there. One of those definitions is that of law.

I am stating that a law is a limit on liberty. It tells a person that they cannot do something. Furthermore, a law is established (hopefully) with a big picture in mind such that the sacrifice of that liberty is done for the sake some other social good.

For example:

When a burn ban is put in effect, it tells people that they may not have open fires. The suspension of that liberty is done to reduce the risk of wildfires that could cost many lives and destroy a lot of property.

Can we agree on the definition of a law as I have it in bold? If not, how would you define a law?

That, I think, would explain a lot of the trouble we are having - we are most definitely operating under different definitions.

Perhaps you can help me follow your distinction. Let me give you an example. You are in favor of a county's right to institute a burn ban, but opposed to DUI laws. I would assume that you see a burn ban as preserving liberty, whereas DUI laws infringe upon them. I don't follow this logic. Let me explain:

Burn bans prevent residents from having open fires, even on their own property. The logic is that the vegetation is more prone to fires, raising the risk of wildfires that can cost lives and destroy property. Anyone setting such fires can be fined, even if they do not cause any actual damage.

DUI laws apply to drivers with a BAL over a certain limit. The logic is that such drivers are more likely to cause accidents that lead to injury or death. Such people can be fined and even jailed, even if they do not cause any actual damage.

In my mind, these laws serve exactly the same purpose. They tell people what they cannot do because of the risk to the lives and/or property of themselves or others. They do not require that any actual injury or damage be done before the offender is cited. They merely operate on the principle that such actions pose an unacceptable risk to the general public.

I'm not trying to start a debate on burn bans and DUI laws per se; I'm just trying to get a handle on how you distinguish one of these laws as preserving freedom and the other as infringing upon it.

#13.31 Richard, WA

I could also bring up the FCC (which talkshow hosts rail against all the time), and you mentioned the ADA.

These are all laws (or federal commissions in the case of the FCC) that regulate liberty to a specific purpose, whether we think they are justified or not. Even the water conservation and burn ban policies limit what an individual can do, even if the risk of harming others is minimal. You might not agree on the purpose (I'll bet anything that you're opposed to the FCC), but as a matter of definition, can we agree that this is what they are?

The FCC was originally formed in 1934 by public law 416 to ""regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication..."

It was not created with the intent of censorship. Censorship came along later because people want to be able to control what they see or hear through suspension of others' rights rather than to avert their eyes or listen elsewhere.

sorry for changing gears on that one..its been a long day around here. I havent been presented with the questioin of burn bans...and i Obviously didnt think it through.

That's quite all right. Actually it helps me because I was having trouble following your logic otherwise.

Let me try to summarize: you are supportive of government actions that support fair distribution of resources and that punish actual (not potential) damage or injury to others.

Does that about sum it up?

I have a few issues with the FCC too, but that's another discussion.

I invite further discussion on FCC. To comment on #13.39, the summary is fair, but neglects proper emphasis on the first premise that government role is to support and protect rights rather than to hinder, obstruct or blatantly punish the exercise thereof. The criminalization of otherwise legal activities, like gun control laws for instance, makes otherwise law-abiding citizens in to criminals.

To comment on #13.39, the summary is fair, but neglects proper emphasis on the first premise that government role is to support and protect rights rather than to hinder, obstruct or blatantly punish the exercise thereof.

The thought occurred to me a couple hours after I posted it that the enforcement of laws against actions that hinder the freedom of others might come up. I agree with the edited summary.

I think, then, that we have a consensus of the perspective from which Marshall is posting. Suddenly this entire vine makes a lot more sense. Now I have something to work with.

Much of the issue here taken with laws such as DUI laws, is that they punish people who have not actually damaged others. Does this mean that there is no room for laws that cover activities where damage to others is a reasonable expectation? How about driving the wrong way down the interstate? The driver in question might get lucky and exit before actually hitting anyone, but the risk of injury or death is very high.

its like what maddow summed up in the second linked video above.....we are going down the road of minority report.

people are being imprisoned for what they might do....not for what they have done.

I completely agree with you that Obama's strategy for "indefinite detention" is not acceptable. I don't care how much congressional oversight is involved. All citizens should get the benefit of due process, even terrorists. It does not necessarily follow that laws against activities that pose an unreasonable risk to others are not legitimate. See above.

If ignorance is bliss, MJ, you must be so blissful. So driving drunk does not harm anyone, huh? You must also believe that you should have the freedom to stand on your front porch and fire a weapon randomly. After all, if you are not actually targeting anyone, what's the harm? If someone gets shot, it is just an unfortunate accident. This view proves how, to a libertarian, freedom simply means an absence of responsibility.

Yes, I do see the correlation.

Minority Report (if you haven't seen the movie and don't want it spoiled, stop reading here) takes the case to an extreme by working on the premise that we can somehow see the future and determine who will commit what crime when. The crux of the film title is that this vision of the future is not certain because there is a dissenting voice (the minority report). The hero of the story (John Anderton) rebels against the system because he realizes that he was convicting people who might never have been a threat in the first place.

The comparison is a compelling one, but incomplete. If I take the comparison to someone driving the wrong way down the interstate, the PreCrime department might have erroneously arrested the driver before they even left their house. The car might not start, or they might get a critical phone call on the way, or they might change their mind - a host of possibilities exist to prevent the threat from ever materializing.

Our crime enforcement does not work this way. They wait for a threat to emerge and respond to it. The question remains - what level of threat to the public is acceptable, and what is not? The best I can interpret your position is that there is no point of unacceptable risk such that the government should step in and control it; rather we should wait until there are bodies on the ground before making arrests. I believe that, for most Americans, this level of tolerance is simply not acceptable.

I am being a bit dramatic here, and not every law on behavior that you would consider illegitimate is meant to prevent a life or death situation. Such laws are justified on the premise that the prohibited activity has a very high probability that it will lead to excessive harm to themselves or others (and "harm" can be interpreted in many ways - nor do I always agree with the interpretation).

You believe that such laws are an unacceptable restriction on self-determination and free will. On the whole, I agree with you that this notion is a great ideal. I'm having a spirited (and thoroughly enjoyable) debate with BD Styers in the vine about viewing porn in a public library that touches on this. The concept may be perfectly practical in a small town where the community members can police each other, but I think it quickly becomes logistically impossible in a large community. In such a case, I believe that the collateral damage would be unacceptable should such laws be repealed.

I disagree with the indefinite detainment policy because it denies people due process. The best defense the citizens have against government authority is due process. You are quite right that stripping this right is a fast track to tyranny. I was opposed to the concept when Bush entertained it, and I'm opposed to it under Obama now. Given due process, I have no issue with such detainment.

So driving drunk does not harm anyone, huh? You must also believe that you should have the freedom to stand on your front porch and fire a weapon randomly. After all, if you are not actually targeting anyone, what's the harm?

To be fair, driving drunk does not harm anyone until you actually crash (which is a very real possibility). Firing randomly from your front porch is a violation of the freedoms of those people who have to dive for cover.

I don't think this is necessarily a contradiction, but I agree that the distinction can get overly fine.

Firing your gun does not harm anyone until there is a collision: Between your bullet and the person hit by it. Drunk driving does not hurt anyone until there is a collision: Between your car and a person hit by it. Anyone who does not think that driving drunk should be a crime; who values his freedom to drive drunk over the lives of those who will be killed or harmed by the drink driver is a moron.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I agree with you that they should be illegal. This debate is a matter of how much risk is acceptable. Marshall supports more risk (and thus more free will and self-determination) than I do.

I've driven drunk before in my younger, stupider days. I always made it home without hurting anyone - myself included. I don't do it anymore because a) I value my life higher than that, b) I value other people's lives higher than that, and c) my wife would kill me. I suppose the risk of losing my license and going to jail fit in there somewhere too.

Firing a gun, or even brandishing a gun, is an act of intimidation at the very least. By its nature, it interferes with the free will and self-determination of others. Driving drunk does not necessarily do these things.

As I said, it's a very fine distinction.

I know you do. The idea put forward by the seeder that DUI laws are "anti-freedom" is what is indefensible. Most of his idea of "freedom" is nothing more than not wanting to be responsible for anything. The freedom of a four year old.

Most of his idea of "freedom" is nothing more than not wanting to be responsible for anything.

In order for these ideas to work, citizens have to become responsible for just about everything. That, actually, is where I see it falling down. It assumes that people will generally behave responsibly toward others without mandated direction from the state. I'm much more cynical than that. I would expect most people to work toward their (sometimes mutually exclusive) self interest to the detriment of others.

In a small town, I can see this working because the community can police itself. Anyone stepping out of line will know it when they see the familiar disapproving faces everywhere. Plus, there is an understanding that you are hurting your own friends and family by behaving recklessly. In a large community, that doesn't apply nearly so well. It takes a bit more empathy to care about the well being of stangers you might never see face to face.

Drunk driving hurt my son's ten year old classmate. She was crushed by the vehicle driven by a moron exercising his right to be a moron. If you think that drunk driving does not hurt anyone, you have jumped from a silly, naive libertarian to a someone for whom rational, intelligent thought is not possible. I think it unfair even to continue to refer to you as a libertarian; unfair to the other libertarians who must be shaking their heads at the utter stupidity of suggesting that a law that makes it crime to operate a two thousand pound hunk of metal at fifty miles per hour when you are incapable of even walking is tyrannical.

make sure that you engage the brain before putting the keyboard in gear.

Sparrow must have forget to so engage. You obey traffic laws because they are laws. If you violate them and you are caught, you will be punished. As for your "secrets" about driving without a license or registering your vehicle and lawfully avoiding zoning laws, you are, of course, talking out of your ass. I have encountered several people who claim that they do not need a license, arguing something about there being no lawful government above the county level. I encounter them mostly when they come to me to try to stay out of jail for ignoring the fines imposed. I suppose you are also of the belief that you really don't have to pay taxes. Go ahead and put those silly beliefs into practice and you will soon be a guest of that government you seem so eager to hate.

Gator - They are known as Sovereign Citizens, or SovCits. They like to issue their own drivers licenses, plates, "insurance", etc.

And are convinced that a gold fringed flag means we are under maritime war rules. Or something like that.

I forgot what they called themselves. I have encountered them in criminal court, especially in the rural county where I worked right out of law school.

The only shackles are the ones on your ability to think for yourself. You accept this garbage without any rational analysis of how asinine the claims of tyranny are in this nation.

Children do not want to be told what to do. Libertarians are children. They are the ones who do not want to have any responsibility beyond their responsibility to themselves. They want to be part of a society that gives them more opportunity than any in history but only want to take from that society. They feel no obligation to contribute anything. When I read a libertarian post here, all I here is the whining of a toddler. But you are right, I am smart. If you really believe the garbage you post, the same cannot be said for you.

I understand it perfectly. I understand that it have never, in the history of the world, been chosen by any people to govern. With good reason. It is moronic. It is utopian and requires that those who support it suspend all logic and reason. Incredibly, you suggest that there should be no laws regulating the sell of alcohol; that anyone who wants to should be allowed to sell it from their basement. What an utterly ridiculous thing to advocate. No rules; no responsibility. Just doing what you want, when you want and never being responsible. The perfect world for three year olds.

In the absence of rule of law, personal responsibility guides the quality of life experience. What is ridiculous is to trust that government, consisting entirely of self-interested individuals, will be more responsible than the individual.

You know, I've never understood tailgaters (stay with me, this really is on topic). The amount of trust they place all the time in the driver in front of them astounds me.

Me? I don't trust other drivers to behave responsibly. I expect them to be talking on their cell phone, or eating, or putting on mascara, or changing a diaper, or yelling at the driver next to them. I expect them to take poor care of their vehicle such that a wheel could fall off at any time (yes, this does happen). That's why I always leave a comfortable stopping distance.

I don't trust people to be responsible citizens either if left to their own devices. Call me cynical.

Can you point me to a nation where such an experiment has worked?

and these people you do not trust you want to give them power over millions?? lmao

I don't trust government that much either, but it's bound by oversight, even if that oversight is mitigated by campaign contributions.

What oversight would bind a system of rule by the citizens?

I propose that we have a government where its sole purpose is the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights.

And that's all well and good. You want to limit government such that it is only concerned with the fair distribution of resources, the protection of life and property, and the protection of individual self-determination.

Beyond that, the citizens would be left to their own devices. Government would be obligated to tear down standards of behavior set by any groups. The general welfare clause in the US Constitution would have to be reinterpreted to prevent government from providing public assistance. Depending on your interpretation, the government might be prohibited from protecting citizens from aggressive business practices. It would certainly be prohibited from preventing monopolies (I still have a hard time buying that a free market prevents this from occurring).

Limiting the role of government brings in a whole host of complications.

lets say that a company in a true free market makes invents some good that everyone wants....you do realize that anyone can compete with that person in making that good...so if they choose to charge a million dollars for that good...and someone else offers it for 10 bucks..there goes there monopoly.

Unless, of course, company A puts together some money and buys out company B. They then go around telling everyone that they are better than someone who sells for less because they are company A and have a really cool sponsor. Since company A has more resources than anyone else, they can publish to wider audiences and financially beat down lesser companies in market share. Successful businesses are very good at maximizing advantages and minimizing threats. See the history of Microsoft.

aggressive business tactics?? as long as it doesnt constitute fraud then people can do what they want.

So anything shy of fraud is acceptable? People can be cheated out of their savings without being lied to. Some people are very good at convincing others that black is white simply by framing the issue in the right way. This is why a single poll is taken with a grain of salt.

propping up people who fail is not a way to a prosperous society....it only will bring a society down...and makes no sense whatsoever.

Careful with this one. A nation cannot operate like a business. A business can simply fire its unproductive workers. A nation cannot deport its unproductive citizens. People who fail are a drain on a society. It might not be a matter of welfare programs. It might be a matter of crime and rebellion. Angry people are expensive.

you just dont get it...no matter how much company a tells me I need to sell my home to buy their product.....I dont have to.....if the price is not right I am not going to buy it.

a monopoly cannot force its product on the people without government involvement...which has happened in our country numerous times...ie the robber barons.

Give me some credit. I think I do get it, but my perspective is differing from yours.

You are correct that no business can force you to buy its product, but price is not the only factor in buying decisions. Quality of service and marketing are huge. I am not trying to make a case that government does not make monopolies - I think you've made your point there. I'm trying to make a case that a monopoly can arise from a free market society. Large companies may have more overhead, but they also have more resources that small operations can only drool over.

Consider Walmart. They have achieved their status as the #1 retailer in the world through a number of techniques:

1. Using their cloat to gain wholesale prioritization over everyone else. When Kraft is running out of Hot Pockets, guess who gets the lion's share? Guess who gets to pre-order way ahead of everyone else? Guess who gets to dictate lower supplier prices? Guess who loses when the stock runs out (hint: it isn't the corporations)?

2. Having the best enterprise stocking software system money can buy. They coordinate buying processes more efficiently than you can probably imagine. When any store's inventory runs low, an order to the supplier is auto-generated. Walmart is considerably less likely to be out of stock on anything than any other retailer.

3. Paying less for labor. Would I be correct in guessing that the minimum wage is another aspect that you would consider outside of government control? Businesses would love you, the workers less so. People lacking marketable skills can be paid in subsistence - just shy of slave labor - a situation from which they are unlikely to recover.

4. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Walmart can afford the litter the airwaves with commercials. No local chain can compete with that.

Come to think of it, now that I'm on the subject, how would you treat international trade? If the United States went Libertarian, other nations are under no compunction to follow suit. Let's say that you're right and the free market system will preclude monopolies. What happens when large and influential foreign operations come here to do business in an environment ill equipped to compete with the resources of a giant?

in regards to "cheating" someone out of something...again....what constitutes cheating?? your view and my view is different.....so then that becomes a moral issue and will be argued forever.....special interest groups will enter the picture and corruptioin ensues.

Perhaps "cheating" was the wrong word. I'm honestly not sure what the best word is. Salespersons can make offers for services that are not needed, but in such a way that the consumer believes that they are. If there is no consumer protection, there is no way for a consumer who believes they've been sold something useless to seek remedy.

how about this novel concept.....educate yourself before you enter into a contract with someone.

A dishonest salesperson's fantasy is a world where this is the only defense. Do you remember the aluminum siding wars of the 90s?

as far as propping up those who fail....so then we should bring everyone down to their level?? that is what we are doing in many areas....decreasing the standards so that everyone gets a "fair shot"

You have me wondering. Who do you think compose "those"? They are people. Part of the community you want to set free. You would let them get crushed under the heels of the middle class? Is there no consideration of circumstance? Are you really that heartless? I hope not. If so, you're losing me.

You are correct that under our current system, many people are sinking, but they are not without support. If we were to suffer a similar meltdown in the system you suggest, those people would be in free fall with little hope of recovery.

we would totally disagree on the effecs of minimum wage...actually the business want minimum wage.

I don't think the article you cited is saying what you are arguing. I quote:

employers found it profitable to supplant highly trained (and usually highly paid) Europeans by less efficient but cheaper non-whites."

Businesses want to pay as little for labor as they can get away with. There are limits, of course. A software company that will not pay a certain salary for staff will wind up with poor quality software and fail. The general rule still applies.

Businesses take their facilities to other countries with a lower cost of living to reduce the cost of production. This is one of the reasons we are losing jobs in the US. The article references a global minimum wage, but since the WTO is an international organization that includes countries with low costs of living, this just isn't realistic. Minimum wage doesn't really hurt large businesses. It only hurts small businesses that lack the ability to outsource.

what you dont get is that with my philosophy a few will fall through the cracks...but under your philosophy you will have an entire society falling through.

To the safety net you want to take away. Plus, I think that more will fall through the cracks than you think under a Libertarian government. See below.

in a true free market society...even the industry that is dominated by one or a few companies will be kept honest...besides...in todays day and age with the internet.....any atrocities by any business would be dealt with so quickly and severly by the people...it would make your head spin.

Why will a free market keep corporations honest? What will reducing the controls on business do to make corporate dishonesty less likely? If there's a case here, I'm missing it. Remember marketing? Part of its purpose is PR. Much of PR is obscuring a business' failings or putting them in the best light possible. None of this will change in a pure free market system. The internet already makes bad business practices public. A consumer revolt is no more likely under that scenario than it is now. BP and The News Corporation were recently hit with huge PR issues. They're still around.

In truth, with large corporations dominating the market, their capacity to seriously injure the national economy remains. Even if that damage is done through illegal practices that a Libertarian government would have the power to regulate, the damage remains. Many people can be financially devastated through no fault of their own and have no means of support with the government safety nets removed. The loss of consumer buying power would reverberate through the business world. The end result would be total collapse of the national economy. That's why we have safety nets. Plus, did you see my comment about how angry people are expensive?

you are communicating on it right now. the internet. largely unregulated and free competition....it is as close to a libertarian as you can get....and it works GREAT....do injustices happen?? sure...and then they are gone after by government.

I agree with you to an extent. The internet has become a wonderful equalizer between companies and consumers. That is not to say that small businesses can compete on the same level as large corporations. The internet allows businesses to access market share otherwise denied to them, but sales are still limited by the capacity of production and the penetration of marketing. Large industry still dominates that realm - something unlikely to change in a pure free market society.

of course the government wants to use fear to gain regulatory action against the internet.

And it is failing. Why? Because individuals and businesses alike stood up and said, "No!" All without a Libertarian regime.

I'm not saying that your ideas are necessarily bad ones. They do seek to create a culture of greater personal responsibility and greater individual liberty. I'm saying your ideas are not logistically feasible. Point me to a large-scale civilization that has ever made this work (tribes don't count - too small).

Ok. All the best. Thank you for helping me gain a better understanding of Libertarianism.