Rescinding membership in Free State Project

[lildog]

1)  We must deal with the terrorist threat. The surest way to do this is to reject our current foreign policy direction and adopt Thomas Jefferson's:  "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances with none".   Since the US government seems to have no intention of doing so, it seems necessary to declare independence. 

Are you familiar with how Jefferson took care of Muslim terrorists when he had that problem (and he did for the record)?  He didn't sit back and hoped they'd leave us alone.  Read up on the Barbarary Pirates (sp?) and how Jefferson handled them.

Islamic fundimentalists were a problem even back then... can anyone say it was the fault of our government THEN?

4)  We must deal with the dollar crisis, by implementing free market monetary policy, demanding that all government books be balanced, and ending the reign of terror of the World Banking cartels.  Specifically in this country that involves abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank. (A reminder:  this is *the* issue that the Democrat Party was founded on.)  Absent the federal government's acquiesence, it will be necessary to declare our independence.

You think a party that wont even allow people take care of their own retirement accounts would do ANYTHING toward this goal?

5)  We must implement a system of completely voluntary taxation so that no one is forced to pay for programs that they do not want or find morally repugnant. 

Again, the democrats are the FURTHEST thing from this goal.

Based on your answers I'm totally confused as to why you would have supported democrats over republicans.  As I said, the republicans aren't perfect but they are the lesser of the two evils.

[Sweet Mercury]

'mind independent reality' : That's just a fancy phrase for saying we can be sure of nothing except that which our senses can perceive, and our own minds can quantify. We must make decisions based on what we perceive in our own self-centered best interest. If I see a fire for the first time, as a child would, I see flame, but know not its characteristics. I soon find out that flame is hot, so in my own best interests I will not put my hand in the fire a second time.

A=A : a thing is what it is. Aristotle first talked of this. A rock is a rock. You can call it a bird, but it is still a rock. It is what it is.

I think you're description, outside of the last sentance, is backwards. "Mind independant reality" means a reality that exists independant of the mind's perception of it. In other words, an objective reality—thus, Objectivism (a title with also included the connotation of "objective" as "impartial" or "detatched from emotional agenda" in decision making). The way you describe it, unless I am reading you wrong, sounds more like a mind-dependant, or subjective, reality: something that Rand denounced completely. What's throwing me off here is your use of the phrase "we can be sure of nothing except what our senses perceive." If Rand was anything, she was sure and found uncertainty inexcusable. Her hard line on this position is one reason so many people in the philosophy world reject her as a kook.

Basically, she thought that physical reality existed of its own accord, which differs from the various forms of metaphysical/epistemic solipsism espoused by the likes of Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, etc. From what I can tell, and here I may be wrong, she also believed that outside of insane people, perception was the same from person to person, which is why she hated Subjectivists and Relativists in so many forms. Personally, I differ with her on that--from a philosophical standpoint, both her metaphysic and epistemology are bankrupt to the core.

This was one of her contradictions. She advocated ZAP, but also advocated minarchism.
I was never sure how she expected gov services to be paid for.

That can be summerized in one word: voluntarily. If you have or can get a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness, in chapter 15 she explains her position on the matter succinctly, arguing that it's in the rational self-interest of people to fund certain basic government functions or the same reason individuals pay for insurance that they might never use.

I know someone's going to call me a Randroid for this post. I just know it. 

[Caleb]

The banking lobby has gone to a great deal of trouble to create the myth that government controlled money is less stable than bank-controlled money

Hmmm ... Government control versus Banking Cartel control.  You're right, Bill, there isn't much difference between money issued by the government as opposed to a cartel granted government privilege.  The government money is actually slightly preferable, as we don't have to pay interest on it, only the inflation cost.

But what I'm talking about is money that *isn't* manipulated in the first place.  Money that no government (or bank for that matter) can simply print.  How powerful would that be in limiting government?  And there you have the precise reason why the governments fight like mad to keep a free monetary market from  happening.

[AlanM]

'mind independent reality' : That's just a fancy phrase for saying we can be sure of nothing except that which our senses can perceive, and our own minds can quantify. We must make decisions based on what we perceive in our own self-centered best interest. If I see a fire for the first time, as a child would, I see flame, but know not its characteristics. I soon find out that flame is hot, so in my own best interests I will not put my hand in the fire a second time.

A=A : a thing is what it is. Aristotle first talked of this. A rock is a rock. You can call it a bird, but it is still a rock. It is what it is.

I think you're description, outside of the last sentance, is backwards. "Mind independant reality" means a reality that exists independant of the mind's perception of it. In other words, an objective reality?thus, Objectivism (a title with also included the connotation of "objective" as "impartial" or "detatched from emotional agenda" in decision making). The way you describe it, unless I am reading you wrong, sounds more like a mind-dependant, or subjective, reality: something that Rand denounced completely. What's throwing me off here is your use of the phrase "we can be sure of nothing except what our senses perceive." If Rand was anything, she was sure and found uncertainty inexcusable. Her hard line on this position is one reason so many people in the philosophy world reject her as a kook.

Basically, she thought that physical reality existed of its own accord, which differs from the various forms of metaphysical/epistemic solipsism espoused by the likes of Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, etc. From what I can tell, and here I may be wrong, she also believed that outside of insane people, perception was the same from person to person, which is why she hated Subjectivists and Relativists in so many forms. Personally, I differ with her on that--from a philosophical standpoint, both her metaphysic and epistemology are bankrupt to the core.

This was one of her contradictions. She advocated ZAP, but also advocated minarchism.
I was never sure how she expected gov services to be paid for.

That can be summerized in one word: voluntarily. If you have or can get a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness, in chapter 15 she explains her position on the matter succinctly, arguing that it's in the rational self-interest of people to fund certain basic government functions or the same reason individuals pay for insurance that they might never use.

I know someone's going to call me a Randroid for this post. I just know it. 

What I got from Rand is: You cannot deny what your senses tell you. Red is red. A=A Things exist, as they are, you can't pretend otherwise. Each mind, along with the senses, must see reality for what it is, not what they wish it were. Don't call an apple an orange when you know it is not so. Each mind must totally honest about what it perceives. Don't fool yourself, and don't let emotion get in the way.

Re: ZAP and minarchism. Minarchism is not ZAP. It is closer than what we have now. Laws are never voluntary, yet she seemed to think some laws are necessary. She seemed to believe in ZAP in regards to person to person meetings, but excluded Government from it.

[Caleb]

Based on your answers I'm totally confused as to why you would have supported democrats over republicans.  As I said, the republicans aren't perfect but they are the lesser of the two evils.

???  First, let me make a point.  I will use all caps so it stands out in your mind.  I DID NOT SUPPORT DEMOCRATS OVER REPUBLICANS.  NOR DID I SUPPORT REPUBLICANS OVER DEMOCRATS.  IN THEIR CURRENT INCARNATIONS, I CONSIDER BOTH PARTIES EVIL.  I DO NOT SUPPORT EITHER.

There.  Hopefully I don't have to repeat that, because somehow you have it in your mind that failing to support one party equals supporting the other. By that convoluted Bush-logic, I did support the Republicans, because I didn't support the Democrats.

That having been said ... I listed 5 main points that I considered priorities. I'll repeat them below.

1)  We must deal with the terrorist threat. The surest way to do this is to reject our current foreign policy direction and adopt Thomas Jefferson's:  "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances with none".   Since the US government seems to have no intention of doing so, it seems necessary to declare independence.  Wink

2)  We must deal with intrusions into our liberties and the unfortunate upswing of what I call "the surveillance state."  This requires that NH take a stand against the Patriot Act, deal with the problem of internal espionage (via such terrorist agencies as the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, etc.)  Let's not forget that espionage is an act of war, and the federal government routinely spies on its own people.

3)  We must end the drug war so as to end the major source of financing for the quasi-governmental terrorist groups (CIA, NSA, et al).

4)  We must deal with the dollar crisis, by implementing free market monetary policy, demanding that all government books be balanced, and ending the reign of terror of the World Banking cartels.  Specifically in this country that involves abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank. (A reminder:  this is *the* issue that the Democrat Party was founded on.)  Absent the federal government's acquiesence, it will be necessary to declare our independence.

5)  We must implement a system of completely voluntary taxation so that no one is forced to pay for programs that they do not want or find morally repugnant.

Now I will give you my analysis of who is the lesser of two evils on each point:

Point 1:  Protecting America by adopting a non-provocative foreign policy.  Edge:  Democrats.  Although the neo-cons at the head of the Party, the so-called "Democratic Leadership Council" are as much fascists as the Republicans, the average Democrat on the street is far more in tune than the average Republican on the street.  Furthermore, Democrat representatives are more likely than Republicans to vote for non-provocative foreign policy.  Hodes and Shea-Porter both advocated quick withdrawals from Iraq, whereas Bradley and Bass supported the fascist Executive regime.

Point 2:  Rolling back the Patriot Act legislation and ending the surveillance state.  Edge:  Democrats Once again, the DLC's hypocrisy is noted, but a quick perusal of the yea and nay votes for the Patriot Act show that Democrats have the clear edge. 

Point 3:  Ending the drug war.  Edge:  Democrats.  Only barely, though.  The average Democrat on the street has it right.  Unfortunately, Washington Democrats are spineless. Incidentally, State Democrats seem to have a little more spine on this issue, and I'm hopeful that Marijuana legalization initiatives will be resurrected in NH.

Point 4:  Ending the Federal Reserve.  Edge:  Republicans  Only barely, though.  Like Point 3, this is an issue where some of the Republicans you meet on the street might get it right, but Washington Republicans are spineless.  In NH, a Republican Representative introduced a gold money bill, but was defeated in the previous election cycle and not a single Republican colleague picked up the ball and went with it.  Can you say "SPINELESS"?

Point 5:  Voluntary taxation.  Edge:  Republicans.  Kind of goes without saying, here.  Although for all their talk about lowering taxes, Republicans seem to have conveniently forgot the other part of the Conservative manifesto:  Reducing spending.  Spending under a Republican President with a Republican Congress reached all-time highs.  Not too "conservative", is it?

So, as you can see, the Republicans are the lesser of two evils in precisely 40% of the issues that matter most to me.  The Democrats are the lesser of two evils in precisely 60% of the issues that matter most to me.  Neither record is compelling.

[FrankChodorov]

The banking lobby has gone to a great deal of trouble to create the myth that government controlled money is less stable than bank-controlled money

Hmmm ... Government control versus Banking Cartel control.  You're right, Bill, there isn't much difference between money issued by the government as opposed to a cartel granted government privilege.  The government money is actually slightly preferable, as we don't have to pay interest on it, only the inflation cost.

But what I'm talking about is money that *isn't* manipulated in the first place.  Money that no government (or bank for that matter) can simply print.  How powerful would that be in limiting government?  And there you have the precise reason why the governments fight like mad to keep a free monetary market from  happening.

money has always been manipulated...the problem is that gold-backed has never been circulated without being hoarded and loaned in the form of certificates. When the price of gold doubles, debts double.

so these are the people who care that we don't have a free monetary market:

Those who hold gold, those who are owed debts in gold, those who owe debts in gold, those who make widgets, and those who were considering making widgets. Gold will not circulate if its value is going up with regard to general commodities as it is hoarded, and this results in a shortage of currency. The shortage, in turn, causes a slowing of trade. Meanwhile, loans are recalled, and the goldsmiths, who were the only ones who could make loans in gold in the first place, engage in foreclosures, not because the debtors could not produce commodities of sufficient value under the original terms, but because they could not produce the additional commodities necessary to offset the fall in value of commodities relative to gold.

[mvpel]

Hopefully I don't have to repeat that, because somehow you have it in your mind that failing to support one party equals supporting the other.

You cannot deny what your senses tell you. Red is red. A=A Things exist, as they are, you can't pretend otherwise. Each mind, along with the senses, must see reality for what it is, not what they wish it were.

Did you not vote in the last election, Caleb?

[Rocketman]

Dunno about Caleb, but I voted for Kahn, Blevens, Republican Sen. Bragdon, and several Republican rep candidates in Amherst/Milford (where we have several good reps already).  I happen to have voted for zero democrats this year, simply because of the particular candidates in my district.  (Bragdon voted correctly on 1582, as did the six rep incumbents... and they voted pretty well on other stuff.)

lildog, perhaps you could respond to my issues, which are quite different than Caleb's?

[Sweet Mercury]

What I got from Rand is: You cannot deny what your senses tell you. Red is red. A=A Things exist, as they are, you can't pretend otherwise. Each mind, along with the senses, must see reality for what it is, not what they wish it were. Don't call an apple an orange when you know it is not so. Each mind must totally honest about what it perceives. Don't fool yourself, and don't let emotion get in the way.

Yeah, that makes more sense. The way I read you original statement, I felt you were attributing a degree of solipsism to Rand's philosophy.

Re: ZAP and minarchism. Minarchism is not ZAP. It is closer than what we have now. Laws are never voluntary, yet she seemed to think some laws are necessary. She seemed to believe in ZAP in regards to person to person meetings, but excluded Government from it.

I'm not sure, I never really sat and pondered a Randian Utopia based on her writings. What I was referring to as voluntary was the taxation. As she described it, in a truly free and rational society, all funding for government activities, like police, fire dept, civil courts, would be completely voluntary. Laws, of course, by their nature, are not "voluntary." In my ideal of minarchism (which I'm still formulating and will likely refine over and over again as I continue my education and experience), laws would only be reactionary (which makes them in the loosest sense voluntary). Theft, murder, rape, etc, would be punishable by law, and the individual "volunteers" to engage in such activities. I don't think that Rand would condone government aggression against citizens, only the use of force as an agency for citizens who have had their rights violated and don't have the means for proper recourse, I agree with her on this point. In essesence, unless you violate another individual's rightsor willfully endanger their safety, what need would the "law" ever have to contact you?

[Objectivist]

This thread is taking up WAAAAAAAAAAAYAAAYAYYAYAYAYYAY too much of my time...

Objectivist

[Jason Rand]

I'm not sure, I never really sat and pondered a Randian Utopia based on her writings. What I was referring to as voluntary was the taxation. As she described it, in a truly free and rational society, all funding for government activities, like police, fire dept, civil courts, would be completely voluntary. Laws, of course, by their nature, are not "voluntary." In my ideal of minarchism (which I'm still formulating and will likely refine over and over again as I continue my education and experience), laws would only be reactionary (which makes them in the loosest sense voluntary). Theft, murder, rape, etc, would be punishable by law, and the individual "volunteers" to engage in such activities. I don't think that Rand would condone government aggression against citizens, only the use of force as an agency for citizens who have had their rights violated and don't have the means for proper recourse, I agree with her on this point. In essesence, unless you violate another individual's rightsor willfully endanger their safety, what need would the "law" ever have to contact you?

Sweet Mercury, I think you will find these two essays quite educational and enlightening, although perhaps disorienting at first.  When I first read Roy Child's argument I was astounded at the conclusion that I was being logically led to accept: market anarchism.  From an Objectivist framework no less!  I never thought it could happen to me, but it did.  Enjoy!

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=5892.msg103837#msg103837

[lildog]

lildog, perhaps you could respond to my issues, which are quite different than Caleb's?

With pleasure!  By the way as you put them as ?NH pro-liberty positions? I didn?t follow at first that they were your personal stances.

NH pro-liberty positions which happen to be shared by many conservatives: opposing any new and/or higher taxes, cutting taxes and spending, protecting the right to defend person and property, protecting privacy (Real ID), minimizing the role of government in education, opposing regulations which hamper the free market, opposing fiat currency, opposing subservience to the UN.

With you on all of these points so far, and as you correctly point out they are shared by many conservatives.

NH pro-liberty positions which happen to be shared by liberals: decriminalizing marijuana (and hemp)

On that point I do agree democrats seem slightly more open (although I don?t see them actually taking steps to decriminalize it).  I agree with you that victimless crimes such as marijuana should not be criminal offenses.  I?d even go so far to say we should legalize gambling and prostitution.

protecting civil liberties (Real ID)

I don?t see liberals defending this at all.  Lynch was for it.  Many opposed it simply because they saw it more of a republican issue.  And since they are pushing for socialized healthcare, they are pushing for a form of real ID via a back door method.

Further more if you look top democrats such as Obama (who many I?ve spoken with would like to see as the VP choice on the ?08 ticket) they support policy based on race.  In other words giving someone a job over someone better qualified or entrance into a college or whatever, simply because they fall into a minority group and the school or company needs to have that magic mix of races and sexes.  That is out right against everything civil liberties are all about in my opinion.

preserving the separation of church and state (another F- for Bush)[/quoet]

Again I have to disagree.  Liberals are pushing for an out right elimination of religion.  The Constitution makes it very clear:  ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;?
Many cases now days is government over stepping their bounds and limiting the free exercise there of.  For instance the two most recent cases I can think of were as follows:
A judge purchased with his own money a carving of the 10 commandments and tried to display them in the courthouse where he worked.  That is NOT creating law establishing religion, it IS a citizen (who happened to be a judge) exercising his religion.
A town in NJ allowed citizens to decorate the lawn of town hall any way they wanted (since it is the people?s lawn after all).  They started putting odd things like pink flamingos, garden gnomes etc.  Eventually religious symbols started appearing such as the star of David and a menorah.  Finally someone put up a manger.  It was after the nativity scene was put up that the government stepped in and stopped it and forced only the nativity scene to be taken down.
In both cases democrats were the ones pushing to prevent the free expression there of.  And don?t get me started on Christmas, which is after all a nationally recognized holiday.

protecting the equal rights of persons who make nontraditional lifestyle choices

I agree this advantage goes to democrats, but personally I think BOTH sides have this wrong.  Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage.  Marriage in my opinion is a matter of faith and should be left to the church to declare you married or not.  If your faith allows men to marry men then by all means two men can and should become husband and husband or whatever they call it.

protecting the right of women and doctors to make choices according to their own systems of morality and not those of pro-life busybodies (my opinion, obviously)

Personally I think it comes down to when life actually begins.  If you believe life begins at birth then any level of abortion should be fine.  But if you believe life begins sometime before birth then we do after all have the right to LIFE do we not?  If a baby still inside it?s mothers stomach is considered a life then that woman has no more right to extinguish that life then she would by leaving a 2 month old baby in a room to starve to death.
On this one there is no clear cut right or wrong, only where you believe life begins.  And since we don?t know for sure? well I prefer to error on the side of life.

But one step NH democrats are talking about which I think goes FAR beyond regardless of which side you fall on, is allowing MINORS to make major life choices about abortion on their own without their parents knowing.  Children 14 & 15 can?t even take an aspirin from a school nurse without parental consent yet suddenly they are considered mature enough to get an abortion?  Sorry but I have a MAJOR problem with that one.

opposing the so-called War on Terror

Republicans have gone too far with Iraq, I agree to that.  But I don?t see democrats willing to defend us at all.  Do you think that extreme is better?

opposing the fusion of corporate and government interests (e.g. Halliburton, Blackwater)

Yet they are in favor of government jobs and divisions.  Republicans favor individual companies far more then they should but at least they are going with private companies over government agencies.

opposing the inhumane treatment of human beings by our own government

Clinton and democrats back in the ?90s PAID other countries to do much worse then Bush is allowing our own government to do now.  Using our tax dollars to subsidize torture though the use of other countries so we don?t get our hands dirty is something I consider FAR worse then actually doing it ourselves.  Democrats are only against it now because they are making it a republican issue.

Further more, much of what they consider torture, I don?t.
If someone I capture in the field of battle is the one person who can give information to save lives of my friends or family then there isn?t enough I could do to that person to protect people I care for.

getting rid of straight-ticket voting.

Let?s see if they?ll actually do that now that things went their way in the last election manly because of straight ticket voting in their favor.

[lildog]

Issues I see as key issues are as follows:

Taxes ? The government should only take what is absolutely necessary for what tasks they are given through the constitution.

Government spending ? They spend on FAR more then they should.  We need to get back to our constitution and begin to eliminate all spending not specifically granted by the constitution to our government

Constitutional rights ? this includes freedom of (not OF not FROM) religion, right to bear arms, and other rights such as Amendment #6 which give the right to a speedy trial which Lauren can tell you isn?t being upheld.  One thing you?ll notice is time and time again the judges that do not uphold the constitution or the judges that make up their own rules are appointed more often by democrats then republicans.  It is for this reason alone that even 2 years under democratic leadership can lead to far greater problems for a long long time afterwards.

Illuminating laws against victimless crimes.

Minimizing government not expanding it.

More self-responsibility and less reliance on government.

National defense against terrorism, mainly Islamic fundamentalism.  As I pointed out already, we?ve had Islamic fundamentalists causing problems for this country as far back as the Barbararie Pirates.

Parental rights.  As a parent it is MY job to raise my kids in the way I see fit.  Until they are old enough and mature enough to be considered an adult and make their own life choices, as their parent it is and should be MY responsibility to know what is going on in their lives and make the choices as to what is best for them.

[ladyattis]

I must be the only laid back Objectivist there is, that's probably due to that one time I smoked some pot, but who knows.

Ultimately, Objectivism is most misrepresented by its so-called adherents in the sense that they cannot accept that it's always up for debate, otherwise it couldn't be deemed an empirically, and rationally, derived philosophy. What I can't understand though, as an Objectivist, why the hang up on A is A [A = A] and other crap? Sure it's a cute short hand for A cannot be A and Non-A [Law of non-contradiction], A implies its own existence, and causality of related to A implies existence of non-A entities. Beyond that, A = A is just a chant for the weak minded wannabes that probably would turn Objectivism into the new Fubu or whatever.

-- Bridget 

[Rocketman]

Thanks lildog, I find this very englightening.  Glad to see we agree on 80% or so.

NH pro-liberty positions which happen to be shared by many conservatives: opposing any new and/or higher taxes, cutting taxes and spending, protecting the right to defend person and property, protecting privacy (Real ID), minimizing the role of government in education, opposing regulations which hamper the free market, opposing fiat currency, opposing subservience to the UN.

With you on all of these points so far, and as you correctly point out they are shared by many conservatives.

And yet many of these positions are NOT shared by mainstream Republican politicians, many of whom are NOT conservative philosophers but simply middle-of-the-road statists.

NH pro-liberty positions which happen to be shared by liberals: decriminalizing marijuana (and hemp)

On that point I do agree democrats seem slightly more open (although I don?t see them actually taking steps to decriminalize it).  I agree with you that victimless crimes such as marijuana should not be criminal offenses.  I?d even go so far to say we should legalize gambling and prostitution.

Funny how you equate "liberals" with "democrats."  The steps to decrim will be taken by liberals and libertarians, but the Democrats (most of whom are not what I'd call liberals) will be more likely to hear us out.  Most conservatives (with a few exceptions) seem to believe Drug Prohibition has a mandate from God (and/or their fundamentalist constituencies).  And there are plenty of middle-of-the-road statists in both parties who simply presume legislating morality is a legitimate purpose of government -- can they rightly be called liberals or conservatives?

Totally agree on gambling and prostitution.  This answer suggests you are more libertarian than conservative.   

protecting civil liberties (Real ID)

I don?t see liberals defending this at all.  Lynch was for it.  Many opposed it simply because they saw it more of a republican issue.

In this case, if you don't see it, you aren't looking.  Lynch pledged to sign HB 1582 if it passed the senate.  Every NH senate democrat voted for 1582.  Carol Shea-Porter spoke at our Real ID rally in Concord.  The ACLU and Democracy for New Hampshire both gave excellent testimony.

On the other hand, many "real" conservatives in the house (and two in the senate) opposed Real ID, but as for the statist Republicans: Bradley, Bass, and Gregg all pressured the NH senate to go along with it, calling it a necessary wartime measure to make us safer.  Gatsas and Clegg, the top R's in the senate, opposed 1582 with everything they had.

But most telling was the debate on the senate floor.  Conservative R Jack Barnes proposed the amendment to gut 1582 and replace it with a meaningless study committee.  In his argument, he outrageously compared Real ID to the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII AS EVIDENCE OF THE SORT OF THING A NATION SHOULD DO WHEN AT WAR!  "I'm very glad the government... is taking some of our rights away," he opined.

Then liberal D Peter Burling got up and made a truly eloquent speech about how it's more important, not less important, to maintain civil liberties during wartime.  Turns out his father was one of the lawyers sent to investigate Japanese internment.  I can send you text from both speeches if you'd like to read them and see if you prefer the conservative or the liberal.  After the speeches, all but two R's voted for the Barnes amendment, and all D's voted against it, but it passed and 1582 was dead.  A temporary victory for American totalitarianism.

RELIGION -- I'll be here all day if I write a full-length rebuttal, so for now I'll just say I disagree and skip it.  Unlike drug warriors, secularists have no hope of eliminating their opponents' livelihoods, just keeping all that voodoo out of government and the public square.  I hope I never stand before a judge who rules based on prayer and scriptures.

MARRIAGE -- I agree with your position, get government out of marriage.  Most conservatives, however, believe the state must "protect the fabric of society" by restricting and officially shunning alternative lifestyles.

protecting the right of women and doctors to make choices according to their own systems of morality and not those of pro-life busybodies (my opinion, obviously)

On this one there is no clear cut right or wrong, only where you believe life begins.  And since we don?t know for sure? well I prefer to error on the side of life.

With all due respect, by "erring on the side of life," what you're really doing is erring on the side of government intervention into people's lives, imposing one group's flimsy moral certitude on individuals under threat of force.  That to me is the antithesis of freedom.


Well, we've been over most of the rest... and I'm hungry.