Jump to content
Dan, I oppose the state completely, whether UN, USA, or Colorado, but choose the lesser of evils, meaning smaller states like Colorado, until my Anarcho-capitalist dreams can be realized. To me, if a state like Colorado exists and it bans any murders, it should also ban them of the unborn. Marriage should be government-free (largely based on racism why US colonies and states involved themselves at all).
Dan S., the federales have long banned the interstate shipment of raw milk. Colorado only allows it to be sold through a semi-loophole in a cowshare program, and it still bans the retail sale of it. Roe was a raw power grab by the federal judiciary. I know a big issue on the left is voter ID, but the leftists rarely complain when unelected federal judges overrule elected state reps and state initiative passed constitutional amendments.
Dan S., are you saying that in a country where you have the freedom to kill your baby and the freedom to marry Dan K. that you should not have the freedom to drink raw milk?
Mark, I generally agree with you, but I was talking about the past, and making a comparison of rules in the time period surrounding the Barbary pirates. By the way, google Professor Robert Papes and you will see that most of the current day terrorists kill westerners for our occupations and meddling rather than religion. Though please see that foreign occupation, religious fervor (yes, I agree that helps make some suspectible to committing atrocitious acts), statism, and mental illness all combine into a deadly stew.
Steve, the common law tort of trespass should suffice. It also seems like it took a private group, rather than the benevolent government, to enforce the rules.
Gayle is probably a nationally syndicated columnist.
David, one man's jihad is another's evangelization.
I was disputing the term as a perjorative equating it to "bad Muslim terrorism". I think the religion was a justification for the state (the real evil) to extract tribute. Many Christian states, including colonial Virginia, required non-adherents to Anglicanism to pay a tax (tribute) to the government as well.
Scott, child employment is a function of productivity. As an economy uses tools and machines to do work, less children need to be employed to survive. There was a study that showed after the Bangaladesh shirt factory fire and the child employment law the kids ended up in prostitution. In the same vein, prove to me workplace laws make people safer. I'd argue again safety improves through productivity and innovation. Incumbents use laws to increase barriers to entry. Finally, if the Federal Reserve were not debasing the currency, there would be no need to monkey around with minimum wage laws. Nevertheless, those laws keep people from gaining skills, drive them to the black market, and/or make them obsolete by technology which is more beneficial than employing a human at the minimum wage.
See for example
Dan S, I obviuosly agree with Dan K. I find it more ironic (moronic) that it is generally okay to take a living baby out of a womb but not okay generally to ingest into that same body whatever you want, whether drugs (recreational and for medicinal purposes) or raw milk. Food rules have always been about protecting the connected incumbents and blocking competition, in the name of safety. The more concentrated and uniform the supply the more likely a problem will spread further and faster. How is that safe?
David, there were numerous congressional authorizations regarding the Barbary pirates. Secondly, they weren't "jihadists" but simply a state seeking tribute, though it may have used the canard of religion to justify its otherwise immoral acts. See about halfway through this:
Last login: today
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.