rebelconservative

What do you guys think of the Philosophy of Liberty youtube video? http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&am...p;v=muHg86Mys7I it is pretty basic, but as an introduction for the uninitiated, automatic collectivists, I think it is quite good. it should open the eyes of a few people. from there, they may find their way to Objectivism.

Well, I wouldn't drink myself, as I have phobias about milk, but I believe there are significant health benefits. The pasteurisation process destroys a lot of the good things in milk, friendly bacteria, enzymes and certain fats - and calcium absorbtion is greatly increased with wholemilk, you lose more of the calcium in skimmed milk. However, there is a slight risk of salmonella in an untreated product. It should be up to the consumer to make the choice for themselves, but our government won't give us that option. It is very difficult to get hold of raw milk, especially if you live in a big city. In England, shops and supermarkets are not allowed to sell you raw milk, though you can buy it directly from the farm. In Scotland it is banned altogether. It is absurd that you can buy shellfish, tobacco and alcohol but not fresh milk! but since when has govt. ever behaved rationally?

I understand the arguments about showering etc, but as I have precisely zero experience in the armed forces, I will defer to those who have served. If the military told me DADT was necessary and backed it up with evidence, I would support it 100%. As a citizen, I would be okay with discrimination against gays, blacks, Muslims, women, Objectivists, left-handed people or gingers, providing this gave us a more effective fighting force and contributed to my safety. The role of the armed forces is to protect us all, not to satisfy diversity quotas. The question we have to ask is "Does DADT keep Americans safer?" and as there is no evidence that such discrimination does contribute to military effectiveness (and there are other ways to resolve potential difficulties), it has to go. As far as I am aware, we have had no significant problems in the UK with openly gay soldiers, nor has Israel, the service of gay soldiers has contributed to my security. Whether American soldiers would react differently, I am not sure. A Zogby poll suggests that 2/3 of US soldiers do not care about the issue, only 27% felt morale was negatively affected by openly gay soldiers in their unit (http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ZogbyReport.pdf page 18). Perhaps, as I think was said earlier, those who feel uncomfortable with gay people could be reassigned to a different unit. However, of those soldiers who did not have openly gay members in their unit, 58% thought that there would be a negative impact if there was an openly gay person in their unit (page 19). It could be argued that this shows that the fear of gays undermining morale is not matched in reality, people are more accepting than they predict and it is not as big an issue as they thought. Interestingly, people felt their own morale would be less affected than the group (page 19). This could be due to the person projecting their own prejudice onto the group, or to an erroneous premise that others are homophobic. Whilst Obama is right on this issue, repealing a flawed policy, I am greatly disturbed by his motivations. Perhaps it is my own bias, but it seems to me that the Left are not approaching this issue rationally, but are prioritising a political agenda over national security. Their concern is not getting the best people into the army, it is giving about enabling gays to be out and proud. The same is true over the issue of women in the army, where there are different entry requirements for men and women (quick google search gave this http://www.topendsports.com/testing/forces-army.htm). There should be a single standard, if women meet that - great, but we should not dilute the standards to increase the ratio of women. How any given policy affects military effectiveness should be the standard of this discussion.

er... seriously...? this person suggests that by declaring something to be my "property" I am instigating force against all others who can no longer use my property... it continues... "retaliation can be the initiation of force" based on the fact that "I don't need force to commit theft or fraud." ... "slavery is a sin of capitalism"

I was not thinking of tax breaks specifically, as this does not affect my freedom (essentially in the same way that not allowing gay marriage does not affect their freedom). This is what the Conservatives want to bring back in the UK. rather, I was thinking of the state using taxpayers money to provide welfare handouts to married couples in the way that we do (in the UK) to people with children (anyone with children receives around $30 per week from the government for the first child, plus $24 per additional child). There used to be a marriage allowance, which I thought operated on the same basis, but operated as a tax-break. using the money extorted from me in taxation to give directly to married couples is using force against me - though I suppose you could argue that it is indirect, that the theft was a direct use of force and that is what we should concentrate on preventing.

You have identified something very important. We use language to think and form concepts. Rand explains this in Anthem, in a world without "I" there can be no individual rights, or even any concept of the individual at all. Another example would be the difference between a dictionary defintion and the meaning held by people. The term "selfish" refers to acting in one's own interests, however, in common parlance, it refers to someone who acts in their own interests without regard for the rights of others - in the eyes of most people, a selfish person is not a individual pursuing their interests, but a brute.

I need to think about this in greater detail, how marriage contracts operate and are enforced as I am possibly operating on flawed premises. however, what of polygamists?

taxation policies that favour married couples.

you are right, I should have stated my position, apologies. however, I was addressing the OP, the article and the idea that this is an issue of freedom. if only gays could marry, I would make the same point - straights are no less free because the state won't recognise their relationship. as reprehensible as it is, I don't think it would be an issue of freedom, if the law did precisely that. the problem is the government granting specific privileges to groups, not the groups that they choose to favour. if government grants marriage privileges to gays, the polygamists will be next banging at the door. indeed. the argument over such pointless semantics baffles me. the irrationality of conservatives who oppose gay marriage, but are happy with granting gay couples the same rights, so long as they change the name confuses me. the issue - surely - is the privileges granted, the name is irrelevant, imo.

yes, the state should stick to enforcing contracts, not forcing others to recognise contracts made by others.

as this is a possibility there is no need for gay marriage, their rights are not being breached. and surely it is up to the hospital to determine whether they accept that or not (I suspect that virtually all would agree anyway). if a gay couple can get a marriage contract, why can they not get a contract stating that they can act on behalf of each other in medical cases? if the hospital was run by a fundamentalist Christian organisation, then forcing them to accept and honour a homosexual partnership would be a breach of their rights. no, it would not be a violation of anyone's rights. but I don't see how it is relevant, it would not be a violation of 3rd party rights if they served salmon at the funeral either. I never said that every conceivable aspect of gay marriage violates third party rights., I simply said the rights of gay people are not being violated if they cannot have their marriage recognised by the state. that would be my preference, yes. if convenience is the argument you want to make for gay marriage, fine, make that argument. I am simply saying it is not a matter of rights or freedom. you are not comparing like with like here. you are comparing a gay couple with no contract to your relationship with your wife, a woman with whom you have made a contract stipulating her as an automatic beneficiary in the event of your untimely death. a more fitting analogy would be a cohabiting couple, who had no legal relationship to each other. in this case, if the male partner died without a will, his property would go to his next of kin rather than to the woman with whom he happened to be living - exactly the same as a gay relationship. this simply underlines the importance of obtaining legal contracts to ensure such problems do not arise.

such hyperbole... absolute theocracy? I think not. well gays are able to marry, just not to marry someone of their own gender - same as any hetrosexual. furthermore, you can commit your life to another person of the same gender and call it marriage, you just can't expect the government to recognise that in terms of tax policy etc. having the government recognise your marriage is not a freedom, it is a government entitlement, which is the point of the article. if two gay men set up a contract to buy a house together, the government would enforce that. if a lesbian decided that her partner would inherit her house and wrote that in her will, the government would enforce that. you are not asking government to enforce a contract between two people, you are asking government to force third parties to accept the contract made by two people.

Disgraceful. The Catholic Church can prevent their own schools using Skyline books (providing they are financed by the Church), but they have no right to call for the government to ban books from all schools. Though why there would be a picture of Jesus with a beer in a cursive writing textbook is beyond me... I don't see how it was necessary.

I could be wrong, but I believe that (in the UK at least), despite the ubiquity of VCRs and Tivo etc, it is still actually illegal to keep a copy of live recorded television to watch over and over.

Clearly - the OP should have ended with a question mark, not a period

I can't believe what I am reading - New York is incredibly beautiful, both by day and by night! I really wish I could go back, I want to live there someday. Madrid is a beautiful city too. But I really love Liverpool - http://www.liverpoolpictorial.co.uk/

...because if you steal one dollar, you breach the principle that theft is wrong, therefore, anyone can then use your own justifications to steal from you - hmmm, do you really need two tvs? etc.

I'm not going to bother commenting on the site... except to say that I really wish that I could be shocked... *sigh* However, this puzzled me... thanks to privatisation in the 80s, the British water industry is run by private companies (albeit heavily regulated monopolies); is the water system not privately owned and operated in the US? does this differ between states?

I agree with you entirely, the state cannot mandate vaccination ever (it is a gross violation, an invasion of the body), but there are certain extreme, grave circumstances where forced quarantine could be permissible. of course, swine flu does not qualify.

What if B's son inherits the land and invests his time, money and energy into building a massive skyscraper? Obviously, if B had built property on the land, or otherwise increased the value, it would belong to A's heir as B knew he was building on stolen land. Any thoughts?

I see, I accept I misused the term. the different behaviours I detailed were not in "very different socio-political contexts," for instance, three of the four 7/7 bombers were British born and raised. these guys were not from a backward arab culture, they were from the UK, all their lives, they went to a secular comprehensive school etc. many of the muslims calling for the death of Salman Rushdie in London were British born. most of the muslims calling for an end to free speech and the death of the danish cartoonists were born and raised in Britain. I am not going to address the rest of your post in detail, as we are getting rather far away from the OP. but don't worry, your contempt of Christianity is duly noted. I won't try to stop you if you wish to irrationally assert that there are no differences between a religion that preaches death to unbelievers, resulting in thousands of deaths, in many different instances - in a variety of socio-political contexts - and a religion that preaches against judging others and love for one's neighbour and is, perhaps, responsible for the death of a handful of people in the past forty years.

I think I have already showed fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity and their approach to individual rights. opposing abortion and gay marriage is not the same as suggesting wives can be beaten and homosexuality banned or even stoned to death. this is partially true, individual rights are being consistently undermined irrespective of Islam. but Islam poses an additional threat, one we do not need to import. yes, our craven politicians are the problem at the moment. but if Muslims were to form a majority in Europe, or even a significant minority, Islam would wield a lot of political power. p.s. don't get me started on the Welsh...

do its current adherents present a genuine threat to liberty? I think not, unless you judge the right to slaughter your unborn child as the sole criterion of liberty don't let your hatred of Christianity cloud your judgment. there is absolutely no comparison. you can not compare an isolated mentally ill adherent killing in the name of his faith who was condemned by almost all his co-religionists (albeit in equivocal terms perhaps) and a world renowned, well respected, moderate, scholar of a religion openly advocating murder as a religious duty. I think I specifically mentioned that I was referring primarily to Europe, though given that this is a US website, I understand the confusion. I have no evidence regarding the USA because I have not looked for it, nor am I asserting that is exists. I was asking in principle, using Europe as an example. my assumption is that when the Muslim population increases it finds its voice, becomes increasingly vociferous and demanding. this is already happening. muslims are already demanding that Britain changes its legal system, laws and foreign policy to mollify their anger (introduction of sharia for divorce disputes, legal protection for their religion, restrictions of freedom of speech, acts of terrorism if we do not change policy in the middle east (7/7) and continued threats. my assumption is that we (UK) live in a democracy in which politicians attempt (sometimes at least) to reflect the views of their constituents and draft and pass legislation accordingly. my assumption is that the British political class panders to p.c. special interest groups, particularly minorities and fashionable lefty causes which for some unknown reason has taken the Islamic cause as its own. my assumption is that the British political elite are prepared to trash our traditions, national interest, sovereignty, liberty - indeed, they do so willingly.

no, it would not be. Christianity may not acknowledge the right to abortion, for example and its adherents may not have the best historical track record, but it gave us the concept of the seperation of Church and State, dividing God and Government into different competencies - Islam does not recognise this. It was not Enlightened atheists that gave us the concept of religious liberty, it was Christian dissenters. but back to the present day... I don't see huge mobs of Christian demonstrators demanding the murder of critics or satirists, I don't see many Christians calling for an end to freedom of speech. Christians oppose gay marriage. Islam would ban homosexuality. moderate Islamic scholars support suicide bombing against Jewish civilians in Israel - there is no Christian parallel here (one mentally ill Christian who murders an abortionist is not comparable). ill-planned it may be, but restricting immigration is not fascism. Islam may possibly become a majority, if that occurs, there will undoubtedly be restrictions on liberty you know voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote. it will take a lot longer in the US due to demographics, but rather than creating their own party, they will slowly take over the Democratic party (as they are doing here with the Labour party) despite repressive restrictions inthe name of anti-terror, our leadership is craven in its relationship to Islam. the former (Labour) Mayor of London invited Yusuf al-Qarawi as an honoured guest to the city - this is a supposedly 'moderate' Muslim scholar, who supports killing gays, beating wives and bombing Jews. don't forget, not all emigrants think they have 'escaped' the repressive regime they lived under, many left searching for prosperity. Many Muslims who have left Pakistan and come to the UK for work still practice their religion, veil their wives, even mutilate their daughters and force them into marriages. if you look at the Europe as an example, we have seen forced marriages, rape within marriage, 'honour' killings, mobs on the streets, demonstrations against the Danish cartoons, protests against foreign policy, support for terrorist groups esp. in Israel, waves of anti-Semitism once almost eradicated from the UK etc etc etc - and the murder of several Dutch men for the crime of criticising Islam (possibly comparable to the murder of Tiller until you consider the numbers) 1. yes. due to diet, lifestyle etc the European life-span is actually falling. whilst it is possible that there will be an advance in medical technology, we should operate on the precautionary principle. 2. not necessarily that it will remain as high as it is today, but that it will remain larger than the Western population, yes. 3. I am not sure why this is relevant, but yes, I expect that there to be a welfare state of some sort. I was not suggesting that Muslims are attracted to the West solely to scrounge on welfare (they tend to be more enterprising that the natives) I am also assuming that there is no increase in fertility rates amongst Europeans, based on long-term trends. it is possible that this will change, though I doubt it. true, good point. the law is a blunt instrument, but it is the only one we have; in practice it would mean preventing a person from a majority Muslim country from immigrating. some Muslims would get in, some atheists, Christians etc would be kept out unnecessarily, but the net effect would be to greatly reduce Muslim immigration.

I presume it will be taken as given that Islam does not respect individual rights. With Western fertility rates declining so rapidly (less than 1.5 when it needs to be over 2.11 children per woman), combined with mass immigration from Muslim countries and their much larger family sizes, it is possible that Muslims will be a majority in Europe in around 50 years. Can we, therefore, restrict immigration to prevent the Islamic take-over of Europe and the loss of liberty that would undoubtedly follow? Or is restricting the individual rights of foreigners for the sake of protecting our individual rights oxymoronic?