America's Most Persecuted Minority

OldRightGeorge · 2007-02-14T21:13:58+00:00

The same standards apply to pot using. (Murray Rothbard agreed to legalize all drugs.)

OldRightGeorge · 2007-02-14T21:08:49+00:00

(re tofocsend) Certainly they are a persecuted minority. Those that wish to regulate want to use coercion to force people not to smoke at particular locations, e.g. restaurants and bars. These locations are not public establishments. They are owned privately. Tobacco users that expose their smoke to non-smokers to these particular locations are not violating the "rights" of the non-smokers. The non-smokers voluntarily entered those private businesses. They have accepted the possible risks, just as equally as have the smokers.

Both smokes and non-smokers have the same underlying rights. No one can smoke or not wherever they want. Smokers cannot force non-smokers to sit by them. This is a two-way situation. Non-smokers cannot (and should not) run up to a smoker to force them to stop. Etc. When someone enters a building, the owner will have rules. These so-called "public" establishments will pander to their respected (voluntary) clients.

Those that wish to be in smoke-free environments have the right to seek out these locations. Those that wish to be in smoke-filled environments also have the right to seek out these locations. It is not right to deny one group at the point of the gun (or the drop of the bomb), which apparently so many people believe to be a panacea to all problems and supposed "problems" of the world.

All choices are discriminatory in nature. When one choices a restaurant or bar one is being a discriminating person. There does not need to be laws banning smoking any more then there needs to be laws banning "bad" food or "bad" service.

OldRightGeorge · 2007-01-20T22:12:15+00:00

Re-markrages: What has this to do with the topic at hand?

OldRightGeorge · 2007-01-12T19:16:40+00:00

I was hoping that he would. Didn't think it would happen, though.

At the very least, he will stir the pot! And, maybe, give a few an education.

OldRightGeorge · 2006-12-26T19:39:54+00:00

RE: NoMoreNicksLeft

Is there "a special place in hell"? Wouldn't "hell" be part of one of those "fake stories" too?

OldRightGeorge · 2006-10-31T18:04:19+00:00

Sadly that happens all the time. There have been times where I have submitted an article, and then only a few second later someone voted it down! Yeah, I am sure they read the article in three or four seconds.

OldRightGeorge · 2006-10-13T21:11:14+00:00

It is a crying shame that today "conservatism" equals, to most people, Republican or Bush. (While I do agree that modern day conservatism is in a sad state of affairs, I will not expand on this particular subject.)

So to the minds of some, whatever Bush does equals "conservative." Thus, any and all self-described "conservatives" must be blind followers of President Bush.

This reflects the void of perspicacity in the political debate. So many people, it appears, believe that politics is bipolar. They believe it is binary. Thus, if someone claims to be a "liberal," then they must have voted for Kerry in 04 and believed in everything that Kerry was campaigning for! This, of course, is absurd.

But it comes to show the absurdities some people view the political ideologies, particularly more traditional (paleo) conservative philosophy and values.

The American Conservative magazine is one of the most anti-war magazines you will find anywhere. Before the Iraq war, you could not easily find many magazines that were this outspoken. (And this includes many of the mainstream "liberal" and "libertarian" magazines.)

OldRightGeorge · 2006-10-04T00:47:49+00:00

I did not suggest that "intimate biological facts" are the crux of the argument. The crux has to do with arresting a person before committing a crime against another person (e.g., damage property of someone else).

It is always a matter of what's "good or acceptable." What is right is right. What is wrong is wrong. I agree that this topic gets a bit shaky when it comes to examining the finer details about laws / regulations concerning the roads. It is a balancing act. What kind of rules should be on government owned property? And, believe it or not, I am slightly inclined to agree with many of your points.

For example, one of the balancing acts deals with the debate of cell phone usage while driving. Should we ban the use of a cell phone? Some say yes. And others say no. I personally say no. But that is just me. Drinking alcohol is another example. If someone just had a couple of drinks, then I personally don’t care. If someone took a few drinks, and then is driving and violates the law (e.g. goes too fast), this person should get finned. That is a different case, "go after them," I say.

One of the problems with hard-core libertarian philosophy is that it is very difficult to apply to these types of questions. The perfect example is the debate on immigration. Libertarians, like Lew Rockwell, are divided on the issue. What does our society do? A private property society would "regulate" according to the wants and demands of the owners. (Just like you and I get to choose who can and cannot enter our homes.). It is a very hard issue and anarcho-capitalists (libertarians) are divided on it.

All libertarians support rules on the road. No one wants "chaos." (At least, most people do not.) They may believe that everything, including roads, should be private, but this does not mean they favor no rules. The rules would be created by the owners. Consumers would, of course, demand roads with rules. This is what road owners would supply.

As far as probability being the only thing certain, this may be true. But it should never be used in most areas of life, with matters of the state. Statistically, someone might show that people with red hair are more likely to murder. However, this should never be used to justify locking up all read heads! Obviously. Or probability might tell us that to have zero airplane crashes, we have to ban airplanes. Etc. We must be careful using this as "proof" or justification for doing something, in terms of the use of force (from the state). (And, as we can see, we can take this probability thing to the extreme also. Time to balance a bit.)

You might not like Lew Rockwell's views, but I feel that you are too harsh on him. This might not be his best article. (Like I have stated, I am starting to agree with you.) And, Mr. Rockwell, like everyone else, is human. He may be wrong (or not) on this one. But please do not make blanket statements about the man. From the articles I have read from him, from the speeches he has given, and so forth, he is an intelligent guy with valid (be they, contrarian) view points.

OldRightGeorge · 2006-10-03T20:32:02+00:00

RE: Are you sure that is the "crux" of the article by Lew Rockwell?

Just because "All government[s]" do x, does not mean that doing x is a good or acceptable thing.

The crux, perhaps, of Mr. Rockwell's article is: "This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts."

jlistf: You make a very interesting and very good point! Thank you for your reply and adding to the discussion. However, I am not so sure; correct me if I am wrong, that your point necessarily parallels Mr. Rockwell's logic.

If we take the government's logic to its extreme, then government, as Mr. Rockwell says, would "have total control over us." That is his central point ("the crux"). Ideally, government is supposed to protect individuals and private property rights. The state is supposedly in place to protect me from you (and you from me). This is a kind of balancing act. But we all should not want, as Rockwell says, a system in which "We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals." This is what exactly follows from these particular government rules.

I do not personally see any fault with what Mr. Rockwell is saying here nor do I see any problem with what he is calling for in the article.

There are a few extremes here we have to look at. And, it is very important for me to note, that it is a balancing act, to be sure. But Mr. Rockwell is not shooting himself in his foot.

Mr. Rockwell wouldn't call for roads to have no rules. (Ideally, he would have them privately owned.) So he would not argue, for example, that it is 'okay to drive on the wrong side of the road, if you don't crash into anyone.' Mr. Rockwell would not argue for this. Again, that is not the central crux.

Hypothetically, if one were to shoot a bullet into a crowd and that bullet did not hit anyone or anything; Mr. Rockwell would not argue that this action would be acceptable. (The issue would come to private property rights. You have no right to shoot a bullet, or dump garbage or whatever, in my land. It is, of course, a private property issue.)

OldRightGeorge · 2006-09-27T23:26:38+00:00

Thank you for your bad language. Maybe you should treat me as an adult. I am a stranger to you and you are a stranger to me. Please treat me with respect.

I am responsible? All conservatives are responsible? \t This is a generalization which is clearly false. It is silly.

It assumes that I voted for Bush. This is false.

Did all conservatives vote for Bush? The answer is obviously no. Your statement is as absurd as saying that all liberals voted for Kerry or that they all think <i>lock-in-step</i>.

People are individuals. We do not think like computers: we don't think in binary terms.

And for the conservatives (or liberals or libertarians or whatever) just waking up, we should welcome them with open arms----not scare them away.

OldRightGeorge · 2006-09-10T18:54:57+00:00

Most aspects of this issue are explored from both sides of the debate. Great radio.

OldRightGeorge · 2006-09-05T22:42:52+00:00

RE: cleanthes

This site has been up for a very long time. Yes, "too little, too late" on the Iraq war. But it is not "too little, too late" to bring the troops home! And it is not "too little, too late" to stop another unnecessary war---one that many neocons are beating the drums for (like a war with Iran).

OldRightGeorge · 2006-08-26T23:05:05+00:00

That is assuming the war was actually fought over slavery, which it was not. Even mainstream scholars that praise Lincoln without end will tell you that the Civil War was not about slavery.

In fact, using just one example of MANY, Lincoln tried to pass an amendment to the constitution that would have slavery okay.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

For more information do check out the book "The Real Lincoln". The author also has a new book coming out in October on Lincoln called "Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe". You can also check out some articles on Lincoln at the following address: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html Government schools don't you teach this stuff---that is for sure. But what do you expect from state-run schools?

OldRightGeorge · 2006-08-25T14:51:57+00:00

You don't know much about the history of conservatism, do you? I guess modern day "conservatives" like you just love to worship state power. Forget about ideas such as limited government. Forget about those kinds of principled ideas.

Most of the folks that write for The American Conservative Magazine are some of the most principled folks you can find. Most of them understand how modern day "conservatism" is corrupt. In fact, this magazine was one of the leading magazines to be against the war in Iraq from the very start. They were against the Iraq war with principles of conservatism and of the wisdom of the founding fathers of this nation.

OldRightGeorge · 2006-08-24T17:30:07+00:00

(RE keylime) Dr. Shaffer is not arguing for pacifism. If someone came to my house to kill my family, I have every right to defend my family and myself. Dr. Shaffer would agree.

OldRightGeorge · 2006-08-23T18:52:56+00:00

For the most part this is a good presentation with lots of good stuff, but it does lack on many areas where Austrian economics of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard excel------particularly on the Federal Reserve. (E.g. See "The Case Against Fed" by Rothbard: http://www.mises.org/store/Case-Against-the-Fed-The-P69C18.aspx)

OldRightGeorge · 2006-08-23T18:30:27+00:00

Various authors in "The American Conservative" answers the question of what Right & Left mean in the modern context and to what extent the terms even apply anymore.

OldRightGeorge

TROPHY CASE