1) see here
2) and here
3) and here
4) and here
5) and here
6) and here
7) and here ).
In the comment I have numbered #6, VR said:
The following two positions are consistent with one another.I blew that "reasoning" out of the water --
1) Abortion is murder.
2) The Constitution, properly interpreted, makes it unconstitutional to outlaw abortion.
The arguments for 1 are never identical to the arguments against 2. Arguments supporting 1 do not prove that 2 is false. So 1 and 2 are compatible.
VR, doubling down now that he's off the fence: "The following two positions are consistent with one another."And, of course (since he's off the fence), he totally ignored that I had shown his "reasoning" to be false, and instead made a new OP based on it.
No, they aren't.
The Constitution says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Murder can never be "constitutional"
(*) That is, as we in America misuse the term "liberal" since the "progressives" hijacked it some decades ago after calling themselves "progressive" had become a political liability, for as long as I've know him he has been a "liberal". As such, he could always be counted on to eventually toe the leftist party line, no matter the demand.
So, that brings up up-to-date for the subject of this post.
Recently, Mr Reppert quoted Chesterton:
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Chesterton (1935).To which I replied:
Is a free man free to keep the wealth he produces and to use it as he sees fit, rather than to have it confiscated by vote-buying politicians?
To which, in that intellectually dishonest way we all cherish about leftists, he replied (in a new OP)
Ilion: Is a free man free to keep the wealth he produces and to use it as he sees fit, rather than to have it confiscated by vote-buying politicians?Now that he's off the fence, look for continued (and amped-up) leftist irrationality from Mr Reppert, and also more intellectual dishonesty as displayed in the above "response".
VR: Sure! So, let us say that you can afford to defend yourself against ISIS terrorists and dangerous foreign governments. You earned the money to do so, after all. But the bleeding-heart vote-buying politicians who run the government want to confiscate your money so that they can defend not only you, but all those welfare queens in the middle and lower classes, who, after all, only want to be defended against terrorism using other people's money. And why, in the name of Ayn Rand, should they be allowed to do such a thing?
1) Defense of the people it rules against outside aggression is one of the (few) legitimate actions of *any* government; and, in fact, governments lose legitimacy when they refuse to do so (and, eventually, such governments cease to exist);
2) No one -- except leftists -- denies that it is a legitimate, and indeed necessary function of the US federal government to defend the people it rules against outside aggressors, such as ISIS;
3) And, in fact, Mr Reppert and his fellow leftists are working overtime to make it impossible for the US federal government to perform its few and explicitly enumnerated functions, such as defending the people it rules against outside aggressors, while piling on unsustainable demands that it perform functions what are wholly outside it perview;
4) Ayn Rand? Seriously?
Now let's look at this in a bit more depth. First, look again at the Chesterton quote --
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Chesterton (1935).What Chesterton is doing is illuminating the very Christian (and "conservative") principle that not all sins can safely be made crimes.
Next, let's pretend that we can't see the blatant intellectual dishonesty in Mr Reppert's pseudo-response to my question concerning how far he's willing to stand by the principle he seemed to approve when he first quoted Chesterton. That is, let's look at what he's *really* saying, which is, by the classic "reasoning" of leftist pseudo-Christianity, to accuse me and all conservatives of being "selfish" and "greedy".
AND, let's pretend that the accusation really is true (*).
SO, the question is: Part #1 Is "greed" or "selfishness" really a sin? Part #2: And if it is a sin, is it one that can with-safety to men's freedom be made a crime; or, is it one of the things best left to God?
Now, the answer to Part #1 is: "No". To be more precise, actual greed is sinful; but leftists aren't referring to actual greed when they accuse others of being "greedy".
And the answer to Part #2 is: again, "No". If we were talking about actual greed, it is a sin that cannot safely be made criminal, and so it must be left to God. MOREOVER, as we are talking about the letftist's false use of the word, that danger to others' freedom is precisely their object.
(*) At the same time, do keep in mind that Mr Reppert had publically bitched about the "unfairness" of *his* taxes increasing after he supported the policies and voted for the politicians that were supposedly going to "make the 'rich' pay their 'fair' share".
Apparently, the price of Mr Reppert's soul was the (unsustainable) promise of "free", or at least subsidized, health insurance (not even "care", just "insurance") ... to be paid for by others under threat of death at the hands of agents of The State.
This is where those promises will lead (I said 'lead', not 'end'; the end will be even worse) (*). Let us pray, and I mean this in all Christian concern for his immortal soul, that when his "free" "health care" comes to put him down, he doesn't waste his breath protesting, "But I don't want to die", but rather that he repents of the sinful horror that he has willingly and wilfully helped to set up.
(*) Oddly enough, Mr Reppert seems to object to that totally predictable stage on the Road to Hell; at any rate, so long as it is "greedy" corporations making the calls.