Topic: Feds shut down Amish farm for selling fresh milk

[LadyVirginia]

As I said before no one gets up in arms about imposing a moral code when it comes to theft (or murder).

And that is because we have followed an agreed to process to enact those laws, and they enjoy supermajority  support, and clearly lie in an area that everyone agrees constitutes harm to others.

I didn't realize the standard was a super majority.  And when that supermajority shrinks because people want to be able to kill their old parents or their handicapped child are we then to define certain acts of murder as a  social issue and  banish it from the public arena?

I, too, wish to follow an agreed to process to enact laws pertaining to issues I find compelling.  Those issues happened to be defined as social issues.  I've not suggested a different process. 

I am trying to persuade you that the pursuit of a solution via government force is counter productive,and  far outside of what our government has authority to do.

You seem intent on calling my advocacy for certain principles as either legislating morality or government coercion (as if that is what is motivating me). It is neither because that is not my purpose. Labeling my beliefs and advocacy you don't agree with so negatively is not helpful.

Barack Obama as senator wouldn't even vote in favor of a law requiring aid be given to a baby born alive after an abortion.  That is sick.  But abortion is a social issue and I guess we should not do anything to help that baby because that would be legislating morality or government coercion.  Let the baby die and hope we can persuade a person who makes his money killing babies to save the one he "failed" on.

To me what a person is willing to stand up and be seen and heard on is a measure of that person. It's not dependent on how many others agree with him.  What a free society values is reflected in its laws and is a measure of that free society.

[Weisshaupt]

I didn't realize the standard was a super majority.  And when that supermajority shrinks because people want to be able to kill their old parents or their handicapped child are we then to define certain acts of murder as a  social issue and  banish it from the public arena?

The standard is the Constitution.  The Federal  Congress was not given the power to make laws about Abortion, or Gay Marriage, welfare, social security, or health care.  Social issues - Morality, Good works, Charity are basically the domain of the Church, and the 1st Amendment forbids the government to involve itself in such decisions.  Likewise, the purpose of government (all all levels)  is to prevent harm- not to force  people into making the "right" decisions .
 If you want them to make laws about such things at the Federal level , then an amendment is needed, and an amendment requires a supermajority.  Just because this subject is not under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, hardly banishes it from the "social arena." You can still discuss it at the state and lower levels ( subject to the States Constitution) , in your church, in the old and new media, this forum and many others.  However the basic principle is to protect the inalienable rights of others - including the right of conscience.

"Almighty God hath created the mind free; That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry....to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them" - Thomas Jefferson

And sadly the personhood of a fetus current falls into the realm of such opinion. I wish it were not so. I wish it was obvious to everyone that a fetus is a human life. Its not.  

You seem intent on calling my advocacy for certain principles as either legislating morality or government coercion (as if that is what is motivating me). It is neither because that is not my purpose. Labeling my beliefs and advocacy you don't agree with so negatively is not helpful.

Okay, let me recap what I think has been said,and then you can correct it.

1) Your  moral opinion is that a fetus is a person, and therefore it must be protected under the law
2) Others hold the moral opinion are that a fetus is not a person and therefore is not protected under the law.
3) Neither position can be proven, as the characteristics that make one a "person" are subjective and also a matter of opinion, and therefore no consensus can be reached
4) Individuals holding a moral  opinion contrary to your own should be restrained by force of law from acting upon their beliefs

So what am I missing? You seem to be advocating the last point. Your motivations for doing so ( which I presume to be stopping the wholesale slaughter of innocent children )  only seems to suggest you feel the end justifies the means, that your good intention allows you to violate the inalienable rights of others. To believe  so  simply violates one of the most fundamental principles of our government.

I don't disagree with your advocacy, or  belief that what is occurring is slaughter. I disagree that depriving others of their right to act upon their own conscience by force is a moral solution to the problem.

Barack Obama as senator wouldn't even vote in favor of a law requiring aid be given to a baby born alive after an abortion.  That is sick.  But abortion is a social issue and I guess we should not do anything to help that baby because that would be legislating morality or government coercion.  Let the baby die and hope we can persuade a person who makes his money killing babies to save the one he "failed" on.

If you believe that every individual has inalienable rights, including a right of conscience, and that government role is to protect that right, then yes, that is the unfortunate consequence of allowing immoral people to have freedom, and the right to decide for themselves when human life begins.  Of course, if you want to deny them that freedom if given the power , they are perfectly justified in denying that right to you when the power falls to them.  Freedom means allowing other people to make mistakes (and bear the consequences) , and do things which may be abhorrent to you.  
 

To me what a person is willing to stand up and be seen and heard on is a measure of that person. It's not dependent on how many others agree with him.  What a free society values is reflected in its laws and is a measure of that free society.

Standing up and being heard in a free society  is not the same as holding the government to someones head and demanding they obey. A  free society that is made up of 50% moral degenerates is going to have laws that reflect such degeneracy. That is where we are.  You could impose better and more moral laws on them, but then it is NO LONGER a free society, because  50% of the populace is no longer free to choose to be foolish, stupid,  morally degenerate jerks. You need to make a choice. Do you want freedom and a government that protects it, or do you want to want to use the government as a weapon against the wicked?  You can't have both.  Choosing the latter justifies every unconstitutional edict and violation of our rights  the left has ever issued, including the mandate in Obamacare. After all, they perceive  our opposition to them as being wicked, racist, evil and malicious, and obviously the ends justify the means if they can  force trash like  us to serve the "common good."

Its a hard fact to accept that the price of freedom you must also suffer the  wicked, stupid fools  to live as they wish, but that doesn't make it any less a fact.
[/quote]

[LadyVirginia]

Someone sent me a quote recently that I think sums up what I was trying to say in all my posts.

Some will argue that it’s misplaced for us to focus on politics and elections — that the battle is instead cultural and interpersonal. But our cultural and personal witness means nothing if we simultaneously surrender the political and electoral battle. The most powerful witness for our faith and convictions we can make is to fight for it publicly, in the public square and in our democratic institutions.  ~Thomas Peters

 

[Weisshaupt]

Someone sent me a quote recently that I think sums up what I was trying to say in all my posts.

Some will argue that it’s misplaced for us to focus on politics and elections — that the battle is instead cultural and interpersonal. But our cultural and personal witness means nothing if we simultaneously surrender the political and electoral battle. The most powerful witness for our faith and convictions we can make is to fight for it publicly, in the public square and in our democratic institutions.  ~Thomas Peters

 

Hey Lady V, its fine for us to agree to disagree on this.  But that quote above doesn't really address my concern does it?

Here are some similar ones:

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice"

"I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years."

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

I leave it as excercise to the reader to find to whom these quotes may be attributed, and then demonstrate the material difference between the methods advocated by  those persons, and the methods advocated  in the Thomas Peters quote.  If Might makes Right, and gives one the power to establish for others the values that will be considered "moral" under threat of violence , then all other arguments, rights and freedoms are rendered moot.

[LadyVirginia]

Weisshaupt, agree to disagree. 

If Might makes Right, and gives one the power to establish for others the values that will be considered "moral" under threat of violence , then all other arguments, rights and freedoms are rendered moot.

   I don't think this necessarily follows the observation put forth by Mr. Peters.

Hey Lady V, its fine for us to agree to disagree on this.  But that quote above doesn't really address my concern does it?

Perhaps I was misleading in my comments.  It wasn't my intent to address your concerns but simply explain why I will be vocal in the public square on certain issues. I'm familiar with the comments you put forth to persuade me but alas I don't find them persuasive.



So, yes, agree to disagree.

[Weisshaupt]

 I don't think this necessarily follows the observation put forth by Mr. Peters.

Well, perhaps I misunderstood.  I felt the implication that  "political and electoral battles" must be won, would indicate that  "democratic institutions"  refer to Government, and that an intention of  "Witnessing" via a Government  implies implementing  Laws that impose obedience to "faith" and  "convictions" via threat of government force.  Or put more simply,  if an election gives you the might of government , you therefore have the power and justification to make laws that bear witness to your beliefs?  Am I misinterpreting that?    Can you correct my understanding if I am?

"The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it." - Adolf Hitler.

God is Moral and all powerful,  yet he does not use his power to change the hearts of men by force, but instead honors their free will to choose between good and evil - sacrificing his own son to offer us that choice.  If God does not seize upon the weapon of the enemy in his governance, it is doubtful that mortal man should. If my arguments fail to persuade you, it is not because you have offered a counter argument and find mine unconvincing in comparison, but  because you have chosen to  not to be persuaded, regardless of the arguments made. That "it wasn't [your] intent to address [my] concerns"  admits to this fact.  To ignore my argument is your inalienable right;  an exercise of your right of conscience.  It is a  right I recognize freely  and without malice, but apparently one you would not willing grant in return if I were to disagree and transgress against a law that bears "witness" to your "faith" and "conviction", if I have in fact, interpreted the above quote correctly. You must understand that agreeing to disagree is only an option in this public forum because neither of us can use force to compel the other. In other public arenas, that is not that case, and the cause of the difficulty.

Governments, Laws and Force  cannot make people "better", and individuals have a duty and a right to resist any such attempts, no matter who makes them, and no matter how noble their ultimate ends may (or may not) be.   

"Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave."- Mal


 

[LadyVirginia]

Or perhaps, Weisshaupt, I've long ago investigated the arguments you made and found them wanting-- unpersuasive then and nothing new now.

 

[Weisshaupt]

Or perhaps, Weisshaupt, I've long ago investigated the arguments you made and found them wanting-- unpersuasive then and nothing new now.

 

That would imply you had reasons for finding them wanting. Which may very well be the case, but I am finding no evidence of it here. Apparently I am not worthy of the wisdom you have obtained, and must therefore be left to wallow in my ignorance?

[IronDioPriest]

Here's what I think...

Every individual has access to the public square to aver their position on any and every issue. That is the nature of representative democracy. We go to the town square, say our piece, and then elect representatives to DC to hash it out with electoral consequences as their motivator. Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, tycoons, hobos, and everyone in between have an opportunity to affect the outcome of elections and thus the complexion of society.

Harm is a standard constitutional demarcation for the end of one individual's rights and the beginning of anothers. But there are also crossover demarcations between harm and morality, as have been discussed: murder, theft, rape, fraud, etc.

I do not think a "supermajority" opinion has anything to do with the validity of legislating morality. All these exist on an nebulous sliding scale, and reside more in the arena of common law and common sense than mere majority opinion OR moral implications.

Issues such as abortion or homosexual marriage are no different, except for the fact that their exact address on that sliding scale is in dispute. It is only natural that free citizens are going to take that issue to the public square, hash out their positions, attempt to elect representatives based on their own positions, and send them to DC to hash it out with electoral consequences as their motivator - especially when in the absence of doing so, the ground is lost before the battle takes place, since the Leftists have no such compunctions.

I see no logic to the idea that because the people who believe abortion is murder - or homosexual marriage is against common sense - are not a supermajority, that their opinions on the matter are not welcome influence in the political arena. And to say that they ARE welcome influence, but that legislative action cannot be taken on the grounds that you can't legislate morality, is to effectively say that these issues occupy a place on the common law/morality scale that is unworthy of consideration. I reject that.

If free people have a right to determine that murder is wrong, then free people will most naturally define murder in legal terms. The default common-law definition (cold-blooded murder) is the easy part. Hashing over the details of the definition is the political part. We have degrees of murder. Manslaughter. Accessory. All resulting from people taking that common law definition, and legislating the details.

Same with homosexual marriage. If free people have the right to determine that marriage is a contract that society supports, free people will most naturally define marriage in legal terms. The traditional definition is the default. Now someone wants to change that definition. It is only right and natural that a public airing will occur, and that eventually legislation or constitutional examination will decide the issue.

The notion of abandoning these political fights on libertarian principle is, in my opinion, the reason that conservatism is superior to raw libertarianism. I think there is much good to be pulled from libertarianism. But standing aside on important issues of morality and common sense in the political arena while the Leftists deploy a nuclear arsenal against morality and common sense, is, in my opinion, completely self-defeating. It's little different than standing aside for Sharia Law because Muslims have the freedom of religion.

If we fail to show up in the political arena and do what we can to undo Leftist damage and salvage those things we deem to be of value, we will lose all those things, and the Republic that fostered their manifestation in the first place.

[Pandora]

It is only natural that free citizens are going to take that issue to the public square, hash out their positions, attempt to elect representatives based on their own positions, and send them to DC to hash it out with electoral consequences as their motivator - especially when in the absence of doing so, the ground is lost before the battle takes place, since the Leftists have no such compunctions.

No, they don't - this is how we ended up with the Roe ruling - and they're still at it. 

First they demonize, in the public square, the thinking that presents opposition to what they want and all of a sudden a demand not met is a "civil right" denied.  Okay, fine; this is the hashing out in the public square part in an effort to win "hearts and minds", but they've the advantage of media advocacy, so the issue does not get aired properly; those who disagree are readily labeled bigots, the epithet sticks, and the elected representatives cringe.  Some reps manage to hold out against the minority, but there's always a sense they're sitting on the fence.

What happens next, if they can't get what they want, is the Left heads to the courts.  Here is where things really fall apart and we end up with the Left's version of "morality" imposed by judicial fiat.

We've had Roe as the law for so long, it's one of the third rails in politics, similar to Social Security.  I don't believe, at this point, we CAN change minds by taking to the public square, even with science increasingly providing evidence to back us up.

This is my worry over the same-sex "marriage" issue; we've seen many state legislatures refuse to enact it, popular referenda that declare the people don't want it, yet the courts have overruled and overridden.  It will end up at the USSC and five people either will or will not grant government the authority to change the definition of marriage.  And for all of us.

We don't have to accept it mentally, but we will be forced to accept it materially.

[IronDioPriest]

Progressivism is the reason libertarian ideals alone are inadequate to the survival of the republic. You cannot "live and let live" in the face of a determined onslaught to kill your way of life without losing your way of life.

[Weisshaupt]

I do not think a "supermajority" opinion has anything to do with the validity of legislating morality. All these exist on an nebulous sliding scale, and reside more in the arena of common law and common sense than mere majority opinion OR moral implications.....

The supermajority is more an artifact of our Constitutional agreement than anything else. We agreed this was the bar for how we would make decsions about what the Federal government can, and cannot do, with the object of pretecting EVERYONE'S liberty and rights.  Powers not expressly granted are reserved,  and one person's, a minority's, or a majority's understanding of morality, common sense, or values have  no bearing on that agreement, and they are not allowed to breech it,  unless one wishes to argue that Might Makes Right, and that power is the grant of legitimacy, and not consent.  
 

If free people have a right to determine that murder is wrong, then free people will most naturally define murder in legal terms.The default common-law definition (cold-blooded murder) is the easy part. Hashing over the details of the definition is the political part. We have degrees of murder. Manslaughter. Accessory. All resulting from people taking that common law definition, and legislating the details.

Yes, but the Federal government was not given that ability nor right.  Indeed, during and after the revolution there  was much question of how much of  the "common" law could still be considered legitimate, having never been passed in an American legislature. How such things are determined MUST be done at the State (or lower) level - by our agreement with each other, and governed by the agreements made at those levels (State Constitutions, Local Charters, and other such agreements)  Depending on those agreements the bar may be a simple majority instead of a supermajority, though  I would still argue that the primary job of each government is to protect individual freedom, rights and liberties, including the right of conscience, and that a majority cannot justify the violation of inalienable rights and personal freedom unless direct  harm to other member of the society ( however defined) is indicated .   We all know respect cannot be commanded, and it must be earned, and therefore passing laws that significant portions of the population will not respect will weaken respect for the laws generally. It becomes at some point and to some measure counter-productive, even if our agreements  with each other are kept.

The notion of abandoning these political fights on libertarian principle is, in my opinion, the reason that conservatism is superior to raw libertarianism. I think there is much good to be pulled from libertarianism. But standing aside on important issues of morality and common sense in the political arena while the Leftists deploy a nuclear arsenal against morality and common sense, is, in my opinion, completely self-defeating. It's little different than standing aside for Sharia Law because Muslims have the freedom of religion. If we fail to show up in the political arena and do what we can to undo Leftist damage and salvage those things we deem to be of value, we will lose all those things, and the Republic that fostered their manifestation in the first place.

If issues of "morality" and  "common sense" as determined by  a single man, a minority, or a majority, are allowed trump our highest civil agreements with each other, we have lost more than just the social or moral  battles. You have loosened the bonds that bind us as a people. To ignore the limits of a government agreed to by consent, destroys the legitimacy of the entire structure, and opens the door to more such usurpations- and reduces us the rule used through out the ages -Might Makes Right.  None of these battles is worth loosing the true basis of American Exceptionalism: the Idea that  Might does NOT make right, and that the Individual's consent to government is the only thing that makes a Government legitimate. If that's "libertarian" so be it, but to loose this principle is to fundamentally loose the intellectual and moral  basis of the American Revolution.

[Weisshaupt]

Progressivism is the reason libertarian ideals alone are inadequate to the survival of the republic. You cannot "live and let live" in the face of a determined onslaught to kill your way of life without losing your way of life.

You can "live and let live" if you can prevent progressives from using the government to interfere and return it to its proper role- and elections are the right way to do that. However if we use elections to go further, and thereby cede to the the idea the government CAN be used for such a purposes, "live and let live" is no longer an option for anyone, and we have no choice but to do violence upon each other.  However if we find we must  use violence to end the bullying,  we may as well do it in the streets and not try to use the government to give those acts of violence legitimacy they they simply do not have. Leave our government out of it and it will have more authority and respect when we need to and can  depend on it again.

[IronDioPriest]

...If issues of "morality" and  "common sense" as determined by  a single man, a minority, or a majority, are allowed trump our highest civil agreements with each other, we have lost more than just the social or moral  battles. You have loosened the bonds that bind us as a people. To ignore the limits of a government agreed to by consent, destroys the legitimacy of the entire structure, and opens the door to more such usurpations- and reduces us the rule used through out the ages -Might Makes Right.  None of these battles is worth loosing the true basis of American Exceptionalism: the Idea that  Might does NOT make right, and that the Individual's consent to government is the only thing that makes a Government legitimate. If that's "libertarian" so be it, but to loose this principle is to fundamentally loose the intellectual and moral  basis of the American Revolution.

Re; the bolded portion, I would say you're inadvertently arguing that the bonds that bind us as a people have been shattered since the Civil War.

I'm not understanding Weisshaupt. You're saying that the concept of "might makes right" is a usurpation of individual liberty, but that a supermajority is what gives legitimacy to legislating morality. Am I confused as to your intent, or is there a contradiction in your thinking?

[Weisshaupt]

Re; the bolded portion, I would say you're inadvertently arguing that the bonds that bind us as a people have been shattered since the Civil War.

Isn't a civil war, by definition,  the shattering of those bonds? Was not the civil war largely a result of refusing to obey the agreement that had been made in the Constitution, via the Dred Scott and other incursions, and thus forcing slavery into territories whose people had outlawed it, and breaking a compromise that had been forged legally?   Granted, the south still had to accept the terms of the surrender and re-entry (for such it was) into the Union, and once could argue such acceptance was coerced, but do you think, as  result of the use of that force, the South's respect for the federal government will never be the same? Even now, over 100 years later there are those who feel the relationship is not legitimate, and they have some cause to feel so.  Humans can't be expected to dutifully keep promises always, forever, and under every circumstance , but that doesn't relieve  them of the moral duty of doing so. Once can argue the Civil war resulted in promises not being kept and force being unfairly used, but that doesn't justify further use of those methods.

I'm not understanding Weisshaupt. You're saying that the concept of "might makes right" is a usurpation of individual liberty, but that a supermajority is what gives legitimacy to legislating morality. Am I confused as to your intent, or is there a contradiction in your thinking?

The supermajority gives "legitimacy" to Federal dealings because a Super Majority was required to both Ratify the Constitution and any Amendments to it.  It has nothing at at all what-so-ever to do with making those dealings moral or immoral - other than the morality of keeping your agreements.  It was in such an agreement Slavery was made  legal in the original 13 states, if they so chose.  Ultimately our Constitutional agreement is that the might of a super-majority is binding. That doesn't make it Right.  Slaves still had an inalienable right to be free even when the Constitution did not recognize that right. Just as I have an inalienable right of conscience  regardless of if the Constitution or laws under it recognize it.  I am merely advocating that it is always wrong to pass  laws that fail to recognize the inalienable rights of anyone, including those of our bitter enemies.  

[IronDioPriest]

I get what you are saying philosophically Weisshaupt. But I would come back to the public square, the political realm, and the push and pull of the free exchange of ideas therein. I don't see a criteria for taking things off the table in that arena.

Through this discussion, it occurs to me that "Social Issues" is a complete misnomer. These are constitutional/civil rights issues. They are being played out politically and judicially as civil rights issues as the outcome relates to the constitution. The moral aspects are what motivates some, and what people use to divide. But the legitimacy of the questions before the nation from a policy standpoint are not dependent upon their moral components. They are first and foremost civil rights issues, and the differences from a policy standpoint fall on either side of that line.

I have a moral problem with abortion, but I would argue that constitutionally, a child's right to live is being denied by abortion. Others disagree. Because I do not have a popular supermajority does not mean I abandon the issue, when the genesis of the issue was a court averring that a woman has a constitutional right to kill her child. This is something that needs to be addressed and resolved, and short of war, the political and judicial realms are the only place to do it. Either a child has a right to life, or it does not. Judges decided it does not. That is not the end of the matter, and that ruling does not intrinsically take the issue from the constitutional/civil rights realm and place it into the "social issues" category, to remain untouched or unchallenged through politics or the judiciary. There is no constitutional imperative to wait until 2/3 of the American people are shouting for the right to life. No. We work through the legislative and judicial process, looking to undo what we believe to be a violation of a child's civil rights, seeking an outcome that guarantees a right to life and passes constitutional muster with the judiciary.

Same with homosexual marriage. Homosexuals had no "right" to marry before DOMA or after. Because the legislature passed and the executive signed the DOMA does not mean that homosexuals seeking what they perceive to be their civil rights must throw up their hands and say, "Oh well, I guess it's decided. This is just a "social issue" now, and we don't have a 2/3 majority, so it's over until we change hearts and minds." To the contrary (and to my consternation), they believe they have a civil right to redefine something that has been decided by common law, tradition, civil law, and our legislative process through DOMA. They believe their civil rights are being violated, and it is their mission to see that undone. There is no other place for it to play out other than the political and judicial process.

So with respect for the thought you're putting into this, I'm not seeing where you're going with it. What would be your litmus test for whether something is illegitimate to be hashed out by the political process, and must wait until the hearts and minds of society come to a supermajority consensus before acting legislatively? I understand your philosophical criteria, but in order for that criteria to be applied, real world lines would have to be drawn. How does an issue pass the test for a legitimate application of political will?

[Weisshaupt]

I get what you are saying philosophically Weisshaupt. But I would come back to the public square, the political realm, and the push and pull of the free exchange of ideas therein. I don't see a criteria for taking things off the table in that arena.

It  seems the implict assumption here is that nothing can be accomplsihed in the public arena if it isn't done via the method of politics, law and government. The liberals didn't take over government. They took over schools . They took over the Churches.  They then took the media. They created crisis after crisis. Their politcal dominance didn't arrive till they had  changed the culture. Part of that cultural shift is the idea that cultural change can only be accomplished via government. Once you accept the assumption that the people are a reflection of the State and not the other way around, you have handed victory to them, because you cease to battle against the very paradime they are working so hard to impose.   They have diminished the power of those other public institutions and of private individuals so that they are now just the handmaidens of the State, and have gotten eveyone so used to that idea they no longer see that once there were other powers to persuade and influence the culture, of which the Church was supreme.  We need to push the government back out of those arenas, so that  we can use them as tools in our fight. The one ring was made to control them all, and that is the power that must be broken. Trying to wield the ring yourself will only make you a dark master in your own right.  

I have a moral problem with abortion, but I would argue that constitutionally, a child's right to live is being denied by abortion. Others disagree. Because I do not have a popular supermajority does not mean I abandon the issue, when the genesis of the issue was a court averring that a woman has a constitutional right to kill her child.

I would not have you abandon it, anymore than the founders and the generations that came after  "abandoned" the abolishion of slavery. The Court delivered a unconstitutional  decsion in an area where it had no jurisdiction ( when a life begins). Working to get Roe v Wade  overturned politically I have no issue with, since that is only seeking to return the Federal government to its agreed to role, and return the decison to the States ( which may NOT require a super-majority vote to determine it).  However, giving the Constitution an affirmative jurisdiction, so that it may live  up to the promise of the Declaration in regard to a fetus, requires an Amendment, as did the abolition of Slavery - and that was only obtained  after a war that ripped us apart, left lasting scars,  and set the stage for the overly strong Federal Government we now battle against.  The founders avoided the issue, leaving each state free in its own determination of it, because they feared the schism that would occur if they did not. For good or ill, the moral decision on when life begins is probably best left with the individual for the moment, despite the evil that is allows, for precisely the same reasons.  Fighting battles like that now prevent us from winning the larger, and more important war - the war for a limited government that protects the inalieanble rights of the individual.
 

So with respect for the thought you're putting into this, I'm not seeing where you're going with it. What would be your litmus test for whether something is illegitimate to be hashed out by the political process, and must wait until the hearts and minds of society come to a supermajority consensus before acting legislatively? I understand your philosophical criteria, but in order for that criteria to be applied, real world lines would have to be drawn. How does an issue pass the test for a legitimate application of political will?

Maybe my values are wrong, but I feel the quest to limit government to its agreed to role trumps other concerns. Our Constitution is supposed to be our highest law for a reason - no matter how imperfectly it reflects the moral laws of God.  Hence my litmus test is that pursuit of other goals 1) do not exceed the grants of power given to our leaders, thus rendering us hypocrites and 2) do not jeapordize the goal of returning us to a limited government ( and thus freeing education, churches, the media and private parties to censure behavior they don't like, and encourage, with their own efforts, the behavior they do, without interference or reprisal from the government)

Fighting these social issues now, before we have regained the best tools with which to win hearts and minds, only hardens the resistence to us. My own mother votes for one reason only - to retain abortion rights.  If that were not on the table, she wouldn't even show up at the polls.  Even if it were on the table at the State/Local level it would still bring her out, but free her mind to think of other concerns when voting at the Federal level.

"Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across. "- Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

If your opponent is cornered without chance of escape, they will fight all the harder and to the death.  These people will fight oto the death for abortion and for Gay Marriage as we would fight for our liberty.  Take that motivation away from them.   Right now, it is we who are cornered. Until we regain our liberty to move  in the public square, we cannot fight these battles  for the hearts and minds in the schools, media, churches , in our homes and our workplaces where it is dangerous and ill advised to be non-PC or even openly conservative.  Currently our posession's are siezed to feed the social causes of enemy, and we need to fight to free them for use in our own causes. We are losing these civil rights/social/moral battles (I am not dedicated to a term)  because we are losing the culture and the underlying morals and values upon which it was founded, and you cannot win on these issues until you have begun to win the culture back. Our freedom is more important and key to that plan  - even if it means giving others the freedom to pursue evil for a time.    

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. " - Sun Tzu, Art of War

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious." - Sun Tzu, Art of War.

We are backed against the wall, and in the end it may be a violent civil war, because the Liberals will not allow us our liberty, but giving them the resolve and reason to fight even harder against us, when doing so will provide little to no advantage to our efforts, is foolishness.

[radioman]

Weisshaupt, You make some good points, however,
a fetus is a human being. That is not a moral opinion, or a immoral opinion, or a scientific opinion. Opinion, it is not.

If you can accept the premise that a fetus is a human or not, based strictly on opinion, then one could also say that a person on life support is also a human or not, depending upon ones moral opinion, immoral opinion, or scientific opinion. Things that 'are' do not need an opinion to be 'are'.

I've been accused of not being human a few times in my life too. I am thankful that my mom thought of me as a human when I was still in her womb, and not just a glob that needed to be cut out and tossed. I was a human from the moment of conception. As a fetus, I was just passing through the first of many phases that made up my journey until now. My being is not an opinion, and no one Else's life should be subjected to others opinion.

In our great country, our Constitution protects our life. We have the 'right' to life. It is not a privilege and it is not based on a moral opinion.

Since it is a constitutional issue, it is not an infringement on others rights, but on the contrary, to not defend a fetus's life, which is guaranteed, would be the ultimate infringement of that person's life.


 

[IronDioPriest]

I think I understand all your arguments now Weisshaupt. Clarity over agreement, as Dennis Prager always says.

I think it's important to note that we don't serve the constitution for the sake of the constitution. We serve the constitution for the sake of the people whose rights it guarantees.

I don't think liberals took over schools, churches, and media before they used government as a tool for implementing the changes they seek. They took their political and judicial advances in the war as they could win them, regardless of where they happened to be in the culture war at the time. When it suited their needs, such as in Roe, they changed the law first, and forced the culture to accept it, and eventually embrace it. Still, they have not won that battle for the hearts and minds. Roosevelt did a similar thing with the New Deal, as did Johnson with the Great Society. They're attempting to do the same thing with homosexual marriage. They intend to forcefeed it, and assume that the culture will catch up somewhere down the road. It's what they did with ObamaCare. Forcefeed it, and assume that someday, the majority will accept it. They never waited for supermajority support.

That's progressivism. The methodology of the progressives is why a purely libertarian philosophy cannot win. It would demand that we operate under a completely different set of rules based on ideals that will result in the sacrifice of our liberty and the constitution that guarantees it. The only variable is whether we will fight, or let it all die on the altar of libertarian ideals.

Jefferson's quote is meaningful to me in this discussion:

[blockquote]A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.[/blockquote]

I do not think we have the luxury of serving the constitution for its own sake or for the sake of ideals, when doing so will result in its destruction. Of course I do not suggest abandoning all constitutional principle. But I do suggest that we have to at least be willing to acknowledge that adhering to a "strict observance" at the expense of allowing the enemy to run roughshod ignores "necessity", "self-preservation", and "saving our country when in danger". It ignores the "higher obligation". And by "strict observance" I don't mean to the letter of the constitution, but rather the application of ideals, such as waiting until we have a supermajority before seeking legislation.

If we allow the Leftists to continue unabated by ceding "social issues" because it places us on higher constitutional ground from an idealistic standpoint, we will lose the law, life, liberty, property, and our fellows. We will absurdly sacrifice the end on the altar of the means.

That said, I do not discount your points. They are all valid and worthy of consideration. But in the end, one must decide, eh? I think we've just come to a different decision.

[charlesoakwood]

God bless you, radioman.

Gentlemen, your arguments are well put and are cause for attention. Thank you both.  I have a small observation:
 [blockquote]
 

If your opponent is cornered without chance of escape, they will fight all the harder and to the death.  These people will fight to the death for abortion and for Gay Marriage as we would fight for our liberty.  Take that motivation away from them.  

Hell no.  I've got a bridge for them, it's call the "Sit down and STFU bridge", murder and Hershey highway fun was not and is not America. Life and Family are two of our major foundation blocks.  Allowing this idolitry adulterates the Constitution.

 

Right now, it is we who are cornered.

We're not cornered.  Cornered is a perception
 

We are losing these civil rights/social/moral battles (I am not dedicated to a term)  because we are losing the culture and the underlying morals and values upon which it was founded, and you cannot win on these issues until you have begun to win the culture back.

We can't win our cultur back by giving it away.
 

We are backed against the wall, and in the end it may be a violent civil war, because the Liberals will not allow us our liberty, but giving them the resolve and reason to fight even harder against us, when doing so will provide little to no advantage to our efforts, is foolishness.  

Earlier you said:

If your opponent is cornered without chance of escape, they will fight all the harder and to the death.

Some things just seem contradictory. [ETA- We should give in because they will fight?]  And other things seem inviolate of the Constitution and please, they are unalienable rights.
 [/blockquote]