Francisco Ferrer

You're not being honest, Frank... Quoting your own words: "we all" is not just two people. It's groupspeak Nice try though. But I cannot think of a reason why all people should not feel a sense of injustice if American citizens do not get what they deserve. Can you? Earlier you had said that giving people what they deserve (Obama as president) is a form of justice (Post #24). If you are now saying that you would not feel a sense of injustice if the American public did not get another "European liberal socialist" to follow Obama, having the current socialist in the White House may not be so just either. Yes. Regardless of what the President does... if you can't properly order your own life it's your own damn fault. Because I live by different values than you do, I was totally unaffected by the debt collapse of 2008 and its aftermath. As an American Capitalist producer, I operate solely on a 100% solvent basis. With no debt exposure I just keep on doing business as usual because I deal with other Capitalists like myself who are also unaffected financially. The situation from which you get your attitude of blaming the government is obvious: You've been operating in the wrong economy... ...and that's your own failure for living in such a manner so as to make your financial situation vulnerable to what the government does. So when "Obama reduces the economy to shambles" you go down in flames right along with it just as you fully deserve. It's clear that each of us has a totally opposite view on this topic because each of us lives by a different set of values: Your view: The government is to blame for your own financial situation. My view: I am completely responsible for my own financial situation. Again... this topic has come to its end. There is nothing more to discuss as each of us has already stated their own view. Greg In reviewing how European socialists took over the government of Russia in 1917, you and I can say that the people who had their businesses and homes nationalized (like Ayn Rand's family) were themselves at fault. People who lived by different values than Zinovy Zakharovich Rosenbaum and his wife, Anna Borisovna, were totally unaffected by what the Soviets did to the nation's laws and economy. We--I mean you and I--can say the Rosenbaums just happened to be in the wrong economy. The government treats us--I mean you and me--as decent as we are. In the case of Jews in 1930's Germany who saw their homes and places of business vandalized or expropriated, you and I can say that it was their own damn failure for living in such a manner so as to make their financial situation vulnerable to what the government does. For example, instead of operating from a storefront visible to the whole world, a kosher meat retailer could have stuffed his inventory under his overcoat and sold brisket to people sitting on park benches. Doctors could have performed operations in alleys at night. Etc. They had a choice. They got what they deserved. Government is the provider of justice on earth. These matters are obvious to anyone who lives by the proper set of values. If you put your house in order, you don't get hit by hurricanes or get born to a mother with AIDS.

It's not a matter of cheering, Frank... European liberal socialists can only get elected when there is exists a political majority who live by the same values they live by. Government is created from the bottom up not the top down. You'll never understand this principle because of how you live. If you lived differently, you would discover that each person's experience of government is self-inflicted. And each person's individual experience of getting the government they deserve depends upon how they live their life. My own personal experience of government is completely different from that of the European liberal socialists, because I don't live by their values. And so the government I get is different from the government they get. Why shouldn't you and I cheer when people get what's coming to them and boo when they are deprived of what they deserve? Cheering is the act of celebrating justice! The difference between European liberal socialist values and American capitalist values is that in Europe the values are evil, decent people are never hurt and bad people get exactly what they deserve. Whereas in America the values are good, decent people are never hurt and bad people get exactly what they deserve. Anyone who lives his life the proper way can see this obvious difference. Can you offer an explanation of why you use the queenly liberal "we"? Have you ever wondered about the need to pretend to speak for an imaginary group? In my opinion it's shameful to lack the backbone simply to speak for yourself without needing to fantasize that there's a collective behind you propping you up. That's how liberals behave. They can't function without using groupspeak. I said "we" because I thought that you and I agreed that people were getting justice under Obama and that you and I (that is, we) would want them to continue to get justice by having another European liberal socialist in the White House to dish it out. I suppose it's possible that you've now changed your mind and no longer care much for the idea of another Obama giving America's welfare constituents what they've been clamoring for. That's okay. No one says you have to believe that same thing in the evening that you believed in the morning. Maybe it's time to give the people what they don't deserve. Just for variety's sake. Hurricanes are amoral. AIDS is behavioral. GregI see. So if Katrina hits you in the head with a telephone pole, you may or may not deserve it. But if the President reduces the economy to a shambles, plunges the nation into a depression, makes hiring employees more costly and thus makes it impossible for Citizen A to earn a dollar or pay his rent, Citizen A deserves every bloody inch of it. Decent people may suffer in a hurricane, but no government, no matter how evil, dare lay a hand on a good man. Just ask the Jews that survived the Holocaust.

Mr. DeVoon, I haven't read an article by you in 20 years, but in the late 1990's you were one of the two or three best political writers on the internet. Your Post #5 above is typical of the idol-smashing insights you regularly published in The Laissez Faire City Times. I have ordered your reasonably priced book from Amazon and can't wait to crack it open. Best of luck to you and please contribute here (or elsewhere) often. Francisco Ferrer

Absolutely. By the justice of moral law... people are getting exactly the government they deserve rammed down their gullets... ...let them choke on it. Obama's is an administration of European liberal socialist values. The political majority in America are European liberal socialists who are getting the government they deserve. Then giving justice must also be a "European liberal socialist value." Otherwise, how could we say Obama is dealing justly with Americans? That's a freaking fantasy! There are not enough Americans living in America to elect an American government. Half the country is cashing government benefits checks. One in five children eat government food in a government school. One in every four households eats government food paid for by food stamps. A record eleven million people are on disability benefits which has become the new welfare. Kids owe a trillion dollar debt to the government in student loans which has become the new credit line. Face it, Frank... this is a nation of parasites who all expect someone else to pay their bills. So my advice is to simply stand aside and let them get what they deserve. Then we should all cheer for those with "European liberal socialist values" to get elected in 2014 and 2016. For a Congress and President who delivered anything other than that could hardly give justice to the half of the country that "is cashing government benefits checks." Even if we don't contribute to her campaign, we should all feel a deep sense of injustice if Hillary were defeated by, say, Rand Paul. It would be as bad as Katrina missing New Orleans or someone finding a cure for AIDS.

Is justice not an American value? Yes. Isn't giving people what they deserve, justice? Yes. Therefore, Obama's is an administration of American values. If a small government, constitution and rights-respecting president had been elected in 2008 or 2012, we would have to grieve, for those who deserve a form of socialism would not be getting their just reward. We can only hope Obama's successor continues his fine work. And was not Katrina an admirable American hurricane, giving the immoral people of this country the punishment they deserve?

As I attempted to show in my post above, a massive influx of unskilled, poverty-stricken immigrants, who would be a financial drain on the general population could not happen in a society of 100% private property. The modern phenomenon of border-crossing welfare queens is a consequence of the assault on private property and the expansion of the meaning of the "commons" to include not only every road, sidewalk, park, and library but also the provision of food, clothing, housing and now even the internet. As to the moral being the practical, what exception to this rule does immigration hold? The closer we get to a society where there are no automatic free lunches, the closer we get to a society where productive people have control over what kind of people they live and work with. Under laissez-faire (and with advances in telecommuting) we are bound to see more completely "intentional communities," where people live only with those who share common values. If you are no fan of Arabs or Muslims, then you can make your home in a village where no followers of Muhammad are permitted.

Ayn Rand wrote, "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." (Emphasis added.) Under such a system, the freedom to move from one place to another is entirely dependent on the consent of the owner of the property where the traveler is destined. You could not visit the island of Maui if none of the property owners wanted you there. So if hundreds of planeloads of Nigerian (or Japanese or Starvanistani) immigrants were to debark at JFK International in a future capitalist America, where would they go after leaving the terminal? The St. Regis Hotel? Carbone's Restaurant? The sofa in your living room? In a capitalist nation if there is a spike in the population due to the arrival of millions of starving, homeless wretches, it will only be because they have a needed, marketable skill to offer or because some altruist is financing their transportation, housing and food. If these new arrivals are only there to consume and not to produce, it will not be at the expense of the general population but rather of one generous benefactor in particular, who will be able to host them only as long as his fortune holds out. Once that's gone, the penniless immigrants will face the same fate as any hotel guest who cannot pay his bill: eviction. What about wage rates? Suppose the benefactor instead of just letting the immigrants loaf on his property puts them to work, say, on the widget assembly line. Since the new arrivals from Starvanistan will work for pennies per hour, what will happen to the other manufacturers of widgets and their workers? Won't wages plummet throughout the industry, making society generally poorer? Yet this is also the short-term effect of U.S. manufacturers building plants overseas or inventing new machinery that makes widget making so efficient that one worker can be as productive as five, ten or twenty workers. If government has a legitimate role to play in keeping wage rates at their present level, then it is also appropriate to pass laws outlawing labor-saving devices. To take it one step further, why not reverse the Industrial Revolution and the division of labor and prohibit any invention or procedure that makes an employee more efficient? Adam Smith pointed out that the factory system made pin-makers between 240 and 4800 fold more productive. Shall we go back to one pin per worker per day? What about changes in the ethnic character of a community? In a fully capitalist society, the choice of which individuals can enter one's property (even if it is a business "open to the public") is entirely the choice of the property owner. In the 1700's and 1800's, when there were no laws to the contrary, many parts of the United States became predominantly German-language speaking, with few or no signs written in English. If it is the role of government, rather than individual property owners, to determine what the proper ethnic or linguistic character of a place should be, should we endorse laws that prohibit signs in Hebrew and Greek, as well as signs in Arabic and Spanish? If language can be make subject to regulation, why not religion or skin color? Are laws regulating Muslims in a community fundamentally more legitimate than the Nuremberg or Jim Crow Laws? Keep in mind that the ability of residents in a neighborhood to maintain a certain ethnic character through restrictive covenants once existed across America but was removed by the Supreme Court in Shelly v. Kramer and other decisions.

As much as I admire Kubrick's films and Paths of Glory in particular, Humphrey Cobb's novel, on which the film is based, is a more blistering treatment of the bureaucratic mindset that produces senseless carnage. Cobb served in a Canadian unit in World War I, and his novel was aimed not at French incompetence in particular but at the self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing nature of all large armies. Unlike Kubrick's film, Cobb's version does not give us a knight in shining armor to soften his barbs.

Song of Russia is credited to Leo Mittler (story), Victor Trivas (story), Guy Endore (story), Paul Jarrico (screenplay), Richard Collins (screenplay). but not to Hellman. I wonder if you could be thinking of another pro-Soviet film, The North Star, written by Hellman and discussed by Mark in Post #2? Thanks for the information about Washington's role in spearheading Hollywood's pro-Red slant. One further example of how in "the land of the free" the feds don't need state-owned mass media to manufacture agitprop. Incidentally, Robert Mayhew has written a rather pricey book about Rand and Song of Russia. Given Mayhew's disgraceful role in sanitizing Rand's works before publication, I think I'll pass on this one.

It was the greatest catastrophe in human history. In the words of Jim Powell (Wilson's War: How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder Led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin And World War II): Some 9 million people were killed, and it led to Hitler who murdered more than 20 million; led to Lenin and Stalin who murdered more than 40 million, and their disciple Chairman Mao who murdered another 35 million and caused a famine in which an estimated 27 million more died; led to World War II and another 50 million deaths. And the post-World War I settlement established the new nation of Iraq with Sunnis ruling Shiites, setting the stage for the civil war going on today.

While the U.S. Constitution limits the government's power to censor, it does nothing to stop those holding political power from using public funds to propagandize the masses. The power to broadcast lies can be just as potent as the power to suppress the truth. Because our "independent" news media are often willing accomplices in manipulation of public opinion, the effect of propaganda or even its existence is often not seen at the time it is being disseminated. During World War II, few Americans were aware that screenwriters were dominated by active or former members of the Communist Party. Even fewer knew that the President of the United States "urged Hollywood to make pro-Soviet films to dispel 'prejudice' against Soviet Communism." See http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/fdrs-crimes/ It was only because of the sudden change in mortal enemies from Nazis to Commies at the end of World War II that the public became aware of the essential role Hollywood played in producing an utterly false image of the Soviet Union in the 1940's. Before she won wide notice as a novelist, Ayn Rand came briefly into the spotlight as one of the few anti-communist Hollywood writers willing to testify against pro-Soviet propaganda in films. She spoke before the House Un-American Activities Committee on October 20, 1947. Her focus was on the MGM film Song of Russia, written by a former member of the Communist Party and a former member of the Young Communists. Her complete testimony can be read here: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html And now, courtesy of YouTube, Song of Russia can be viewed in its entirety online: I find it enlightening to watch the film in conjunction with criticisms by Rand, the screenwriter, Russian emigre and political theorist. What's the lesson in all this? Let's not be too quick to accept what those in Big Government or Big Media say about who our "friends" and "enemies" are.

There are several points in this thread that I wish to respond to: 1. In sending military forces against the South, was Lincoln acting defensively and properly because Southern forces had fired upon Fort Sumter? If Fort Sumter were indeed federal property, then certainly the U.S. President would have been performing his Constitutional authority to defend it with force. But Fort Sumter sits on an island in Charleston Bay and is universally recognized as within the boundaries of South Carolina, which had seceded from the Union four months before shots were fired on the island. If secession were illegitimate, then so would be the bombardment of Fort Sumter. Yet nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from withdrawing from the Union. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali ("[There exists] no crime [and] no punishment without a pre-existing penal law [appertaining]") has long been regarded as a vital principle of both English and American law. To declare, as Lincoln did, that secession is prohibited is to make up law on the spot. But wasn't the South's firing of cannons an act of violence? Certainly, but is it not within the prerogative of a government to remove unwanted military forces from within its borders? Should Great Britain have been permitted to keep and staff its forts in the 13 colonies after those colonies had declared their independence? Furthermore, the Confederacy had sent emissaries to Washington to discuss the peaceful evacuation of U.S. forts in Confederate territory, but Lincoln refused to negotiate. See http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/lessons/view_lesson.php?id=13 2. What about Southern slaveholders who sent "agents northward to capture Negroes who were not slaves"? Make no mistake: those were criminal acts. But if North and South were separate countries, it is hard to imagine that kidnapping Northern black men and women would have become easier. 3. What about the expansion of slavery into the Western territories? Since the Union's population of free citizens was more than three times that of the South, it is not hard to guess which section of the country would have won the race to capture the West. 4. Wasn't secession an attempt to preserve slavery? The foundation for the United States government is the Constitution. That document gives official recognition to the institution of slavery through the Enumeration Clause which treats slaves as three-fifths of a person. There is also the Fugitive Slave Clause which requires that a slave be returned to the owner in the state from which he escaped. The fact is, Northern states were a part of a union governed by a constitution which institutionalized slavery. Southerners were not engaging in any activity that was not permitted by the founding compact. 5. A war to get rid of slavery is a good thing, right? If the war had been about slavery, then the United States is the only major country to wage a war to end it. Brazil, another country in this hemisphere with a large slave population, ended the institution without bloodshed. Technology and a tidal wave of European immigrants in the late 19th century would soon have made slavery unviable. Ending slavery by invasion was not worth the loss of three quarters of a million lives. Nor the loss of the balance of power provided by states rights.

Moralist writes, "Yes. All it takes is a little introspection into your own life to see the obvious." As I have said, since I have not been a bicycle thief myself, no amount of introspection can show me that the person who stole my bicycle ended up being “taken by others.” As useful a mode of thinking as introspection is, it does not produce clairvoyance; I have no way of going back in time or peering through walls or great distances to see that the person with my bicycle got his comeuppance. Moralist writes, "You either see for yourself the objective reality of moral law operating in your own life, or you don't." The operation of moral law in my own life in no way establishes how it operates in the lives of others. The fact that I respect the rights of my neighbors offers no clue as to whether thieves, frauds and thugs get what they deserve for their misdeeds. Moralist says that I have failed to “see the objective reality of moral law.” On the contrary, along with Ayn Rand I recognize the existence of a discoverable moral law that is based on man’s nature and that is independent of laws created by the state. See "Man's Rights." When he writes, "The consequence of your failure to see the objective reality of moral law is to be perpetually angry at others, blaming (unjustly accusing)," I have no idea what he is referring to. I brought up the example of the thief of my stolen bicycle only to show that there is no way to know that this thief was himself “taken” or victimized by others. I brought up the U.S. government's criminalizing of gold ownership for the same reason. Are these the "unjust" accusations he has in mind? They are in fact perfect examples of what he in Post #7 calls the "immoral person who takes what he does not rightfully deserve to possess." “Objective reality” is a realm that can be perceived by more than one person. If the inevitable consequences of an immoral action are ill effects on the perpetrator, it should be a simple matter to show that this is a universal phenomenon with volumes of evidence from objective reality to offer in support. Yet I see no indication that Mobutu Sese Seko, Saparmurat Niyazov, François Duvalier, Kim Jong-il or any of dozens of other evil dictators suffered even slightly from running long-term, state-enforced kleptocracies. Moralist says, “It’s not my job to try to convince you.” That is certainly one thing that his arguments effectively demonstrate. Moralist quotes Wikipedia "[A] New York attorney..." and then writes, "There is the answer to your complaint right in front of your own eyes!" What complaint of mine is he referring to and how exactly does this quotation answer it? He says gold dealer “Gus [Farber] granted sanction” by “being in business without getting a license.” Actually, the charges against him were based not on the absence of a business license but a license from the Secretary of the Treasury to sell gold, a license permitted to only a few traders. See http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usagold.com%2Fgildedopinion%2Fgoldregs.pdf&ei=5fZ8U835L8GFqgaY4YLoCw&usg=AFQjCNH7BZAumO0kjyaLb8Q1d8WAqsBQwg&bvm=bv.67229260,d.b2k Gus Farber would certainly not have been granted a license to carry on the domestic gold coin sales he engaged in. In fact, seeking such a license might only have brought unwanted federal attention to his business. More importantly, the very fact that Farber did not seek a license would bolster the case that he did nothing to grant the government sanction to steal his gold. But all this is beside the central point. I brought up the example of Farber to show that there is no evidence in the historical record to demonstrate that as a result of his Executive Order 6102 FDR suffered ill consequences for his thievery or was taken by thieves himself. If anything, FDR, his family, and his cronies only prospered from his several terms in the White House. Clearly, Farber’s gold coins were immorally confiscated with complete disregard for his property rights. No action on Farber’s part showed a lack of virtue or merited the loss of thousands of dollars in coins that were rightfully his. If conducting business without a license is a real crime (i.e., one with a victim), one shouldn’t have to pay a fortune as a penalty. The fact that the President and his minions were able to seize a businessman’s inventory and suffer no legal or financial repercussions demonstrates that there is no automatic righting of wrongs or just deserts in the real world. And as for those that did turn in their gold, they acted under duress. A relative of mine who worked as a door-to-door gold confiscator in the 1930's told me that his instructions were to threaten people that if they did not now submit to the fixed, low price trade-in of coins for inflatable dollars, their homes would be searched and their gold taken with nothing given in return. There is nothing "voluntary" about this kind of negotiation. Let me add one more point. There were many Americans who secretly kept their gold coins despite Executive Order 6102. Yet because of FDR’s criminalizing of real money, these gold owners were unable to legally and publicly use their assets to engage in trade and investments or protect themselves from inflation. They were denied full access to their rightful property. Where is the evidence that FDR endured negative consequences for his actions in depriving decent people of their ability to use money?

The takeaway from Northwoods is not that spooks inside the U.S. government wanted Castro to fall but rather that they were willing to kill innocent Americans in order to achieve that end: Operation Northwoods was a series of proposals that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals, which called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in US cities and elsewhere, were rejected by the Kennedy administration. At the time of the proposal, Cuba had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts.To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

You answered your own question. Whether or not the possessions were rightfully earned are the events prior to the theft. Yes. The prior events are what determine rightful ownership. Very well. I did not understand why you wrote, "That would all depend on the nature of the sequence of events prior to the theft." The sentence you were responding to was, "So if someone takes something that rightfully belongs to you, he doesn't deserve it." Rightful ownership was one of the givens in the case. You can know by virtue of exactly the same moral law which applies equally to the consequences of your own actions. I had asked how we could know that "People who get by taking from others, get taken from by others who get by taking from others." Your response is to tell me that the moral law applies to me as well as to the thief. But this answer merely repeats your earlier assertion that a law of repercussions for wrongful actions is in force. It does not provide any evidence for the assertion. Furthermore, since I have never stolen a bicycle myself, I can hardly look to my own experience to know that the thief of my bicycle from 50 years ago has met with unpleasant consequences. If not that, it will be lost in some other way, because no one can retain wealth without first possessing the virtue to honestly earn it. "A fool and his money are soon parted." They were not robbed. They granted the government their sanction to be its victims by being stupid enough to actually hand their gold over to the government. You won't understand this because of how you live, but I'll say it anyway. The government is not the enemy. It has to answer to exactly the same moral law that you do... ... and because it is under the same law, it can only govern people who fail to govern themselves. Greg But in many cases, gold was not freely handed over. Consider this case: [A] New York attorney, Frederick Barber Campbell, had on deposit at Chase National over 5,000 troy ounces (160 kg) of gold. When Campbell attempted to withdraw the gold Chase refused and Campbell sued Chase. A federal prosecutor then indicted Campbell on the following day (September 27, 1933) for failing to surrender his gold. Ultimately, the prosecution of Campbell failed, but the authority of the federal government to seize gold was upheld, and Campbell's gold was confiscated. So I don't know what you mean by "grant their sanction." What was Campbell supposed to do? Assemble a gang of armed men to hold up the bank where his gold was stored? Then there is this case: Gus Farber, a diamond and jewelry merchant from San Francisco, was prosecuted for the sale of thirteen $20 gold coins without a license. Secret Service agents discovered the sale with the help of the buyer. Farber, his father, and 12 others were also arrested in four American cities after a sting conducted by the United States Secret Service. The arrests took place simultaneously in New York and three California cities, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. Morris Anolik was arrested in New York with $5000 in U.S. and foreign gold coins. Dan Levin and Edward Friedman of San Jose were arrested with $15,000 in gold. Sam Nankin was arrested in Oakland. In San Francisco, nine men were arrested on charges of hoarding gold. In all, $24,000 in gold was seized by Secret Service Agents. In what way did Farber "grant sanction"? So I repeat, when was FDR robbed of the gold that he ordered confiscated from American citizens who rightfully held it?

That would all depend on the nature of the sequence of events prior to the theft. If someone rightfully owns something at the time of its theft, what do events prior to the theft have to do with it? If a gold coin rightfully belongs to you, you deserve it. If it belongs to someone else, he deserves it. Other than to determine rightful ownership, prior events have no bearing on who should be in possession of the coin. If true, this is excellent news. But how would we know this? How could I possibly know that the person who stole my bicycle from my front porch will have something of equivalent value stolen from him? How would I know that people who practice thievery are themselves always victimized by theft? Do, say, Obama and Biden get robbed more frequently than I do? I'll defer to Ayn Rand here... "But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it." --Ayn Rand The very finest protection for what you rightfully own is your own virtue it took to honestly earn it. On the other hand, you rightly deserve to have your home broken into and your gold stolen when you have acquired it by dishonest means. True. And those who have acquired gold by honest means rightly deserve to have their stolen gold returned. If they don't get it back, they do not get what they deserve. ...he will only lose what he stole to another thief, because thieves lack the virtue to make or to keep money they did not rightfully earn.Greg Glad to hear it. By the way, when was FDR (or any of his tax-paid henchmen) robbed of the gold that he ordered confiscated from American citizens who rightfully held it?

Moral law governs the just and deserved consequences of our actions. Wrong. If you want something you work to rightfully earn it. So if someone takes something that rightfully belongs to you, he doesn't deserve it. You deserve it. Or, to put it another way, you don't deserve to have it taken from you. To put it in specific terms, if someone breaks into your home and steals your gold, he does not deserve the gold. You deserve the gold. You don't deserve to have your gold stolen. If the thief is never caught, the gold still rightfully belongs to you. After all, the thief did not earn the gold, he didn't obtain it through trade or voluntary payment. You still deserve your gold. You do not deserve the theft of your gold. You deserve to become the kind of immoral person who takes what he does not rightfully deserve to possess. And the person who is the rightful owner of the gold deserves not to be a victim of theft but to have his gold returned to him. It's good for you to fail to take from others what does not rightfully belong to you And those who do not fail in theft do not deserve to keep what they possess. And those who lose to thieves do not deserve their loss. It is not a matter of needing. You're damn well stuck with it whether you like it or not, just like everyone else is. For those who love what's right, moral law is a genuine blessing to their lives... ...and for those who don't, moral law is their own self inflicted never-ending personal tormenter. And we know that people who violate the rights of others are tormented because they always, um . . . what, complain about being tormented?

The validity of that statement would depend on how you define love. My definition of love: Doing what's morally right. So using my definition of love... God's love is unconditional because He created the moral law for everyone's own good, and to which everyone is equally and unconditionally accountable. Now if you use the popular collective cultural consensus definition of love as an affectionate feeling... ..."unconditional love" is just liberal feelgood fantasy self esteem crap. Greg What's the point of "moral law"? If you want something, you take it, right? If you can get away with taking something, you deserve it, right? If you fail, you don't deserve it. Period, end of discussion. Who needs moral law, when the only thing that matters is success or failure?

The essential question is whether behavior that causes harm to others should be punished more (made costlier to the perpetrator) if drugs are involved. As I argue above, the taking of a drug in and of itself does not cause damage to others' property. In the future, when roads are privately owned, the owners may choose to reduce fatalities by limiting the use of their thoroughfares to sober drivers. I chose, however, to discuss the example of the bottle rocket maker so that the conflict existed only between two parties. As we can see in the example, the harm to Smith is exactly the same whether drugs are involved or not. Consequently, Smith (and society, if we want to think in collective terms) are not due any greater compensation as a result of the presence of drugs in Jones's body. In sum, Jones should not be punished, fined, or assessed for drug use.

Things may be different in the Southern Hemisphere, but in the U.S. of A. bottle rockets are launched by the tens of thousands into the July 4th sky every year. Although many localities prohibit such pyrotechnics, there are few who would consider them a serious danger to others. Only about four people per year die in fireworks accidents. On the other hand, when you consider how easily cars can be made to swerve into oncoming traffic with ghastly results, we could just as well argue that driving an automobile is based on the presumption of the "right to endanger others." Car crashes cost 34,080 lives in 2012. And thousands of those were killed by drivers who were wide awake and sober as a judge.

A. Smith and Jones are neighbors. One night for fun Jones builds and launches a homemade bottle rocket. The device sets Smith's house on fire. We all agree that Jones is responsible and must compensate Jones for all damages. B. One night Jones takes LSD for fun, and afterwards builds and launches a homemade bottle rocket. It sets Smith's house on fire. We all agree that Jones is responsible and must compensate Jones for all damages. Under Scenario B does Jones owe Smith (or "society") additional damages for setting the house on fire under the influence? If not, then we must conclude that ipso facto the taking of the drug does not violate another's rights and should therefore not be treated as a crime. But, some might object, drugs lead to irrational actions which endanger others. Yes, but so do certain religious cults. Do we wish to fine or jail people for joining them?

"Zionist bankers loot America." Conspiracy porn.

That's because it was the immoral actions of the parents which set into motion the just and deserved death of their first born males. I fully understand that you completely deny the existence of any causal relationship between the immoral actions of parents and their effect upon the lives of their children... ...and that's why you will never understand how immoral people could set into motion such dire consequences that their children would actually die. This fact could only continue to escape you because you deny your own personal responsibility for the causal relationship of your actions to their consequences. But not just immorality... stubborn pernicious immorality. For the deaths of the first born males was the last in a long series of lesser warnings for the Egyptians to change their immoral behavior. There were many plagues that preceded this last drastic well deserved consequence. For a week the Nile was turned to blood and all the fish died. This was Egypt's drinking water supply. Then there was a plague of frogs. Then an infestation of insects. Then wild animals. Then a pestilence that killed their domestic animals. Then a plague of boils on the Egyptians skin. Then flaming hail. Then a plague of locusts. Then a plague of darkness. The death of the immoral enslavers first born was the last and most drastic consequence which finally secured freedom for the Israelites. There's a lesson here about successive warnings to cease doing evil: Whoever ignores a gentle tap on the shoulder... ...gets the two by four over their head they deserve. Greg Early in this thread you told me, "The first assumption you made is that the evil people who were destroyed were actually good and did nothing to deserve what they got." Yes, I made the assumption that the babies who died in the Tenth Plague did nothing to warrant a death sentence. To be precise, Exodus does not say that it was the sins of the babies that brought about their destruction. While you have made it quite clear now that "it was the immoral actions of the parents which set into motion the just and deserved death of their first born males," you have said nothing about the actions of their children. Thus there is no reason to conclude that I was in error to think that those who died in the Passover plague did nothing wrong. Feel free to repeat your refrain about the "causal relationship between the immoral actions of parents and their effect upon the lives of their children." Feel free to tell me I don't understand how immoral people set dire consequences into motion. Those statements simply do not support your original claim that those who were destroyed did something to deserve destruction.

Belief in omnipotence implies a being with the power to conjure up a non-contradictory contradiction, a truthful falsehood, an impossible possibility, a meaningful meaninglessness, a non-existent existence. Yes, if God does it, it is moral. But, more importantly, because it is an act of God, it can be simultaneously moral and immoral. There are simply no logical limits. Now, I will readily admit that I do not know the particular shape and character of Moralist's theology. But that is due largely to the slipperiness of his argumentation. Example: early in the thread he suggested that the people who died from God's wrath did something to "deserve what they got." Yet, here we are in Post #100 and we still do not know what the Egyptian children did to deserve the Angel of Death. His responses are always about the evil of their parents. Now I understand that an omnipotent God has the power to write a non-contradictory contradiction. But do believers like Moralist also enjoy that power? And, by the way, thanks for the kind words. I'm glad I've been released from the Potential Troll corral.