THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!

"We are entering a new phase in human history -- one in which fewer and fewer workers will be needed to produce the goods and services for the global population."-- Jeremy Rifkin, economist

 

WRH Thought for the day

I just noted today's WRH Thought For The Day.

In order for an act to be a crime, libertarians say, someone must be harmed [and?] there must be a victim. Anything that's peaceful, voluntary, and honest should be tolerated regardless of whether we agree with it. Part of the price of our own freedom is allowing others to be free. - Scott Banister, www.libertarian.org

I do not know Scott Banister the woeful grammarian.

But this little aphorist whirligig is typical Libertarian tripe that fails at even the most rudimentary of logical levels.

The logical leap into fantasy occurs between the assertion there must be a victim just as it is taken to logically infer Anything that's peaceful, voluntary, and honest should be tolerated regardless of whether we agree with it.

Let's look at this conception of intellectual deduction.

So we are to then be forced to give up our tendency to be intolerant of that with which you do not agree?

Interesting.

Libertarianism isn't so liberating after all then is it?

But let us see how logical it is then.

Can the victim be the perpetrator?

Some Libertarians advocate legalizing prostitution. Are the victims the perpetrators as they pass around venereal disease?

Can the victims be those coming in the future into whom that same lineage of venereal disease might then be passed along again?

If the victims can be those coming in the future, then being intolerant of that with which we don't agree seems a logical stepping stone to protecting those potential victims in the future from these criminals.

But this is not what the Thought For The Day infers.

What is inferred for us apparently is that the victim cannot be the perpetrator, nor anyone in the future.

The victim required seems to be like habeas corpus, bring the victim before us for our inspection.

Aphoristic syllogisms generally do not even make for good philosophy.

And here, we are observing an aphoristic syllogism intended to reinforce an ideology.

Ideologies are never philosophy.

Ideologies do not pass muster in the logical category.

Like religion, there is no rigorous and close inspection for truth in an ideology.

Ideology is but a slow motion mob with a rope, plenty of trees and just looking for someone to hang.

Ideologies have an agenda, which is to prove an assumption.

Such assumptions arise from the Übermensch, the superman that dwells within us all. The Übermensch lives in Utopia, where his assumptions deserve a logical pass.

Everywhere else, philosophy rules the domain of truth.

Log in
to vote
0
Submitted by Don Robertson on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 09:10
Tags:
»

Comments

1

Perpetrator

Mike Rivero

"Some Libertarians advocate legalizing prostitution. Are the victims the perpetrators as they pass around venereal disease?"

Did they INTEND to give venereal disease to their lovers? That might be considered a crime, but when two people engage in sex, whether for money or for roses, jewelry, and dinner out, where is the victim, even if a germ finds an opportunity to do what germs do naturally?

Also, I might wish to point out that in places where prostitution is accepted and treated as a business, you are far LESS likely to pick up a disease from a professional working girl than from a random floozy picked up at a bar.

So, your attempt to categorize prostitution as a crime because of victims of disease would have to also ban all free sex as well in order to be logically consistent. Otherwise, this is just another example of foisting one person's morality on another.

Personally, I prefer freedom, and if my morality does not exactly line up with yours, tough cookies. We allow only those restraints on our behavior that allow a just society. We mutually gree that killing each other and stealing from each other are wrong and should bs stopped. All else is a form of slavery.

There is no freedom without the freedom to say "no", and that includes saying "no" to a bunch of self-righteous holier-than-thou fanatics who think their particular set of myths and legends ought to be forced on the rest of the world; if need be at knife point.

Michael Rivero
webmaster
What Really Happened

11/27/2008 - 08:47
2

Huh? What are you, nuts?

Don Robertson

That's not a gamble worth taking, fool.

And, if you're young enough to live through the night, it is immoral because of what you might pass on and to future generations.

It is never moral to gamble where there is some possible detriment to be handed off to the future. This is our present. Look around. The lost wagers of similar gambles litter and endanger our very existence. They define our economy, debase our political institutions, pollute our educational systems, and, spread famine, disease, and pestilience throughout the world.

Now on the other hand, if you are not going to live through the night, then by all means, go for it.

Enjoy! But no fat broads, please!

11/26/2008 - 12:41
3

In order for an act to be a crime, libertarians say...

jackrabbit

But what if no venereal disease is involved?

11/26/2008 - 09:18