Finger printing at traffic stops transplant

I'm starting to visualize Colonel Kurtz's last diary entry in "Apocalypse Now"

 

Property rights are the cornerstone of freedom. If you don't own your land, you live at the pleasure of whoever does. You've mentioned a difference between public and private. Without property rights, all land is public.

As for global warming, the globe hasn't warmed in ten years. The science behind the theories has never been as certain as the politics. "The debate is over" is anything but a scientific argument. It's a religious one. There can be no belief in science. It all comes down to what can, and can't, be proven. The concept looked pretty strong when they saw that historic CO2 levels fluctuated consistently with O18 levels. (a proxy for temperature) But when the finer resolution of later tests showed that the temperature rise was typically several hundred years before the CO2 rise, the theories fell apart. All that's left is politicians trying to increase their control over us.

Look at the "ozone hole," for example. It was there the first time we looked for it. It's grown and shrank repeatedly in the time we've watched it. What happened to it? The politicians banned the use in western nations of the supposed harmful gases, and congratulated themselves for saving the world. The "hole," however, is unchanged. (maybe we could shoot snakes from the hole, until it fills up with water )

And that 99% figure simply isn't true. Not even close. MOST of the forests of the west have never been significantly logged. Even if you define old growth as trees never SEEN by a white man, we probably still have more than 1% left.


On the subject of speech:

That's my point exactly. Who gets to decide what's too repulsive to speak of. Are pro abortionists repulsive? How about anti abortionists? War mongers? Peace mongers? Democrats? Republicans? Two equally rational people could easily give opposite answers to each of those questions. Is the solution then, to ban all speech on those subjects? If we do that, the government decides each of those very contentious matters with no input from it's citizens. That's a dictatorship.

If any speech is to be outlawed, someone has to decide what can't be said. Someone has to decide where it can't be said. Someone has to decide what's offensive, and what isn't. Are you willing to give that power to our current decider? Me neither.

The solution is to simply ignore that which you don't want to hear. If you don't want your children to hear it, keep them away from it. That's where we come back to property rights. If I keep my children on land owned by people with the values I want them to have, that's what they'll be exposed to. If McDonald's allows it's patrons to promote child molestation, I simply take my business to Wendy's. If enough people follow me to hurt profits, McDonald's will throw the perverts out. If not, then I guess we all know which restaurant to keep our children away from. Either way, problem solved.

 

We used to think that the oceans were too vast to be affected by man. That we can dump whatever we wanted and however much we wanted and we will NEVER be even able to detect any difference. That turned out to be false. Of course the IDIOTS that stated we cannot harm the oceans are either too old to know who they are or dead. Damage however has been done.

Logging was much the same thing. We have only a precious few rivers in the west where salmon runs still occour. Back in the day the argument of the loggers was there was so much of it and it will all grow back. Sure it grew back with most it's diversity gone. Streams and rivers silted over and wiped out all the fish salmon runs stopped.

We used to think it was ok just to dump whatever we wanted into the streams and rivers at commercial levels. Of course we don't do that anymore and the people back then said the same arguments you are saying now. They were wrong but damage has been done and who has to fix the damage ? Not the idiots arguing for polluting rivers and clear cutting, they are old or dead now. Their KIDS are the ones that have to fix their mistakes.



Like most things I find myself in the middle, understanding good points made by both sides. Both on enviromental issues and free speech issues we are on different extremes of the same side. I will protect free speech and property rights but to a point. I will protect environmental issues but to a point. We believe in the same things just to varying degrees.

 

Fair enough.

I hope you, and everyone else understands, debating is merely a hobby for me. My intent is not to alter anyone's beliefs, but to more thoroughly explore my own.

I appreciate that you're willing to indulge me, without taking it personally.

Merry Christmas, Hartage.
And Merry Christmas to all you other monkeys too.

 

Many times the only way to expand your own horizons is to see what each side has to say. Sometimes as you say it is a good way to validate or invalidate your own views. Merry x-mas

 

Speaking of enviromental issues, its good to see the enviroment around here returning to its normal balance of all the folks being able to discuss issues (includeing highly contentious ones not just those on this thread) that we may even be rather passionate about with others of differing views (at times even polar opposites) and do so in a cival manner with all sides provokeing and haveing provoked in them thought rather than anger.

 

hartage, you sound more like a Libratarian than a liberal!

 

I never said I was a liberal, I just understand liberals and respect their position. Most liberals don't like my positions on many things so to them I'm not "one of them".

 

Been there also, photo'd the autopsy of a tsgt "floater" suicide who jumped into the chesapeake, we walked in as they were literally wrapping up the previous customer, (an infant). You are right the floppy "rag doll" corpse (head and arms) attached to an empty torso was easily the most disturbing thing I had ever witnessed( more so because of a still birth within the previous 3years)...

 

I 've got to kick in (close to thetopic anyway): I go to the midwest renewable energy fest in central wi "most"years, And sit through a day of free seminars. Last year I " took a chance and sat through an hour on activism, presented by "ponytails" obviously for "ponytails", the "facilitator", ( he had us form a circle so no one was "leader") expounded on hislove of legislation and mandates...I was a very lonely stranger in a strange land.
Nuclear power was bad.
That years key note was Helen Caldicot.
He was concerned with creating laws to tie-up the building of plants." because " children are exposed to radiation".
"can any one think of reasons, these laws could be overturned or sunsetted?" W've got to prevent that...
"perhaps it was a bad law in the first place!"I foolishly blurted out.
He had never met a bad law where his pet issues were concerned.

I ended up biting my tongue, trying not t get into an argument I had not come prepared to fight.There was no way I'd ever come close to scratching the exterior of his well set opinions;anyway.
hippies,"beautiful people"as long as you unquestioningly believe as they do therwise they will force it on you through legislation. Our worst nightmare is a liberal (with a graying pony tail) and a map to the state senate building.

 

Unfortunately I will tend to agree. Even if you do pay all your taxes (rent) properly and do everything else right if the "KING" decides to use the land one way or another eminant domain kicks in and *poof* your property is not yours anymore.

 

That is not a hippie, but a basterdized version of a hippie. The liberal version of a religous right conservative jerk-off that is only interested in shoving his own personal garbage down other people's throats. They are just as destructive as a Bible thumper willing to twist the word of God to his own ends.

Conservative or liberal they are both cut from the same cloth and both work to the same end, oppression of others.

 

agreed.Neither has a hold on liberty and justice.