the salt makers

I was talking with Ethan the other day about affirmative action and he tells me that he has no problem with it.  He brought up some excellent anecdotal evidence:  his father works at LSUE and is a professor there.  The only role affirmative action plays in his hiring processes is he is not allowed to discriminate against blacks or minorities.  He always hires the most qualified.

This, I'm sure, happens quite often, but it would be obvious to also say that clearly affirmative action is not necessary in your father's case.  He would still hire the best candidate.  Who wouldn't if they truly cared about their company or school?  

But that is besides the point.  That enactment of affirmative action is the general idea behind it, which I think is good.  While I think that every day it is losing it's relevancy in our society, it can be said that ensuring that only the highest qualified candidate is hired is a good thing.  But unfortunately, that's not how it come out in practice.

Immediately after the introduction of affirmative action there was virtually not increase in minority college or job  recruits.  This was not because, as many liberals would posit, that they were still discriminating.  It was because there simply weren't as many qualified black people as there were whites and Asians.  This led to the modern affirmative action: racial preferences.  They began lowering the standards and hiring less qualified minorities to fulfill their "goals," not "quotas" so that it looked like they weren't discriminating. (Like there's a fucking difference anyway, right?)  For what other reason could there be no increase in minority recruits once it becomes illegal to discriminate?  To admit it is the applicants fault would be to admit cultural inferiority.  You can't do that if you're a multiculturalist.

Needless to say, I'm sure the courts and the ACLU don't have their eye on Ethan's dad at LSUE.  They've got bigger fish to fry.

So, where does this leave us?  I mean, quotas are illegal, right?  So what does this even matter?

The answer: proportional representation.

In 1977 the governments and courts decided just how much racial preferences were warranted.  Here is how the supreme court defined the concept in a 1977 decision:

"It is ordinarily to be expect that nondiscriminatory hiring practices will in time result in a work force more or less representative of the racial and ethnic composition of the population in the community from which the employees are hired."

Here you have the legal and courtly justification for affirmative action and "goals."  If your town is 50% black, you should have 50% black employees, otherwise you're discriminating.  Does that sound legit to you, knowing black high school drop out rates and illegitimacy?  And here is where ACLU steps in.  If you are not proportional, you become a racist organization threatened with a lawsuit.  Why not just hire some underqualified applicants to keep it under wraps, eh?

--
Zachary Sonnier

Against my better judgment, I was watching Mad TV yesterday. Thankfully, by the time I had switched it on, there were only a few minutes left in the show. These few minutes featured a performance from the musical guest Ice T. At the end of the show, in classic Saturday Night Live style, the cast gathered on the stage while the band played a soft farewell tune and the host, Mr. Ice T, (Mr. T?) waved goodbye to the audience and thanked them for watching. Needless to say, I felt very appreciated for my brief investment of time.

“There is one person I would like to thank personally,” Ice T said. “I would like to thank Mr. Quincy Jones, the producer of this show, a proud black man!”

In response to Ice T’s raised tone, and raised hands, the crowd cheered wildly, presumably simply because Mr. Jones is black. The cast members also began to clap and cheer. One can only presume they had to because Mr. Jones is the one that signs their paychecks.

After the din ebbed, and the camera began to pull back from the stage, Ice T blew a kiss to the audience with his index finger and said, “Remember y’all, a world with no color barriers, none at all. If we can imagine it, we can make it happen.”

The crowd responded in standard Beatle-mania fashion and practically threw themselves off the balconies in support of such a bold and enlightened statement. I imagine that’s what it was like when Barry Manilow first performed “Mandy” in front of a live audience.

I, among the presumably millions of viewers of that program, was likely the only person confused by the host’s statement. First, Ice T pointed out that the producer of the show, Quincy Jones, is a black man, and deserves accolades for that fact alone. Only a few breaths later, Ice T calls for the eradication of racial lines. This is a stark contradiction.

Modern multiculturalism is the primary contributor to the modern racial apocalypse in western society. This multicultural dogma is not sustainable and will only work to increase tension between races because it is patently contradictory. It is impossible to both celebrate the cultural and racial differences between humans and simultaneously maintain a colorblind society. These two ideas completely contradict each other and only work to cause anger and extremism among those that are viewed as the oppressed because their demands can never be met, and frustration among those that are viewed as oppressors because the best intentions of inclusion and penance, however misguided, can never be adequate.

In his seminal work “The End of Racism,” Dinesh D’Souza states that certain “cultural defects” in the American black community are contributing to a virtual moral apocalypse within their ranks, resulting in low expectations and by extension, low achievements. He points to defects such as high illegitimacy and school dropout rates. This was not a new contention. In fact, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan had made the first public outcry in 1965 when he wrote “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” In this report, now commonly known as “The Moynihan Report,” the Senator stated that the destruction of the black family unit, specifically the absence of the father, was statistically on the rise and was contributing to the very defects D’Souza states are causing the modern downward spiral in black culture.

Ironically, even the title of Senator Moynihan’s report would be too risqué to speak in public in these enlightened modern times. Needless to say, Senator Moynihan’s report and Mr. D’Souza’s treatise on the matter have both been decried as works of racism.

Much like in psychiatric therapy, drug or alcohol addition, compulsive or otherwise destructive behavior, the first step to solving the problem is to admit that one exists. Until the black community ceases celebrating the very moral defects that are contributing to their grand dysfunction, such as illegitimacy, poor education, violence, drug use and domestic violence and the like, they will never be able to see the forest through the trees. Unfortunately, we find in our midst an entire corps of individuals that have make their substantial livings from maintaining this status quo of anger and resentment, which is only fueling this destructive behavior and pounding more nails into their cultural coffin.

Last night, my wife and I were having dinner with my wife’s father and stepmother. While discussing plans for the Halloween festivities this evening, her step-mother stated that my wife’s father, until recently, was always very involved giving out candy and trying to scare the children with his now-famous gorilla mask, but that he had become a “scrooge” in recent years. My wife asked why he had absconded from participation recently. He paused and said, “Because of ungrateful children.”

“Because of ungrateful black children” he meant to say. Since the storms of the last few years, which have caused a surge in the population of Lafayette and the surrounding areas, Halloween has become a markedly unfortunate event. Children, unaccompanied by parents, presumably from neighborhoods far away, would arrive at my father-in-law’s home wearing t-shirts and jeans, clutching Wal-Mart shopping sacks and demanding candy by the handful. He even told me about a few girls, no more than sixteen years old, similarly non-costumed, requesting extra candy for their unborn children as they patted their bellies, just beginning to swell. He also told me about some of these same girls, requesting candy for their newborns, as if a three-month-old has any business with a peanut butter cup.

These are not new ideas, but until these glaringly obvious contentions are, at the very least, no longer dismissed out of hand as racism or “hate-speech,” the problems will only get worse. As my father once said, “I’d rather be looking at a problem than looking for it.”

Well, we found it.

It is always a pleasure to pick up the Michigan Daily. It is somewhat akin to visiting http://www.timecube.com/ or http://www.realultimatepower.net/ . You read the front cover, and you know, basically immediately, what level these people’s minds are operating at. They are children. Today was a special treat.

In the upcoming Michigan elections, voters will decide on Proposal 2, or the so-called Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which would make it illegal for schools, employers, or contractors to discriminate against students on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. In effect, it outlaws certain affirmative action practices. A similar proposition (prop 209) passed in California ten years ago, effectively minimizing, though not eliminating, affirmative action policies (http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/seads/faq1.htm).

Needless to say, the left-wing politicos on campus are not amused.

Accordingly, the school newspaper today contained a six page pamphlet on why Proposition 2 “will immediately eliminate opportunities for women and minorities to have equal access to jobs, education, and contracts.” The pamphlet was written by the ACLU.

The pamphlet’s case against proposition 2 is very simple. They simply repeat increasingly ridiculous hyperbole (sometimes spicing it up with creative grammar). The core message is simple: cutting affirmative action means discriminating against minorities.

This shit is priceless.

Will Youmans: “I only had two black student in my class at UC Berkeley (after California passed proposition 209). I think these initiatives tell minorities basically get the message that they are not wanted.”

Brandon Jessup: “Eliminating the path for the next Barak Obama, Antonio Villaraigosa, Jennifer Granholm, William Jefferson Clinton and others is the purpose of ending Affirmative Action.”

Taina Gomez: “As the first in my family to go to college, I needed a supportive community of other students of color… Walking down Sproul Plaza during my first semester, I tried to find faces I could relate to, those who looked like me. I had a hard time finding one. It was then that I began to feel deceived, conned.”

Stephanie Chang: “Why, as a twenty-something Asian Pacific American woman, do I care about affirmative action? … Because opportunities need to continue here in Michigan for all of us, not destroyed by California millionaires who don’t know what’s best for Michigan. This is my fight because race matters.

My two personal favorite come from Taina Gomez again: “Our low numbers meant less of us in classrooms, departments and organizations…. More work fell on fewer students of color.”

What?! I’m not a teacher, but I’m pretty sure that the number of colored students has no effect on your workload. I really don’t think that Berkeley assigns a set amount of work to racial blocks.

Gomez continues, “Constantly, we were forced to tackle issues of race, discrimination, and hate, which the university, out of fear of being sued or labeled too liberal, or a violator of free speech, often did not.”

Simply breathtaking. Berkeley is afraid of being labeled too liberal? Berkeley? Due to this fear, they allow students to give hate-speech? Right. I’m pretty sure hate-speech is rampant at the Berkeley campus. Oh no wait. What I mean is, very rarely at Berkeley, a person might wrestle away from the thought police long enough to speak about race without using socially acceptable clichés (“minorities face structural racism all the time,” “republicans disenfranchise black votors,” “it is harder to advance if you are a woman”). Then the thought police promptly flog that person.

The ACLU pamphlet contains 8 articles. 5 are extended personal statements by students, graduates, rappers, and various others.


Of the remaining three:

• One attacks Proposition 2 for calling itself “The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative,” charging that this title is criminally deceptive. Since the proposition calls for equal treatment for all races, I do not find the argument especially compelling. Interestingly, in 2004, neither did the ACLU. They defended a lottery petition against litigation. The petitioners were charged with using deceptive language to get signatures. Back in 2004, the ACLU argued that ruling against the lottery petition would be tantamount to the courts deciding which opinion is correct. Way to stand by your convictions, ALCU. Fucking douchebags. (http://www.chetlyzarko.com/original-content/ACLU-two-faces.html)
• The second is titled, “Michigan’s Economy Can’t Afford to Turn Back the Clock on Civil Rights, Experts Say.” Wow. Can’t wait to read this one. I wonder how they can possibly show that affirmative action is good for the state economy. Reading…………………………… Alright. Don’t take the title literally. By “experts” they mean one researcher—Susan Kaufmann, Director of the Center for the Education of Women at the University of Michigan—and two baseless opinion quotations from an Ann Arbor business owner and a Detroit Councilwoman. Susan Kaufmann’s research (published here http://www.cew.umich.edu/PDFs/MCRIecon6-25.pdf and pseudo-contested here http://plaintruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/kaufmann-scare-monger-susan-kaufmann.html) seeks to prove that minorities in California lost opportunities after prop 209. Of course they lost opportunities. Prior to 209, minorities were given opportunities that were not commensurate with their abilities. Revoking a racially biased screening process will reduce opportunities for minorities. The study goes on to claim that “Michigan will fail to attract companies” if Proposition 2 passes, using the anecdotal evidence that “Recently, GM and Alcoa have stopped recruiting from the University of Wisconsin-Madison… because the student body is not diverse enough.” Um, Susan. Wisconsin-Madison is not located in California. How’s recruiting going for Berkeley students? Pretty fucking good, right? She must also be unaware that California’s GDP has grown 55% since proposition 209 was passed, fourth best in the nation. In the same time frame, Michigan’s has grown 10%, third worst in the nation.
• Finally, an attack piece on Ward Connerly (a black man), the force behind the MCR Initiative. The article states the following: “Orphaned at an early age and shuffled between relatives living in Washington and California, Connerly’s future seamed (their misspelling, not mine) uncertain. Yet his determination led him to … Sacramento State University where he was the first to pledge the all-white Delta Phi Omega fraternity and was elected student body president. With a promising future in politics, Connerly’s zeal for race relations grew exponentially, yet as many other black youth fought for civil rights and black solidarity, Connerly veered sharply to the right. In fact, during a New York Times interview he said “Reveling in blackness—black is beautiful, black power, black consciousness—just creates an invisible wall of difference that sets us apart.” That Bastard.

To learn more about the MCRI, visit

http://www.aclumich.org/

http://www.michigancivilrights.org/

But it does, and it does.

I would first like to make the observation that Christiaan's and my blog, while not fully compatible, are by no means mutually exclusive.  In fact, I see his "as if" principle as very similar to my "erring" principle.  I feel the posts supplement each other quite well.

But now onto Hampton's response:

Hampton, you are drawing the dots beautifully, but you refuse to connect them.  Certainly we define life, not something objective that we discover.  But you fail to realize that we define life with objective standards which we have discovered.

You seem to be advocating moral relativism in a very nocuous manner, and frankly I'm surprised that you would even entertain the idea of moral relativism given your Platonic and Socratic knowledge.  Surely, many views are molded by social convention, but to say that because a society has different moral views than another, and that neither can be wrong, is multicultural drivel. 

Hampton:
"Further, even if we agree that something is alive, we still must answer the question of whether it is immoral to kill it. This too, is moulded by social convention. It is not a concept that is forever unchanging. It must be applied selectively depending on our culture, our situation, and so on."

Do I really need to address the contention that because a society has deemed it morally acceptable to rape their women then is must be respected?  Or to sew their vagina's to ensure virginity for their wedding night?  Does anyone actually believe that because one society has deemed this acceptable that it is, in fact, moral?  I think it would be hard to seriously entertain this idea, but it is essentially what you are saying.  If a society decides if it is immoral to kill something, then they must decide every moral decision.  And I know you don't believe this.  I know you believe that rape is objectively immoral, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Suffice it to say that a quote from facebook was not the best way to introduce your argument, but the fact that people have different definitions of life does not mean that what life is changes. 

Hampton:
"This has nothing to do with one group of people "erring on the side of life." It has everything to do with differing definitions."

Once again, you are drawing the dots, but you don't connect them.  This discrepancy in beliefs may exist due to "differing definitions," but you fail to understand why the parties have differing definitions.  While I refer you to both Christiaan's and my blog for a fuller picture, I will reiterate that the pro-lifer's definition exists because life cannot be proven.  In order to be 100% sure one is preserving innocent human life, the definition must begin at conception.  In order to be 100% sure they can preserve their life style, pro-choicer's choose their definition as when they don't feel like taking responsibility for their actions. 

Hampton:
"So if you truly wanted to "err on the side of life" then you should logically be a vegan, because can you really be sure that animals aren't alive? You can claim that you are sure, but then, a pro-choice feminist can claim that she is sure that fetuses aren't alive, and with equal validity."

Allow me to digress even further and make an easily deduced point from your logic: since plants are actually alive themselves, and since we cannot be sure that plants are not "morally" alive, the to "err on the side of life" I wouldn't be able to eat cabbage.  So if I eat a salad tonight, I'm supporting abortion!

Let's demonstrate this logic with syllogisms:

Premise 1:  Sharks live in water.
Premise 2:  There is water in my toilet.
Conclusion:  Sharks live in my toilet.

Premise 1:  It is always better to "err on the side of life."
Premise 2:  Plants and animals may or may not be alive.
Conclusion:  It is always better to not kill plants or animals.

What's wrong with these two syllogisms, the second which you seem to be advocating?  Well, in the first one, premise one is obviously considering "water" as oceans, so the conclusion is wrong.  In the second one I am obviously speaking about human life, not animal life.  So, unless you're prepared to argue that killing a human is morally tantamount to killing an animal, this argument is not relevant.  I am not prepared, nor do I care, to debate whether eating an animal is immoral.  Perhaps it is.  But what we can agree on is that it is always more immoral to eat a human than an animal, if for no other reason than pure intuition.

I will amend my principle if it makes it easier for you:  It is better to err on the side of human life.

Your strongest argument is one you haven't elaborated on yet: that abortion ultimately saves life, and serves the greater good.  Yet, you've also told me that abortion supports destructive cultures.  How are these not contradictory?  I would like you to explain the reasons why abortion serves the greater good (briefly, if possible...and no entropy please).  I know you will say that it reduces crime,  but what else is on your plate?

Also, you really haven't addressed the "erring" principle beyond noting some of its innocuous implications.  You haven't spoken to the content of the "as if" principle, either.  It seems to me that your best move at this point is to say that maybe we're killing humans, but it's better for society to take that risk than to prevent abortion. 

The questions you also have to answer is whether the destructive culture you are supporting is better than the culture that disallows abortions.

Maybe Chris Rock isn't the best source, but here is a quote that I think perfectly illustrates the culture you are supporting:

"Far from an encomium to fetus killing, Rock's abortion bit is an attack on women for the frivolous manner in which they decide whether or not to keep a child. "When a woman gets pregnant, it's a choice between the woman" — here Rock pauses, a mischievous grin barely restrained — "and her girlfriends." From there: "One girlfriend goes, 'Child, you should have that baby — that man got some good hair…' And the other girlfriend says, 'Child, why we even talking about this — ain't we supposed to go to Cancun next week? Get rid of that baby!' " And that, Rock says, "is how life is decided in America."

I'm also starting to give a lot of weight to the argument that the existence of abortion is actually harmful for women because it allows men to treat them much more like an object because they know they won't have to deal with the consequences!  Although I'm quite sure that many of your "sexually liberated" friends in Ann Arbor wouldn't give a shit about being treated as a sex object.  Also, really interesting fact:  for years more men have been pro-choice than women.  Why the hell do you think?  So they know they can have an easy escape hatch...it's got shit to do with their feelings for women's rights.

Here's the article where this is all from.  Very poignant:

http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001054.cfm

--
Zachary Sonnier
337-250-5778

If anything has been made clear in this debate, it is that the abortion issue is one seldom compromised via rational means.

As Hampton pointed out, the issue of abortion rests solely on definitions, themselves mereley subjections and assumptions. Although I can't help but agree that such lack of observation or objectively derived data regarding the "beginning of life" exist, I will contend that such ambiguity does not support a rationally sound acceptance of abortion as an unfortunate necessity that serves the greater good.

For now I will ignore my general distaste for this type of utilitarianism in disguise (Hampton, a classicist like yourself should be ashamed), and Hampton's moot appeal to ancient practices. These components of the argument, I will leave later posts. Rather, I will choose to argue my point in light of what we can learn from the practice of faith, and in doing so I do not intend to settle this argument once and for all, that is in a way which will satisfy really any party. I will state this very clearly: THE ISSUE OF ABORTION IS NOT ONE WHICH CAN BE SETTLE VIA PURELY RATIONAL MEANS. In the end, I believe we are best left with some manner of faith to which we must appeal in order to formulate our opinion.

I have chosen (in the interest of time) not to attack Zach's examples or Hampton's subsequent responses. Because it poses bigger questions than the issue of abortion, I will have to leave my objections to Hampton's submission to the greater good for later.

Instead I will submit the following quote from a prominent atheist, Bertrand Russell: "It is wrong always and under any circumstances to believe anything without sufficient evidence."

Now, one might find it strange to use Russell's imperative in support of a faith-based argument, but this is not a faith-based argument in the sense that it involves merely religious assumptions of morality (i.e. a Christian's unwavering acceptance of the will of God etc.).
Rather, I believe that in answering Russell's imperative when it is applied to the realm of morality and ethics, we can find an answer.

Applying Russell's thought to the situation at hand, we find that a tantamount circumstance to Russell's lack of sufficient evidence. This seems to be something we can agree on, namely that there isn't and most likely will never be sufficient evidence to prove when life begins. So what is a Russellian to do? If we follow Russell's imperative, we can, at best, become morally agnostic and abstain from making any judgement regarding abortion's morality. But this would be a dire mistake. Abortions are a current and growing practice, and I believe that apathy toward it is a far worse evil than whole-hearted acceptance or intolerance.

The only way to rectify Russell's imperative with a morally ambiguous situation is to behave "as if". In other words, because we're left with a very specific dichotomy of argument, we can easily choose one or the other equally unproven sides with which to work. Assuming that we can accept that it is generally better to preserve innocent human life than destroy it, regardless of our own morally suspect behavior (eg. Hampton's point re: Vegan's and Capital Punishment), one could respond to the Russellian scenario of ambiguity by saying it is better to act "as if" the child is alive.

In other words, what we're left with is Kierkegaardian dilemma of faith. We must choose, almost blindly, which situation is the better: Assuming the "greater good" in this situation is morally viable and in fact equal in moral value to the imperative that protects innocent human life, we must make a choice. This is where faith comes in: we must have Faith (not necessarily a religious one) that the best thing we can do is preserve that human life. We must have faith that a foetus is indeed more than just genetic puddy, that it is potential humanity awaiting it's arrival into kinetic actuality, and that despite the possibilities that such a child will be unwanted, deformed, or wholly evil, it is better in all situations to let it live.

At most, I think we can say that choosing the greater good is only to mire ourselves in further moral argument. Many will, and have, contended that such appeals to the greater good as a moral necessity is incorrect, and consequently the abortion issue will only further spiral into moral ambiguity. However, the choice to preserve innocent human life is one that is unequivocally correct, assuming we don't become monstrous as we had in the past a begin murdering retards and folks with broken legs like a pack of wild dogs (as hampton would seem to have us do). Admittedly, this is not the most philosophic of answers. It is a choice to believe in the sanctity of human life, and the possibility that it begins at conception. Although we can never know that this is the case, we must behave "as if" life begins there, and accordingly act to preserve. This is a movement of faith.

But this faith does not have to come from a deity's rule. It can from our own worst case, "as if" scenario: The one in which we must decide between 1) a supposed greater good, and embark into further moral debate, and 2) an assumption that renders a clear moral imperative, namely to protect human life.

Here's the dirty little secret that societies tend not to talk about: the question of what is alive (in a moral sense) is something that we define, not something objective that we discover.

Further, even if we agree that something is alive, we still must answer the question of whether it is immoral to kill it. This too, is moulded by social convention. It is not a concept that is forever unchanging. It must be applied selectively depending on our culture, our situation, and so on. I will expand on this claim at the end. For now, consider these test cases.

1 In nomadic tribes, a man becomes too injured to keep up with his tribe. Such a man will sometimes be left to die. Various cultures (our own) find this reprehensible.

2 A man in our society is mentally handicapped. Regardless of his level of mental retardation, we say that he is alive and we are obligated to support him. Is this attitude universal? Assuredly not.

3 A baby is born with a serious defect. In our society, we will raise and care for the baby. In all parts of the ancient world, the baby would often be left to die of exposure.

4 A man in an ancient army flees from battle. His generals consider him dead. Upon finding the man, they kill him without a second thought, or perhaps torture him so he may serve some use.

5 A boy in ancient Persia is homeless and destitute. He steals food from a farmer. Will the farmer consider the boy to be morally alive? Will he think that the boy deserves life?

6 Some years ago a man in our own country beat his dog with a bat then buried it alive in wet cement. (meanwhile, my friend Kathy will not eat meat, dairy, or honey)

In which of these scenarios is the subject morally alive? In which scenario does the subject deserve life? I read on facebook the other day that, "life probably doesn't begin until age 4 or 5, because who can remember being a baby?" Suffice to say, people have different definitions of life. This has nothing to do with one group of people "erring on the side of life." It has everything to do with differing definitions.

You, my friend, do this yourself. You eat meat. You support capital punishment. Why do you fall on that side of the spectrum? Perhaps it is convenient. You can eat a hamburger for lunch. You can see bad people being killed and feel good, like the world is neat and orderly.

Of course, I'm fucking with you. I know that you don't believe these things out of convenience.

You eat meat because you have made the (correct) judgment that animals are not morally alive. Keep in mind that living a vegan life is not really that hard. The convenience of being an omnivore is somewhat trivial. So if you truly wanted to "err on the side of life" then you should logically be a vegan, because can you really be sure that animals aren't alive? You can claim that you are sure, but then, a pro-choice feminist can claim that she is sure that fetuses aren't alive, and with equal validity.

You support capital punishment because it does good. It removes the cancer from our society and inhibits other citizens from turning cancerous. Ultimately, we believe that it saves life, and serves the greater good. As you know quite well, I am tolerant of abortion for the exact same reason.

So that's all the preliminary stuff. Now I can attack the three scenarios without wasting much space.

Example 1: Free yourself and possibly kill an innocent.
I would most certainly not free myself, because I would be afraid of killing someone. But who am I afraid of killing? Let me alter your scenario a little bit.

New Example 1: Ethan captures me and presents me with a red button. If I press it, someone might die. If not, I'm trapped for six months. I ask him "Who will be killed?" Ethan answers "Someone chosen from a random sampling of rappers, terrorists, criminals, wifebeaters, meatheads who hang out at the Bulldog, drug addicts, socialist authors, unwanted fetuses in the first trimester, cancer patients with less than a day to live, and hard-line Iranian nationalists."

I think to myself, "Hmm... I don't really want to kill the cancer patient, and I'm somewhat taken aback by the fetuses. But the reward is surely worth the risk." And I slam that mother fucker all day long.

Example 2: Demolish a building and possibly kill a person.
I would most certainly not demolish the building, because we can oust the schmuck who's in there and then take care of business. But terminating a pregnancy is not like that. We can't decide not to abort temporarily. It's a final decision. So what if your example was scructured this way...

New Example 2: If I do not demolish the building, then the new construction project will never be built. The new construction project is a much-needed hospital, funded by the selfish prick Google owners.

I think to myself, "Who is that dumb shit in that building. Well, whoever he is, he's fucked." Kaboom.

Example 3: Kill myself to avoid music-induced insanity.
I would kill myself.


Now for my claim that "morally alive" is not an unchanging concept.

As we have seen, deciding if something "morally alive" is not the same as deciding whether or not the thing is alive, or whether or not the thing is human. If we took that stance, then we could not dish out corporal punishment or fight in a war. So we can throw out that criteria.

The next criteria is whether or not it is good for the subject to be alive. This is synonymous with saying, "will extinguishing the life of the subject serve the greater good." And this question, of course, depends on our culture, our situation, and so on.

I will respond via email and blog.  I've been meaning to write a blog about this and since I know many of you do not read the blog regularly, this is the only way to get the message to you.  This email will contain arguments from previous emails simply for blog completion.

I have thought about the abortion issue at length and there are some interesting conclusions I have come up with.  As mentioned in the previous email my thesis is as follows:

It is quite clear to me that the pro-choice movement is based upon two assumptions:  The first being that it is a woman's right to do with their body as they please.  The flaws in this assumption are apparent enough.  I feel your (Hampton's) quotation is a more appropriate response than I have offered in this dialogue:

"Now, I won't ever say that a woman has a "right" to an abortion, because a right is, of course, nothing more than the crystallized fantasy of the person using the word.  A 6 year old would claim that it is his right to get the same amount of cookie that his sister got, no more and no less.  A juiced up frat boy would say that it is his right to pick fights at bars and disrespect women. "

The second assumption is quite bold: the fetus is not a child.  As with the previous assumption, this cannot be proven, even with science, because certainly what consists of "life" varies from science to science, from scientist to scientist.  I don't know that it will ever be able to be proven with science, though I won't contend it won't, due to the unique nature of the issue.

So, feminists and pro-choicers latch onto these assumptions as truths, with nothing more than dogma to support it.  Why, do you ask, are they so fervent about an issue they know so little about?  Convenience and the illusion of "equality". 

Women want so badly to believe that they are tantamount to men in every fashion.  I submit that there are biological differences (what feminists call "sex") which necessarily entail social differences (what feminists call "gender.")  But that is an entirely different issue, which requires a dialogue of it's own.  My point is that women seem to believe that if they do not have the same liberties as men, then they are not equal.  For example, I suppose you could say men have the liberty of having sex without pregnancy concerns.  Women do not.  If women do not posses this liberty (abortion) then we are not equal. 

Assumption number three.  Women are not "equal" to men in the traditional sense.  From dictionary.com equal means "Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another."  Sorry ladies, but you do not have the same value as men, plain and simple.  There are tasks we can do that you can't do and there are tasks you can perform which we cannot perform, perhaps with a few exceptions all around.  It might be more appropriate to say that there are tasks that we do better than each other, or that you possess values that men do not.  My point is that men and women are completely different entities, but yes, our responsibilities are equal;  you just refuse to accept it.

For years men have dominated the public realm and the social limelight.  These responsibilities range from being the primary financial provider to hosting the yearly Christmas party.  Women, on the other hand, have dominated the private realm.  These tasks range from bearing and raising children to housework.  While the tasks were clearly defined many years ago, we're beginning to see the lines blurred because women simply cannot accept the fact that raising children is equally, if not more, important than bringing home a paycheck.  I would almost certainly argue it is more consequential, for what is more important than the raising of the children?  The stubbornness of the feminist movement refuses to accept this "relegated" responsibility due to the lack of "liberty" they inherit if they cannot abort their children.

The second issue is related to the first in that the liberty to be free of pregnancy concerns is certainly a convenience that women do not possess.  It is convenient for two reasons:  First of all, "it" will not get in the way of their career or schooling.  Secondly, if they would just rather not have to take care of a child that they don't want, then they can just discard it.

Now, Hampton has agreed that the belief in abortion rights is arbitrary as they are based on assumptions motivated primarily by the desire for convenience and equality.  On the other hand, he has pointed out that the pro-life movement is just as arbitrary by contending that the fetus is a child and that women have "no right" to abort.

This I can agree with, and have come to the same conclusion in the past week.  But this is certainly far from the end of the debate, as there are key differences. 

The truth is that while both conclusions are arbitrary, one is founded on a sounder reason, that being the pro-life. The important point here is that no one can define scientifically when the "human" life begins.  Not you, not I.  So, where do we go from here?  Allow me to illustrate with some examples that I know we will all agree with:

Example 1:  You wake up from a deep sleep and mad scientist Ethan has kidnapped you.  You're locked in a room and there are two buttons present: red and blue.  Ethan tells you that if you press the red button, someone might die, but you can leave.  If you press the blue button, no one will die, but the result will inconvenience you.  What do you do?

Example 2:  You're the manager of a demolition company and you're about to destroy the building that is your largest contract.  Millions of dollars in your pocket.  As you give the order to begin the destruction, one of your employees yells, "I think I see a child in the window!"  Knowing that postponing the demolition could lose you the contract, what do you do?

Example 3:  Evil scientist Ethan kidnaps you again, but this time there is a gun in front of you.  You have two choices:  you can stay in this room for 2 weeks with Brittney Spears and Nickelback blaring 24 hours a day, or you can put the gun to your mouth and pull the trigger.  The gun might or might not be loaded.  What do you do? Wait, that might be a bad example...

I think that it is safe to say that virtually 100% of the people who are asked this question would err on the side of life; the other choices would be unnecessary risks, even with inconvenience.  And here is the key difference between the arbitrariness.

The pro-choicers arbitrarily assume that they have the "right" and that the fetus is not a child for the purpose of convenience.  A rather suspect motivation.  Pro-lifers, on the other hand, hold their beliefs because they hold human life paramount to everything.  Pro-choicers hold their own life selfishly above an action that could potentially be a murder.  Most people err on the side of life 99% of the time, yet with abortion, somehow it's totally different.  No convenience is worth that risk.  This is why I say abortion is an immoral act.

I will save your other arguments for another email, as I do not find them very troublesome to my cause.  Furthermore, there are many avenues of this argument I have not visited in this email for want of space and time.  I couldn't possibly preempt every pro-choice argument, but I'd be happy to address them individually if they are brought up.

Note: My intention is not to offend people.  I realize that might happen, but those of you who are offended are going to have to deal with the fact that there are people who disagree with you...and for good reasons.  I look forward to any dialogue on my views.  Also note that I'm not focusing on the immorality of abortion.  That area is simply too gray to discuss I have come to feel.  My purpose is to analyze the motivations of women and feminists who insist on their "right" to abortion.

You may forward this to anyone you please and, in fact, I encourage it.  As Socrates says, "For all men who have a companion are readier in deed, word, or thought."

Zach Sonnier

Prepare yourself for that post. It is coming.

As much as those kooky Libertarians might like to think that we human are beholden to no one, we do, in fact, live in a land (and by and large, a world) that is goverened by basic rules of behavior and standards of law.

There are those, however, that would say that these standards have become so lax over the years as to have lost virtually all of their meaning. Their logic is that with each explitive ridden t-shirt or scantily-clad bimbo, we lose a little bit of the groundwork that holds this whole thing we call society together and takes it one step further into the darkness of chaos and despair.

They might have a point, especially in the legal sense. The limp-wristed, namby-pamby judges we have in this day and age, the very gatekeepers of that rule of law, are letting the baby-boomer "I'm okay, you're okay," "wheatgrass before my morning meditation" mentality seep into their professional lives and ruin it for the rest of us.

I refer you to the case of a Vermont judge who sentenced a man to 60 days in prison for the repeated rape of a seven-year-old girl. According to Judge Edward Cashman, "The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul."

Yeah, thanks. I'm sure that's gonna help that little girl sleep at night.

As it turns out, there a whole shitload of things you can get away with, even if you do them RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE.

From Brietbart.com

A Chicago man apologized for spreading his feces around a courtroom during his trial on drug charges.

Vandale Amos Willis, 28, apologized Wednesday before being sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. Willis was convicted earlier of importation of a controlled substance, cocaine, and two other charges.

"Im going to take full responsibility for everything I did in Duluth," Willis told the court. "I want to apologize for everything I did in court. Im sorry, your honor."

He asked Judge David Sullivan to put him on probation. Sullivan told Willis his actions wouldn't be held against him, but there was no reason to depart from sentencing guidelines.

Ladies and gentleman, we have officially reached crisis point. When a man can smear his own feces in a hall of public justice, and have the judge, or any human being, offer him a shred if sympathy, we have crossed the raging river of despair and entered into dark, dark territory.

From Rants and Raves, a blog by Stephen Browne

Journalist Jill Carroll is back home now, and detailing her experiences as a captive of the jihadists in Iraq in the Christian Science Monitor.

I'm sure the details will prove fascinating, but the upshot of what she has learned is that the Islamists are - gasp! - different from us! Furthermore, I believe that she's beginning to suspect that they are really not very nice people. Oh whatever will this poor old world be FORCED to endure next?

Since the beginning of the Iraq phase of this conflict of civilizations, I've experienced the teeth-grinding frustration of watching both pro- and anti- Iraq sides make the exact same mistake - that of supposing that these people are basically Americans in funny costumes. In this respect, George Bush and Michael Moore are equally clueless, as was Jill Carroll apparently.

I went to live and work in Saudi Arabia in 1998, and I "made my year" as expats there put it. That phrase means that I actually stuck out the whole year, instead of "running" from my contract, an occurrence so common that you only have to say "he did a runner" to explain why someone isn't showing up for work anymore. And while my experience wasn't nearly as unpleasant as Jill Carroll's, I could have told her a thing or two before she went to Iraq armed with her overflowing good will.

In Eastern Europe and the South Balkans, whenever I have gone to live in a place which I had formed opinions about, the actual experience of living there has always radically changed those opinions, sometimes into a completely contradictory ones. Most often, my academic research led me to form a beautifully coherent model which experience turned into a semi-coherent collection of observations and tentative conclusions.

In the case of the Kingdom, I went there with a certain sympathy for Arab grievances, a belief that America had earned a lot of hostility from "blowback" from our ham-handed interventionist foreign policy and support for Israel etc.

I came back with the gloomy opinion that over the long run we are going to have to hammer these people hard to get them to quit messing with Western Civilization. And by the way, among "rational, fair-minded" non-interventionist libertarians, not a damn one of them has asked me, "What in your experience caused you to change your mind?" Instead what I get are gratuitous insults followed by insufferably condescending lectures about how wrong I am.

So, with the caveat that one of the first things I learned was that the term "Arab" covers a lot of territory, here are some observations and some tentative conclusions about Arabs, more specifically about Arabs from the oil states about why we have misunderstood each other to the point that we are fighting a war with some of them and are pissing off the rest of them. I suspect that many of these also apply to Iranian Islamists, but I have never been there and note that Iranians are not Arabs and have a different cultural history.

1) They don't think the same way we do.

No, I mean THEY REALLY DON'T THINK THE SAME WAY WE DO. Yes, yes, I know we are all human and share the same human nature (perhaps the most disastrous mistake of Marxism was the denial of this elementary fact). But within the scope of that shared human nature, there are a lot of different ways to be human. We Americans have a basically open attitude to our fellow human beings and sometimes forget this. Combined with the fact that most Americans are linguistic idiots, we tend to assume that anyone who learns to speak English learns to think like us.

2) When you meet them in just the right circumstances, they are a very likable people.

Arabs are often easy to like, but difficult to respect - as opposed to Israelis, who are often difficult to like but impossible not to respect. From their nomadic heritage they have a tradition of generosity and hospitality to guests that warms the heart. Arab shopkeepers have a talent for making you feel guilty that you didn't buy anything (once you get past a dislike of having them lay hands on you). Haggling is a social grace with them and when you ask the price, and agree to the first one quoted, they will often come down on the price just out of pity for your social ineptness. This does not in the least affect the fact that no friendship with you is ever going to remotely equal the obligations they have for their family, tribe or the community of the Believers.

3) Their values are fundamentally different from ours, their self-esteem is derived from a different source.

And you know what? Theirs is PHONY. Yes I know, I'm making a cultural value judgment, the cardinal sin when I was a grad student in Anthropology. With us, the most important sources of self-esteem are useful work and the love of a good woman. Being good at something that requires skill (even a hobby) and being of primary importance to somebody just because you are who you are. Work for them, is something to be avoided. The basic forms of work: making stuff, growing stuff and moving stuff around, is taken care of by a class of indentured servants, usually non-Arab Muslims from the Third World, and even today, by outright slaves. The Kingdom is a modern country, they abolished slavery in 1967, but old expats have reported seeing slave auctions as late as 1981.

On one occasion a student of mine asked me, "Teacher, what do you call a man who can be sold?" (Excellent use of the passive voice, I was proud of him.) I explained, "He is called a slave, the condition is called slavery, the verb is to enslave." Later I had occasion to ask them about the headsman, the fellow who cuts heads and hands off in chop-chop square in front of the mosque on Fridays. The reason I asked was that from my studies I knew that in tribal societies converting from a tribal or feudal system into a system of common laws, a man condemned to death by a court of law must often be executed by a member of his own tribe, or a complete outsider so that the execution does not spark a blood feud. In the Kingdom the headsman is usually a Sudanese. My students explained, "Yes teacher, he's a slave." i.e. he's a person of no importance and therefore outside the web of obligations of vengeance.

The point being, in a slave society, work is not honorable (as De Tocqueville pointed out) and cannot be a source of self-worth.

In Tunisia I saw a population doing their own work and I have worked with a fair number of Jordanians engaged in skilled labor and the professions. Note that neither is an oil state and I believe their contribution to the ranks of terrorists is far less than the oil-rich countries. It is difficult to argue that poverty is the driving cause of terrorism.

"Of conjugal love they know nothing." (Thomas Jefferson on the French aristocracy.) In a land of arranged marriages, where the whole society is geared towards a strict segregation of the sexes and women are at least semi-chattels, romantic love is rare – and greatly desired. In the Kingdom I found a few students with a consuming interest in romantic poetry, whom I had to teach very discretely. Most of them were just obsessed with sex however. And interestingly, when visiting the West or the fleshpots of Bahrain, they are said to have a tendency to fall in love with the prostitutes they patronize.

Without honorable work, romantic love or any accomplishments not overshadowed by those the West, their sense of self-worth comes from being the possessors of the One True Religion. And Allah doesn't seem to be delivering on his promises of being exalted above the unbelievers these days.

On the plus side, they are willing to spare you and absorb you into their community as a respected member if you convert to the One True Religion. The Brotherhood of Believers is a reality in the lands of Islam, and while it sometimes falls short of the ideal (as does our democratic ideal) it is a reality, and in its way admirable.

4) Not only can they not build the infrastructure of a modern society, they can't maintain it either.

The very concept of "maintenance" is foreign to them. This is what drives the foreign instructors in the Gulf absolutely mad. The per capita richest countries in the world resemble Eastern Europe or Latin America in the tackiness and run-down appearance of the buildings and streets. An electronics technician new to the Kingdom once told me how his first job was to inspect a junction box in the desert. He had to pry it open with a crowbar as it had evidently not been opened since it had been installed several years earlier.

This is expressed in the inshallah philosophy, "If God wills it." A Palestinian friend of mine explained to me that even the weather forecaster will qualify his prediction, "It will rain tomorrow. Inshallah." Or, "I will meet you tomorrow, inshallah." (But God understands that I am a very unreliable person.)

I remember giving a pep talk to my students before a crucial exam, "You are all going to pass the exam, right?" "Inshallah teacher." "No, no!" I shouted, "No inshallah. Study!"

This was once also characteristic of the former communist countries. Work was indifferently performed and maintenance was a real problem. A factory owner in Poland told me that machines he bought from Sweden lasted only half as long in Poland as they did in Sweden because of poor maintenance. However as soon as people were assured that they could keep a reasonable amount of what they worked for, people reverted to their true cultural patterns, worked plenty hard and started to take care of their tools and the public spaces.

5) They do not think of obligations as running both ways.

With us, contractual and moral obligations tend to be equal and reciprocal. They don't see it that way. The obligations of the superior to the inferior do not equal those of the inferior to the superior. Obligations within a family or clan outweigh all others. That is why we had to take care not to sit members of the same clan near each other during exams. If one asks another for help, he has to give it. In spite of promises to the school and even when the clansman is a total stranger. Obligations to other believers outweigh all obligations to unbelievers and especially when the believers are fellow-Arabs. And in contracts with unbelievers, the obligations of the Believer to the kaffir are not equal to the obligations of the kaffir to the Believer.

Consider that Muslims in England have quite un-selfconsciously demanded that a pub near a Mosque be shut down as offensive to their religion – in spite of the fact that the pub had precedence by six hundred years! Or that they demanded the right to broadcast the prayer call on loudspeakers in London while it is illegal to have a church at all in the Kingdom.

6) In warfare, we think they are sneaky cowards, they think we are hypocrites.

In our civilization, when two men get down, either seriously or just "woofing", what do they say? Some variation of "I'm going to kick your ass." Am I right? Here's what I heard in the Kingdom, "Hey, don't f**k with me, or someday you get a knife in the back." I'm not saying that wouldn't happen to you in the West, but most men would be ashamed to make a threat of that nature. We don't understand that direct shock battle is not necessarily the law of nature. When overwhelming force is brought to bear on them, they become cringing and obsequious. To put it bluntly, they lie their heads off to get you to turn your back on them. Try to see it from their point of view – how else do you expect them to act when you have the overwhelming force? You expect them to meet you on equal terms when the situation is so unequal? What other tactics are available but prevarication and delay followed by a sneak attack?

Folks, what we call "terrorism" is quite close to the historically normal way of warfare among these people.

7) In rhetoric, they don't mean to be taken seriously and they don't understand when we do.

Thus an ultimatum is often not taken seriously and the reality comes as a surprise. Remember the "Mother of all Battles"? Like many other Mediterranean peoples, Arabs don't seem to mind making a scene in public and have a high blown sense of drama. Paul Harvey once described how he had spent the Suez Crisis hiding under the bed in his hotel room because of the blood-curdling radio broadcasts, before he learned that Arabs talk like that when they're arguing over a taxi. "This is my taxi and I will defend it to the death!" "You lie, it's mine and rivers of blood will flow in the street before I give up my taxi!"

An Arab will scream at you, get into your personal space and sometimes kick dirt on your shoe – and they react with utter surprise when an American up and decks him. "What did I do?" To say the least, this makes negotiations difficult.

8) They don't place the same value on an abstract conception of Truth as we do, they routinely believe things of breathtaking absurdity.

I cannot begin to tell you of some of the things I've heard from Gulf Arabs or read in the English language press in the Kingdom. "The Jews want Medina back." (Medina was a Jewish city in the time of the Prophet.) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been turned into an immensely popular miniseries on Egyptian TV. The Blood Libel (the medieval myth that Jews need the blood of non-Jewish babies to celebrate Passover) is widely reported in the Arab press, and widely believed. Allah will replenish the oil beneath Arabia when it runs out.

I've been assured, by well-educated and otherwise sensible people that Winston Churchill was Jewish and that Anthony Quinn had been blacklisted and would never work again after making Lion of the Desert (just before he made that turkey with Kevin Costner).

9) They do not have the same notion of cause and effect as we do.

This involves some seriously weird stuff about other people being responsible for their misery because they ill-wished them. I've read in the English-language press of the Kingdom serious admonitions against using Black Magic to win an advantage in a dispute with a neighbor. The columnist did not deny the efficacy of Black Magic, he just said it's forbidden to use it. On one occasion I was trying to explain the concept of "myth" to them and I used the example of the djinn. I wasn't getting through to them at all and was concerned that I had mangled the pronunciation of the word when it dawned on me that the reason they didn't understand what I was getting at, was that they had no doubt that the djinn were real.

10) We take for granted that we are a dominant civilization still on the way up. They are acutely aware that they are a civilization on the skids.

Anyone who looks at the surviving architecture of Moorish Spain can tell that Islamic civilization has seen better days. There was a time when cultural transmission between Islam and the West went overwhelmingly from them to us. (Note the recent discoveries of Sufi symbols engraved on the structural members of European cathedrals.) Now the situation is reversed, and it is humiliating for them.

11) We think that everybody has a right to their own point of view, they think that that idea is not only self-evidently absurd, but evil.

In the West, and America more than anyplace else, we have internalized the notion that everyone has a right to their own opinion, and that said opinion is perfectly valid for them. When we meet a people who think that that idea is insane and evil, we are sometimes left in the absurd position of defending their idea as "perfectly valid for them". Doesn't work that way for them, God's Truth is laid out in some detail in the Koran, and not to believe it is a sin. I know I know, in America you can find lots of Christian Fundamentalists who believe that God will cast you into hell for holding the wrong opinions about Him, but even those who would make their religion into an established church seldom desire the level of enforcement in such detail as the Kingdom does or the Taliban did.

12) Our civilization is destroying theirs. We cannot share a world in peace. They understand this; we have yet to learn it.

Another culturally-imposed blindness we have is the notion that everybody can get along with enough good will. There is absolutely no evidence to support this and a great deal to oppose it. Can the subjugation of women coexist with Western Civilization with Western media ubiquitous throughout the world? Can a pluralistic and tolerant society be governed by Islamic law? Can a modern economy exist where interest is forbidden and many forms of business risk-taking are considered gambling, and thus forbidden? Can a society that educates its young men by a process of rote recitation produce critically thinking, technically educated men to build and operate a modern economy? Can you even teach elementary concepts of maintenance to a people who believe that anything that happens is inshalla (As God will it)? To compete, or even just survive in the world they must become more like us and less like themselves – and they know this.

I think Hampton hit the nail on the head when he mentioned a plethora of times that during the course of your argumentation you simply state your preference and nothing else. what I'm getting at is that your axioms are built on a weak foundation of assumptions. At first I simply conceded your "axioms" as truths but disagreed on your other libertarian views. After doing some research, however, I've realized how incredibly UNfounded these libertarian axioms really are.

I quote the quintessential Libertarian, Murray Rothbard (who is considered the father of modern libertarianism), on the axioms: "…the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with."

I would like to point out that while you have stated your axioms numerous times and explained what they entailed, you have not ONCE told us WHY the axioms exist. Who derived these and from what? The best that I can muster from your emails is that these axioms are simply "self-evident." Well, to quote my good friend Ethan, "Nothing is self-evident."

Can you prove to me, other than stating it that it is so, that every man is a self-owner? To quote Dr. Timothy Terrell, "As the libertarian theory of property rights is essentially faith-based, it is no more "objective" than any other faith-based property rights theory. The Christian may assert that God is the creator, and therefore the owner, of all men." The difference, I suppose, is that Christians have faith in God due to biblical revelations while libertarians, on the other hand, simply hope that their readers will share their faith on the validity of the axioms. I can't accept your first axiom if I do not accept your faith in them.

Now, do not mistake this for me saying that I disagree that "no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person." I whole-heartedly agree. What I disagree with is that having "jurisdiction" over something by no standards implies ownership. I have full jurisdiction over my child, but do I own him? The libertarian would say no. I have jurisdiction over the company I run, but do I own it? No, I'm just a CEO. Do I own my neighbor's lawnmower because I control it completely right now? No. As you can see this "self-ownership" reasoning is shaky at best.

What the hell does "mixes with his labor mean?" Alright, I'm getting of track, but it's good to note how incredibly vague this statement is. Playing on the example Hampton put forth, if I land on the moon first can I land my flag pole in the ground and claim all of the land?? The libertarian would say no. But is one acre reasonable? I think the Libertarian would say yes, but ultimately it doesn't matter what your decision is. If they can't claim the entire planet (even though your own axiom states "justly owns whatever previously unowned resources) any line you draw will be arbitrary. My point is that these axioms are not axioms at all. When things get sticky and libertarians are put in sketchy ethical situations (or property situations as seen above) where the axioms cannot clearly and definitively show the right path then they revert back to personal preference. Well, one acre sounds reasonable, but the entire planet is not. That is not axiomatic. That is personal preference changing with each libertarian one encounters. I spoke to you last night and I asked you these same questions and you responded with "depends." Does a physics professor say "depends" when approached with a physics problem? NO! Because he works with TRUE axioms! (You said a man owns his property if he "homesteads it." What does homestead mean? If I till 10 inches, does that count? what about 10 feet?) I think what I'm getting at is that you can't have axioms to rule human affairs. It has never worked and it never will work. Here I'm basically turning your Lew Rockwell argument on you except in a reasonable manner...a manner he did not utilize.(Note, if you want someone who actually tried to defend these axioms and prove they existed look up Hoppe. His reasoning is equally, if not more, weak than simply stating the axioms are true. I find that my arguments have addressed his very bold assumptions.)

The fact that we can have two libertarians who derive every decision from the non-aggression axiom and come up with different conclusions for a given situation also proves that these are not "axioms." They are personal preference.

I would also like to note the ridiculous statement you sent to Hampton about how these axioms are more, not less, affirmed than the laws of physics. First of all, revert to my first argument that SAYING SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. Why are they more affirmed? How? Who decided? No matter how many equations, numbers, or situations you throw at a physicist they can answer DEFINITIVELY a physics problem and the correct answer will always be the same. The laws of physics are universal my dear Nick; your "axioms" are not.

Furthermore, I'm sure a common libertarian defence is something like, "these are such ridiculous situations. These would never happen and the axioms work almost completely in normal situations." Maybe, but that's still not an axiom! If your axioms are more sound than the laws of physics, and if a physicist can show the speed of a watermelon being dropped from the empire state building by Condoleeza Rice at exactly 4 seconds after the initial release, then you can show us just how axiomatic your axioms really are in an equally crazy situation....or can you? Axioms don't change according to situations

Once again, our good friend Murray Rothbard, "The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self ownership.
This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body,
that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus.Most fetuses are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother's freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not
want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic "invader" of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as "murder" of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers."

Now, it's important to note that he is implying no restrictions on abortion, thus the woman would be allowed one any time prior to birth, IE., at 8 3/4 months. I'm not going to get into the obvious moral implications here and how ridiculous this sounds on really every level, but I would like to apply his reasoning universally. I have absolute dominion over my house. Killing my mother-in-law should not be seen as "murder" of a living person, but as an expulsion of an unwanted invader from my domain. I mean she is a parasite...she takes my money, my time, and my food, right? No, not right. This reasoning is absurd. No matter if something is looked upon as X, it doesn't change the fact that it is Y. In other words, killing a fetus 8 1/2 months into the pregnancy is always murder, regardless of how you choose to perceive it. I'd also like to point out that it's more like asking the next door neighbor to come to your house (they may or may not come) and then killing them and claiming them an "invader." IE, they had sex willingly (we're assuming...rapes are different) and she may or may not have a child. Once again, inconsistent.

Furthermore, let's discuss libertarian views on children. Rothbard claimed that the child in the womb is in complete jurisdiction of the mother, being in her body and all. So does that mean that I am in complete jurisdiction of my mother right now because I was that way in her womb? When am I no longer in her jurisdiction? At what age? At what maturity level? What about a retarded child? Are they considered full fledged human beings with all human rights? When does the maternal obligation run out for them? Can you axiomatically show me the truth, Like physics can show me the laws of gravity even though they are LESS founded than your "axioms?" Undoubtedly, your decisions will be based primarily upon personal preference in this arena.

Now, in Rothbard's defense he DOES mention that he is not trying to establish "the morality of abortion (which may or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion."

This is all fine and dandy but it's not so easy to separate what is moral from what should be legal. Certainly not all sins should be crimes, but it would be absurd to say that no sins should be crimes. I've touched on this in earlier email's, but the problem is that speaking of something only in the legal sense can not show you how to be ethical or virtuous, as the above abortion example shows. I would also venture to say that creating a society where right and wrong is determined only legally has severe moral implications for that society. I would say it's a pretty universally accepted fact that partial birth abortion is murder (no matter how you "perceive" it). And while it shouldn't be illegal only on the grounds that it is immoral, it certainly should be considered in the decision making process. While I would agree that you cannot legislate morals you CAN legislate to encourage good and decent behavior, IE. public nudity, public intoxication, public fornication, tax breaks for married couples, etc. The list goes on. In a libertarian society this would not be possible, or even desirable.

I would like to quote my good friend Russell Kirk on this matter:

"What do I mean when I say that today's American libertarians are metaphysically mad, and so repellent? Why, the dogmas of libertarianism have been refuted so often, both dialectically and by the hard knocks of experience, that it would be dull work to rehearse here the whole tale of folly. Space wanting, I set down below merely a few of the more conspicuous insufficiencies of libertarianism as a credible moral and political mode of belief. It is such differences from the conservatives' understanding of the human condition that make inconceivable any coalition of conservatives and libertarians.

The great line of division in modern politics—as Eric Voegelin reminds us-is not between totalitarians on the one hand and liberals (or libertarians) on the other; rather, it lies between all those who believe in some sort of transcendent moral order, on one side, and on the other side all those who take this ephemeral existence of ours for the be-all and end-all-to be devoted chiefly to producing and consuming. In this discrimination between the sheep and the goats, the libertarians must be classified with the goats-that is, as utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct. In effect, they are converts to Marx's dialectical materialism; so conservatives draw back from them on the first principle of all."

This issue has reminded me of something Dick said in an earlier email:
"As a Christian, I fully intend to teach my children of their moral obligation to help others. I just won't be teaching them that others somehow have a legal right to their persons or property. I would agree that only an uncaring scumbag would refuse to offer any charitable support to anyone, but being such a scumbag, while undesirable, ought not be a crime. That is, an ungenerous person is immoral, but not necessarily criminal."

I absolutely agree with him that this is the best way to raise children in our country. The problem is that Dick is unique in his libertarian/christian outlooks. Just like Rothbard pointed out libertarians teach what should be right legally, not morally, but it is not so easy (or should be) to separate them. To found a political philosophy that doesn't even take morals or virtuous conduct into account is simply preposterous because it could never function. You might say (and have) that you WOULD teach your children virtues, but when your political philosophy doesn't even touch them it's left up to personal preference whether you teach your children that. While you still have that choice today(to teach them or not), prevailing conservative philosophy, for example, very much considers morals and virtuous character in their political philosophy and this will produce many more citizens with a moral obligation to others. I by no means think that morals obligations should be legal obligations but to not have the former would surely be disastrous and you don't even speak of it (neither does Rothbard, for that matter).

I'm interested to know what Dick thinks about Rothbard's abortion interpretation on abortion. If he decided to side with libertarians then he is betraying his christian beliefs as I can't think of any christian denomination that supports partial birth abortion. If he decides to side with Christians he is defying this interpretation of the "axiom" of truth that had been laid before us by Rothbard.

Suffice it to say that while your quote that we "can't have controlled experiments on human affairs" is obviously wrong, what is correct is to say that you cannot have one universal axiom to rule all of human affairs because they are exactly that: human and completely circumstantial. From all of your emails you have hardly shown that your axioms work at all, let alone universally.

I'd like to end the email with, what I think is such a perfect quote from Kirk:

"When heaven and earth have passed away, perhaps the conservative mind and the libertarian mind may be joined in synthesis-but not until then. Meanwhile, I venture to predict, the more intelligent and conscientious persons within the libertarian remnant will tend to settle for politics as the art of the possible, so shifting into the conservative camp."

Good luck on your libertarian escapades. I look forward to your response.

- Written by Zach Sonnier
6.16.06