Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[MSimon]

Also at age 5 I drank from the "Colored Only" fountain. My mom was so proud. Even though she had to pull me away for social reasons. I could read at that age (thanks Mom!). I knew.

I have been a defiant one for a very long time. And you know what? I'm proud of it.

I must have picked it up from living at the foot of Monticello. Where I lived at the time. Jefferson must have infused me with a little of his spirit. Or I was born with it. Maybe a little of both.

[Diogenes]

Here goes another wasted post which happens to be germane to the topic of the thread.

Recent Charges of Sexual Abuse of Children in Hollywood Just Tip of Iceberg, Experts Say

If a spate of recent allegations proves true, Hollywood may have a hideous epidemic on its hands. The past two weeks have brought three separate reports of alleged child sexual abuse in the entertainment industry.

Martin Weiss, a 47-year-old Hollywood manager who represented child actors, was charged in Los Angeles on Dec. 1 with sexually abusing a former client. His accuser, who was under 12 years old during the time of the alleged abuse, reported to authorities that Weiss told him "what they were doing was common practice in the entertainment industry." Weiss has pleaded not guilty.

On Nov. 21, Fernando Rivas, 59, an award-winning composer for “Sesame Street,” was arraigned on charges of coercing a child “to engage in sexually explicit conduct” in South Carolina. The Juilliard-trained composer was also charged with production and distribution of child pornography.

Registered sex offender Jason James Murphy, 35, worked as a casting agent in Hollywood for years before his past kidnapping and sexual abuse of a boy was revealed by the Los Angeles Times on Nov. 17. Murphy’s credits include placing young actors in kid-friendly fare like "Bad News Bears," "The School of Rock," "Cheaper by the Dozen 2” and the forthcoming "Three Stooges.”

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... perts-say/



Nope, no problem here that I can see.

[MSimon]

Well at least you are addressing the core issue. If you stopped going after the abused children and started going after the abusers you would have no stronger ally.

BTW my Dad was severely abused by his mother. So in many cases it is generational. Not many have the discipline to stop. I didn't get it as bad as he did. It stopped with me. So I even have some sympathy for the abusers.

As with all things you must approach the problem with compassion for the frailties of human nature. Education not punishment is the key. IMO. Otherwise I would have lost my Dad - who I came to love dearly in later years.

One thing we could do to attenuate the problem is to stop abusing abused children. Of any generation. Drug prohibition is no help.

BTW I don't remember that sage from long ago calling for a government posse to cure the ills of the world. Just the opposite. I believe he said it was the job of sympathetic individuals. Love one another was supposed to be the rule. If you can trust the stories handed down he loved sinners. I have some sympathy in that direction myself.

Go look at the wanted posters in your local post office. The last time I looked at least 50% were obviously abused children. Their spirits broken by their relations. The dead eyes are a giveaway. You want to do something about crime? Stop the abuse. Not with a posse. With love in your heart. If you can manage it. It is a very tough trick for most. We are all too human.

BTW my brother was murdered by the drug war. I miss him. This is for you Jeff. I will never forget. I will forgive. Not forget. I still remember the day we spent together in Mill Valley watching the Airplane on Cavett post Woodstock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abPpq6hQ ... re=related

[KitemanSA]

The State is a necessary evil.

Government, like most toxic substances, is subject to the J-Curve.

A little is beneficial, a lot is toxic.

Both too much and too little is toxic.

Sorry, not how the J-Curve works. "Too little" yields less benefit, but is NOT toxic. Too MUCH is T O X I C ! ! !

[MSimon]

BTW you will appreciate this D. Jeff was a graduate of UO or is it OU? I forget.

[KitemanSA]

I see them as regarding the same issue, which is; What are the proper boundaries for intervention in the affairs of others? The Libertarian position is "an it hurt none, do as thou wilst", which is all fine and dandy if you add up ALL the accounts of the damage, which most of the time Libertarians will not do.

You seem to have an anarchist's view of Libertarianism. Tis faulty and misleading.

[KitemanSA]

According to my definition, Libertarians are the opposite extreme from Liberals. Liberals want Total government, Libertarians want none.

As I said right above, your understanding of what it means to be "libertarian" is faulty and misleading. Liberatarians are NOT anarchists. Min-archists, maybe, but not ANarchists.
Liberals don't want total government, they only want the government to totally control HALF your life. But then, so do conservatives (in everyone's definition but your own). They just argue about which half, and never repair the damage done by the other folk when they take power. So as it happens, both liberals and conservatives are TOOLS of the authoritarians who DO what TOTAL government control of your life.
How bout that! You are a TOOL!

[Betruger]

The salient point has nothing to do with the specifics of whatever conduct is being prohibited. It makes no difference if it is "sex" or "murder" the argument put forth is that it is the PROHIBITION of the conduct that causes more of it.

And you pretend to understand people.

[MSimon]

The salient point has nothing to do with the specifics of whatever conduct is being prohibited. It makes no difference if it is "sex" or "murder" the argument put forth is that it is the PROHIBITION of the conduct that causes more of it.

And you pretend to understand people.

That understanding is quite fortunate. Because once you have it you can start ordering people around. Or at least support those that do.

The great fear is that some how. Some where. Someone is going to do something I don't approve of. And that doing is sure to bring down civilization faster that the wielders of the fasces ever can.

Except we know from history that it is the holders of the fasces who are most dangerous to civilization. After all they hung a great spiritual leader - revered by so many in America - out to dry. Just an inconvenient fact best forgotten.

[Betruger]

I'd really like to pick your brains in person for a quarter hour or two MSimon. One of these days.

[Diogenes]

Government, like most toxic substances, is subject to the J-Curve.

A little is beneficial, a lot is toxic.

Both too much and too little is toxic.

Sorry, not how the J-Curve works. "Too little" yields less benefit, but is NOT toxic. Too MUCH is T O X I C ! ! !

I do not understand how you can say that. If you reduce government to the point where it does not or can not enforce the laws, you create a power vacuum into which a strong man will step and HE will be the law. This is the legacy of Drug addiction in China, with Mao Tse Tung stepping into the power vacuum.

[Diogenes]

I see them as regarding the same issue, which is; What are the proper boundaries for intervention in the affairs of others? The Libertarian position is "an it hurt none, do as thou wilst", which is all fine and dandy if you add up ALL the accounts of the damage, which most of the time Libertarians will not do.

You seem to have an anarchist's view of Libertarianism. Tis faulty and misleading.

You may think so, but I think the effects of Libertarianism are not as well understood by the Libertarians as they believe. They too are subject to the law of unintended consequences.

[Diogenes]

According to my definition, Libertarians are the opposite extreme from Liberals. Liberals want Total government, Libertarians want none.

As I said right above, your understanding of what it means to be "libertarian" is faulty and misleading. Liberatarians are NOT anarchists. Min-archists, maybe, but not ANarchists.
Liberals don't want total government, they only want the government to totally control HALF your life. But then, so do conservatives (in everyone's definition but your own). They just argue about which half, and never repair the damage done by the other folk when they take power. So as it happens, both liberals and conservatives are TOOLS of the authoritarians who DO what TOTAL government control of your life.
How bout that! You are a TOOL!

Can you point to a functional Libertarian society in History? I believe the ones that were attempted were called "libertine" and didn't last very long.

I would say evolution indicates that the Libertarian design of government is non-viable. Read up on the "Georgian Era" of governance in England. It was what preceded the "Victorian Era". Find out why the "Victorian Era" replaced the "Georgian Era" and what happened to England as a result of it.

[Diogenes]

Double post. Internet acting funny today.

[Diogenes]

The salient point has nothing to do with the specifics of whatever conduct is being prohibited. It makes no difference if it is "sex" or "murder" the argument put forth is that it is the PROHIBITION of the conduct that causes more of it.

And you pretend to understand people.

From your excerpt of what I wrote, it tends to indicate that I am offering that explanation. I am pointing out that that is MSIMON'S theory.


Prohibition does not in and of itself CAUSE more of anything. There are other factors at work.

What I *DO* understand about people is that they can often be irrational, and occasionally enlightened.