Somebody Is Paying The Medical Bill

[KitemanSA]

But I have answered your question EVERY time you have asked. You just seem incapable of understanding the plain and simple answer.

How about trying just a simple "Yes" or "No?"

If you stop asking the "do you still beat your wife" type question, maybe the answer will be simple enough for you.

Answered that above. Won't repeat.

No, you went into a diatribe about the civil rights of the contraband product. Without saying that you agree that it should be PROHIBITED by our government.

How many times do I have to say that the government should not prohibit voluntary trade?

And I keep answering plainly that the government should not attempt to prohibit voluntary activites but should PROTECT the right of individuals to voluntary interaction.

Which is a round about way of saying you believe in, and accept Prohibition, but without ACTUALLY saying you believe in and accept Prohibition.

How can you get this from my statements? Your statement here makes no sense.

This is very much like that old joke about the woman who would sleep with a man for a million bucks, but wouldn't do it for five, because she's "not that kind of woman." The man's response is:
"We've already established what kind of woman you are, now we are just negotiating over the price."

So you are a prostitute and we are haggling about price? And do you still beat your wife and kids?

And this is the basis of your appearant insanity. People ARE different from drugs. Learn that.

And that fact has no salient relevance to the point, which is that you conceptually ACCEPT Prohibition when you agree with it, and you REJECT Prohibition when you disagree with it.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the point. Prosecuting someone for slavey is for the protection of the individual being traded, not for the banning of a trade between individuals.

I accept Prohibition as an occasional duty of Nations, and regard it as a normal and necessary tool of civilization.

I do not accept that prohibition of voluntary trade between individuals is EVER the purpose of government. Protection of voluntary action is.

Israel prohibits the transfer of arms to Gaza, as would any SANE nation. All arguments against the Concept of Prohibition are intellectually dishonest.

And it sure works well, doesn't it. Friendly toward Isreal is Gaza? Cooperative and supportive of voluntary interaction are they? Yup, real good example.

Human rights is ALL THERE IS!!! There is NO righteous purpose for government OTHER than to protect human rights. None. Zip. Nada.

And this theory presupposes that there is a universal standard of morality which is obvious and objective and in which everyone agrees with you. To say that history is replete with examples where your own personal morality is not the standard, is an understatement. Concern over "Human Rights" is a relatively recent phenomena in the History of Human Government.

So the fact that it is new and better is somehow a BAD thing? The old and failed ways never worked, but heck, let's give them one more GREAT BIG PUSH and maybe suppressing everyione will make them moral. And you talk about SANE?

No.

Should it attempt to catch and prosecute thieves who have poached ivory from herds not their own? Yes. That is theft, that is wrong. That should be prosecuted. But the fact that it is IVORY is no different than the fact that it is gold, or oil, or heroin, or...

Do you get it now?

I get that you are in favor of Jack booted thugs, providing they serves a purpose of which you approve.

If they limit themselves to PROTECTING human rights, they can't very well be "jack-booted thugs", now can they? How could you fail to see the ironic tone in my statement? Did you totally miss that in the slave trade case there was a person being traded to complain, while in the drug trade case, the drugs CAN'T complain? I thought it was pretty obvious. Too subtle for you?

I get that this is a specific endorsement of the tactic of prohibition as long as the goal is something you agree with.

If you wish to call the protection of human rights "prohibition" go right ahead, but it warps your thinking grossly. And with that inabilitity to think properly, you might remain a Republican forever, Heaven forefend!

Everyone is pretty much in this boat. Conceptually, prohibition is a necessity, and cannot be rejected out of hand simply because it is not 100% effective. Nothing is 100% effective in the short term.

Protection of human rights is the sole righteous purpose of government. "Prohibition" of voluntary interaction is a violation of human rights. It is WRONG, and you can't do good by doing wrong. "Prophibition" as you introduced the concept doesn't work. Protection does.

[KitemanSA]

Prohibit the LEGAL sale of ivory? Are you MAD?

Your behavior reminds me of that of Thornton Melon (played by Rodney Dangerfield) in the movie "Back to School" when the Dean of the Business school was trying to discuss the necessary steps to set up a manufacturing business. Thornton Melon could not comprehend the concept of a "generic", and insisted on discussing a specific. Finally, to shut him up, Dr. Phillip Barbay said they would manufacture "Widgets."

Prohibit the LEGAL sale of ivory? Are you MAD? Didn't you mean "illegal"?

{waste of space removed}

I wish I could say "widgets" to you, but alas it is not so simple. It must of necessity be a contraband material of which YOU disapprove. Again, the particular material is of no import to the question, what is important is for you to be against it, and therefore require the government to interdict it.

Good luck. "Contraband" suggests the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. In no case is the voluntary trading of anything that isn't a specific violation of an individual's right to voluntary action an appropriate activity of government.
Should the government prosecute the trading of:
Drugs? . . . . . . . . Nope.
Stolen drugs? . . . Yep. They were stolen, taken involuntarily.
Servitude . . . . . . Depends
Football players under contract . . nope; voluntary contract
White Slaves (or any other slaves) . . .Yep. involuntary condition.

This really is a simple concept if you allow yourself to have been wrong.

[Diogenes]

And this is why it is a waste of time to argue with someone who is intellectually dishonest.

[KitemanSA]

In this is why it is too often useless to discuss issues with someone who is incapable of nuanced thought and discimination; the ability to THINK.

Note, YOU were "arguing", I was trying to enlighten. Who is the dishonest one, he who seeks only to argue or he who tries to inform?

Pot... kettle?

[Diogenes]

In this is why it is too often useless to discuss issues with someone who is incapable of nuanced thought and discimination; the ability to THINK.

Or "why I am in favor of prohibiting things I don't like, but against it for things that I do like." "Nuanced".

Note, YOU were "arguing", I was trying to enlighten. Who is the dishonest one, he who seeks only to argue or he who tries to inform?

Pot... kettle?

In order to "enlighten" you have to be more knowledgeable than the one whom you are attempting to teach. You've got the jumper cables hooked up backwards in this case.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

Or "why I am in favor of prohibiting things I don't like, but against it for things that I do like." "Nuanced".

In every case you tried to equate "prohibition" of voluntary activity with "prohibition" of involuntary activity. In every case I distinguished between "prohibition of voluntary activity (violates individual rights, thus morally WRONG ) and protection of voluntary activity (Righteous). Nuanced.

Note, YOU were "arguing", I was trying to enlighten. Who is the dishonest one, he who seeks only to argue or he who tries to inform?

Pot... kettle?

In order to "enlighten" you have to be more knowledgeable than the one whom you are attempting to teach. You've got the jumper cables hooked up backwards in this case.

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not... You know not.

Bye.