I figured the PilotSpin governing council was busy deliberating. LOL!

Ha!  We’re always drunk anyway, so “deliberating” is a relative term.

Actually we were at the ICAS Convention in Vegas looking to spend PS membership dues on hookers and blow.

Most people who call themselves liberals probably don't but half the country votes Democrat and right now the Democrat party has been taken over by the radical minority who do believe those things. Thank God a lot of liberals and Democrats are waking up and realizing they've been supporting the wrong side.

I *hope* that what is happening is that people are waking up and realizing that supporting one side or the other consistently is abdicating the responsibility to think for oneself. Thinking for oneself usually entails reaching some conclusions that agree with one side, and others that agree with the other side. Then comes the hard work of prioritizing the issues and deciding which candidate agrees with your own positions in the most areas that you consider high priority, regardless of party.

I used to reflexively vote Democratic because I didn't want to be bothered with doing that work, and because most Democratic candidates were at most center-left. The party has now, as you put it, been taken over by a radical minority to the point where I need to know a lot more about a Dem candidate before I will consider voting for them. That doesn't mean I won't vote for a Democrat, but it sure won't be a default choice.

I haven't walked away from the Democratic party; I was never a registered member anyway. But they've sure walked away from me.

I have a Stihl chainsaw and a Stihl brush cutter and they both went TU this fall. These POS machines couldn’t even make it to 25 years. I bought them both in 1994. Stihl simply doesn’t make some engine and other parts any more.

Of course I kid. These are the most reliable tools I’ve ever owned. Bulletproof. They survived ethanol-infused fuel, and heavy usage.

I’m replacing them both with Stihl products.

We have good strategic reasons for being heavily involved in Germany, Japan, Saudi, and Korea. These are all areas where if the US left a vacuum, Russia or China would be happy to step in and take over our hegemony position. I do not want that to happen.


Boots on the ground in a stable but critical part of the world are as important as a world class navy. However there are a lot of places we don't need to police. Afghanistan is one of those.

My niece wants to drive INTO ground zero because she hasn't heard from her Dad. The whole family's trying to talk her out of it. Good Lord, the last thing her Dad wants is to have her come there and be one more person to take care of.

We heard from someone who made it out, says it's a war zone, looting, someone's already been killed over food, THIS IS A RUMOR I HEARD!!  IT IS NOT CONFIRMED.  No gas, any supplies making it in are being stolen at gunpoint.

I'm not even sure I should pass this along, I don't know if it's true.

My sister and brother in law live at Ground Zero.  They evacuated to Atlanta, but he returned today.  He said it is unbelievable; not a tree or power pole standing.  All the old house and gas stations are just gone.

But he finally made it to his house and it was still standing.  There is a good bit of roof damage.  The AC unit has been moved and shifted.  The boat dock is toast.  The Lanai is gone.  And his brand new whole house generator doesn't work.

All in all, he feels very lucky.  The house is in the same place he left it.  I will probably drive over there Monday to bring him supplies and help with temporary repairs, like putting a tarp on the roof.

The police and sheriff's office have been inundated with calls because people can't get through to their relatives that chose to ride it out.  Of course they can't get through. No telephone, except for a little spotty cell service and no power.

Thanks. Libertarianism is relatively new to me. My reading on the Libertarian perspective vis a vis anti-discrimination laws centered around the right of association (and the converse - right not to associate).

Is violence defined as physical? I could easily be convinced that the threat of imprisonment is a threat of physical violence. But what about other means, such as fines, etc.? I'm inclined to apply the NAP in the other direction: The state has no right to involve themselves in the matter because the issue -- a baker "discriminating" against a class of people -- does not involve an act of aggression.

1, 2, 3, 4

Those are four instances where the scenario in question was likened to slavery. So no, I don't think I'm dwelling on the "wrong thing" to make others look foolish.

And yes, I do believe that the case is much closer to involuntary servitude than slavery. A bit more on this down below.

Actually I usually only treat you this way. That's because, when faced with an opposing view, you typically attack the man and not the message. It may be because you're substantially immersed in supportive views here, and so you're shocked to find that someone might disagree with you, but I'm not sure.

I take issue with what I consider to be the extreme position that being forced to do something you are morally opposed to -- and let's be clear that one can be morally opposed to almost anything -- is slavery. The problem with distilling an issue down to one extreme equivalence is that it actually weakens the argument unless the equivalence is nearly cast in stone. In the instant case, you'll find that many people disagree with the contention that it is slavery. Slavery is the literal owning of a person as a piece of property. In fact, I've never seen the definition you suggest, though I admit I'm not incredibly well-read. From my perspective, there is a veritable chasm between that and anti-discrimination laws.

Can we test the logic for a moment? If being forced to do something you are morally opposed to is slavery, are all those who are morally opposed to paying taxes slaves? Is conscription slavery to those opposed? Selective service? Are those morally opposed to forced driver licensing on supposed "right to travel" reasons slaves? Certainly, a case could be argued against some or all of those. But by taking the extreme measure of calling it slavery, we've opened it up to easy criticism, and perhaps easy disproof.

I also note you criticize me for extending beyond expressly defined limitations. But a declaration so-defined -- forcing action on those morally opposed is slavery -- is not one of nuance. It is one of absolute, and so demands testing outside the limitations of the existing scenarios.

--

The interesting part is that I am increasingly swayed by arguments against anti-discrimination laws. But not on grounds that it is slavery, but, rather, on grounds that the state should have no say in how private transactions carry on, as long as rights of others are not infringed, and upon grounds of the right to (not) associate.

Great post. I agree with the last paragraph although sometimes they might be necessary.  Even so they can have terrible unintended consequences. Take racial segregation and housing discrimination. Prior to 1964, black communities in cities were far better off than they are now and one reason was that the higher socioeconomic class of blacks provided a stabilizing effect. Black professionals, business owners and preachers provided jobs, services and a strong moral foundation. There is more than one reason for the decline but it seemed to begin with desegregation. Those upper strata blacks then could move out to the "burbs" but those of lower ability were left behind and became the inner city poor. Then came "project" housing, factories closing, more jobs lost, welfare, the drug war and so on. The more "fixes" were applied the worse it got.

What would have happened without forced desegregation? No one knows but possibly, if the government had also kept its hands off the economy, the black community would have continued its upward trend and eventually integration may have occurred gradually and smoothly.

But maybe the Civil Rights Act was necessary to avoid a domestic war so while I agree with the libertarian viewpoint, I also believe we cannot always rigidly adhere to a theory but must deal with present circumstances. Possibly the election of Obama was one such concession. He was horrible for the nation, bad for the economy and divided races more than ever, however he did accomplish one historic landmark (electing the first black president), and that did provide an emotional victory for blacks, as explained by a black in one of the walk away videos. That particular person since has come to see that voting on skin color alone is wrong, we should vote on issues and character, but it did mean something to have achieved that moment in history.

Nope. Not interested in protecting snowflakes.

The only reason a few of us were made moderators (and that was based on post count only - step up your game and you can be a supreme commander of the galaxy too) was to more quickly intercept and delete porn or spam or bot traffic that pops up from time to time. I haven’t seen porn posts since the first year PS was around, so I’m sure our founder took care of that somehow. But we still get some spam or bot traffic on occasion.

I don't think Asechrest was really advocating for the idea of voting down and removing certain posts.  I think his point was that would be better than having an individual decide which posts to remove.

Asechrest is welcome to correct me if I am wrong.