Checking my premises
I was unsure as to whether I would title this, "Unlearning what I have learned" or "Checking my premises", because in it, I have done both. A couple of recent posts by AmericanGreatness and Eudaimonia, along with a couple of posts from 1-2 weeks ago are relevant.
I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?
I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.
I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).
I'm just checking my premises.
I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?
I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.
I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).
I'm just checking my premises.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
Planned Parenthood should not be getting government subsidies for anything, entirely independently of this latest hysteria.
It is not a "step" from abortion rights to killing the elderly through government rationing. The first is the right of the individual, the second a violation of rights.
"The fact is that the average man’s is 9/10ths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice, and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he's uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority like knowledge, courage, and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty—and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." (Henry Louis Mencken)
And:
“The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” —H. L. Mencken, On Politics, a posthumous collection of essays published in 1956
-------------------------------------------------
Yes, there were then and are now men ready to take, even aching to take and plotting to do so, but the true evil is those that, out of physical fear or fear for today, tell the others to go ahead and take from me, if you leave me a little, I won't complain. And the last quote:
“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
There is no evidence that the vast majority of those who support the right of abortion support Sanger's objectives. OK, I'll concede that point. However, if I exchange value for value with someone, and the person being exchanged with gets to further a stated value (for example, Sanger's) that is inconsistent with my values, then I will take my business elsewhere. I wouldn't support Sanger and Planned Parenthood by that logic, even if I would think abortion by another provider was OK. Certainly Sanger spoke at a KKK rally and was quite clear about her eugenics goals regarding African Americans. Just to be clear, I am not extrapolating that to Objectivists who support abortion.
Sanger had already gone down the slippery slope from abortion (which could be reasonably defended by Objectivists) toward devaluing life in other ways such as eugenics and racial cleansing.
The step toward withholding care from the elderly is not a large step from there. By the way, by 1952, Sanger was a board member for the Euthanasia Society of America (see letterhead about halfway down this link).
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/02/ju...
Just be sure who you are exchanging values with.
Believing that one can escape the current state of the world in a utopian hidden "community" is wildly impractical for any length of time as a replacement for civilization and is an additional step beyond finding the safest place to live for the remaining time of one's life, but anyone who wants to try it has the right to do so.
The hysterical article you cited in another religious attack on abortion as "murder". You know very well that on this forum especially the right of abortion is defended as a woman's right to her own life not subject to religious duties to bear children. Rejection of individual freedom against religion is not a "slippery slope" and has nothing to do with Margaret Sanger nearly a century ago in the 1930s. Your religious anti-abortion arguments and smears are antithetical to the purpose of this forum and do not belong here -- or in any civilized discussion.
Whether you, Jim, ewv, or I defend civilization publicly, or privately, in this country, or outside it, is up to us; and the amount of time we devote to it is our choice.
(...I need to take a break; I'm getting a little commatose. :) )
Load more comments...