There a lot of what's wrong in this country right there in your assesment. That the police can lay charges without a complaint is the sign of a police state. What if I had asked you to strike me because I find it pleasureable?

And who are these many people who have complained about Bountiful? They are outsiders who don't like what's going on, because if there was a single complaint from the inside, the authorities would be in a better position to act and indeed would have acted a long time ago. The authorites would cause a great deal of harm if they did.

Investigations are held up by "community secrecy." Isn't that what goes on in the drug using commumity? Isn't that telling you something?

Like perhaps the community doesn't want you to know their secrets?

One pot smoker does not see a criminal when he looks at another pot smoker.

One Mormon does not see a criminal when he looks at another Mormon.

The trouble with the word abuse is that one man's "good talking to" is another's "verbal abuse."

In short who defines abuse? The Christians? The non-Mormons?

Like I said, the Christians circumsize their Children, happened to me, my body was defiled, I was tortured and physically had my foreskin removed before I was a day old.

Why is that considered religiously protected and not considered "child abuse?"


Because Christian ethics dominate our culture, that's why.

That's the only reason.


So now that you have been made aware that there are religious ceremonies going on in every hospital in every corner of this nation that abuses children. The children are being mutilated, their foreskins are amputated.

Who decides what is and is not abuse?

As an adult, who do I blame if I don't like the fact I was physically abused right out of the womb?

Should I call the police on my Mom and Dad?

Or is it society's fault that circumcision is permitted?

Turning your back on the community and saying self-protection is not going to accomplish anything.

When is the state going to intervene on behalf of all the Catholic babies that have been defiled over the years?

You have a property in yourself.

Natural rights are rights derived from Nature. Human rights are derived from politicians.

Murray Rothbard was a Natural rights advocate. Ludwig von Mises was a utilitarian.

I go with Rothbard on that issue.


For a New Liberty By Murray Rothbard.


The libertarian creed can now be summed up as

(1) the absolute right of every man to the ownership of his own body;

(2) the equally absolute right to own and therefore to control the material resources he has found and transformed; and

(3) therefore, the absolute right to exchange or give away the ownership to such titles to whoever is willing to exchange or receive them. As we have seen, each of these steps involves property rights, but even if we call step (1) "personal" rights, we shall see that problems about "personal liberty" inextricably involve the rights of material property or free exchange. Or, briefly, the rights of personal liberty and "freedom of enterprise" almost invariably intertwine and cannot really be separated.

I don't think you have quite caught on to the concept of "Property rights."

You associate it only with real estate. You are very wrong and obviously have no clue what the right to own property means. Rothbard explains, from the book For A New Liberty.

Quote:

---

The libertarian creed can now be summed up as (1) the absolute right of every man to the ownership of his own body; (2) the equally absolute right to own and therefore to control the material resources he has found and transformed; and (3) therefore, the absolute right to exchange or give away the ownership to such titles to whoever is willing to exchange or receive them.

---

Rothbard does not support incorporation because it is not needed.

Have you ever been to Jamaica? There is a mass of humanity sitting around that rock with no productive employement to be had.

Peter Nygard is a very wealth clothing manufacturer. Textiles is one of Winnipeg's largest industries.

I'm pretty sure all the Jamaicans sitting around that island just barely eking out a living would be very appreciative of Peter Nygard setting up a shop in Jamaica.


What a champion of the Underdog you are.
Congoleses natives now need saving from mining companies.

The Congoleses have been sitting on all that "wealth" for 10,000 years. How come the Congolese are dirt poor?

No one has exploited them yet. They should be the wealthiest citizens on Earth, but they are not. Tell me why?

I'm stilling waitng for your definition of human rights.

I had a look at the UN and would you ever be surprized to see what right no 17 is.

Here is just one of the many rights I don't like about the UN delcaration

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

I described myself as a cosmopolite if anyone cares to ask. Ludwig von Mises defined Cosmopolite as a citizen of the Earth in a world without borders.

That is essentially what Classic Liberalism will achieve when the people finally tire of all the other political systems thaey enslave themselves with.

"What if I had asked you to strike me because I find it pleasureable?"

- what if i asked you to cut off my leg and eat it because i found it pleasurable? what if i ask you to kill me because i find it pleasurable?



"And who are these many people who have complained about Bountiful? They are outsiders."

- seven women from the tiny community of bountiful submitted formal complaints of abuse...in addition to them, outsiders tend to object when children and women are abused or cults brainwash their members to commit suicide or pimps recruit children...y'see, freedom is a group concept and if we are not all free, then no one is really free...so we must be vigilant in defending freedom...i don't see you defending freedom...i see you defending the right to abuse children, congolese natives, homosexuals, mentally ill, and anyone who gets in the way of a good profit opportunity



"Have you ever been to Jamaica? There is a mass of humanity sitting around that rock with no productive employement to be had. Peter Nygard is a very wealth clothing manufacturer. Textiles is one of Winnipeg's largest industries. I'm pretty sure all the Jamaicans sitting around that island just barely eking out a living would be very appreciative of Peter Nygard setting up a shop in Jamaica."

- no, i've never been to jamaica, but i just finished watching a documentary about jamaica's experience with globalization called "life and debt"...i would be glad to purchase a copy of it and send it to you if you would like to get a better idea of what jamaicans think about foreign investment in their textile industry

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,904343,00.html



"The Congoleses have been sitting on all that "wealth" for 10,000 years. How come the Congolese are dirt poor?"

- yeah, what is wrong with those dirt poor natives? why didn't they incorporate and buy a couple billion dollars worth of mining equipment and tear up their ancestral home? don't they have debit cards down there? did they really believe they could live off the land as their ancestors did? those idiots deserved to be forcibly removed to protect canadian mining corporation's property rights



"I'm stilling waitng for your definition of human rights."

- i gave it to you...the universal declaration of human rights...meanwhile, i'm still waiting for your source that proves the state abuses more children than private citizens...i bet its a humdinger of a link!
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html



"Rothbard does not support incorporation because it is not needed...Murray Rothbard was a Natural rights advocate. Ludwig von Mises was a utilitarian...Ludwig von Mises defined Cosmopolite as a citizen of the Earth in a world without borders."

- i'm sorry, i have no response to that because i am not a cultmember of the austrian school of psycho-economics (i failed the entrance exam because i wasn't absolutely sure if we can know human behaviour with absolute certainty)

Quote:

---

what if i asked you to cut off my leg and eat it because i found it pleasurable? what if i ask you to kill me because i find it pleasurable?

---

So far as I know, you can cut your own leg off and kill yourself without any legal ramifications, providing you can rationalize it all to a psychiatrist who most assuredly would pay you a visit. You may end your days in a looney bin if that psychiatrist decides you need to be protected from yourself. Tell him you were felling trees in the woods and one fell on your leg. That will rationalize it all and you will be certified fit to continue living amongst us by an expert who knows how to tell, wink, wink.

I suppose you would have to sign one of them release forms like the hospital asks you to sign and then I could operate on you I suppose, If I was willing to. If you release your body parts to me for disposal, then what I do with them, including eating them would be none of your concern.

There are no shortage of bizarre ideas to muse on.

Quote:

---

seven women from the tiny community of bountiful submitted formal complaints of abuse...in addition to them, outsiders tend to object when children and women are abused or cults brainwash their members to commit suicide or pimps recruit children...y'see, freedom is a group concept and if we are not all free, then no one is really free...so we must be vigilant in defending freedom...i don't see you defending freedom...i see you defending the right to abuse children, congolese natives, homosexuals, mentally ill, and anyone who gets in the way of a good profit opportunity

---

But therin you are blind. There is no profit in abuse. There is only profit in satisfying customers.

These are social issue and not economics ones.

It takes a real convoluted mind to mix them all up.

The seven women who submitted formal complaints, were those complaints addressed?

If not then there is a failure of the State.

Now there is a personal complaint, it is required of the police to investigate.

I don't believe in brainwashing. The notion is complete bullshit. All human beings are endowed with free will.

How is it the Americans cannot "brainwash" people and they have to resort to torture? Maybe the Army ought to infiltrate the Mormons and see these brainwashing techniques for themselves. I'm pretty sure the same brainwashing technique the Christians use. And eerily enough, it's the same "brainwashing" technique the Moonies and the Scientiologists use, it's called pursuasion. Works for the Islamic peoples too. Americans are plenty good at indoctrination too. Lots of Americans have been "brainwahed" into thinking they should mind their neighbors business on behalf of the state.

No matter how much you point out that those values are "Omnipotent state" valves that directly compete with and are opposed to true familial values, the indoctrinated loogins just don't get it. These loogins been indoctrinated into accepting the nonsense that respect for the State and it's agents is a "higher ideal" than respecting the family. There is not much a person can do to unbrainwash these indoctrinated people. Sometimes the person can educate themselves out of their servility, but that is seldom the case.

It's called "communion." Birds of a feather like to flock together.

The UN Human Rights Charter.

Quote:

---

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

---

No 2 means there can be no taxes as taxes are most assuredly a claim on the fruits of my labor, which are my property.


Anyway, the United Nations is a "central planner" and should be dismantled.

The idea of one world government is the total opposite of what will deliver peace and harmony to humanity. One world government would be tyrannical on a larger scale than ever witnessed in history.

The idea I promote is 6 billion governments. One for each human being on Earth. Self-government in a borderless world where I am free to trade the fruits of my labor with any other human being of my choosing without having anyone or their agents representives or Gods intervene.

The world saw what happened when the central planner ruled Soviet Russia. The Interventionist of America outspent them because some capitalist incentives were still left for the American people to go to work and be productive. The Americans were taxed at about 30% rate when the Berlin Wall fell.

Were the American people permitted to keep even more of the fruits of their labor, they would have left the rest of the world even further behind in their economic dust.

I tried the link you had to Jamaican workers by it did not work. I doubt the average Jamaican has much of an economic clue. No doubt the complainers subscribe to the "labor theroy of value" which is a sophism. Labor is but a small part of the overall consideration an entrepeneur uses when deciding what price to charge for his finsihed goods.

Once more, no appreciation for the talents of the innovative entrepeneur and no appreciation for the talent and sacrifice it takes to save and accumulate wealth.

http://www.november.org/children/Children.html

I did direct you to the November coalition website where we find.

Quote:

---

We teach our children that drugs kill, but drug prohibition produces its own casualties when it separates parent and child with little regard for the social consequences of such separation.

These young casualties of the drug war know they are victims of injustice; this knowledge breeding contempt and disrespect for law, not compliance as intended by law makers. And yet, after years of depression, anger, low self-esteem, feelings of abandonment society will unreasonably expect these young adults to assume their roles as capable and responsible citizens.

On the streets of our cities and towns, a perpetual state of war between the police and an ever-present enemy, a war in which anyone -- and thus everyone -- can be a suspect, leaves many children caught, literally, in the crossfire.

Children are killed by police in no-knock raids and by gangsters in drive by shootings. Babies in coca producing countries are poisoned by herbicides furnished by U.S. tax dollars. This is the violence spawned by prohibition, not by drugs. Although unleashed on the innocent, the most vulnerable, prohibition's proponents will tell you, "the drug war is for the children." What do you think?

---

I genrallized and do not have the facts and figures and don't care to wast too much of my time satisfying your request.

The Government is the most prolific killer all over planet Earth. I could come up with the Albright remark where she said 500,000 dead Iraqi children was "worth it" for America to kill to get it's message across.

Oh well, I assumed you were some sort of cannabis activist or at least interested in what goes on and gets published here.

Most people here understand the harm the American as well as Canadian government do when they destroy the lives of their parents.

Every single murder of a child by a parent makes the National news. The Scott Peterson's are good for a couple of years fodder. The Andrea Yates story et al. Really, they are so rare that people remember the case.

How many kids you figure are going to foster homes tonight in Los Angles alone?

Generalizing, there are some two million persons in American prisons. Generalizing, rumour has it some 60% are there on a non-violent crime charge. Mostly that means drugs and there are plenty of the violent in there for drug charges to.

I think I make my case hands down that the state harms by far more children than parents do.

Maybe someone at the November coalition has tweeked all the numbers, I don't know. I do know the numbers of children of prisoners is huge.

"I suppose you would have to sign one of them release forms like the hospital asks you to sign and then I could operate on you I suppose, If I was willing to."

- that would still be illegal even if you were a doctor and i signed a consent form...the physician's code also prevents doctors from intentionally doing harm to a patient



"If you release your body parts to me for disposal, then what I do with them, including eating them would be none of your concern."

- wrong again...desecration of human body parts is illegal...there are very specific rules for what can be done with human parts



"No 2 means there can be no taxes as taxes are most assuredly a claim on the fruits of my labor, which are my property."

- taxes are not arbitrary...the cops commandeering a vehicle is not arbitrary...arbitrary means: without reason and beyond law



"I could come up with the Albright remark where she said 500,000 dead Iraqi children was "worth it" for America to kill to get it's message across."

- but chris, in your utopian vision, the state would retain the right to use military force so we'd still have civilian victims of war and foreign policy



"I genrallized and do not have the facts and figures and don't care to wast too much of my time satisfying your request."

- yeah, thats what i thought...you won't even bother to stand up to pull something out of your ass...yes the drug war victimizes children but a liberty(tm) loving guy like yourself would looks at the victims of drugs and say CAVEAT EMPTOR!


here are some abuse stats for you:
according to the US department of health, there were 879,000 cases of substantiated child maltreatment in the united states during the year ending dec 31, 2000...thats more than the entire number of US cannabis busts of any year to date
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm


find something that shows the US gov't abused at least 879,001 american school kids or take it back

The entire "public school system" is child abuse.


They indoctrinate children into state tenets.


And again, one man's good talking too is another man's abuse.


"Child-maltreatment" could be defined as anything.

A spanking is considered abuse in some circles.

And you feeding me government stats, well, I would tend to take anything that came from the state with a grain of salt.


879,000 some how I think the nnumber of marijuana busts would be somewhat greater.


Come up with bodies. How many parents killed their kids VS. how many were killed by drug law?

I can dig what you posted rtav.

Parental authority seems to wane when young adults reach their teens. Peers tend to become more important to them than parents.

A couple of points to make would be that every parent "abuses" their child at one point in time or another. Most often the parents would act out of warmth and love when concerned with their children.

A small percentage of parents would be messed up to the point that they are doing their children irrepariable harm in every action they take.

The bureaucrats are in it for the money and the power. Everything they do will be cold and hard, right out of the state manual!

My concern is more that the public school system is "greening" the kids and instilling enviormentalism, which is a euphanism for socialism.

The no fail, no spank, conflict managed policy of the public schools is pure social engineering that I strongly disagree with too.

Education ought to be a private matter and of no concern to the state!