As someone who is a big proponent of vaccinations, I think you're way off the tracks on this one. The state shouldn't have a say in how a parent raises their kid(s). What if you were against public schools and wanted to home school your kid(s) but the state came in and took your kid(s) by force and shipped them off to the public school of their choice? I mean after all, you don't know what's best for your kid(s), the state does.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The Libertarian Party Race is Filling Up?
- Thread starter GodFearinGunTotin
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
6th Cir. upholds exclusion of Libertarian Party from automatic ballot access like GOP, Dem.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0212p-06.pdf
To sum up, parties which got > 20% in the past ballot automatically qualify their candidates for next ballot. Libertarians SOL
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0212p-06.pdf
To sum up, parties which got > 20% in the past ballot automatically qualify their candidates for next ballot. Libertarians SOL
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
How does it follow that emphasis on faith versus temporal measures is the only thing stopping universal vaccination? How are parents not entitled to make their own decisions about their own children (like the 'cure' being potentially more harmful than the disease it supposedly prevents)? Please remember that there was a time when a geocentric, flat earth universe was the 'settled science' of the day. Right now, we have global warming, which is demonstrably horse sh*t with cooked numbers treated as the 'settled science' of the day. I am not about to trust the .gov or the amorphous scientific community to dictate such things to me, and yes, this is across the line where I would apply the Second Amendment.
As I said the debate is about where we draw the line, I doubt you're ok with medical care being withheld from a child.
There is no such thing as a society. There are individuals. There are families. Society is not responsible for the child.
I guess I'm just more reluctant to use the force of government against families for making family decisions. It's not that I don't think there's a line at all. But I do think I'd like the line drawn much further away than simply not getting treatment. I'd draw it much closer to actually causing harm.
A child has a right to life. When they're in the vulnerable position of not having the wherewithal to disagree with family beliefs, the family still has a responsibility for a minimum of the child's well being. And maybe parents make some wrong or irresponsible decisions. That by itself isn't a reason to use government force to intervene. I think the standard of actual harm needs to be in place, because not everyone might be cured by a given treatment.
For example, if a family opts to pray for a child with advanced pancreatic cancer rather than putting her through treatment, against medical advise, I think that's a flip of the coin that belongs solely with the parents and the child. On the other hand, I think I might tend to agree with you more if it were an issue of, you either get this blood transfusion which the child cannot live without--it's a 100%'er--vs the family going through the ritual to Soteria to save the child. Now the latter might not have the 100% success rate of the blood transfusion. Soteria might not be hungry for cake at the time, so the kid could die anyway. So transfusion seems more like the no-brainier.
At some point society has to settle on what it means to protect children. Like I said the debate is where we draw the line.
Didn't take you for an anarcho capitalist, Jamil.
Then you just conceded at the end there are some situations in which we want someone to step in.
Same ****, different day. The republicans and democrats go out of their way to deny ballot access to anyone but themselves. The corruption runs deep.
I am not an anarcho capitalist. Minarchist, maybe. I am, however, an individualist. It's just a quote from Margaret Thatcher, which I formerly had in my sigline. The point of the quote is one that I've made over and over since I've been on INGO. I guess I can do it again, since it's been a year or two. People who've heard the spiel can scroll past or let their eyes glaze over.
There's no such thing as a society. "Society" is just a name we use to describe a collection of individuals who share some commonality. Maybe a border. Maybe an interest. There's a "gun" society, of sorts, for example. INGO is a type of society. But "societies" aren't monolithic entities that act as one. A society is comprised of individuals who act independently and are individually self/family motivated. Society isn't responsible for my family. I am. My wife is. Other individuals and families are responsible for their families. I'm not. My family is not. A government truly of the people isn't responsible for the decisions individuals and families make. It is only responsible for protecting individual rights. You can argue, if you want, that the child has an individual right to get the appropriate care, but you're not entitled to win that argument just because you make it.
And that general "society is not monolithic" world view in no way prohibits individuals from choosing to be a part of a nation, with a government. I am not against government, per se. I'm not against laws to prohibit violating rights. I'm even not against laws governing reasonable order.
As it applies to this, I don't mind a government truly of the people holding families responsible when they've actually caused harm, intentionally, or negligently. When Soteria doesn't grant safety in return for the cakes of goddesses, and the family neglects to get the needed transfusion, and the child dies because of that, go ahead and prosecute the parents.
At least for those who don't mind glaring math errors in their memes.
Ok Ok Ok.... I would accept that: 1 johnson vote (who has no chance of winning anything) negates 1 vote for Trump... therefore hitlary +1. Agreed.
One Johnson vote (who probably won't win) negates one vote for Clinton... therefor Trump +1. Agreed.
Usually they are more against trump...... so..... +2/5 trump and +3/5 clinton.
Well, there it is. You can do anything you want - if it's 'for the children'
Example "We are instituting full firearms confiscation, for the children" (alternately, 'Think of the children')
See also "If it saves one life ... [Insert Liberty crushing, soul destroying government action HERE]
There should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that covers this formulation arising in discussion
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Funny Political Picture/Video Thread Part 9** The other side is still making it easy!- Latest: DeadeyeChrista'sdad