Don’t sit on your ass pondering the next judge, start campaigning for someone!

Don’t sit on your ass pondering the next judge, start campaigning for someone!

You do realize they’re not elected, and those who decide about them are with the Prez, at least in general terms?

Anyway, I think that the 49% (perhaps even more now) who did NOT elect Bush last time must have gone ‘Oh SHIT!’ when they heard this.

Wonder what the rest thought. ‘Hur, hur, hur...’ probably, some of them. The good little Christians.

Okay, enough bashing.

Donald Kaul had a column about that recently - “try electing one of your candidates to the presidency for a change, or you’ll wake up one morning and find John Roberts is the most liberal member of the Supreme court” - or words to that effect.

Don’t sit on your ass pondering the next judge, start campaigning for someone!

Indeed.  I’d like Clarence Thomas to be the new chief, please.  Smartest justice on the court.

..you’ll wake up one morning and find John Roberts is the most liberal member of the Supreme court.

Funny how liberals and conservatives sometimes have the same nightmares.  I worry that Roberts will turn into the next Souter.

Why does Bush have to be such a pussy, anyway?  The Senate is comfortably in the hands of Republicans and he nominates a white-bread, middle-of-the-road judge?  This is why I hate Bush with a passion.  Where is a real conservative?  Someone to stand up and say, “Well, we’ve strung together quite a few elections.  Time for the court to tack hard right.  Socialists, I’d like you to meet Janice Rogers Brown and Edith Jones, your new supreme court justices.”

If’n Bush wanted to be a dick, he could easily nominate a new chief justice to create an absence.

Why does Bush have to be such a pussy, anyway?  The Senate is comfortably in the hands of Republicans and he nominates a white-bread, middle-of-the-road judge?

Bush knew he was going to get two seats on the bench and while Roberts isn’t going to make any ground-breaking decisions in support of the left, he most surely isn’t going to go against the neo-fascist right.

This leaves Bush to declare Roberts as a ‘gift to the left’ and press forward with a more conservative nomination without losing any more political ground.

If Presidential popularity continues to decline, Bush will need to be more cautious with his ‘global strategy’ as some nutjob out there might decide to introduce him to the well know military term of ‘friendly fire’.

This leaves Bush to declare Roberts as a ‘gift to the left’ and press forward with a more conservative nomination without losing any more political ground.

Exactly my point.  Why the hell are we giving “gifts to the left”???  I don’t recall Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter looking for ways to mollify conservative senators.

I hope that the next conservative President will start by saying, “I’m promise to be a divider, not a uniter.  We have the majority.  We are going to shove our own conservative policies down liberals’ throats—like it or lump it.” I’d vote someone like that in a heartbeat.

I hope that the next conservative President will start by saying, “I’m promise to be a divider, not a uniter.  We have the majority.  We are going to shove our own conservative policies down liberals’ throats—like it or lump it.â€?

Funny how liberals and conservatives hope for similar things.  I hope the next conservative candidate will say that, anyway.  Let people know what they’re voting for instead of pretending to be pro-humanity.

Wow Daryl, we’ve been friends a long time, but I have to admit your recent comments leaves me wondering how we ever got to be friends in the first place. I never realized you were so keen to force your beliefs down everyone else’s throat.

I never realized you were so keen to force your beliefs down everyone else’s throat.

I’ve never thought of myself as wanting to force my belief’s down anyone’s throat.  I guess it’s a difference of perception.  I consider liberals to be the ones “forcing their beliefs down everyone else’s throats”.  For example:

Liberals believe they should look after your retirement, because you can’t be trusted with your own money. Did you think you could do better than the amazing 1% return on investment offered by Social Security?  Tough.  We’ll seize your assets if you don’t join our dumb retirement scheme.  Got a terminal disease and prefer to spend your money now, instead of saving it for a retirement you’ll never see?  Too bad—your first mistake was thinking of it as “your money” just because you were the one who worked for it.  Remember, we’re the government, ergo, we know what’s best for you.

Liberals believe you should pay for others’ “alternative lifestyles”. They brought us disasters like no-fault divorce and homosexual marriage.  But when the children of these lifestyles are inevitably raised ignorant and/or destitute, taxpayers are expected to shell out for section 8 housing credits, food stamps, TANF, welfare, subsidized lunches, special ed teachers, and the rest of the socialist agenda.  Note to liberals: as long as the children of these substandard unions end up living off my tax dollars, I have every right to concern myself with what is being done to reduce their numbers. If welfare moms don’t like people like me “meddlingâ€? in their private lives, first they need to stop asking for handouts.  The day they stop giving free tax money to unwed mothers is the day I stop caring who has sex before getting married.

Liberals want poor people to stay poor. Want to work 80 hours a week, so you can raise yourself out of poverty?  Liberals will make it as hard as possible, because they need a large population of poor people to vote for them.  Instead of working 80 hours at one job, they will force you to work 40 hours at two jobs.  They know best!!  Want to buy cheap health insurance that just covers the basics?  Disallowed!  Liberal “mandatory coverage” laws make people in many states insure themselves against acupuncture, podiatry, massage therapy, and a host of other wacky, unnecessary treatments.  The result: many poor people are effectively priced out of the insurance market.

...to be a divider, not a uniter. We have the majority. We are going to shove our own conservative policies down liberals’ throats—like it or lump it.� I’d vote someone like that in a heartbeat.

You already did.

Shit, Les will probably rip into this soon enough, but some of the most glaring points I’ll adress right now:

They brought us disasters like no-fault divorce and homosexual marriage.  But when the children of these lifestyles are inevitably raised ignorant and/or destitute,

Asshole. I’m the son of a single-dad. I am neither destitute nor ignorant. My dad worked hard to put me through college AND pay off creditors.

According to you, it would be INEVITABLE that I end up on welfare. And as to gay unions causing such things? Arrogance, intolerance and plain wrong talk shining out of your ass.

Liberals will make it as hard as possible, because they need a large population of poor people to vote for them. someone

The poor voted for Bush in huge numbers. Including the poor down in Louisiana. And the states receiving the most federal aid per person are certified ‘red’ states. Hypocrite.

Special ed teachers are for children with genetic and birth defects, Darrell.  What are you really saying there?

But as for forcing beliefs down throats, what about activist pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill?  I don’t see you getting worked up about that--hell no, you agree with it so it’s ok!

Damn, you beat me to the punch, ingolfson.  My parents divorced, and I, too, am not ignorant nor destitute (although certainly not well off).  And to make matters more intriguing, my mother is a lesbian and I ended up quite straight (Daryl may have a hard time figuring that one out).

AND, I live and work in one of the poorest states in the nation which is a Red State: Mississippi...go fig.

I find it interesting that every thing that Daryl focused on dealt with money in some form or fashion...money money money: the ONLY thing that is important for some.

jesus christ how worked up we can get.

holland, MI here.
we may not be as actively conservative here as some other places, but i got a quite dirty look when i was with my girlfriend picking up her birth control.

at least it wasn’t refused, i guess.

oh yeah, on topic.
oh shit.

I’m going to be terrified if it is another relatively young conservative.  Rehnquist got 34 years on that bench, with the state of medicine I could se someone in his or her 50’s getting forty or even fifty years on the bench.

I’m going to be terrified if it is another relatively young conservative.  Rehnquist got 34 years on that bench, with the state of medicine I could se someone in his or her 50’s getting forty or even fifty years on the bench.

I wonder how much such a court really follows public opinion. Because somehow I still have the hope that the US public is eventually going to get sick of all the conservative/religious policies of Bush and his ilk. But what hapens if the court is solidly arch-conservative by that time? I guess then it would be time for some activist laws

I’m going to be terrified if it is another relatively young conservative.  Rehnquist got 34 years on that bench, with the state of medicine I could se someone in his or her 50’s getting forty or even fifty years on the bench.

Time to be terrified.  Bush’s nom goes to Roberts, oh fucking joy.

I’m going to be terrified if it is another relatively young conservative.

I’d be perfectly fine with it if said conservative was against government interference in our lives and religious extremeism.  Like say, a traditional conservative.

I’ve never thought of myself as wanting to force my belief’s down anyone’s throat.  I guess it’s a difference of perception.  I consider liberals to be the ones “forcing their beliefs down everyone else’s throatsâ€?.

Not to disagree about liberals, but conservatives are just as bad about doing such in many ways. Neither conservatives nor liberals are pro personal liberty.

For example:

Liberals believe they should look after your retirement, because you can’t be trusted with your own money. Did you think you could do better than the amazing 1% return on investment offered by Social Security?  Tough.  We’ll seize your assets if you don’t join our dumb retirement scheme.  Got a terminal disease and prefer to spend your money now, instead of saving it for a retirement you’ll never see?  Too bad—your first mistake was thinking of it as “your moneyâ€? just because you were the one who worked for it.  Remember, we’re the government, ergo, we know what’s best for you.

Very true. This also shows that liberals are not liberals, but rather socialists...leading us down the road to communism.

However, I would just note that I prefer personal liberty to anything else. The right to invest my money in the government, a private institution, or even waste it as I get it should be my right so long as I earn that money. By not investing in social security I would choose not to benefit from it (funny...). By not investing in the governments welfare program, I would have no right to be a recipient of it.

Taking the fruits of ones labors from one person by force to give it to another person is socialism/communism leading to totalitarianism. I would rather shoot for personal liberty and responsibility.

Liberals believe you should pay for others’ “alternative lifestyles�. They brought us disasters like no-fault divorce and homosexual marriage.

Um, you say liberals are forcing their beliefs down others throats and then do exactly the same thing? Please read what you are stating.

No-fault divorce denotes that either party may have a marriage nullified without contest by the other party.

This is a _freedom_. If those entering into the contract of marriage cannot be bothered to spell out via contract what the dissolution of marriage will entail, then that is them showing a lack of responsibility. Yes, children can sometimes get caught in the middle, but so can the children of well off people who never bother to raise them.

You are basically stating that one who is married is required to stay in an unfavorable relationship unless real harm can be shown. This is also noting that one should be barred from the pursuit of happiness because of a bad decision.

Which is it?
Freedom from having other peoples views forced down ones throats?
Or perhaps freedom to impose ones moral values on those deemed immoral?
I say it is neither. It should be freedom to not be oppressed by those who hold different values than you. But it has to work for everyone to work at all.

But when the children of these lifestyles are inevitably raised ignorant and/or destitute,

Ah, so you are for the second freedom, freedom to impose ones moral values on others...that is called what again? I am thinking authoritarian…
“Inevitably raised ignorant and/or destitute.”
Hell, I never realised that I was ignorant and destitute. Ah well, perhaps the definition of these terms were changed since last I checked.

taxpayers are expected to shell out for section 8 housing credits, food stamps, TANF, welfare, subsidized lunches, special ed teachers, and the rest of the socialist agenda.

Which is it? Are you a socialist or not? You think housing credits, food stamps, TANF, welfare, and the other things you list are the result of alternative lifestyles and no fault divorce? You are starting to sound pretty ignorant to me yourself if you think that any of these are the cause of such.

Want to know the real cause?
The government passing unconstitutional laws because they have hood winked the general population into believing there is only a left and a right. (e.g. fast move towards socialism or slow move towards socialism)
“properly” divorced families get these same benefits.

Note to liberals: as long as the children of these substandard unions end up living off my tax dollars, I have every right to concern myself with what is being done to reduce their numbers.

Again, here we go with the authoritarian garbage mixed mildly with libertarian views.

Which is it?
(a) These are “substandard unions” and should not exist. (authoritarian)
or
(b) No one else should have a right to your tax dollars. (libertarian)

You are mixing your political positions pretty badly here. I am thinking you just lack a philosophy from which you draw your beliefs...that is the common problem with modern republicans that makes them appear to be so wishy-washy about many things. At least liberals can tout a socialist philosopy...republicans are generally either confused, totalitarianists who do not know it, or (most common) libertarians who do not know it. Not knowing what your basic philosophy is causes the need for feeble argument and red herrings.

Perhaps I am wrong...but I have never seen a real philosophical foundation for republicans. They just seem kind of lost to me.

If welfare moms don’t like people like me “meddlingâ€? in their private lives, first they need to stop asking for handouts.  The day they stop giving free tax money to unwed mothers is the day I stop caring who has sex before getting married.

Again, lack of philosophical foundation and confusion bleeds through here. Your anger would be better directed towards attacking the socialist/communist laws that enable such rather than trying to force your morality upon others.

Liberals want poor people to stay poor. Want to work 80 hours a week, so you can raise yourself out of poverty?  Liberals will make it as hard as possible, because they need a large population of poor people to vote for them.  Instead of working 80 hours at one job, they will force you to work 40 hours at two jobs.

Actually, I think you understate this. Liberals who know that they are socialists and understand where socialism leads (totalitarian communism) want to move the middle class in with the poor and keep milking them all. Those liberals who think liberal means liberty are just as confused about what they believe in as republicans. The fact that the majority of the united states is confused as to what those two parties stand for and do not realise that there are good alternatives out there is depressing.

They know best!!

Again, you would be better served to get yourself some philosophical grounding and attack socialist garbage via reason rather than stating they try to force their views down your throat while advocating doing the exact same thing to everyone else. (and everyone else is not just liberal/socialists)

Want to buy cheap health insurance that just covers the basics?  Disallowed!  Liberal “mandatory coverageâ€? laws make people in many states insure themselves against acupuncture, podiatry, massage therapy, and a host of other wacky, unnecessary treatments.  The result: many poor people are effectively priced out of the insurance market.

...
Look, here you go again calling things you do not agree with “wacky, unnecessary”. This is attempting to force your veiws with no support of fact.
I agree with your basic statement...but if you want to make an argument, perhaps you would not mind some pointers from the ignorant son of a single mother:

I shall argue from the corner of my belief:
People must be inherantly free lest they be enslaved.

Now that I have laid out my moral/philosophical grounding, I shall start in with an argument based upon it.

A free person has the right to the fruits of their labor.

I then show the opposite:
If they have what they have rightly earned taken from them by force, they are not truly free, but bound to the one that can take what they earn from them.

I then move on to define society vs individual since most socialists seem to believe that society is its own organism that supplants individual freedom:
In addition, a society is nothing more than a group of people of like values that has decided to live together. Because of this, there can be no “public good” unless it is also an “individual good”, which to me, is an individual liberty.

Finally, I explain why, because of my philosophical/moral beliefs I believe this (and every other item pushed forwards that is “for the good”...(at the expense of the individual):
Using this, one can see that forced insurance is not a public good, but rather a limitation of personal liberty where one is stripped of possessions which are then given to others. For this law not to oppose liberty, it would have to be optional.

Finally, rather than just stating the problem with what is in place, I suggest a choice that adds freedom to the equation:
The simplest way to make it such is to note that all have the _option_ to pay the government for such insurance and those who pay will recieve the benefits of it. Those who do not, will not. If they foolishly do not get their own insurance and something bad happens to them then they will have to either (a) pay the piper or (b) ask for charity.

Optionally, one can point out flaws in ones argument and note reasons as to why one feels they are insignificant or ask for opinions...this is a good tool for open, honest discussion:

1. Obviously, one must value liberty to believe this. ..but history has shown (repeatedly...nazi germany, communist ussr, facist italy, etc) that the only “logical” result of lack of liberties can be authoritarianism in all of its ugly guises.

Also, while there is a cost to gathering up the dead who choose not to get insurance (and for some reason cannot get others to help them of their own free will) and die because of it, the cost to others should be quite minimal. In fact, free enterprise might pick up the tab of its own accord for various reasons.

It should be each persons right to choose any insurance they want: government sponsored, private, or even none at all.

Cold? Callous?
Perhaps...or perhaps I just feel that people would be a lot more generous if they were free to distribute the fruits of their labor where they see fit rather than being robbed by the horribly inefficient government.

Anywise, just some thoughts from an “ignorant, destitute” son of a split household.

If you honestly believe what you state, please post what tenants you argue from.

If you are a republican, please let me know what the republican philosophy is as from all I can find, it is simply a slower drift towards communism (than U.S. liberalism). If you are unfamiliar with them, look up libertarian and authoritarian and do some reading on what they mean. You sound like a libertarian who is just quite confused...and must resort to name calling as an argument due to ignorance/confusion.

You also come off as a bit close minded in your views, but so long as you are not trying to use that to force others to do what you think is moral, then that is not really a problem either way.

As to the whole judge thing...yeah, that is scary. Roberts is no fan of freedom. He is quite the opposite from what info I could find. The fact that certain documents are being withheld from those charged with getting him into office is damning in and of itself. Bush has already populated the government with his rich, authoritarian friends...getting people of his choosing into the supreme court for life? Ouch…

Note:
I truly have been unable to find out what a “conservative” is beyond someone that does not believe new “rights” can be read into the constitution. I am not trying to bash conservatives, only note that all of them I run into seem to be some strange confused mix of authoritarian and libertarian...who basically just know that they are not socialists, but do not know why...and I feel that this is one of the reasons our government is going downhill so fast. If the libertarians who believe themselves to be republicans would start voting libertarian, we could get start healing our once mighty country. From what I see, there are a lot of them, they just have trouble arguing well because they do not know their own philosophy.

What I see of the real political poles:

Libertarian - Individual liberty / Free Market Capitalism (opposite of authoritarian)

Liberal - Socialist / Statism (leads to totalitarianism)

Neo-conservative / Authoritarian / Statism (opposite of libertarian)

Conservative - ???

Religion, you are what might be called “half a libertarian”.  You like the libertarian ideals of personal freedom, but reject the responsibilities and consequences which go with those freedoms.  The proper name for your world-view would be “anarchist”.  Anarchists very often mistake themselves for libertarians, to the great annoyance of actual libertarians like myself.

You are basically stating that one who is married is required to stay in an unfavorable relationship unless real harm can be shown. This is also noting that one should be barred from the pursuit of happiness because of a bad decision.

On the contrary.  No one can “require” a man or woman to stay in a marriage they don’t want to.  Married people have always had the freedom to leave a marriage.  What no-fault divorce did away with was the consequences of leaving a marriage.

Marriage is a commitment to another person.  You commit to staying with them for the rest of your life, and they commit to the same thing.  Each person in a marriage voluntarily limits their own freedoms (freedom to sleep around; freedom to move to Nepal and become a monk) in return for the other person making the same commitments.  Marriage was designed to assure both partners that the other partner is going to be around for a long, long time so that they can feel confident starting a family.  That’s the purpose of marriage: to provide a stable family unit for the raising of children.  Without marriage, women take an enormous risk every time they get pregnant: Once the man has spread his genetic material at almost no cost to himself, will he actually help to raise the child?  Or will the woman and child end up twisting in the wind with no support?

Getting married is like getting a mortgage: you agree to pay the the bank money every month, and they loan you enough dough to buy a house.  You certainly have the freedom to stop paying your mortgage, but of course the consequence is that you will be evicted and your house will be sold at auction.  Perhaps we should have “no-fault mortgages” where you can stop paying the bank every month, but still get to keep your house?  No?

A century ago there was no such thing as “no-fault divorce”, and people left marriages all the time.  Back in those days, people had the good sense to call it what it was: “spousal abandonment”.  If a man no longer fancied his wife and left her, she would eventually sue for divorce.  The grounds for divorce would be abandonment (or perhaps adultery), and the “fault” would be his.  Because he abandoned the commitments he made, she would get the majority of the property, she would get custody of their kids, and she would get alimony payments.

Now all that has been turned on its head.  A woman who decides she doesn’t want to be married anymore can abandon her husband and her commitments, and suddenly it’s “nobody’s fault.” How is it nobody’s fault?  As a practical matter, no-fault divorces are indistinguishable from divorces where the man is at fault.  The wife gets the kids and the house, and the husband is relegated to a lifetime of slavery, on pain of imprisonment.

Not surprisingly, it’s becoming harder and harder to find men who are interested in getting married.  At this point, divorce law is so completely slanted in the direction of women that unless your wife is dead or in prison, you can kiss your family good-bye.  Get used to being called “Weekend Dad”.

No-fault divorce laws should be repealed immediately.  If one party to a marriage wants to abandon his or her spouse and kids, they have always had that freedom.  However, every freedom comes with responsibilities and consequences.  You commited to raising a family with another person, and then reneged on that commitment.  You lose the benefits which came from that commitment (kids, income, house, etc).  Those things belong to the marriage, and you left the marriage.

These are “substandard unions� and should not exist. (authoritarian)

There’s nothing authoritarian about calling these families “substandard”—any more than it’s authoritarian to call Yugos “substandard cars” because they fall apart after 30,000 miles.  It’s simply an observation.

Fact: The best way to keep children out of poverty is to ensure that they are being raised by both a mother and a father.  Liberals don’t like this fact, so they ignore it.  Here’s a few hard numbers to think about: approximately 12% of U.S. households live below the poverty line.  If the father is not present in the household, that figure skyrockets to almost 70%.  Kids being raised by “just mom” (and rarely, “just dad") are in substandard families.

You say you were raised in a single-parent family and did OK?  Good for you, beating the odds.  But anecdotal evidence is no substitute for data.  And the data is clear: Kids of divorce, and kids of the unmarried, largely end up poor and ignorant.  They graduate from high school less often, they go to college less often, they get addicted to drugs more often, they end up living on the public dole far more often.  They are more likely to get pregnant before being married; they are more likely to get divorced themselves—which means that these inferior “families” end up disadvantaging not only children, but grandchildren as well.

Daryl, how about stating your points better in the future? Your last post actually raises some valid issues.

And yet…

hope that the next conservative President will start by saying, “I’m promise to be a divider, not a uniter.  We have the majority.  We are going to shove our own conservative policies down liberals’ throats—like it or lump it

...with such an opinion, any agreement will never be more than on individual points.

The Senate is comfortably in the hands of Republicans and he nominates a white-bread, middle-of-the-road judge?

Three cheers for middle-of-the road people. Most of humanity is there - in the middle, in compromise, in AVERAGE life. We don’t need ANYONE to threaten or entice us into extremes.

If you are a republican, please let me know what the republican philosophy is as from all I can find, it is simply a slower drift towards communism (than U.S. liberalism).

One of my favorite columnists, the arch-conservative Thomas Sowell, once quipped that if the Democrats proposed jumping off a thousand foot cliff tomorrow, the Republicans would propose jumping off a five hundred foot cliff next week. Unfortunately, I have to agree with both of you!

If you are unfamiliar with them, look up libertarian and authoritarian and do some reading on what they mean. You sound like a libertarian who is just quite confused...and must resort to name calling as an argument due to ignorance/confusion.

Speaking as a socially conservative libertarian, it is my contention that the libertarians are often confused on two points:

1. Libertarians generally appreciate contractual obligations for voluntary agreements in all areas of life except for social compacts. E.g. marriage and childrearing.
2. Insurers noticed a long time ago that once you protect people from risk, their behavior often gets a lot riskier. This is called moral hazard. Another effect is law of demand. Prices are set by supply and demand, if you lower the price you will also raise the demand. The Democratic party’s policy of provide “social insurance” is vulnerable to both of these effects. The net result is an increase of socially irresponsible behavior such as out of wedlock childbirths. Conservatives do not (usually) know enough about economics to appreciate moral hazard and law of demand, so they respond much as insurers often respond: by regulating the behavior of those who would benefit from their taxes.

Libertarians *should* recognize this as a rational response to the state’s use of aggression to force people to provide social insurance, instead they turn a blind eye to this (because many libertarians are socially liberal, IMO), saying “libertarians are neither left nor right, liberals want to restrict your freedom in economic matters, conservatives want to restrict your freedom in social matters.” That is the incorrect conclusion to draw. The correct conclusion is this: “Democrats create risky (and impoverishing) behavior, the conservatives want to fix it by legislating morality, and the libertarians want to fix it by undoing the Democrats policies, making the conservative fix unnecessary.”

As a final point, the way society’s provide charity to the poor while avoiding these moral hazard/law of demand effectives is through moral values and social norms. If you are raised hating charity and with a strong belief that having children out of wedlock is morally wrong - and if your family, friends and neighbors have similar beliefs - then society can safely offer charity while feeling assured that it will not be abused. It is tragic that the Democrats have been both offering charity while attacking the moral values that act as safeguards against needing it.

Wow Daryl, we’ve been friends a long time, but I have to admit your recent comments leaves me wondering how we ever got to be friends in the first place. I never realized you were so keen to force your beliefs down everyone else’s throat.

Hi Les! I’m also one of Daryl’s old friends, so I’ll play him on TV (or a blog, as the case may be). Daryl believes in everything he used to believe in (fighting poverty, reducing the power of corporations, protecting the little guy against the big guy, etc...), he’s just since realized that the government makes these problems worse.

You posted a link to the online book Ain’t nobody’s business if you do by Peter McWilliams. It is a book by a libertarian defending consensual crimes. Daryl has taken that same lesson and applied it more generally. I appears that you are economically liberal and socially libertarian. I maintain that those are two mutually exclusive beliefs and that with proper examination one of those must be jettisoned.

For a starting point, allow me to recommend another online book by a libertarian, Healing our World, by former Libertarian Party Vice-Presidential nominee, Mary Ruwart. I would recommend starting with Chapter 11.

I have a hard time with many of the planks of the Libertarian party which is why I’m not a member so I doubt I’d find much I’d agree with in a book written by a former VP nominee of that party.

And, based on your past comments, I’d rather Daryl played the part of Daryl rather than have you act as a surrogate.