# Intelligent Design (essay inside)



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

*
Designing We Shall Go

"God is Dead": Nietsche ("Nietzsche is Dead": God)*

By Fred Reed

_January 11, 2006_

A few thoughts regarding the recent foolishness in the courts of Pennsylvania over Intelligent Design:

A pertinent question is why the curricula of the schools should be the concern of judges, who are little more than the enforcement arm of the academic and journalistic elites, imposing on Kansas what could not be legislated in Washington. I see no evidence that judges deploy intelligence, knowledge, or any other qualification other than boundless belief in their unlimited jurisdiction.

Another question is precisely what is meant by Intelligent Design. The answer is not easily divined by reading newspapers: The press have many virtues, but facility in communication is not among them. Reporters, whose thinking is tightly templated, seem to think that Intelligent Design has something to do with Christianity. I know many who suspect intelligent design, but are not religious. This idea is too difficult for reporters, and too dangerous for Darwinists. If one heresy may be discussed, so may others be, and the cracks in the foundations become evident.

It is interesting to put the matter in historical context. To simplify exuberantly, but not inaccurately for present purposes: People long ago saw the world in (I hate words like this one) non-mechanistic terms. They thought that events occurred because Someone or Something wanted them to occur. They believed in dryads and maenads, sylphs and salamanders, gods and demiurges. It can be debated whether they were foolish, or responding as in a fog to things real but intangible.

They thought more about death in those days, perhaps because they saw more of it, and wondered. Existence was to them more moral than physical, and more often seen as a passage from somewhere to somewhere. Come Christianity if not much earlier, they accepted Good and Evil, upper case, as things that actually existed. In the cosmic order as they understood it, mind, intention, will, and consciousness trumped the material.

Then in roughly the fifteenth century a shift began to a mechanistic view of the world. Next came Newton. There were others before him, but he, though he was himself a Christian, was the towering figure in the rise of mechanism, the view that all things occur ineluctably through mindless antecedent causes. He said (remember, Iâ€™m simplifying exuberantly) that the physical world is like a pool table: If you know the starting positions and velocities of the balls, you can calculate all future positions and velocities. No sprites, banshees, or Fates, no volition or consciousness. He invented the mathematics to make it stick, at least for pool tables.

This notion of mechanism spread to other fields. Marx said that history was a mechanical unfolding of economics, Freud that our very personalities were a deterministic result of strange sexual complexes, Darwin (or more correctly his disciples) that we were the offspring of purposeless material couplings, first of molecules and then of organisms. Skinner made us individually the will-less product of psychological conditioning. Sociology did much the same for groups, giving rise to the cult of victimhood: I am not what I am because of decisions I made, but because of social circumstances over which I have no influence. Genetics now seeks to make us the result of tinker-toy chemical mechanism.

No will, free or otherwise. No good or evil, right or wrong. Consciousness being an awkward problem for determinists, they ignore it or brush it aside. Death is harder to ignore, but accepted only as a physical termination. One says, â€œJohn is gone,â€ but does not ask, â€œWhere has John gone?â€ The world offers no mystery or wonder. All questions come down to no more than a fine tuning of our analysis of Newtonâ€™s pool balls. (Again, I am exuberantlyâ€¦.)

These two views, which reduce to the age-old puzzle of free will and determinism, can be endlessly argued, and have been. Mechanism prevails today because, within its realm, it works, and perhaps also because it does not suffer from the internal contradictions of religion. Technology, almost the only advance made by our otherwise unimpressive civilization, produces results, such as iPods and television. It does not answer, and cannot answer, such questions as Where are we? Why? Where are we going? What should we do? So it dismisses them. Mechanists are hostile to religion in part because religion does not dismiss these questions, but harps on them.

The two conflicting schemes attract adherents because mankind always seeks overarching explanations, particularly regarding origin, destiny, and purpose. Some of us are willing to say â€œI donâ€™t know.â€ Others, well denominated True Believers, have to think that they do know. The country is replete with them: Feminists, Marxists, Born-Agains, rabid anti-semites, snake handlers, Neo-Darwinists. They care deeply, brook no dissent (a sure sign of True Belief), and have infinite confidence in their rightness (or perhaps donâ€™t and pretend certainty to ward off a disturbing uncertainty).

In re Intelligent Design, the Darwinists have pretty much won. Their victory springs not so much from the strength of their ideas, but from their success in preventing Intelligent Discussion. They control the zeitgeist of the somewhat educated, as for example judges. It is enough.

Evolution is one of the three sacred foundations of political correctness, along with the notions that there can be no racial and sexual difference in mental capacities, and that religion is unprogressive and should be suppressed, Yet these are delicate things all three, and cannot well bear scrutiny. Thus the various determinists grimly avoid examination of their ideas.

The lacunae are nonetheless obvious. All is material? If I were to talk to a Neo-Darwinist, I might proceed as follows. â€œOne day you will die. Where will you then be? Yes, yes, I know. We do not speak of this. Yet death does seem to be a bit of a reality. Do you never wake up at three in the morning and think, â€˜Where in the name ofâ€"in the name of Logical Positivism, I suppose you would thinkâ€"are we?â€™ If not, you are a great fool.

â€œLet me put the matter differently. Either you believe that there is life after death, or you believe there isnâ€™t, or you arenâ€™t sureâ€"which means that you believe that there may be. If there is, then there exists a realm of which we know nothing, including what if any effects it exerts on this passing world. If there is nothing beyond the grave, why do you care about anything at all? Youâ€™ve only got a few more years, and thenâ€"nothing.â€

Or I might say, â€œYou donâ€™t mind if I boil your young daughter in oil tonight, do you? The world being purely material, the only effect would be to interrupt certain chemical reactions conjointly called â€˜metabolismâ€™ and to substitute others. You cannot object to such a small thing. She will not mind: Consciousness not being derivable from physics, she cannot be conscious. Boiling children cannot be Wrong, as the term has no physical meaning, and in any event all my actions follow inexorably from the Big Bang. I am only doing as blind causality instructs me.â€

In truth we know very little about existence, neither you nor I nor biochemists nor even federal judges. We defend our paradigms because we crave a sense of understanding this curious place in which we briefly are. We do it by ignoring the inconvenient and by punishing doubt. Thus the furor over Intelligent Design.

~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~

Copyright information: Individuals may forward by email without restriction, make reasonable numbers of printed copies for noncommercial use, such as distribution to friends, *and post to newsgroups and lists*, provided that the URL is retained.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

I'm sorry, but creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever name it has today, isn't science. It is a philosophy, religion or set of beliefs, but it isn't science. 

The relevant standard for science isn't whether the other system has flaws, it's whether the system in question has any facts to support it. 

And while Evolution/Darwinism/etc might have its flaws and inconsistencies, it has evidence to support it. Creationism/ID doesn't have any facts or evidence to support the theory. All it has it the flaws and inconsistencies in evolution. Get some facts or evidence (preferrably more than one, although at this point, just one would be impressive) to support the theory, and you can get it into the public schools. And until there are facts, it stays out of the science curriculum.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

The whole debate over whether "intelligent design" (basically religion) should be taught in school is a red herring which distracts people from the real issue at hand. 

The real issue is whether government should be in the education business at all. If you hold that the government should, then you open up all sorts of problems concerning school doctrine and what is taught. The essential answer to what should be taught then becomes whatever some lobbying group or mob of people manages to get pushed through the legislature, school board or teachers. And really, the people who want the government providing "free" compulsory eductation deserve to see their precious personal ideologies trampled on by school educational doctrine. All I can say is "You asked for it, buddy."

The sad thing is that if government got out of education, these sort of problems such as creationism, prayer in schools, sugery snacks for lunch, and whatever else immediately disappear. They become non-issues. People simply send their kids to a school which teaches what they want taught. If they want their kids taught the Bible and a Christian-slanted view of the world, they can get that. If other parents want their kids to get an entirely secular education they can get that too.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The author seems to have read THE REENCHANTMENT OF THE WORLD. This debate is utterly without merit. Science is, if nothing else, a tool to further our daily business on the material plane.Religosity is based in Faith.It's our tool for the daily business of our soul. I see some ersatz programme supporting a faith based concept with 'science,' and I see no faith.Intelligent design is a construct of a specific group of christianity. Where will it end? Do we have to run audios of His Holyness the Dalai Lama lecturing on death and dying during the dissection of a frog? Will Wiccans demand a disclaimer before performances of Hamlet to avoid stereotyping witches? I managed to keep the two equally important but distinct in my own being. I KNOW scientifically what Saint Elmo's fire is. I also took spiritual comfort and calmed my crew when it appeared on the radar/radio mast of my MotorLifeBoat during a nasty bit of work off the Oregon Coast in winter. As my Anglican Priest The right reverand Father Murphy said so long ago, " Who now are you after telling Mr Kavanaugh there are no good nieghbors ( Fairies) like his greatgrandmother taught. I want you to say a prayer in chapel as soon as we finish with Mr Darwins lovely voyage of discovery "


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

I see Vladimir's point, but you know, as long as state schools are in existence, teach science.

Religious schools can teach religion, and state schools can teach religion too, if students opt for a comparative religions course, but bottom line, teach science.

Are parents in Kansas not aware that SATs don't quantify biblical knowledge? As far as I can tell, a firm grounding in what we know to be scientifically true doesn't deter people from also having faith in whichever god(s) they favor, so... big whoop.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

You all have fallen into the very trap he was writing about. He is not merely opining as to whether Intelligent Design should be taught in secular schools, but pointing out that many people have come to reflexively associate any non-Darwinistic proposal (or questioning) regarding our existence with religion (and often specifically with fundamentalist Christianity). While it is obviously true that such Christians advocate Intelligent Design, to put it mildly, it does not necessarily follow that all who advocate Intelligent Design are referring to Christ or even any version of the anthropomorphicised Judeo-Islamic-Christian God.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> The real issue is whether government should be in the education business at all. If you hold that the government should, then you open up all sorts of problems concerning school doctrine and what is taught. The essential answer to what should be taught then becomes whatever some lobbying group or mob of people manages to get pushed through the legislature, school board or teachers. And really, the people who want the government providing "free" compulsory eductation deserve to see their precious personal ideologies trampled on by school educational doctrine. All I can say is "You asked for it, buddy."
> 
> The sad thing is that if government got out of education, these sort of problems such as creationism, prayer in schools, sugery snacks for lunch, and whatever else immediately disappear. They become non-issues. People simply send their kids to a school which teaches what they want taught. If they want their kids taught the Bible and a Christian-slanted view of the world, they can get that. If other parents want their kids to get an entirely secular education they can get that too.


Amen. It is amazing to me that people don't realize demanding education from the government virtually guarantees that their children will grow up to be the homogenous, compliant sheep that the government needs.

This is not even to mention the destruction of much of the money that is earmarked for schools by the massive diseconomy of scale that is the US Board of Education. Even if you don't take all levels of government out of education, we should at least focus on removing it from the purview of the Federal government. At least if the schools were still run by the local governments, the influence of the local culture would prevent this entire country from being unthinking automatons following the every whim of their all powerful government.

Is it any wonder that most schools are not allowed to assign 1984 or Brave New World for reading anymore? The government doesn't want the sheep to see what's going on.

In a country as diverse as the US, there is no way that an educational program can be designed that will be appropriate for all the communities. This is why it was originally done privately or at least by the states. Government school programs don't teach people to critically think; they teach them to memorize and follow blindly. The way the US government has directed schools is Orwellian in design and scope. They have almost eliminated critical thinking from our schools in lieu of "job training" as early as 6th grade. Surely, all the people who go to schools where they are never required to evaluate the things they are taught will end up living the delta life that the government has planned for them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

Ah yes, public education in America: a history of calamity!

Really, that piece is lousy. "These two views, which reduce to the age-old puzzle of free will and determinism..."

_Reduce_ is the right word, buddy. That's the most reductive set of non-arguments about the history of thought I've encountered in all my born days. Belief in physical causes leads straightaway to an orgy of boiling other people's daughters in oil. Good God!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I just wonder if poor people will be educated if it's done privately.

God knows, what we do now isn't working. I expect to be flamed by teachers, but I think the teacher's union is a huge threat to our country because of its stranglehold on the education system. Furthering politcal viewpoints is far more important to them than actually educating children.

I also believe that only science should be taught in science classes. (And I am on the Board of Elders at my church.)


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> Is it any wonder that most schools are not allowed to assign 1984 or Brave New World for reading anymore? The government doesn't want the sheep to see what's going on.


Yeah, it's the _government_ that is keeping Brave New World and 1984 from being assigned, because the government has control over the books read in every classroom throughout the country. It certainly isn't the local school boards and the nutjob parents that are afraid of having their kids read challenging literature, no sir! It is that damn U.S. Board of Education (Google hits: 577--I knew there was some shadow agency overseeing educational policy in this country, or else it doesn't actually exist) that is causing all of the trouble.

But wait, "if the schools were still run by the local governments, the influence of the local culture would prevent this entire country from being unthinking automatons following the every whim of their all powerful government." I guess that explains why local school boards are the ones banning books.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> I just wonder if poor people will be educated if it's done privately.


History suggests that the answer is closer to no. Poor people didn't really get educated prior to compulsory education. Perhaps things have changed, but I seriously doubt it.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

Is it any wonder that most schools are not allowed to assign 1984 or Brave New World for reading anymore? The government doesn't want the sheep to see what's going on.
[/quote]

I don't think the government has banned 1984 or Brave New World. And they're still in the libraries, as well.

I read Brave New World in (public) high school. Didn't read 1984 (and haven't yet) - but read Animal Farm instead in school.

Strangely enough, I didn't read Huckleberry Finn or Tom Sawyer - I switched school districts between 7th and 8th grade, and managed to miss them. Both school districts had one or the other or both on their lists.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> I just wonder if poor people will be educated if it's done privately.
> 
> ...


Are poor people being educated now? In most places, they are not.

Even if we still offered assistance through the government in cases of financial need, it would eliminate the destruction of money. We could run the distribution of the government scholarships with an agency one hundredth of the size of the Department of Education. Virtually all of the money would go directly to educating people instead of being destroyed in levels upon levels of bureaucracy.

People often worry that the poor would not be able to afford education without the help of the government but it simply is not true. For one thing, if everyone was allowed to keep the tax money that the government extracts under the guise of education, people would have higher take home income. Secondly, the privatised education market would develop like all other markets. Some schools would take differentiation strategies while others would use value strategies. Most of the money spent on education would be spent on educating children instead of feeding the beast of federal bureaucracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by NoVaguy_
> 
> I don't think the government has banned 1984 or Brave New World. And they're still in the libraries, as well.
> 
> ...


1984 . George Orwell. Harcourt. Banned in the Jackson County, Fla. (1981)

Brave New World. Aldous Huxley. Harper. Banned in Ireland (1932). Removed from classroom in Miller, Mo. (1980). Banned Yukon, Okla. High School (1988); challenged as required reading in the Corona-Norco, Calif. Unified School District (1993)

These are just a few examples. They are on the reading lists less and less every year. Though there has not been a complete ban they are certain to disappear from reading lists altogether in the near future.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

_Originally posted by Badrabbit_



> quote:The real issue is whether government should be in the education business at all. If you hold that the government should, then you open up all sorts of problems concerning school doctrine and what is taught.


I think there are two issues. The first is whether the federal government should have ANY domain over schools. The answer to that one lies in the 10th Amendment. It is overtly unconstitutional for the federal government to intervene in the process of education.

The second question is whether state governments should operate schools. That one is more complicated, since they obviously have the right to run government schools and have done so for a very long time. But, they have bowed to pressure from the Feds to comply with federal dictates and to use state government schools for the purpose of advancing federal social objectives. In the process, US schools have become a laughing stock of the world.



> quote: And really, the people who want the government providing "free" compulsory eductation deserve to see their precious personal ideologies trampled on by school educational doctrine. All I can say is "You asked for it, buddy."


I generally agree. I see no problem with state governments offering school vouchers to use taxpayer dollars to provide equal allotments to each student (not to illegal aliens).



> quote:The sad thing is that if government got out of education, these sort of problems such as creationism, prayer in schools, sugery snacks for lunch, and whatever else immediately disappear. They become non-issues. People simply send their kids to a school which teaches what they want taught. If they want their kids taught the Bible and a Christian-slanted view of the world, they can get that.


People can and do send their children to religious indoctrination schools now. Those who do not, instead send their children to federal government controlled social indoctrination schools. They learn to speak PC, but they do not learn English, mathematics, and science to a level that compares favorably with the rest of the industrialized world.



> quote:This is not even to mention the destruction of much of the money that is earmarked for schools by the massive diseconomy of scale that is the US Board of Education.


It should be abolished.



> quote:Is it any wonder that most schools are not allowed to assign 1984 or Brave New World for reading anymore? The government doesn't want the sheep to see what's going on.


I didn't know that those books had been banned, but if so, your point is a good one.



> quote: Government school programs don't teach people to critically think; they teach them to memorize and follow blindly.


Even worse, they don't teach them the basic things that are central to education in other countries and which were once taught in the US. Much of the time in the school day is devoted to such issues as self-esteem and discipline. The federal government started on its social program by forcing bussing. The idea sounded fine, but it backfired. Now we have a mess and I seriously doubt that it will be repaired.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> I just wonder if poor people will be educated if it's done privately.


I think getting rid of "free" education will force a reevaluation of priorities among poorer families with school-age children. It might mean that some families have to choose between buying Boone's Farm and lottery tickets or sending their 7-year-old to school. It might mean others have to take on extra jobs or find better jobs. And it means that some might not be able to pay to send their kids to school at all. Long-term, it will likely reduce the birthrate among the poorest section of society since the current system essentially acts as a subsidy towards having children. You will also have a increase in charity schools or schools offering scholarships for poor children of promise.

Personally, I think the better question is, "What right do poor parents have to force me to pay for their children's education?"


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

Mokita, those first three quotes aren't actually mine but Vladamir's.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry I meant Department of Education.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> _
> I think there are two issues. The first is whether the federal government should have ANY domain over schools. The answer to that one lies in the 10th Amendment. It is overtly unconstitutional for the federal government to intervene in the process of education.
> ...


_

Again, I think this sidelines the real issue. Whether the feds or the states or the cities provide public schools the problems are still the same. You still have money being stolen from some citizens to pay for the education of others, you still have government control over the education of children. The only solution is for all levels of government to get out of education and privitize the system as a whole._


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_

I totally agree but I don't think it's feasible to expect that we could make the jump to complete privatization immediately. It would require the elimination of the Feds first, then states and lastly municipalities. After the Feds are eliminated, it would not take long for one of the states to try privatization. Once that worked, others would follow suit. It will never happen all at once.

Re: The Fed's involvement in the first place

The history of our modern system should give plenty of indications as to the Federal Government's original intent.

It is certainly Orwellian although the original act predates Orwell. When the US government originally got involved in our education, it was a direct result of several American leaders (Horace Mann of Mass., Calvin Stowe of Ohio, Barnas Sears of Conn) visiting Prussian schools in the early 19th century. This is John Taylor Gatto's (Teacher of the year for NY state and NYC) take on the results:

*So at the behest of Horace Mann and other leading citizens, without any national debate or discussio, we adopted Prussian schooling or rather most had it imposed on them... The schoolhouses of the day, highly efficient as academic transmitters, breeders of self reliance and independence, intimately related to their communities,...had to be put to death.

Prussian policy makers had learned by experimentation that it was easier to apply behavior-shaping techniques to children who knew very little and were modestly literate than to train children who had been trained early in thinking techniques.

Froebel's "kindergarten" with its early removal of the child's parents and culture from the scene and its replacement of serious learning with songs, games, pictures and organized group activities was remarkably effective in delivering compliant material to the state. *

Today, this early intervention has been taken to new extremes. Under the new Goals 2000 act passed in 1994, there is a statute which employs certified parent educators as part of an "early childhood education program for children BIRTH to 5 years old" to "ensure that parents do everything necessary to ensure school success." Those lines came directly from the bill. You don't think this reeks of government control over parenting?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess_


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Before this thread is completely de-railed and sailing off into the darkness with its whistle blowing, perhaps some would desire to respond to the initial article, and what they think about the mainstream hostility to questioning the politically-correct - especially regarding life, death, and the origin of the universe.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_ Notwithstanding my last post, thank you for that fascinating material, BadRabbit!








_


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Before this thread is completely de-railed and sailing off into the darkness with its whistle blowing, perhaps some would desire to respond to the initial article, and what they think about the mainstream hostility to questioning the politically-correct - especially regarding life, death, and the origin of the universe.


I think we were answering it in a roundabout way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> Personally, I think the better question is, "What right do poor parents have to force me to pay for their children's education?"


Force? Free public education used to be thought of as an essential, even as far back as 1639 when the first free tax-supported public school was created in my town. Seems to me those calling for privatization don't really understand the foundations upon which this country was built. Does anyone remember the Land Ordinance of 1785? If government funded education was good enough for the founding fathers, to use a construction that has been seen frequently in the Interchange as of late, then who are we to question their wisdom?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I am far from a leftist, but fortunately some of the "let them eat cake" attitudes expressed in this forum regarding educating the poor will NEVER become public policy.

There can never be any good that would come from a society that refuses to educate any significant percentage of its children. The crack about poor people spending their money on "Boones Farm" instead of their children's education so appals me on many levels. (I frequently do not agree with Yckwmia, but find myself wishing he would tell you off.)

Number one, it is not the poor child's fault that his parents spend money on "Boones Farm." 

Number two, while I think that some of the poverty problem comes from people making morally irresponsible sexual decisions, I think that there are plenty of poor people who have hit bottom because of problems with the economy, etc.

I also agree that the federal bureaucracy hinders education far more than it helps. However, when the most fortunate people in a society totally abandon any responsibility to the rest of society, the consequences can be really severe. For example, if Louis XVI had any brains and any sense of responsibility to his country's citizens, there very possibly would not have been a French Revolution.

Here is an example where selfish people on the right cause every bit as much damage to our country and our society as the liberal idiots on the left.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

I am not sure why the aspect of "force" is being questioned. Public education is based ultimately on physical force. Children are forced to attend. Taxpayers are forced (ultimately at the point of a gun) to pay for their education. 

As to "letting them eat cake," I am under no illusions that we people will ever vote to get rid of public education. Same with income taxes. But that doesn't make them moral or even beneficial. 

I simply see it as a great moral wrong that another person's need (for education, healthcare, housing, transportation, etc) should be a sort of "moral trumphcard" on my rights to liberty and property. It doesn't matter that it isn't the child's fault his parents can't pay to educate him. But how is it my fault either? Why should I have to pay?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

There are plenty of places in the world where you're not obliged to pay much, if anything for public goods.

But do you really want to live in Somalia?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> But how is it my fault either? Why should I have to pay?


 It is the price you pay for being allowed to reach adulthood. You help the next generation up, too.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not sure I quite understand. How does the government "allow" me to reach adulthood? It seems you are saying that I have a debt to repay. How did I incurr this debt and to whom?

The only debt I possibly could have is to my parents, who raised me, fed me, clothed me and paid for my education. The government didn't do any of those things. In fact, it made it more difficult as my parents were taxed to pay for public schools I didn't even attend and additionally paid for the private schools I did attend.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I thought Chuck Norris created the universe?


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

The whole premise of ID is stupid and circular.

If we approached it scientifically, we'd have to reason as follows:

Gee, we're so complex that we must have been designed by some being or beings more superior to us. That implies that they are even more complex than us, which means they must have been created by something even more superior who would in turn have to have been created by something even more superior. But no matter how many iterations you go, it never explains what or who created the first superior beings.

It just doesn't work as a scientific theory.

ID is not science, it's about religion. It's a sneaky, back door way of trying to introduce Creationism into public schools as science. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deceiving himself.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I thought Chuck Norris created the universe?


 No, Chuck Norris granted permission for it to be created, but didn't actually create it himself. He was too busy at the moment with other things.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The debt is to your civilisation for allowing you to grow up in something other than an utterly savage and barbaric manner - devoid of language, scurrying away from larger animals, and killing what you could for sustenance until you died some brutal death at a young age.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is utter nonsense. If that is your case then I would be indebted to people long since dead. Civilization was not created by our contemporaries but by our ancestors. None of my tax money has ever gone to pay back the deceased. I owe no debt to society and it owes none to me except to let me live my life as I see fit and to enjoy the fruit of my labors without it being taken from me through coercion. Ultimately, even the protection of my life and what is mine falls on me.

I will address this whole issue on a moral basis. Forcibly taking property from one person to give to another is morally reprehensible regardless of the reason for giving it. If I break into your house and steal food from your refridgerator to give to a hungry person, no thinking person would claim that I was acting within my rights nor would they fault you for trying to stop me. The act would be stealing and it is abhorred by every religion, culture and philosophy except the two that have failed so incredibly over the last century (i.e. socialism, communism). Forget the logic, forget the rationale. Speaking in only moral values, it is wrong. If this was done by anyone else but our governments, we would fight the people who were taking our property. It's state larceny that continues only because the keepers of the leftist faiths are unwilling to admit they were wrong.

Just because I don't believe that people should not be forced to help others does not mean I believe in being selfish. I give a lot of money to charities and individuals (everything from the United Way to AIDS research to the poor family in my church) because I want to help. I certainly do not take a "Let them eat cake" approach to those less fortunate. My point is whether or not I give to others is strictly a matter of personal ethics. It is morally wrong for others to decide these things for me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:That is utter nonsense. If that is your case then I would be indebted to people long since dead. Civilization was not created by our contemporaries but by our ancestors. None of my tax money has ever gone to pay back the deceased. I owe no debt to society and it owes none to me except to let me live my life as I see fit and to enjoy the fruit of my labors without it being taken from me through coercion. Ultimately, even the protection of my life and what is mine falls on me.
> 
> I will address this whole issue on a moral basis. Forcibly taking property from one person to give to another is morally reprehensible regardless of the reason for giving it. If I break into your house and steal food from your refridgerator to give to a hungry person, no thinking person would claim that I was acting within my rights nor would they fault you for trying to stop me. The act would be stealing and it is abhorred by every religion, culture and philosophy except the two that have failed so incredibly over the last century (i.e. socialism, communism). Forget the logic, forget the rationale. Speaking in only moral values, it is wrong. If this was done by anyone else but our governments, we would fight the people who were taking our property. It's state larceny that continues only because the keepers of the leftist faiths are unwilling to admit they were wrong.
> 
> Just because I don't believe that people should not be forced to help others does not mean I believe in being selfish. I give a lot of money to charities and individuals (everything from the United Way to AIDS research to the poor family in my church) because I want to help. I certainly do not take a "Let them eat cake" approach to those less fortunate. My point is whether or not I give to others is strictly a matter of personal ethics. It is morally wrong for others to decide these things for me.


No man is an island, and we benefit in countless ways by living in civilisation, rather than outside of it. Our ancestors are not the only ones to whom debt is owed - for if at the moment you were born society decided to have nothing to do with you, it is a safe bet that you would not be here today. We must cooperate to survive, even in 2006, even when our societies are immensely more complex than those that first emerged. The principle is the same: if you take from society, then you also give back in accordance to your means to do so. Others did it so that you could flourish, and you will do it so - in turn - others can flourish too. Take pride in being of this amazing cycle of regeneration.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> That is utter nonsense. If that is your case then I would be indebted to people long since dead. Civilization was not created by our contemporaries but by our ancestors. None of my tax money has ever gone to pay back the deceased. I owe no debt to society and it owes none to me except to let me live my life as I see fit and to enjoy the fruit of my labors without it being taken from me through coercion. Ultimately, even the protection of my life and what is mine falls on me.
> 
> ...


It is clear that you do not understand American history. Since the earliest days of settlement in America, people have created governmental structures and paid taxes to those bodies, recognizing that there was something larger than the individual at stake. Americans used taxes to pay for schools, churches, poorhouses, prisons, and subsidized food prices during times of scarcity. I'm not sure how your notion of what constitutes "moral values" trumps the vision of those respsonsible for creating this country. The cry wasn't "taxation is tyranny", it was "taxation without representation is tyranny".


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bollocks. That sounds like some crappy 60s flower-child song. We don't "owe" anything back to society and I should not be forced to "give". We cooperate because it is often in our best interest to. However, no one should be forced to do something even if it is in their best interest. Eating less fatty foods would be in my best interest but if the government comes and forcibly removes the hamburger from my hand, I will go straight Chuck Norris on the government official's ass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Bollocks. That sounds like some crappy 60s flower-child song. We don't "owe" anything back to society and I should not be forced to "give". We cooperate because it is often in our best interest to. However, no one should be forced to do something even if it is in their best interest. Eating less fatty foods would be in my best interest but if the government comes and forcibly removes the hamburger from my hand, I will go straight Chuck Norris on the government official's ass.


 Perhaps you would do better to respond to the specific points of my response, rather then ridiculing a caricature of it.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> It is clear that you do not understand American history. Since the earliest days of settlement in America, people have created governmental structures and paid taxes to those bodies, recognizing that there was something larger than the individual at stake. Americans used taxes to pay for schools, churches, poorhouses, prisons, and subsidized food prices during times of scarcity. I'm not sure how your notion of what constitutes "moral values" trumps the vision of those respsonsible for creating this country. The cry wasn't "taxation is tyranny", it was "taxation without representation is tyranny".


As Cal Thomas said, "People who relieve others of their money with guns are called robbers. It does not alter the immorality of the act when the income transfer is carried out by government."

Just because there are historical precedents does not make something right. The vision of many of the founders of this country included the owning of slaves and the acceptance of slavery is even evidenced in the constitution. It was immoral regardless of who thought it was right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I apologize, I was actually trying to lighten up the thread a bit. It was getting a little heavy. It is often hard to convey levity in the written word. I did not mean for that to sound as condescending as it did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your statement doesn't invalidate my argument nor does it address it.

These historical precedents (I would call them "values") are deeply woven into the fabric of American history. The people who established this country evidently didn't think it was stealing so who are you to call their decisions immoral or to dismiss their concern with the public good? Apparently you want to see the entire American experiment scrapped. I'm certain you wouldn't have signed the Declaration of Independence--none of that pledging of lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for you, because you don't owe anyone anything and there is nothing larger than yourself.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I might very well have pledged all of those things and at the point that I made that pledge I would have *decided of my own free will* to be indebted to those who pledged with me. Never in my life have I pledged to pay for other people's children to attend school or to pay people to sit on their ass and watch TV because they are too lazy to get a job.

I never said I wanted to scrap the whole experiment. I really don't have any problems with limited taxation and the government providing us with a general defense with that money. However, I don't agree that the original intent was to subsidize everybody and everything. The fact is that the government has taken away our ability to rebel against overtaxation with the 1945 act. People who are not self employed (and make less than 80,000) have no means with which to refuse excess taxation, and our two party system (otherwise known as voting for the lesser of two evils) guarantees that we can't vote out the people who force ever growing tax burdens on us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> I might very well have pledged all of those things and at the point that I made that pledge I would have *decided of my own free will* to be indebted to those who pledged with me. Never in my life have I pledged to pay for other people's children to attend school or to pay people to sit on their ass and watch TV because they are too lazy to get a job.


Never been poor, I see.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

I am rather surprised that people actually believe that our country is founded on a basis of self-sacrifice, charity and socialism. It is precisely these things which our society is NOT founded on and America has prospered to the degree which it has rejected those tenets. America is (or used to be) the country of free-enterprise, freedom of contract, and private property rights.

True, the "founding fathers" did not have a perfectly complete moral or philosophical system for the government they created. Not only did they neglect to sufficiently protect property rights but they also condoned the evil of slavery, refused women the right to vote, etc. We try to fix these mistakes the best we can when we can.

To some extent however, the founding fathers thougth that listing rights (like property rights) in the Constitution would be superfluous because the Federal govt. was meant to have so few powers. I am sure they would be shocked and amazed at what powers the federal government actually wields today. The encroachment the federal government has made via its obscene interpretation of the interstate commerce clause alone would shock them.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are very few people who know me who would consider me a conservative or selfish but as you are not one of the people who know me so you can make wild assumptions about me if you wish.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> To some extent however, the founding fathers thougth that listing rights (like property rights) in the Constitution would be superfluous because the Federal govt. was meant to have so few powers. I am sure they would be shocked and amazed at what powers the federal government actually wields today. *The encroachment the federal government has made via its obscene interpretation of the interstate commerce clause alone would shock them. *


Not to mention the absurd "interpretation" of the 5th amendment that allows the government to steal land in order to increase the tax base.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Drags fingernails S-L-O-W-L-Y down a chalkboard and then cracks all 10 finger knuckles.This thread got heavy and hostile to quick. Lets have a drink. Maybe in gaining sentience, we awoke as the automatic universe's eyes and consciousness to admire it's own splendor and beauty ( if not one of millions of such eyes.) That, or Chuck Norris is the buddha in disguise.God or no God, plan or meaningless marvel, this is one incredible experience, to great to let humourless minions of any science or philosophy demean.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Drags fingernails S-L-O-W-L-Y down a chalkboard and then cracks all 10 finger knuckles.This thread got heavy and hostile to quick. Lets have a drink. Maybe in gaining sentience, we awoke as the automatic universe's eyes and consciousness to admire it's own splendor and beauty ( if not one of millions of such eyes.) That, or Chuck Norris is the buddha in disguise.God or no God, plan or meaningless marvel, this is one incredible experience, to great to let humourless minions of any science or philosophy demean.


 Amen, or as Chuck Norris might say, 'it is good'.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Back to "intelligent design":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

JLP+
While I applaud your and Freddy's attempt at rationalizing the public discourse around ID (and by extension, everything else as well), this particular fight is a losing battle. The judge in the Dover case explicitly described the connections between the evangelical Christian movement and the attempts to inject ID into Dover's curriculum. His jurisdiction was similarly clear, regardless of emotional appeals to 'the enforcement arm of the academic and journalistic elites.' 

Badrabbit: note that all the jurisdictions you list as banning 1984 are local districts, and not the Federal government. That's families choosing to not allow their children access to certain thoughts, not the government. As for your refusal to acknowledge the domain of the government; you benefit from the security it provides, the economic predictability, the education of your fellow citizens, and the infrastructure it builds. This is commonly referred to as the social contract, and is indeed indispensible to the American experience.

Android, you seem to be the target of the original article. Namely, being as close-minded as the staunchest creationist. Philosophical discussions can rarely be subject to the scientific method, yet do not always indicate a lack of intellectual rigor.

Tom


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

I generally agree with what Badrabbit is saying. 

However, I suggest that he read Frederic Bastiat's "La Loi" instead of listening to Cal Thomas. The entire book dealt in some depth with what Thomas is saying. I would say that it is as essential a part of a Libertarans bookshelf as The Road th Serfdom, Capitalism and Freedom and Human Action. I believe that i got mine throght the Ludwid von Mises Institute.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> [Android, you seem to be the target of the original article. Namely, being as close-minded as the staunchest creationist. Philosophical discussions can rarely be subject to the scientific method, yet do not always indicate a lack of intellectual rigor.


Well, no. The foundation of philosophy, (the real academic type) is logic. See, they all go together:

Note that this is just one example from thousands.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True, but logic really deals only with tautology. No new information can be gained from it.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> ...I believe that i got mine throght the *Ludwid von Mises Institute*.


I actually went to their summer school at Auburn over a decade ago.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by AlanC_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was it a good experience?

Also, here is a link to the full text of La Loi in English. It may be the best, most concise guide to liberty.


----------

