"Are you seriously saying that the right to debate out and understand the very issues upon which we define our nation is a less important right... than the right to have sex with someone without worrying about their menstrual cycle?"

I don't actually believe in inalienable rights. But a government that wants to reorganize society based on Judeo-Christian principles and restrict access to contraception is a government that I no longer consent to be governed by. Such a government crosses the line of my tolerance so far that I would forsake my loyalty to it. I would see it as having no legitimacy, and one that I would feel no restraint in using violence against it.

Alternatively, there seems to be two options. The first is to do what I have suggested: Prohibit the political participation and censor the views of religious and extremist factions. It is a more civilized alternative to bloodshed. Or two, Kemp's suggestion about returning to federalism by restoring state's rights and small government may be an acceptable compromise. That way crazies can have their theocracy in one state, and my state can remain committed to social liberty without the possibility of effective interference from the federal government. However, considering how committed to big government social conservatives are, even though they claim otherwise, it is doubtful they would ever consider such a compromise.

Although my position on limiting political expression is hypocritical, I feel justified protecting myself from the kind of restrictions on my liberty that have been articulated by social conservatives. I consider these restrictions to be naked tyranny and far from being necessary to govern a civilized society, so I feel justified in colluding with like-minded individuals to reasonably restrict their liberty in order to protect ours.

I'm not sure what Kemp's view is about tyranny or political violence, but I assume he considers it justifiable to use violence against the state under certain circumstances. However, I would rather protect myself from tyrants by restricting their liberty before it came to bloodshed. On the other hand, his idea about returning to federalism may offer sufficient protection from crazies without the potential slippery slope of censorship.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

Um... and?>

There are others you haven't mentioned, although I have a philosophical problem with the term "rights." Ignoring that, taking away the first right, with some modification, is a sufficient justification for me to withdraw my consent to be governed by the state.

Modified:

1. Right to purchase contraception without government interference restricting my ability to obtain it.
2. Right to have sex with a consenting partner, regardless of marital status.

As a voluntary slave of the state, why would anybody care what you think? You argue both that you have no rights, and that you'll get violent over your preferences... It sounds like you should be committed. You argue that you have no right to liberty, but that you'll get violent over a preference. That's hypocritical and nonsensical.

As a voluntary slave to the state, get used to the whims of your rulers or the majority. It's your stated preference. You shouldn't be telling us how you'll get violent over the results of your own preference. That just sounds like you're trolling and put no thought into the ideas you presented here.

What government are you talking about, anyway? Birth control is cheap as hell in the USA, and it's no more restricted than other medicine (which is admittedly poorly and overly restricted for the benefit of the healthcare and pharmaceutical mega industries). Sure, a bunch of people don't like it, but they hardly have the votes to get it outlawed anywhere. They have no legislative power. Hell, you can kill your kids halfway out of their mother's va-jay-jay in many places. What are you talking about?

EDIT: Two questions:
1: What is a right?
2: If you don't believe in inalienable rights, from where do rights derive?

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> EDIT: Two questions:
1: What is a right?
2: If you don't believe in inalienable rights, from where do rights derive?

1. A form of entitlement that someone is obliged to provide you.
2. People.

What I'm saying is that people think rights transcend the natural world and institutions, but in fact they were entirely conceived by people stuck in their ivory towers, and now they are features of Western institutions. I used them as a useful fiction to engage you without getting in to an unnecessary philosophical conversation.

To be more precise, I am not fond of my freedom to have those things legally prohibited/restricted by moral busy bodies.

I have yet to develop a procedure for that. But those "rights" in particular are so important to me, that if I were deprived of them, I would be in a position of having nothing to lose.

They are empirical in the sense that they report my values. Otherwise, yep.

I suppose we could potentially universalize them with an argument that they are essential to other values that are generally valued. For example, access to birth control and abortion serve to lift many natural barriers to entry that once deterred women from pursuing careers. A second argument could be made that cheap sex benefits society by making the population happier and reducing the prevalence of male violence.

In fact, I could very easily make the argument that the logic you have... is in no way different from the logic of the very social conservatives you condemn, with the only difference being that you each have picked different values to prioritize over others.

I think it's more humorous to watch him ask Justinian legitimate, honest questions. And to watch Justinian stumble to come up with answers.

"I'm totally empirical!"
"But what you're talking about in this thread is based entirely on personal preference?"
"Yes!"

Justinian

Choose one:
1) Being made a Eunich
2) Ultrasounds for women seeking abortions
3) Fight til you die

You must choose one, as I am the new Repressive Government you fear! Which way will you sacrifice?