Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary thread for "You might be a libertarian if…"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    'Good' is dependent on values and goals, as I said. Someone that highly values rights would consider violation of them to be bad. That same someone could place a higher value on security and consider rights violations in favor of security to be less than ideal but still an overall good. Someone else, like Darth Xena or you, might value human rights more than any other thing, in which case there is no sense in which a rights violation could be considered good.

    In the context of "nothing which violates human rights can be considered good", the alternative presented is the abolishment of the state. My claim is that the abolishment of the state necessarily entails a higher number of rights violations than what the state itself performs. Jumping out of the frying pan sounds like a good idea until you realize that the only place to go is directly into the fire. At no point am I required to claim that the state never violates human rights or that violating those rights is a good thing.

    So, is it good that the State refrain from violating the rights of its subjects? Most people would say yes. That doesn't prevent them from believing that sometimes it is a necessary evil to achieve other goals. When or if it's necessary is specific to a person. Personally, I have my own view on rights that I've touched on previously. I'm not going to get very far into them until the rest of this is understood, though. Not much point.
    Many libertarians do not recognize human rights; all rights should be property rights. I agree, and I believe DX also agrees, but I don't really know. And, to be sure, the NAP could be counted as a human right.

    I think a point of yours is partly that there may be a situation that involves more than one thing that might each be considered good. A person might declare that prospective good A should yield way to prospective good B in the situation. Another person might insist on the other hand that the reverse is true: B should rule over A.

    Perhaps too often libertarians make blanket statements. "Everyone should not violate another's property rights." But what about children, don't they have a right to be protected against making poor choices? They are all too often too naive.

    Let me shift to another issue. I suspect you are making assumptions that may not be realistic. One possible example: The State will "deliver" the results that we can "reasonably" expect to get. But the War on Drugs has lasted for decades now and the end does not seem to be in sight.
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
      Many libertarians do not recognize human rights; all rights should be property rights. I agree, and I believe DX also agrees, but I don't really know. And, to be sure, the NAP could be counted as a human right.
      How does one have property rights without human rights?


      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
      I think a point of yours is partly that there may be a situation that involves more than one thing that might each be considered good. A person might declare that prospective good A should yield way to prospective good B in the situation. Another person might insist on the other hand that the reverse is true: B should rule over A.
      Now you've got it.


      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
      Perhaps too often libertarians make blanket statements. "Everyone should not violate another's property rights." But what about children, don't they have a right to be protected against making poor choices? They are all too often too naive.
      There are some pretty good reasons why I reject rights as things, and this is a good example of why. There's no agreed upon meta for determining what qualifies or why.


      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
      Let me shift to another issue. I suspect you are making assumptions that may not be realistic. One possible example: The State will "deliver" the results that we can "reasonably" expect to get. But the War on Drugs has lasted for decades now and the end does not seem to be in sight.
      I'm pretty confident in how realistic my view of the world is, but I'm open to a challenge.

      'State' here is too general a term. A dictatorship has less of a need to promise certain results (let alone deliver them). An elected official, however, needs to cater to the desires of their constituents in order to get re-elected, and so they tend to promise results regardless of whether or not they intend (or are able) to deliver them. It's also really easy to talk big about goals that you don't actually know are achievable. Further, the people making the promises might not even know how to achieve them. With all of those factors (and many more unnamed), it shouldn't come as much of a surprise when the results don't match the promises.

      Take the War on Drugs. What part of this was "reasonable"? Were there clearly set goals and methods to achieve them? Or was it just a blank promise with no real heart? Was it implemented in a way to achieve results? When it failed to achieve the goals, were the methods re-evaluated and adjusted? In my opinion, the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" have a lot of things in common. Without clear deliverables and realistic timelines, without intelligent methods to pursue or frequent evaluation of progress, it's a waste of effort. The goals are so broad that they're effectively meaningless. There are a lot of things that can be handled improperly which lead to the results we've seen. Some of it might even be working yet be overshadowed by everything that's not.

      But is that a problem of using the wrong tool, or it is a problem of not knowing how to use the tool? An anarchist would probably argue the former, that the State simply can't perform the tasks it's been assigned. I liken this to a company. An inept manager may drive the company bankrupt while someone else could come in and turn a profit. It's the same thing you see with changes in CEO's. It's not the company that's broken but the way it's being managed. Same thing with our government. The government system works fine. That doesn't mean people know how to use it.
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
        How does one have property rights without human rights?
        Well, one can take the view that property rights can be considered human rights, but many call for "human rights" and yet reject the position that all the rights one has are property rights.




        There are some pretty good reasons why I reject rights as things
        ? What do you mean by "thing" here?




        There's no agreed upon meta for determining what qualifies or why.
        No moral case can be made for the State, then?




        I'm pretty confident in how realistic my view of the world is, but I'm open to a challenge.

        'State' here is too general a term. A dictatorship has less of a need to promise certain results (let alone deliver them). An elected official, however, needs to cater to the desires of their constituents in order to get re-elected, and so they tend to promise results regardless of whether or not they intend (or are able) to deliver them. It's also really easy to talk big about goals that you don't actually know are achievable. Further, the people making the promises might not even know how to achieve them. With all of those factors (and many more unnamed), it shouldn't come as much of a surprise when the results don't match the promises.

        Take the War on Drugs. What part of this was "reasonable"? Were there clearly set goals and methods to achieve them? Or was it just a blank promise with no real heart? Was it implemented in a way to achieve results? When it failed to achieve the goals, were the methods re-evaluated and adjusted? In my opinion, the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" have a lot of things in common. Without clear deliverables and realistic timelines, without intelligent methods to pursue or frequent evaluation of progress, it's a waste of effort. The goals are so broad that they're effectively meaningless. There are a lot of things that can be handled improperly which lead to the results we've seen. Some of it might even be working yet be overshadowed by everything that's not.

        But is that a problem of using the wrong tool, or it is a problem of not knowing how to use the tool? An anarchist would probably argue the former, that the State simply can't perform the tasks it's been assigned. I liken this to a company. An inept manager may drive the company bankrupt while someone else could come in and turn a profit. It's the same thing you see with changes in CEO's. It's not the company that's broken but the way it's being managed. Same thing with our government. The government system works fine. That doesn't mean people know how to use it.
        Are you thinking that no matter how good the people that man the "government system" (bureaucracy?) are, if the system is rotten, the government is going to fail everytime? Why should we think so?
        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          Well, one can take the view that property rights can be considered human rights, but many call for "human rights" and yet reject the position that all the rights one has are property rights.
          Sure, but you still have to accept that humans have rights in order to claim they have property rights.


          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          ? What do you mean by "thing" here?
          I reject the claim that rights exist. I strongly suggest reading this article, as it covers pretty nicely where I stand on the issue. There are two particular points worth mentioning.

          Source: Jonathan Wallace

          The theme of three thousand years of human moral discourse has been the attempt to plant moral rules on some firmer foundation than our own freedom. God, Jesus, Platonic forms, pure reason, categorical imperatives, genetic rewards for altruism, all come to the same thing: the fear and loneliness inspired by human freedom.

          © Copyright Original Source



          I don't happen to agree with the "fear and loneliness" bit here, but the rest of this is on point. It's all more of the same; all attempts to ground rules outsides ourselves.


          Source: Ibid

          The natural rights debate leads us down a false road. The energy spent in arguing which rules exist should better be spent deciding which rules we should make. The "perfect freedom" Locke described "to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit... without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man", does not dictate the existence of rights; instead it leaves us perfectly free to legislate them.

          I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.

          © Copyright Original Source



          This is, in truth, what I regard to actually be happening in practice. The reliance on 'rights' is a method to supervene on conflicting claims about what the rules should be. In recent years, the number of things claimed as 'rights' has risen exponentially with apparent disregard to how that could even be the case. We're not "discovering new truths" about humans or the universe. We're reaching new conclusions about which rules we want to see in place, and we're shouting ever louder to make sure our conclusions are heard.


          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          No moral case can be made for the State, then?
          It is possible in an agreed upon meta-ethic, but I find it to be utterly unnecessary to do so.


          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          Are you thinking that no matter how good the people that man the "government system" (bureaucracy?) are, if the system is rotten, the government is going to fail everytime? Why should we think so?
          I don't understand how you got that from what I said. A skilled individual can still dig dirt with a broken shovel, but it won't be very effective. A high grade shovel is still largely wasted in the hands of an unskilled individual. It takes both to be optimally effective. The shovel here is a government system. The individual is the person(s) in power, however they've reached that point.

          Let's continue the analogy. The anarchist claims we don't need a shovel. The minarchist claims we only need a really small shovel. Some people claim all we need is the shovel, and the bigger the better. I think they're all wrong. I think we need to select the properly sized shovel for the job, and that we need to take care who we give it to. In the case of War on Drugs, I think people tried to use a really big shovel without even knowing where they needed to dig.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            Sure, but you still have to accept that humans have rights in order to claim they have property rights.
            What rights one must have in order to claim property rights? And didn't you say,"I reject the claim that rights exist."



            I need maybe a few days to respond to the rest of your post.
            I reject the claim that rights exist. I strongly suggest reading this article, as it covers pretty nicely where I stand on the issue. There are two particular points worth mentioning.

            Source: Jonathan Wallace

            The theme of three thousand years of human moral discourse has been the attempt to plant moral rules on some firmer foundation than our own freedom. God, Jesus, Platonic forms, pure reason, categorical imperatives, genetic rewards for altruism, all come to the same thing: the fear and loneliness inspired by human freedom.

            © Copyright Original Source



            I don't happen to agree with the "fear and loneliness" bit here, but the rest of this is on point. It's all more of the same; all attempts to ground rules outsides ourselves.


            Source: Ibid

            The natural rights debate leads us down a false road. The energy spent in arguing which rules exist should better be spent deciding which rules we should make. The "perfect freedom" Locke described "to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit... without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man", does not dictate the existence of rights; instead it leaves us perfectly free to legislate them.

            I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.

            © Copyright Original Source



            This is, in truth, what I regard to actually be happening in practice. The reliance on 'rights' is a method to supervene on conflicting claims about what the rules should be. In recent years, the number of things claimed as 'rights' has risen exponentially with apparent disregard to how that could even be the case. We're not "discovering new truths" about humans or the universe. We're reaching new conclusions about which rules we want to see in place, and we're shouting ever louder to make sure our conclusions are heard.




            It is possible in an agreed upon meta-ethic, but I find it to be utterly unnecessary to do so.




            I don't understand how you got that from what I said. A skilled individual can still dig dirt with a broken shovel, but it won't be very effective. A high grade shovel is still largely wasted in the hands of an unskilled individual. It takes both to be optimally effective. The shovel here is a government system. The individual is the person(s) in power, however they've reached that point.

            Let's continue the analogy. The anarchist claims we don't need a shovel. The minarchist claims we only need a really small shovel. Some people claim all we need is the shovel, and the bigger the better. I think they're all wrong. I think we need to select the properly sized shovel for the job, and that we need to take care who we give it to. In the case of War on Drugs, I think people tried to use a really big shovel without even knowing where they needed to dig.
            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

            [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
              What rights one must have in order to claim property rights?
              At the very least, you have to claim that human rights exist. There might be some confusion here. You said:

              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
              Many libertarians do not recognize human rights; all rights should be property rights. I agree, and I believe DX also agrees, but I don't really know. And, to be sure, the NAP could be counted as a human right.
              There are two questions that need to be asked. The first is "do humans have rights?" Most people affirm that they do. The second is "what are those rights?" People vary on what they consider a right. According to this quote, you've said that some libertarians answer 'no' to the first question. They might think that humans don't actually have rights. BUT, they can't say "these things are rights" when they reject that humans have rights. It wouldn't make sense. You have to accept that humans have rights before you can make a claim for certain things to be classified as rights.

              Which means this part is exactly right:
              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
              Well, one can take the view that property rights can be considered human rights, but many call for "human rights" and yet reject the position that all the rights one has are property rights.
              People disagree on what rights we have. You can say that property rights are one of them or not. You, and probably DX, would say that property rights is the only one. Other people do not. Other people may not even think that property rights should actually be counted as a human right.

              Nothing about accepting that humans have rights necessarily entails that property rights be listed among them.




              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
              And didn't you say,"I reject the claim that rights exist."
              The fun part about philosophy is that you can work within the framework of a premise without necessarily accepting the premise. I don't think that rights exist for a lot of reasons. I'm not so arrogant as to think I can't be wrong about that. I'm willing and able to work under the assumption that human rights do exist and have a discussion about what should be counted among them.

              That said, one thing I consistently find is that people can't answer "why" when they stipulate that one thing or another is a human right. They don't actually have a system for determining what should or shouldn't be a right. When you poke even a little bit at the reasoning, you inevitably end up with "it just is". I'm going to reject that sort of thinking every time. If you, or anyone, could actually show me a system for determining rights, you'd be a whole lot closer to convincing me they exist.



              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
              I need maybe a few days to respond to the rest of your post.
              Take your time.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                At the very least, you have to claim that human rights exist. There might be some confusion here. You said:



                There are two questions that need to be asked. The first is "do humans have rights?" Most people affirm that they do. The second is "what are those rights?" People vary on what they consider a right. According to this quote, you've said that some libertarians answer 'no' to the first question. They might think that humans don't actually have rights. BUT, they can't say "these things are rights" when they reject that humans have rights. It wouldn't make sense. You have to accept that humans have rights before you can make a claim for certain things to be classified as rights.

                Which means this part is exactly right:


                People disagree on what rights we have. You can say that property rights are one of them or not. You, and probably DX, would say that property rights is the only one. Other people do not. Other people may not even think that property rights should actually be counted as a human right.

                Nothing about accepting that humans have rights necessarily entails that property rights be listed among them.






                The fun part about philosophy is that you can work within the framework of a premise without necessarily accepting the premise. I don't think that rights exist for a lot of reasons. I'm not so arrogant as to think I can't be wrong about that. I'm willing and able to work under the assumption that human rights do exist and have a discussion about what should be counted among them.

                That said, one thing I consistently find is that people can't answer "why" when they stipulate that one thing or another is a human right. They don't actually have a system for determining what should or shouldn't be a right. When you poke even a little bit at the reasoning, you inevitably end up with "it just is". I'm going to reject that sort of thinking every time. If you, or anyone, could actually show me a system for determining rights, you'd be a whole lot closer to convincing me they exist.
                Sorry, I didn't make things more clear than that. Let me ask a question that may make things more clear: What is a not-human right? One obvious answer is the rights of the State.
                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                  Sorry, I didn't make things more clear than that. Let me ask a question that may make things more clear: What is a not-human right? One obvious answer is the rights of the State.
                  I don't think there's any possible construction in which it makes sense to say that a non-sentient entity can have rights. That includes a State or corporation. These things are, at their base, extensive contracts between individuals. A contract does not possess any measure of self-direction (however you wish to define it). There is nothing inherent to a contract upon which one could ground a right.

                  At best, you could claim that non-human, sentient creatures have rights. I'd be interested in seeing the justification for it, but I find it reasonable insofar as it's reasonable to think that humans possess rights. I don't think there's anything all that special about humans which would give them rights where other animals do not also have them.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    I reject the claim that rights exist. I strongly suggest reading this article, as it covers pretty nicely where I stand on the issue. There are two particular points worth mentioning.

                    Source: Jonathan Wallace

                    The theme of three thousand years of human moral discourse has been the attempt to plant moral rules on some firmer foundation than our own freedom. God, Jesus, Platonic forms, pure reason, categorical imperatives, genetic rewards for altruism, all come to the same thing: the fear and loneliness inspired by human freedom.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    I don't happen to agree with the "fear and loneliness" bit here, but the rest of this is on point. It's all more of the same; all attempts to ground rules outsides ourselves.


                    Source: Ibid

                    The natural rights debate leads us down a false road. The energy spent in arguing which rules exist should better be spent deciding which rules we should make. The "perfect freedom" Locke described "to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit... without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man", does not dictate the existence of rights; instead it leaves us perfectly free to legislate them.

                    I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    This is, in truth, what I regard to actually be happening in practice. The reliance on 'rights' is a method to supervene on conflicting claims about what the rules should be. In recent years, the number of things claimed as 'rights' has risen exponentially with apparent disregard to how that could even be the case. We're not "discovering new truths" about humans or the universe. We're reaching new conclusions about which rules we want to see in place, and we're shouting ever louder to make sure our conclusions are heard.
                    Christians take their ethics from the Bible. It's that simple. Some of them would go on to say that Natural Law, utilitarianism, and economics (Austrian School, at least) are
                    without sound foundations (Economics is supposed to be wertfrei [value-free] and so
                    should not be taken as the foundation of any ethical system). The Bible aside, there is
                    no more option of defending any ethical system, according to John W. Robbins.
                    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                      Christians take their ethics from the Bible. It's that simple. Some of them would go on to say that Natural Law, utilitarianism, and economics (Austrian School, at least) are
                      without sound foundations (Economics is supposed to be wertfrei [value-free] and so
                      should not be taken as the foundation of any ethical system). The Bible aside, there is
                      no more option of defending any ethical system, according to John W. Robbins.
                      Granted, but an ethical system is not synonymous with rights. You can have prescribed and proscribed modes of behavior without establishing anything as a right. God can dictate that "Thou shalt not murder" without necessarily saying that humans have a right to life. That might not be apparent at first, but ask yourself how rights would be established. The Ten Commandments don't work unless you wish to establish a 'right to respect as a parent' or a 'right to not have your things coveted'. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the big ones, but how does that work as a right? At best, you have to do a lot of extrapolation without a lot of backing.


                      I'd argue that the first principles of Christian ethics are based on the Bible, but not the ethical system itself (though obviously those two are typically one and the same). The devil is in the details, though, and the details are where you quickly find that there isn't a "Christian ethical system" as such. It depends on how tightly you want to define an ethical system, I suppose.
                      I'm not here anymore.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        Granted, but an ethical system is not synonymous with rights. You can have prescribed and proscribed modes of behavior without establishing anything as a right. God can dictate that "Thou shalt not murder" without necessarily saying that humans have a right to life. That might not be apparent at first, but ask yourself how rights would be established. The Ten Commandments don't work unless you wish to establish a 'right to respect as a parent' or a 'right to not have your things coveted'. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the big ones, but how does that work as a right? At best, you have to do a lot of extrapolation without a lot of backing.
                        I think I can infer from the commandment not to murder that everyone has a "right" to be not murdered. A different way to say the same thing, actually.


                        I'd argue that the first principles of Christian ethics are based on the Bible, but not the ethical system itself (though obviously those two are typically one and the same). The devil is in the details, though, and the details are where you quickly find that there isn't a "Christian ethical system" as such. It depends on how tightly you want to define an ethical system, I suppose.
                        What is implied by calling the Biblical ethical system "Christian"? I do not agree that the Biblical ethical system is uniquely Christian. The Jews should be included. And maybe Islam has a similar ethical system, except the call to make war world-wide.
                        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          I think I can infer from the commandment not to murder that everyone has a "right" to be not murdered. A different way to say the same thing, actually.
                          You can definitely infer that. I've pointed out some other things one could infer as rights that you probably don't see as rights. So what's the difference? You have some other metric you're using besides just that commandment. I think in reality that other metric is what people use, not the Bible itself.


                          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          What is implied by calling the Biblical ethical system "Christian"? I do not agree that the Biblical ethical system is uniquely Christian. The Jews should be included. And maybe Islam has a similar ethical system, except the call to make war world-wide.
                          The Bible is a Christian religious text. The Jews have the Torah and the Tanakh. Islam has the Qur'an. The Bible is uniquely Christian, even if part of it was taken from another religion.

                          Most people have similar ethical systems. That's not saying much. The tenets that humans follow in social interactions are fairly similar across the board, even if the specifics of how they're observed vary by quite a lot.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            Perhaps there's some crossed lines regarding what qualifies. The thing that first and foremost comes to mind is the company town. This is what I understood lao to be referencing in the debate thread. I've been through some long abandoned company towns. They're pretty interesting. On a related side note, I've long been convinced that the way humans stay in space is through mining corporations. Weyland-Yutani is a perfect example of the company town on steroids and growth hormones.

                            I've little doubt that any given company will latch onto whatever subsidies and loopholes it can find to minimize overhead and maximize profits. I've yet to be convinced that eliminating the remaining restrictions would serve to slow those companies down in any meaningful way. "Let market forces prevail!" is the cry, yet supporters run perilously close to No True Scotsman by repeated insistences that we've never seen such a thing whenever criticisms or objections are made. If we've never seen such a thing, how do you know that it works? How many ideals have fallen to reality? All of them. Why should this be any different? Should we risk it? I'll be the first to advocate sawing on the reigns for all we're worth on this stagecoach of a government system, but I'm not willing to abandon ship just yet.




                            I recognized it as such and felt the need to clarify my position somewhat. I'm going to look pretty liberal to an all or nothing quiz, but I'm not anywhere close to that.

                            Stop that! You're being all reasonable and making me agree with you!











































































                            Sorry, couldn't resist - welcome back - been a while!
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • So, where is this quiz?
                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Quill Sword

                              Comment


                              • Caricature Carikkature
                                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X