Subj : Behind the Politics To : Richard Anderson From : Richard Falken Date : Sun Aug 25 2019 17:35:45 Re: Behind the Politics By: Richard Anderson to Richard Falken on Sun Aug 25 2019 03:34 pm Hello there! > I think the Non Agression Principle is something that a lot of people across > the political spectrum could agree with. > My experience is that everybody agrees with the NAP until they want to accomplish something for which the NAP is an obstacle. 'I think people should be left alone as long as they are not causing trouble.' 'I agree.' 'I think bullfighting sucks. Glad interest in it is diminishing and the practice is dying out.' 'I think it is horrible that such national tradition is dying. I think we must use tax funds to keep it alive and force everybody in town to attend bullfighting on Saturday.' > Where disagreement could certainly come into play is where there's > disagreement what constitutes an offense. To some, aborting a pregnancy > qualifies as an offense. To others, restricting abortion rights does. With abortion in particular, the problem is often that defining what an human being with rights is is quite arbitrary. Why is an embryo of age X a being with rights and an embryo with age X-1 a being with no rights? Some religious groups solve the problem by declaring that it has rights from age 0, but even age 0 is something you come up more from faith than anything else. This is why abortion politics have never swayed my vote. I think it is all based in gut feeling and arbitrary limits and I see no way out of that. I think there is more of a problem with people who sees aggression everywhere and will over-react on it. Like the old lady who thinks your dog is too big, and hence it is dangerous, and hence you are dangerous, and hence you must be stopped at any cost. These people are troublesome because they end up lobbying and big dogs get banned off the city faster than you can spell "fearmonger". --- SBBSecho 3.09-Linux * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705) .