I often try to presuade people from enslaving themselves to fundamentalist religions.

No thinking person would choose to be a slave of any sort. And certainly not a slave to false hope, denial and the head in the sand reactions to the world and reality. My question is - so why do so many conservatives choose that road and continue to support Bush and his bankrupt agendas?

Mark,

Nobody chooses to be a slave.

Recently in China there have been reports of widespread slavery.

"The foreman, 42-year-old Heng Tinghan, is accused of holding captive adults and children as young as eight and forcing them to work long hours for nothing.
The factories were run like prisons with guard dogs and beatings to prevent escapes."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-acific/6761217.stm

The immigrants who are being held captive forced to work are not doing so of their own free will. This is what makes them slaves. It is a wrong and unacceptable practice. It is a very real problem in this world. Society has a right and a duty to eliminate this immoral practice.

What you are describing seems to be what is referred to as 'Addictive Personality'. There is very little comparison in likening this disorder to the real ordeal of humans(including children) being beaten and forced in to hard labor.

"But one can freely choose to be a slave - a person can enslave themselves to sex, or drugs, or fame, or power, or wealth;"

"Slavery" to sex, drugs, fame, power, or wealth are victimless crimes that government has no authority to regulate. Government should not be paternalistic and should cede liberty to allow people to make and learn from their own mistakes that do not affect anyone else.

The GOP under Goldwater used to have this libertarian perspective, but then the party got hijacked by the Focus on the Family types that want to focus on everyone else's family besides their own.

Gar Wood

That's right, Mark!

For the Christian, this is even more important, to insure we help people make the choices beneficial to not only themselves, but for society as a whole, just as Jesus Christ taught His disciples to 'go unto all the earth, and spread the Good news! But as you write, It is indeed the choice of the individual as to whether or not they see their actions as wrong or right, Even when they know that some choices they commit are in fact wrong! It's kinda like, If I had a friend who I knew was about to jump into a relationship with someone, who they had only met recently, and I told my friend that they are making an unwise decision by commiting too soon, and they said "I know what I'm doing" and went ahead and jumped in, and the relationship failed, then their was really nothing I could do to stop it, and these are the times, In a guessing figure that about 40% of the people who jump into these kinds of relationships become really depressed, and begin to have thoughts of suicide, and in some cases actually do wind up in overdose, or by gun, or jumping off a bridge, what have you!

The scenario I've just explained to you actually did happen to a friend of mine, I told him that he was making the wrong choice, he went on ahead anyhow, despite my trying to help him, the two of them had a baby girl, in the same year, and about four months later, he went haywire, destroyed his house, and at about 5 A.M the next morning, he shot himself through the chest with a twelve guage shotgun!
I went through a lot of emotions after that, thinking, was it all my fault? what did I say? I really tried to help him, but there was nothing else I could do!

These are the times when all one can do is pray, and learn from the trial and error of others! The only thing I can think of was that God gave him over to a depraved mind! Just goes to show you what can happen when the family unit is absent the Loving direction of the Lord Jesus Christ!

These are also the times when it should make ones faith even stronger! Good can come out of tragedy!

Jeremiah

Gar,

Are we sure about that?

Suppose that there is a man who is highly educated and dedicated to doing a good job at the corporation he works for - he carries a heavy load of responsibility there and hundreds of other people depend on him to do the right thing. He's also married and has two children - with his wife being a stay-at-home mom because they really want the best for the kids...so they are all absolutely dependent upon him for their livlihood.

This hard working and dedicated man, as frequently happens, is going through a rough patch where work is very demanding while his family obligations are at their maximum...so, just to help out a bit, he takes a narcotic substance to ease the stress of the day...his free choice; his body...and, hey, maybe its even a drug he's got a perfectly legal prescription for...but, after a while, he's hooked on the drug and starts to fail at work which causes the company to take a big hit and a lot of people lose their jobs and then, of course, he's fired and on his way home he gets high and crashes his car and is killed...now his wife and children are without support as well as being emotionally devastated by their loss...

Victimless crime? Hardly.

Human beings are not actually human except in their full and free relationship with other human beings - wether you believe (as I do) that we were created by God or (as some do) that we are the result of random chance, the plain fact of the matter is that except under very extraordinary circumtances we can't live alone (and I mean really alone, not just having your own place) and, of course, without others we can't continue the species and have a sufficiently strong social structure to ensure that children are able to grow into adults. The choices each of us make are not just for ourselves, but for all of those around us - even if it is the mere fact that I choose to be cranky and miserable over my personal situation, then the people I live and work with suffer along with me. No man is an island - and that is really true; not just a poetic phrase.

Given this, I do think there is a need - indeed, a duty - to intervene...what I'm trying to figure out is when and under what circumstances...

why do so many conservatives choose that road and continue to support Bush and his bankrupt agendas?

Nancy, your side never presented anyone better. In fact, they were much worse. Had one of the Dim loons been elected, we would really be much worse off.

Currently, of both sides, only two appear to be worthy of the highest office, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson.

Do you really think someone who feels the War on Terror isn't real and is only a "Bumper Sticker Slogan" is suited to lead us in these troubled times?

Like it or not, we are at war, a war not of our choosing and one that has been being waged against us for decades now. We either fight or surrender. Liberals have shown their intent, wave white flags.

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy.........

"No thinking person would choose to be a slave of any sort. And certainly not a slave to false hope, denial and the head in the sand reactions to the world and reality. My question is - so why do so many conservatives choose that road and continue to support Bush and his bankrupt agendas?"

Libs are not slaves to big government? They think the government is the answer to everything. And those that continually vote for libs (slavemasters) who promise to take care of them, with one government program or another, from the cradle to the grave are not slaves to their masters?

Education? - answer more government.
Healthcare? - answer more government.
The environment? - answer more government.
Fairness? - answer more government.
Retirement? - answer more government.
....are just a few.

Everytime the libs propose some new social program or law designed to "protect" us, a little more freedom is given up. You are familiar with the shape of a wedge. The smallest end is inserted and pushed, incrementally, and sooner or later the largest end has made its way in. Government works the same way, a little given up here, a little given up there and sooner or later government has control of a large portion of your life. You are now a slave to big government and those who have imposed it, leaving you with little or no choice.

Name one aspect of life in which government has absolutely no role, or an offered "solution" by the slavemaster liberals - You can't.

The libs are trying to impose their same tired old agenda...health care, the envirnment and more big government, nothing new. Just more means of controlling your life leaving you with little or no choice. Some may actually prefer that because they do not want the responsibility, but then again, big government has already made them slaves. If big government went away tomorrow they would be completely helpless, because they are so dependent.

Think about that slave.

No thinking person would choose to be a slave of any sort

Hey they good money to become just that in San Francisco.

Everytime the libs propose some new social program or law designed to "protect" us, a little more freedom is given up.

EXACTLY!

Nancy,

But people do, indeed, choose to be slaves - and some of them quite willingly. Examples of whole nations choosing it by majority vote: Germany in 1933, Venezuela in 2007. Examples of individuals choosing it by conscious decision: Harry Belefonte kissing the feet of Castro, Dennis Kucinich changing positions of a life time merely to obtain permission to run for the Democratic nomination.

People, you see, are bad - we Christians call it our Fallen nature, but you may call it whatever you wish. Main thing to remember: people will almost always choose badly UNLESS they are well grounded spirit and in education. It takes a lot of effort to get someone really ready to make a good, free choice. What we have today is billions of people winging it, and I'm wondering if there is a moral obligation of a person who knows better to help guide those who don't - and if there is such a thing, how do we work it?

Mark,

Government has no role preventing people from their own stupidity unless it affects another person's rights. The problem with your point is the subjectivity inherent in determining when someone is a "slave" to something. One person's "slavery" to wealth is another's passion for work. One person's "slavery" to drugs is another's palliative treatment for a terminal illness. For society to make these moral judgments on people that may only be harming themselves is a gross infringement on the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that Americans cherish.

Driving high should be illegal not because it might prevent someone from killing himself (and thereby harming his family), but because it deters the loss of life of someone else on the road.

Gar Wood

Tired-

I can name a few areas where liberals don't want more government: religion, marriage, symbolic speech, drug enforcement, buying alcohol on Sundays, and others.

I would like to point out the irony, again, that the same people who are against welfare are for the government giving faith-based organizations money... to provide welfare. Feces by any other name... with a cross on top...

Anyways, Mark-

You know a funny story? It's about the criminalization of Marijuana. You know, you used to be able to buy Cannabis at the drug store (right next to the cocaine and aspirin) in the late 1800's. Part of the reason that Cannabis was made illegal in the first place is that it competed with many of DuPont's products:

USDA Bulletin No. 404, reported that one acre of hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/4 to 1/7 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires) but instead safely substitutes hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. ... If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags.

...

The decision of the United States Congress to pass the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was based on hearings[2], reports[12] and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[13]

Marijuana activtist Jack Herer has researched DuPont and has concluded Dupont played a large role in the criminalization of cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp. If hemp would have been largely exploited, it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic, and would have hurt DuPont’s profits. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also the Secretary of Treasury under the Hoover administration. Mellon appointed Harry J. Anslinger, who later became his nephew-in-law, as the head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Anslinger stayed until 1962.[14]

Hemp was a relatively easy target because factories already had made large investments in equipment to handle cotton, wool, and linen, but there were relatively small investments in hemp production. There was also a misconception hemp had an intoxicating effect because it has the same active substance, THC, which is in potent marijuana strains; however, hemp only has minimal amount of THC when compared to recreational marijuana strains.

Then, the government played on racial fear of Mexicans (who, admittedly, did introduce recreational use) to garner popular support for prohibition (the Great Depression helped too).

This quote is also fun, it shows how rational the people who made our drug policy were...

Harry J. Anslinger, the nation's first drug czar, publicly spoke about marijuana's effects; for example, Anslinger claimed, "[African American]s' satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others"[6]

Then the government taxed medical and industrial use to death (oooooooo!!! TAXES!!!!!). The law that later did that was found unconstitutional.

Then, based on the same faulty information, the government went to make cannabis more and more of a crime.

The history of the criminalization of marijuana is marked by racism and taxes, two things that you apparently hate.

Here are some more instances of double standards...

Tobacco smoking has well-established risks such as bronchitis, coughing, overproduction of mucus, and wheezing. Similar risks for smoking cannabis related to airway inflammation have been suggested in a study of healthy cannabis users who exhibited similar early characteristics to tobacco smoking.[37]

The effects of tobacco and cannabis smoking differ, however, as they affect different parts of the respiratory tract: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, cannabis tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways. One consequence of this is that cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema, though this claim is disputed. A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.[38] Unlike tobacco, regular cannabis use does not appear to cause COPD.[39]

It is important to note that in some cases, a cannabis user may encounter commercial tobacco in joints, called "Spliff" (popular in Europe), tobacco mixed with hash in a chillum (India), or cannabis rolled in tobacco leaves, which would expose the user to the additional risks of tobacco.

...

Cannabis smoke contains numerous carcinogens;[40][41][42] however, scientific studies have failed to show higher cancer rates in cannabis smokers. A study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, the largest study of its kind, concluded there is no link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer.[43] A study published in 2006 on a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) failed to positively correlate a lung cancer risk. The results indicated a slight negative correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, suggesting a possible therapeutic effect. Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors.[44] Prior, a 1997 study examining the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients (14,033 of whom identified themselves as current smokers), also found no positive correlation between cannabis use and cancer.[45] A Research Triangle Institute study concluded that THC, a dilative agent, may help cleanse the lungs by dilating the bronchi, and could actively reduce the instance of tumors.[46] Additionally, a study by Rosenblatt et al. found no association between marijuana use and the development of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.[47] However, a contrasting 2006 study linked the smoking of cannabis to the growth of cancerous tumors through the impairment of anti-tumor defenses.[48]

A 2001 study by the United Kingdom Transit Research Laboratory (TRL) specifically focuses on the effects of cannabis use on driving,[50] and is one of the most recent and commonly quoted studies on the subject. The report summarizes current knowledge about the effects of cannabis on driving and accident risk based on a review of available literature published since 1994 and the effects of cannabis on laboratory based tasks.

The study identified young males, amongst whom cannabis consumption is frequent and increasing, and in whom alcohol consumption is also common, as an a priori risk group for traffic accidents. This is due to driving inexperience and factors associated with youth relating to risk taking, delinquency and motivation. These demographic and psychosocial variables may relate to both drug use and accident risk, thereby presenting an artificial relationship between use of drugs and accident involvement.

Overall, pot is less harmful, both societally and in health terms, than alcohol or tobacco... do you support the continued legalized use of those dangerous drugs?

Damnit... I messed up the formatting... if you delete that I'll repost it with the correct format.

Mr. Noonan,

Your question contradicts itself. In the marketplace of ideas, you take any choice away, you are limiting someones freedom. However, it sounds to me as if you are not merely taking away one or two choices from an individual. Instead, you are taking on the role of a parent, or, perhaps, more apprapo to the situation in Iraq, the role of a correctional officer at a prison that has levels of security ranging from minimum security to super max.
In Iraq, the Kurdish north, would correspond to the minimum security section of the prison, and presents few problems. The rest of the country represents varying levels of chaos, and violence with Shiite and Sunni gangs vying for control of their areas. In these parts of the country, the guards may keep the violence from the public eye most of the time. But the inmates control the situation, continuing to attack each other away from prying eyes. Occasionally, violence comes out in the open. Riots, killings, and loss of control of certain portions of the prisons happen from time to time. The guards may re-establish control visible control, but the violence goes on elswhere, or continues right under the guards noses, out of plain sight. The causes of the violence remain unresolved.
Though the guards do their best to keep warring groups of prisoners apart, while helping administer programs to keep the prisoners busy, and prepare them for life after prison, the guards become targets for the warring gangs as they are interfering with their buisiness.
When Bush was told by Colin Powell before he started the Iraq war "You invade it, you own it.", I'm sure he didn't mean that Bush was going to become a prison warden. But that is what Bush has become, however well intentioned he is.
Proof. Bush touted the polls that brought the Iraqi govt. into existence. Why not hold a referendum on the coalitions presence in Iraq. Let's ask Iraqis how much longer they want us to remain there.
While Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabbees suggestion that we put this question to the Iraqi govt. sounds interesting, its not going to produce a realistic result. The Iraqi govt. derives its authority form US forces. If that weren't true, then we could leave the Iraqis in charge of their own country. Since we cannot, one can only assume that the Iraqi govt. gets what little authority it has from US forces. Like all politicians, Iraqis will vote for whatever measures preserve their authority.
More later.

"People, you see, are bad - we Christians call it our Fallen nature, but you may call it whatever you wish. Main thing to remember: people will almost always choose badly UNLESS they are well grounded spirit and in education. It takes a lot of effort to get someone really ready to make a good, free choice. What we have today is billions of people winging it, and I'm wondering if there is a moral obligation of a person who knows better to help guide those who don't - and if there is such a thing, how do we work it?" - Mark Noonan

I think I've read here that you smoke ciggarettes, and you don't have a college degree. I believe the majority of people would agree that these are character flaws that you need to correct. Do you drink? Do you participate in some sort of moderate excercise for like 3+ hours a week, I'm pretty sure that medical experts believe that this is best for you. What about your diet? How much time do you watch TV? I bet it's too much. Have you read a book in the last 2-3 weeks, I think you should read at least one a month at a minimum. I sure wish the government would bother me more about this stuff.

Most people know all these things are good, when they don't do these activities it shows that thier value of what they are doing in place/or not doing is percieved to be higher by them. Some people value confort over physical fitness, are they wrong? Some people value the effects of drug use, I've used drugs before in the past and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it. Isn't there a value in enjoying life?

The government allready has a method in place to make you conform with some Washington buerocrats idea of how you should live your life, they take away your money and your freedoms if you don't live by thier standards.

A good question is if you were smoking pot and got locked up for it, and now your not smoking it because your in jail,
are you more free smoking the pot
or in jail being saved from yourself?

My question is - so why do so many conservatives choose that road and continue to support Bush and his bankrupt agendas?

"Her name was Nancy; her face was nothing fancy. She left a trail of happiness and misery..."

I thought this was an interesting question. Too bad so many small minded people chose to take the path of hate and bitterness. Actually, you might well be slaves to hatred. Something to think about.

I was a volunteer drug counselor for a short time while in the service. My brother worked as a counselor at one of the high dollar rehabs in New England. Drugs and alcohol can indeed enslave you. The stories I've heard, and the things I've seen - they are just too terrible to describe here.

Again, too bad some people decided to try to make this into a smug little anti-Bush discussion. Its one of the reasons we don't trust you.

I did a page search for Bush, and in the comments section, Bush came up twice, one of which was a quote of the other... I didn't know that disputing drug policy was actually having smug little anti-Bush discussion... Learn something new every day...

"No thinking person would choose to be a slave of any sort. And certainly not a slave to false hope, denial and the head in the sand reactions to the world and reality. My question is - so why do so many conservatives choose that road and continue to support Bush and his bankrupt agendas?

Posted by: Nancy at July 1, 2007 01:34 PM "

Actually Raaannnnaaaaa - this post from Nancy and the many replies is what I was referring to. But whatever. Thanks for not contributing anything.

Gar,

And so the question continues to be asked, "am I my brother's keeper"...

It is a tricky situation, but I've come down strong against both the libertarian and totalitarian sides of the coin. I do think we have a generalised responsibility to help our fellows make, as far as possible, good decisions - understanding, of course, that we can't take charge of other people's lives.

Robert,

You're missing the point - we can all make errors, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything for fear of making a mistake. There is the threat of the busy-body in any scheme of using public pressure to secure better decisions...but to say that because we risk a busy-budy we must become indifferent is to make the opposite mistake.

More on this later...

Mark it's not so much that I don't think people shouldn't be trying to help correct peoples actions when they see them doing something wrong, I think the people helping them need to help with a sense of the individual, and this kind of help comes from friends, family and community. If you seem some serious flaw of character in one of your friends, family members of neigbors, please make an attempt to help them. I'm grateful for when these people have pointed to flaws of mine. I just don't want to be forced to live by some washington buerocrats arbitrary standard of personal responsibility.

Robert,

My friend, Jesus said - 'Be ye perfect, as your Father is heaven is perfect'

By going out and witnessing to others about Jesus Christ! Winning people for Jesus Christ should be the greatest demand of ones life that they can have, ecspecially in the day and time we live in!

There are people out there right now, as we speak, that would want nothing less than to kill every last person living right here in America!

I received an email not too long ago, and Newt Gingrich was telling us about the intentions of the enemy! It's just like he said "We better start talking about the shape of the table now because this country doesn't have the stomach to face what is coming!

People need to WAKE UP! Everyone needs to recenter their hearts with God, and be doing everything in their power to win souls for Christ, While there's still time!

If you care anything at all about your loved ones, You should want to get you heart right with God, and tell them that God loves them, and that they need to commit their heart and life to Jesus Christ!

Take your family to church, and be good stewards of His Word!

Jesus is the cure-all for all the world's problems, If they'll only turn to Him!

Jeremiah

Kahn-

One statement does not a conversation make...

Robert,

Basic to conservatism is the firm belief that it is in our families and our Church where we are to find most of our sustenance...but there is the larger society, and there is such a thing as a public danger.

It is legal for me to own firearms - but if I were to leave a box of firearms out on my front porch unattended, then even though they are legal and I'm not breaking any laws, I'm certainly causing a public danger which you would have a distinct interest in seeing corrected. This is what I'm considering here - to what extent do we have a duty to ensure well-ordered liberty? Only an insane person - or a libertarian (heh!) - thinks that its a free for all out there as long as no one is directly harmed; everyone else understands that there are very strict limits on personal action. But what are these limits? How are they to be enforced? What duties to we have towards our fellows to step forward and ensure the limits are enforced?

In my view, we've gone way to far towards licentiousness - we need to swing it back.