Why is religion worthy of being singled out?

Perhaps, because it is specifically singled out within the constitution

1) Sending children to a religion-affiliated school in no way "make[s] [a] law respecting an establishment of religion". You wouldn't be forced to adhere to it, or forfeit any privileges, would you? Other than those tax dollars that you're already forfeiting, of course. In other words, nothing would change.

2) What does the constitution have to do with defining liberty? Slavery was constitutional. Jim Crow was constitutional, for a while. Preventing women from voting was constitutional. The draft was (is?) constitutional.

Steve's point is that limiting school choice limits liberty. Also, having non-parents pay for education limits liberty. Just because you think they're good ideas doesn't change that.

Signed,
OTB's unofficial anarcho-capitalist

No, but it is a reduction in liberty. You can't have your cake and eat it too, basically.

I thought so...

Why is religion worthy of being singled out?

Perhaps, because it is specifically singled out within the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," or, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
my point here is that the founders thought it was important.

I know, you must understand I'm poking fun at Raoul who wants to have it both ways.

Again, I thought so...

Steve, there are always trade-offs.

Yes I know, my point is similar to Franklin's but actually turned upside down. Both sides tend to be anti-liberty at least in some form or another.

And again, I thought so... but here we come to the nut of the problem... Who's right's trump who's?

Yeah, but was it anarcho-capitalist like Deadwood?

Some anarcho-capitalists have argued it was.

tom p.,

Steve, a point of clarification: Surely you aren't arguing that mentally disturbed persons and those convicted of violent felonies should retain these rights?

No, but it is a reduction in liberty. You can't have your cake and eat it too, basically.

Again, Surely you are not arguing that we, the American people, should underwrite other peoples choices?

We already do that to a large extent. We underwrite the decision to have children by making those who don't have children pay to help educate them as well as help cloth, feed, and house them. Those who pay for them are not invovled in issues like how to discipline said children, what views to instill in them, and so forth. Why is religion worthy of being singled out?

Property Rights are a difficult situation.

I know, you must understand I'm poking fun at Raoul who wants to have it both ways. He wants to be a pro-liberty person while at the same time restricting liberties.

Steve, there are always trade-offs.

Yes I know, my point is similar to Franklin's but actually turned upside down. Both sides tend to be anti-liberty at least in some form or another. To point the finger at the other team while excusing one's own side from their anti-liberty views marks one as not being truely honest about the situation.

Case in point: Raoul.

Gun ownership and radio- who is advocting what? The USSC ruled pretty squarely on 2d amendment rights- does one argue that reasonable licensing provisions is anti-liberty?

Strictly speaking, yes. Licensing reduces people's set of choices. If you are a utilitarian you could make some sort of "greater good" argument, but it is anti-liberty.

Steve, a point of clarification: Surely you aren't arguing that mentally disturbed persons and those convicted of violent felonies should retain these rights?

School choice? The way I read this is that some individuals want to use my tax dollars to pay for their Islamist or Protestant or Catholic education- choice it ain't.

Yes it is choice, it is just a choice you disagree with.

Again, Surely you are not arguing that we, the American people, should underwrite other peoples choices? (I admit, there is a fine line here... We, the American people, have agreed to underwrite the education of all our children. Does that mean we agree to underwrite their religous education?)

Property rights- here I am not sure what this means-

Color me shocked that Raoul doesn't grasp the concept of private property and the right to do with it as one pleases.

Property Rights are a difficult situation. There are many contrary principles at play and Gov't comes in many sizes. I am presently involved in a situation where a land owner I am associated with had 1 & 1/2 acres taken from them by the County Road Commission (totally in contravention of all existing law, there was no condemnation proceeding, they just took it) but at the same point, nobody "owns" an endangered species.

You can argue it is an issue of trade-offs, but to try and pretend your side is the true champions of liberty when it clearly not the case is laughable.

Steve, there are always trade-offs. I am about to buy some land in Arkansas (assuming I get a job again soon), if one of my neighbors decides to clear cut their property, and that negatively impacts my property thru run-off.... who's property rights trumps who's?

FWIW, I'm not sure that capitalism, whether anarchic or otherwise is a correct description of what existed in Deadwood. Without splitting too many hairs, capitalist systems usually require functioning courts, which just didn't exist for Deadwood. Deadwood certainly was anarchic, but capitalistic? Not so much. The absence of a government to impose socialism or any other statism cannot be taken to mean that the default system is therefore capitalistic.

Pro-liberalization of sex according to the study is a reflection on the "right to pornography." Not only does porn appear to be a decreasing topic of interest in conservative magazines since 2001, the impression is that the concern focuses on shielding children from porn.

The issue of gambling appears to be tied up with a double standard on how conservative magazines view state-run gambling versus private gambling.

On drugs, the study finds that National Review has moved towards pro-liberalization views, American Spectator has been pretty even, while AE and Weekly Standard have tended towards supporting drug prohibition. Like porn, this issue is discussed less since 2001.

All in all, the "study" dings the magazines for not only their positions, but failing to take up these causes regularly. I think that's unfair; many of these issues have become less relevant as culture and technology has changed. Also, the Conservative Movement, particularly mags like Weekly Standard, has been more identified with "War on Terror" issues since 9/11.

Meanwhile, of course, liberal magazines like The American Prospect, Washington Monthly, and Mother Jones are all about teh freedom.

hahahah...teh freedom.

I dunno, the Old West wasn't as bad as fictional television accounts make it out to be, IMO.

Yeah, but was it anarcho-capitalist like Deadwood?

I agree with that. Of course, the AC society would resemble something like Deadwood. Not sure any of us would like to live there.

I dunno, the Old West wasn't as bad as fictional television accounts make it out to be, IMO.

I'd say that the only group who could claim to be true champions of liberty are the anarcho-capitalists.

I agree with that. Of course, the AC society would resemble something like Deadwood. Not sure any of us would like to live there.

Gun ownership and radio- who is advocting what? The USSC ruled pretty squarely on 2d amendment rights- does one argue that reasonable licensing provisions is anti-liberty?

Strictly speaking, yes. Licensing reduces people's set of choices. If you are a utilitarian you could make some sort of "greater good" argument, but it is anti-liberty.

School choice? The way I read this is that some individuals want to use my tax dollars to pay for their Islamist or Protestant or Catholic education- choice it ain't.

Yes it is choice, it is just a choice you disagree with.

Property rights- here I am not sure what this means-

Color me shocked that Raoul doesn't grasp the concept of private property and the right to do with it as one pleases.

In short, as soon as you start passing laws, regulations, etc. you are reducing liberty. You can argue it is an issue of trade-offs, but to try and pretend your side is the true champions of liberty when it clearly not the case is laughable.

I'd say that the only group who could claim to be true champions of liberty are the anarcho-capitalists. Even most libertarians acknowledge that there should be some form of government and hence some reduction in liberties.