my page: How to Get Rid of Cellulite

Μy web-sitе :: Rocket Spanish

Here is my web page; Nikon D7100 review

If a nation were owned by private entities and those entities joined together to establish a common set of rules and the means of enforcement, the same people who now cry tyranny would defend the property owner’s interests. Those who own no property would be subject to the terms imposed by the property owners, and no “libertarian” would dare cry tyranny. When the landlords are happy, the libertarians are happy.

Your last post _was_ nice, as were some of your first ones. The ones in the middle were unnecessary ad hominem attacks. I thought rodander offered a very reasonable interpretation of what you wrote, and fairly politely asked for you to clarify.

The nature of communication on the internet (or anywhere really) is that one can not know what another ‘means’, one can only try to interpret the words they used to express that meaning. When someone offers an interpretation of what you have written that does not agree with what you ‘meant’, take it as an opportunity to clarify what you did mean. If instead you assume your original wording is unambiguous and unequivocable, and angrily accuse the questioner of being unable to read, people will begin to ignore you and the otherwise worthwhile points you have to make.

I will not apologize for responding angrily to someone who – twice – insists on telling me and the rest world “what I meant.”

I well admit I tend to idle on 11, but I do make an effort to “give” as nicely as I get.

please try to stay on topic. it is easy to derail these threads with rants about things tangential to the issue being discussed. if you continue with your angry shouting we will all suffer.

you are most welcome to participate, but we three blind mice must insist that you exercise a little more restraint and decorum. as fellow dissenters we assure you that if you show some respect for this community you will be richly rewarded.

now play nice.

Can the state compel a druggist to dispense? In some states yes. A refillable prescription is considered in many states to be property of the owner and has to be filled upon demand. I would certainly defend a druggist’s right to expression and as an example I’ll point out I now do not do business at all with one druggist near me – where I used to go for ALL my medicinal needs – because of a political “booklet” of nonsense the owner posted near the cash register before the last election. Likewise, if you go to a druggist and that druggist refuses to fill your prescription or gives you a lecture about the evils you (or your doctor) are perpretrating then it seems the logical thing to do is to tell them to stuff it and go elsewhere.

But no matter, the point is that this nation is quickly descending into the same oppressive fundamentalist tyranny we are allegedly trying to stamp out half a world away. When the rights of individuals (especially women and girls) are threatened even over how they appear in public that tells me we are but a step from selling bhurkas at the wal-mart.

If you did not mean that the pharmacists do not have the Liberty to refuse to dispense, or that the boycotters do not have the Liberty to boycott, then I stand corrected. If you mean that they have the Liberty to do these things, but that you think they are wrong, then OK. So I’m asking which it is. Your original post was confusing, then.

I am not familiar with the facts of the pharmacists’ case. But it is indeed plausible that the aborting agent was not an available drug when they started work at kMart. So this maybe was not an issue upon employment, but became one later; surely they have the right to bring suit if a non-frivolous issue exists? And if they are required by all employers to dispense, and they feel strongly, then yes they should find another line of work. But surely you are not saying that the state can force them to dispense?

And if the local DA is overstepping his office and power, then complain about THAT. But the commercial boycott is surely within the group’s liberty to spend their money as they wish, and to convince others to do the same. Surely you are not saying that the state can compel their silence?

By purely private actions I mean actions of individuals, or groups of individuals, as distinct from government action. And yes, our private actions, including expressive actions, affect those around us. Maybe they convince, maybe they offend (obviously my comments have offended you — sorry if that’s the case), maybe they help, maybe they are not relevant.

That is the nature of our liberty, one of the unalienable rights with which each of us humans is endowed. Including those we disagree with, and those halfway around the world. And a right worth fighting, living, and dying for. On that you and I may well agree.

See you down the road.

two examples of purely private action…

A pharmacist working at k-mart was fired for refusing to do his job. A person came into the K-Mart store and the pharmacist refused to fill the order the patient had for an aborting agent. This was a patient who had, in counsel with a doctor of her choice, decided this was the proper avenue. And when that person was fired for refusing to do his job as an employee and for refusing to refer her to someone who would, he sued k-mart.

If I hire you to decorate my house and I provide you a paycheck and you refuse to decorate my house, you are not doing your job and I have the right to fire you. If you don’t like the way I want my house decorated – if I want it spread wall to wall with pornography and this offends you – you STILL have not done your job and you have no right to sue me for not agreeing to fund your narrow view of the world. If you are a pharmacist looking for work at k-mart it is not at all reasonable to expect you will not be required to dispense drugs you may not agree with. You look elsewhere for a pharmacist owner who shares your beliefs or you find a different line of work altogether.

This is not a “private action” because it affects other people’s lives. And so far as the tupelo wildman, I’ll invite you to come live in the area for a while and see for yourself just how “private” the actions of the “center for the america family” really are. When you have a ten year old girl and her family being intimidated by the local district attorney because a group of loudmouth religious fanatics don’t like the clothes she models (clothes purchased from a children’s clothing store at the local mall), that is not “private action.” We send young men to Iraq and Pakistan to die while “liberating” those people from this sort of oppression while that same religious tyranny festers in those boy’s very own back yard.

Yes, goddamnit, I’m indignant. I’m fed up. And I will thank you again to not tell me or anyone else “what I meant.” If you are not clear on ‘what I meant” then ask me.