Introduction

[Subject Of The King]

"Subject of the King, I would take a long look at many of the other posts on this forum regarding the tone and tenor of the posts regarding preaching ones religous viewpoints, especially from the getgo. "

Not once in any post have I tried to force my religious beliefs on anyone.  In fact, I would be willing to bet that you cannot guess my religious beliefs based on the posts listed so far.

Are you, touting freedom and offering your opinion reacting to the fact that I responded in like manner?

Secondly, you are not the only one doing the qualifying here.  I am as well.  When considering where I move my family, it is my responsibility to 'qualify' the social behavior of the group.  This has nothing to do with you.  It has everything to do with what influences my children are exposed to.

"I am sure you would agree that you are personally granted certain rights and protections under the US Constitution."

The above is noted and affirmed.  Thanks for the input, I should have said:

I am sure you would agree that you are personally affirmed certain rights and protections which are God given under the US Constitution.

I noticed you used the term ?natural rights?.  Have you studied our Founding Fathers?  The rights affirmed in our Constitution are God given which is why no man has a right to take them away.  If the term "natural" rights are in their writings I've not seen them.  I realize of course that I have not exhaustively studied our Founding Fathers.  Perhaps you can point to where you found that term?  Please?

As far as the getgo statement goes, I responded to an opinion you offered. 

You infer that I came on to strong and that I should not have done so "from the getgo".  Obviously, you are trying get me to conform to your behavioral code.  This is contrary to the initial statement you made regarding expecting someone to adhere to others expectations.

You cannot call yourself a freedom lover and grant others permission to steal the life and freedom away from our fellow man, specifically the child in the womb.

The problem with the sexual freedom you espouse is that these types of behavior denegrate society.  You probably decry over-taxation in our society.  If you are honest and with a minimum amount of research you will find that one of the biggest drains on our nations resources are social programs.  Welfare, AIDS, STD's ....  which are all related to sexual indiscretion.  You will also find, if you are willing to look, that 70% of violent crime is related to sexual dysfunction.

As far as sodomy is concerned and the sodomite community, it has recently been disclosed amoung our nations top researchers that this new strain of Staph Infections are directly related to behaviors that cross the anal blood barriers.  Like AIDS, this new bug is decimating communities.  In fact in Vancouver Canada, there are three community cases of Staph for every one hospital case.

Your idea of freedom appears to disregard the consequence and effect on other persons of society.  That is not called freedom, it is called selfishness.

[Subject Of The King]

Whoa there! I think you have completely misunderstood what manfromnevada was saying. Go back and read what he said very carefully.

Thanks for the advice, MamaLiberty.  I followed your advice and reread his statements.

Their is no mention of force in what he wrote.  I would hope that you freedom lovers are not squimish when it comes to having opinions exchanged?

If you will notice in my posts to Manfromnevad, I thanked him and you for pointing out that the Constitution does not grant us rights.  I agree and thank you for pointing out my errant statement.

[manfromnevada]

Dear SOTK,
I said the following:

The Bill of Rights only guarantees that the gov't keep away from the rights we have, natural rights, just as any animal has a "right" to make its living on the land and defend itself.

I did NOT say that the Founding Fathers called our rights "natural rights". I simply said the BOR guarantees that the gov't doesn't extinguish our rights. I call them Natural Rights because they stem from Nature. The right to breathe, to search for food, shelter, and a mate, and the right to self defense against aggression. Most people call them God given. I do not. But I believe we all mean the same thing in that they are not handed out by gov't.

You said:

You cannot call yourself a freedom lover and grant others permission to steal the life and freedom away from our fellow man, specifically the child in the womb.

I can and DO call myself a freedom lover! I do not grant "permission" to others to do with their bodies as they choose. It is not my place, nor yours, nor the government's, to do so.

I never felt that financial loss was a reason to enact a law or force people to a particular behavior model. Lots of people die (and billions are spent) from smoking. Should we ban it? Lots of people die or injured (and $$$$$ spent) from not wearing seatbelts. That that justify seatbelt laws? Lots of people die from HIV/AIDS from risky sexual behavior and billions(?) spent. Is that a reason to make a LAW?

The fact that our benevolent  gov't hands out our stolen tax money for treatment of various diseases or conditions does NOT change the fundamental question: Should there be a law against it because it costs the taxpayers money? Of course not.

I suppose that since all these behaviors are against your moral code that somehow this makes it justifiable? Again, the hardest position to defend is one that goes against your own personal choice. I HATE smoking, but I will defend the right of a private property owner (a bar/restaurant) to set whatever policy he chooses in this regard. It's a bitter pill, but sometimes it must be swallowed.

Now, can't we all just get along? 

Mac

[planetaryjim]

I am definitely looking to move towards freedom.

Excellent!  I feel very strongly that you'd fit right in. 

We are having the Summer Freedom Festival this year 19-23 June, near Newcastle.  So, that would be a perfect opportunity to visit the area, meet a lot of FSW members and associates and enthusiasts, and find out about all kinds of opportunities.

We have a farm in the Ozarks area of Northern AR.

My grandma grew up in the Missouri Ozarks.

I am grieved over the murder of our children.  I do not think that a free state can legally or morally disregard the promise of life, promise of liberty and promise of pursuit of happiness to the child in the womb.

I believe that life begins at the moment of conception.  I believe that a person is a person, no matter how small.  I believe that there is no sense in setting aside as second class persons people who don't meet some "magic number" test of age, such as 44, or 35, 25, 21, 18, 17, 13, or "first trimester."  I believe we have to accept each individual as an individual, and not dismiss an entire class of persons as unworthy just because some court rules that they don't have rights.

Having said those things, I would like to see this whole issue of abortion "go away" through advances in technology.  I believe there is something to be said for having those women who don't want to remain pregnant have the option to give up their children to an artificial womb, or for transplantation to a willing host mother, if that can be done without risk to the life of the unborn child.  Indeed, we would all be better off if women who did not want to stay pregnant felt free to stop being pregnant without killing the unborn child.  And, I believe that technology is fast approaching.

I will be a good neighbor to good neighbors, compassionate to those who are in need of real help and helpful to the cause of freedom.

I believe that statement is about all you have to say.  That is what Free State Wyoming is all about.  I think you would be able to sign the statement of intent with a clear conscience, fit in well here, and be a great part of our travel down the road to freedom.

Is there a place for my family and I?  Is it any better than where I am at?

My answers are yes, definitely, there is a place for you and your family.  Yes, Wyoming is definitely better than where you are now.

[manfromnevada]

In my last post I said (to SOTK),
"I suppose that since all these behaviors are against your moral code that somehow this makes it justifiable?"
In retrospect, I apologize for putting words in your mouth or "supposing" what you might justify.

I think I got off the subject which was your introduction: Welcome.

Anybody here is certainly welcomed and encouraged to state their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and dislikes. Jim always does well by prefacing his statements with "I believe". That's a good way to put things. I also have a list of attributes, behaviors, and beliefs which I look for in those I call my friends. And that's the way it should be. But I will not try to force, by rule of law, or by voting for those who would do so, those who behave or believe otherwise. I'm not suggesting that anyone here would. That would be anti-freedom.

Mac

[Boston]

Subject of the King, welcome here, and thanks for
joining our forum.  Give Wyoming a look-see, and
meet of the folks.  I think you'll like it here!

Regards,
Boston

[NoKnownPurpose]

You cannot call yourself a freedom lover and grant others permission to steal the life and freedom away from our fellow man, specifically the child in the womb.

Not allowing the mother to choose the fate of her body and her child is stealing her freedom.  True, she made a choice (in most cases - rape is an obvious exception) but it should still be her choice as to what to do in the case of an unintended consequence.  If life truly begins at conception, let the little bugger get out on his own and support him/her self.   To make it clear, I am personally against abortion - My feeling is that if one wishes to partake in the behavior that can produce a child, both parties should take responsibility for the potential consequences.

The problem with the sexual freedom you espouse is that these types of behavior denegrate society.  You probably decry over-taxation in our society.  If you are honest and with a minimum amount of research you will find that one of the biggest drains on our nations resources are social programs.  Welfare, AIDS, STD's ....  which are all related to sexual indiscretion.  You will also find, if you are willing to look, that 70% of violent crime is related to sexual dysfunction.

Do they now?  Welfare represented about 1.8% of GDP in 2007.  AIDS and other STDs were a much smaller amount than that.   Certainly not an insignificant amount but far the biggest drain on our resources.  A libertarian would argue for less spending in these areas anyway, let the private sector handle it. 

The welfare system is clearly broken but sexual freedom is a tool, not the cause.  The system is set up such that maximum benefit can be obtained by continuing to produce children and staying in a constant state of "need".  Start removing the benefit of having more children and watch the birth rate decline among this segment of the population.  Their standard of living would also likely begin to improve.   While I won't argue that AIDS and other STDs are related to sex, I will say that there are a number of AIDS cases that are not related to sex including those who received infected blood and children born to women who (often knowingly) had the virus.  Granted - these are the minority of cases but AIDS is no exclusively related to sexual behavior.

As for crime stats - I was unable to find data to support your claim that 70% of violent crime is related to sexual dysfunction - not sure by what measure you're judging that on.  It is interesting to note that the violent crime rate in this country began to decline dramatically about 18 years after Roe v. Wade made abortion legal for women.  Perhaps not bringing unwanted children into the world had something to do with that.  I believe there have been some statistical studies on just that subject.  Of course 89.475% of all statistics are wrong anyway.

As far as sodomy is concerned and the sodomite community, it has recently been disclosed amoung our nations top researchers that this new strain of Staph Infections are directly related to behaviors that cross the anal blood barriers.  Like AIDS, this new bug is decimating communities.  In fact in Vancouver Canada, there are three community cases of Staph for every one hospital case.

Disclosed in a study (if I am thinking of the one you're referring to) that also states "Limitations:  The study was retrospective, and sexual risk behavior was not assessed."  Here's the full report - http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200802190-00204v1   Interesting research but nowhere near conclusive.

MRSA is not just spreading among gay men but hetersexuals too, it is transmitted via skin to skin contact and is likely the result of years of over-prescription and general misuse of antibiotics.  The first case I remember reading about was in Detroit several years ago, she had an MSRA infection on her foot.  (Perhaps there was some sexual link there but the article didn't get into it if there was...)

Your idea of freedom appears to disregard the consequence and effect on other persons of society.  That is not called freedom, it is called selfishness.

True freedom allows us to be selfish - as long as we're willing to accept the responsibility and consequences that come with it.  If that means that some engage (with willing partners) in behavior that puts them at risk of having an unwanted pregnancy or STD then so be it. 

Personally I choose to be faithful to one partner.  My wife made a different choice which is why I am choosing to leave both her and Illinois and find someone more compatible with my morals and views. 

Best of luck in finding a new home for you and your family.  I am on the same mission myself.  As long we it is a place where all of us are free to have and express our opinions I think we'll do fine.  Besides, it makes for much more interesting conversation than talking about the weather. 

Steve

[Boston]

Okee, dokee, we've strayed away from the Welcome long enough.

I think there's a thread on abortion somewhere, though it may have
been locked.  It's an emotional issue, obviously.

Folks will simply have to agree to disagree, at least on this forum.

Boston