Acton Institute PowerBlog - Comments

Marc Vander Maas: Saving Mother Earth, One Dead Adorable Baby Bear At A Time

blog@acton.org (Marc Vander Maas) — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:56:41 -0700

Satire, folks. Satire. We don’t want the bears to die.

Jen: Saving Mother Earth, One Dead Adorable Baby Bear At A Time

blog@acton.org (Jen) — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:57:32 -0700

You guys are sick!! Killing baby bears is NOT, i repeat NOT okay!! That would not be putting them out of their misory!! There are human babies facing the same problem, would you kill them too?!?!?!

Anonymous: Outlawing Baggy and Saggy Pants Won't Work

blog@acton.org () — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:53:05 -0700

i do hope you are joking...

Roger McKinney: Bragging on an Undergrad

blog@acton.org (Roger McKinney) — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:03:52 -0700

Jordan, the “principle of prudence” is excellent. Each unit of government, family, church and state, has a proper role. At least with Locke, and possibly sooner, Protestants decided that government should be limited to the protection of life, liberty and property. That idea held fairly well until the late 19th century when many Christians decided to estabish the kingdom of God on earth by outlawing all sin. That opened the door for state control over all parts of our lives and has been disastrous in almost all cases. It also introduced socialist economics.

marc: Some Problems with Protestantism

blog@acton.org (marc) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:33:03 -0700

“History clearly attests to the fact that, not a single protestant sect can trace its origins to a time earlier than the 16th century.”

Hmm. That’s odd. I’m a protestant, and I trace the origins of my “sect” all the way back to Abraham.

Dana: BET's "Read A Book" Is Satirical Not Racist

blog@acton.org (Dana) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:31:15 -0700

THANK YOU.

i had arguments with people about this..how can it be racist when hes rapping about DOING THE RIGHT THING!?

eric schansberg: Pirate Morality

blog@acton.org (eric schansberg) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:52:52 -0700

Agreed.

See also: Would that the modern-day pirates were in countries whose rulers had established far better incentives to engage in productive behavior-- instead of their inclination to siphon off wealth from (and otherwise abuse) their citizens.

karl: Some Problems with Protestantism

blog@acton.org (karl) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:29:17 -0700

Lies, lies, and more lies.

You display an amazing ignorance the meaning of catholicity, and the true facts concerning the origin and nature of the “reformation”.

You also do not seem to know the meaning of the term “patristics”.

However, in true protestant spirit, and in imitation of lucifer, the original usurper, you try to appropriate the title of catholicity to yourselves.

It does not take a rocket scientist to know that the “reformation” was nothing more than a rebellion.

History clearly attests to the fact that, not a single protestant sect can trace its origins to a time earlier than the 16th century.

Jordan: Bragging on an Undergrad

blog@acton.org (Jordan) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:04:21 -0700

Governments make laws that reflect a particular view of the human person and teach a form of “morality.”

The question isn’t whether or not the State legislates morality, but rather to what extent it ought to punish and reward moral conduct in a particular context.

A good place to start in answering this question might well be Aquinas’ principle of prudence, which I think has some serious potential for social conservative/libertarian dialogue, because it places the question in realm of debate over reality...

Roger McKinney: Bragging on an Undergrad

blog@acton.org (Roger McKinney) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:57:15 -0700

After reading the article on the common good, it seems to me that social conservatives are violating the principle of subsidiarity mentioned in it. Subsidiarity is an excellent principle. The state should stay out of the Church’s business. The Church teaches the Gospel and God’s morality. People should be free to accept or reject it. If the state steps in and tries to enforce morality, it violates the principle of subsidiarity.

The state has a role as outlined in the Bible--protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens from evil men. The Church has its role--teach God’s Word. Christians should not use the state to force people to obey God’s word.

Jordan: Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium

blog@acton.org (Jordan) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:57:06 -0700

Sounds to me like something you should take up with the Heritage Foundation.

Roger McKinney: Bragging on an Undergrad

blog@acton.org (Roger McKinney) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:49:02 -0700

I understand that the divorce rate skyrocketed after the change in divorce laws, but I think that is a spurious correlation, similar to the sun rising when the rooster crows. Illegitimate births also skyrocketed during the same time period, as did crime, and they weren’t the result of a change in divorce laws. People simply quit marrying before giving birth. The 70’s and 80’s witnessed a huge cultural change as the majority of Americans abandoned traditional Christianity and I think that is the main cause of the higher divorce rate.

The French make it difficult to get divorced, as do the Italians. As a result, extra-marital affairs are common. In India, divorce is rare because men marry to have children but use prostitutes for pleasure. I don’t see that forcing people to live together who don’t like each other is beneficial to the child since the parents will resort to extra-marital affairs.

I oppose drug use, abortion, homosexual marriage and divorce, but I don’t want to use the state to force people to follow my ideas. The state has made a mess of drug enforcement and actually made the problem worse. As Europe and India demonstrate, laws forbidding divorce won’t improve the morals of people at all. Either people respond to the Gospel preached by the Church or they don’t, but the state can’t help the Church do its job.

Can social conservatives a libertarians live together? I don’t see how. I am socially very conservative, but I’m also a capitalist. Most social conservatives I know are very socialist on economic issues. Social conservatives offer nothing to libertarians, except distortion of their views, and they don’t want the economic freedom that libertarians desire.

Carlos Navarro: Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium

blog@acton.org (Carlos Navarro) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:41:35 -0700

How much did the patrons of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity pay Heritage to have their photos included in its 2009 calendar, together with an image of Abraham Lincoln no less? How could a prestigious organization like Heritage sell out to like that? Government is broken; Wall Street is broken; the Big Three auto industry, public education is, academe, the news media, TV entertainment, talk show radio are all broken, and now it appears that conservative think tanks are broken as well.

B.R.: Pirate Morality

blog@acton.org (B.R.) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:52:01 -0700

Blog readers might be interested in a new book coming out about the economics of piracy, by a Hillsdale College graduate Peter Leeson:http://www.peterleeson.com/TheInvisibleHook.html

Hunter Baker: Bragging on an Undergrad

blog@acton.org (Hunter Baker) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:09:02 -0700

I’ll just take one example here to make my point. Roger McKinney suggests that we have had policies encouraging marriage for generations and that the divorce rate is higher than ever. That simply is not true. The policies have swung the other way. Divorce was once strongly discouraged by law (and difficult) and the divorce rate reflected that. With no-fault divorce in the 70’s and 80’s, the divorce rate skyrocketed. One might also note that for some time there has been a marriage penalty in the income tax whereby a spouse’s income is stacked onto the other income to reach a higher marginal rate.

But the biggest thing is that I think McKinney has missed the broad thrust of my article. I simply argued for why libertarians and so-cons should stick together. I didn’t make a case that libertarians are bad or entirely wrong.