He is really good, one of the best things we have going for us.

As someone who believes in a free will, I endorse what he is doing. As a libertarian who wants government out of my hair, I also endorse what he's doing.

I really don't think he is really pandering to big business, as big business is as opposed to freedom as the pro-government crowd is.

Alice Lillie

Link to Archives is broke. Should be http://www.ernesthancock.com/archive/

Once this is accepted the challange it would seem is to maintain the minimal neccessary government to prevent the emergence of, or takeover by, other more intrusive potential governments.

History and human nature seems to suggest that it is the nature of collective governments to grow in power and scope. Thus we undertake the often futile effort to hold back the growth of the state.

As for the debate, it begins by rulling out arguing the merits of individual sovreignty. As Jasons states in his opening:

"Your argument, and apparently the Austrian position in general, is not that humans possess a large set of natural rights, but simply that government always destroys wealth when it intervenes, whether in people's private lives or in the broader marketplace. It is this utilitarian argument for libertarianism that I believe is unprovable and almost certainly incorrect."

While I disagree with Jason that the utilitarian argument is "certainly incorrect", I believe this argument is secondary to the fact that individuals DO in fact posess natural rights. Thus whether some particular state meddling in private matters (such as seat belts) can be proven to have made a statistical impact that some, most or all people value as positive, it is still violating the right of the individual to make the decision to use or not use a seat belt as they see fit.

If we accept the notion that perceived "performance" of state initiatives (based on some value judgement and cost benefit analysis) is the primary determination, we then inplicitly accept that there are no limits to where or how far the state can go. All intervention into the personal lives of citizens can be justified with the right statistics and value judgements.

While I have opinions on the detailed merits or lack thereof regarding the War on Drugs and seatbelt laws, I feel commenting on those now would detract from the point I have attempted to make.

Here is the well-known incantation of the Three Witches in Shakespeare's Macbeth, 1605:

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Second Witch:
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of NEWT, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

Now he wants patriotism classes for others? Could Americans be so stupid ... don't answer that.

How many were transported to a Scottsdale ER where blood was drawn by a doctor who can be forbidden by the patient from revealing the results, as opposed to transported to a police van, where they can be forcibly strapped into a chair and a policeman "trained" as a phlebotomist (person who draws blood) will jab a needle into their arm, neck or other source of veins and take their blood without warrant or permission of the driver?

Now in fairness, I wouldn't be prosecuting this girl or any others in similar circumstances in the first place. But, King's men (or their families) indeed.

We force educate or at least warehouse them for 5 to 9 hours a day.

We "teach" to the pace of the least able among them. And then perhaps repeat the lesson a couple of times.

We give them prestige awards for accomplishing little other than being present. Maybe hand out a bumper sticker advertising the school for the parent's car.

We drug them. Force them to comply.

And we terrorize them to conformity. Regimented practically from birth to follow the rules made by those far more powerful than them. School yard bullies indeed ... adult ones.

It ushered them into control of both houses of Congress. Weak control of the Senate, that would firm up two years later. So those fiscally conservative Republicans were finally in charge and going to bring about those promises they made if only they ruled over the Democrats.

Of course they voted on the ten provisions of the "Contract." Maybe passed weakened versions of two or three provisions, which made for great photo ops of "Promises made, promises kept." Proceeded to ignore the provisions they passed ... "Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the suspension of House rules ...." And the greatest spending ever accomplished in our nations history, even adjusted for inflation proceeds at a merry pace for 12 years of debt, to the tune of $600,000 per person in our nation. That amount continues to grow.

So after 12 years of Republican betrayal. After it has become clear the two major parties represent nothing more than two sides of the same coin (The Washington Party). The Gingrich is back with a new Contract.

We haven't paid for the last one. So we can't afford the new one.

You can make all the legal claims you want, but it is THEIR laws and rules, and they interpret and enforce them in whatever manner is convenient FOR THEM. In whatever manner is most profitable for them.

Play their game, in their theater and you will always lose. As long as you know that going in, and are willing to face the price, fine.

Expect justice, however, and you will eventually have a stunned look of surprise on your face, as those who deliver it go home after a days work and sleep well that night having done their job ... on you.

I suspect few Africans are circumcised unless they are Jewish. And I suspect being Jewish, as opposed to being circumcised, may have more to do with a difference in HIV infection. At least it must be eliminated as causation of a correlation.

Either way, His Honor continues to delight me with more and more loopiness from NY City. I guess if you are a billionaire, you can be certifiable AND electable.

Archaeology is of interest today because it is a valuable tool in the investigation of man's past. For example, through it the geography and history of the Bible lands and their peoples are clarified. It relies heavily on the exact sciences and aims to achieve their standard of accuracy. But there is one principal factor working against such achievement—the human factor. Every archaeologist has beliefs, whether he or she be atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew or Muslim. To what extent will those beliefs or preconceived ideas influence his or her interpretations? Could this hinder their arriving at accurate conclusions?

Archaeological research is a form of detective work. Circumstantial evidence, in the form of artifacts and remains (pottery, fragments, ruins, debris from previous civilizations, skeletons and the like), is dug up. Then the deduction phase begins: What was the original from which the fragment came? Into which time period could its shape, color and composition be fitted? What was its use? What was its place of origin—the location where it was discovered or somewhere else? Did it originate in the soil stratum in which it was found or has it sunk into a lower level with the passing of time due to local conditions? These and many other factors can influence an interpretation. The conclusions are therefore based on circumstantial evidence and a mixture of objective and subjective interpretation.

How right the Hebrew archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni was when he wrote: "When it comes to historical or historio-geographical interpretation, the archaeologist steps out of the realm of the exact sciences, and he must rely upon value judgements and hypotheses [tentative assumptions] to arrive at a comprehensive historical picture."

Take for example the Israelite exodus from Egypt and escape through the Red Sea. The Bible record clearly indicates that the Egyptian chariots and cavalry pursued Israel and got close to them as they reached the Red Sea. How could the Israelites escape with the sea blocking their path? The Bible account answers:

"Moses now stretched his hand out over the sea; and Jehovah began making the sea go back [how?] by a strong east wind all night long and converting the sea basin into dry ground, and the waters were being split apart. At length the sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on dry land, while the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left."—Exodus 14:21, 22.

Please note the specific details of this account. It speaks not just of a strong wind but of a "strong east wind." The waters were split apart, converting the sea basin into dry ground. This attention to detail bespeaks an eyewitness account, even as does the poetic version of the event in the song of Moses, related in Exodus chapter 15. As Pharaoh's chariots and military forces rushed into the same gap in pursuit of the Israelites, "the surging waters proceeded to cover them; down they went into the depths like a stone."—Exodus 15:5.

The method of parting the waters is confirmed in the song: "And by a breath from your nostrils waters were heaped up; they stood still like a dam of floods; the surging waters were congealed in the heart of the sea."—Exodus 15:8.

Are Christians to believe that major portions of the Bible are just 'literary masterpieces' with no relationship to "factual experience"? Or can they rely on the Bible as the inspired Word of God? Should we be swayed by the conflicting theories of archaeologists and scholars? Or should we accept as reliable the testimony of the Bible writers and Jesus Christ himself?

The apostle Paul wrote to his fellow Christian Timothy: "From infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial . . . for setting things straight." Earlier, to the believers in Rome, he stated: "What, then, is the case? If some did not express faith, will their lack of faith perhaps make the faithfulness of God without effect? Never may that happen! But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar."—2 Timothy 3:15, 16; Romans 3:3, 4.

Why, then, do Christians believe the Bible to be inspired? Does their faith depend on archaeological findings? Briefly, the proof for inspiration is found in the Bible itself, not in archaeology. It is one thing to write accurate history; it is another to write accurate history in advance. That is prophecy. The Bible contains hundreds of fulfilled prophecies attesting to its divine authorship. For example, it has been estimated that 332 distinct prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures were fulfilled in Jesus Christ alone.

Another powerful support of the Bible's authenticity is that its testimony is based on accounts supplied by actual eyewitnesses of the events, often the writer himself. This is the case with the Exodus account written by Moses. Do we have any reason to doubt his honesty as a witness? No, not when we also acknowledge that he was divinely inspired to write. (2 Timothy 3:16) His self-critical candor is also a fine testimony to his reliability. He does not hide the fact that he killed an Egyptian in defense of a fellow Israelite. Nor does he gloss over his lack of humility and his punishment when he called water from the rock. (Exodus 2:11, 12; Numbers 20:9-13; compare the case of David in 2 Samuel 11; Psalm 51.)

Christians are encouraged by the positive evidence unearthed by patient and skilled archaeologists, evidence that often confirms and elucidates the Bible's contents. Facts and artifacts can tell us a lot about the way of life in ancient times. Inscriptions can bring to bear valuable information. Of course, since very few people ever write an unfavorable autobiography, inscriptions have to be analyzed with great care.

So Christians do not expect absolute proof from archaeology for everything stated in the Bible.

Social Security is voluntary, but you didn't know that - or all kinds of other things you were agreeing to when you signed the SS application.

Standard commercial law says that you can declare an agreement null and void from its inception if you didn't understand all the points of the agreement.

If you don't like the IRS tax, find out what you didn't know about SS when you joined, and then void the application for lack of full disclosure on the part of the SS Administration.

No SSN = no IRS tax. See http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/alert.htm .