German Couple Who Want to Homeschool Their Kids Fighting to Stay in the U.S.

Credit: Multimedia Photography and Design-Newhouse School/flickrCredit: Multimedia Photography and Design-Newhouse School/flickrA federal appeals court has agreed to hear arguments from a German couple who are seeking asylum in the U.S. According to Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, the German authorities could take their five children away from them if they return to Germany because they want to homeschool their children. The Romeikes first moved to the U.S. in 2008, but as an article from WorldMag explains, they could be sent back to Germany:

The judge found the family has legitimate fear of persecution in Germany, where a small group of Christian homeschooling families have already been jailed, fined, and stripped of their children. 

But the Department of Homeland Security immediately disputed the judge's decision. Last May, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sided with the government. 

The German authorities don’t like the fact that the Romeikes wish to homeschool their children, which is illegal under German law. Before coming to the U.S. the Romeikes' children were on one occasion driven to a government-approved school by police. 

In Germany children must attend schools approved by the state. The Romeikes did not want to send their children to a state-approved school because they believe God wants their children to be taught at home, in violation of German law.

The American government does not believe that the Romeikes are being persecuted, saying that their complaints are vague. From the AP:

The U.S. government said in court documents the Romeikes did not belong to any particular Christian denomination and described the parents' objections to the government-approved schools as vague.

For instance, Uwe Romeike claimed a textbook "featured a story suggesting that `the devil can help you if you ask the devil, but God would not help you,'" the government said. But he could not recall the title of the story or its author.

Romeike also claimed the schools taught witchcraft based on a game played by classmates of his wife when she was in the seventh grade "that involved pushing chairs and glasses around, and dangling a pendulum."

While it might be the case that the Romeikes want to teach their children lessons some might find unorthodox the German government should allow them to do so. While the U.S. public education system is a disaster at least Americans have the option (albeit oftentimes hindered by unnecessary red tape) of opting out of state-approved education, an option German parents unfortunately don’t have. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Obama's Douche||

    Good, we don't need no more Christfags.

  • Seevo||

    Pol Pot knew the libertarian way to deal with bleefers with their icky bleefs.

  • Hugh Akston||

    ::squints:: Can't tell if sarcasm or stupidity.

  • Paul.||

    My vote is sarcasm.

  • Professional Target||

    My vote has been sarcasm since the presidential election of 1988.

  • ||

    Sarcasm.

  • Paul.||

    In Germany, as it's slowly becoming in America, your children are not your property.

    They're the property of the state.

  • Longtorso||

    You know what other German thought children were property of the state?

  • Gladstone||

    The Prussian School System?

  • A Serious Man||

    Frederick the Great?

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    German? I know an Austrian.

  • Almanian!||

    Franz Klammer?

  • Almanian!||

    A Mozart?

  • Almanian!||

    JS Bach?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Octomom?

  • cavalier973||

    Heinrich Pferdefedern?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Baroness Bomburst?

  • Paul.||

    CPS?

  • Xenocles||

    Marx?

  • C. Anacreon||

    Which one -- Chico?

  • Xenocles||

    Karlo.

  • ||

    I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by public schools, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix...

  • Suellington||

    Claudia Schiffer?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Your children AREN'T your property. They are their own property.

  • Gladstone||

    Does that start only at Birth? *runs*

  • Ken Shultz||

    They can't be held criminally responsible for their choices the same way.

    You can be held liable for what they do.

    They can't contract for themselves except for necessities.

    The government is there to make sure children's rights are respected should a parent violate a child's rights, but other than that, children are more or less your property like your dog is your property...

    Their parents should be the ones making choices on their behalf--not the government. So, in that respect, they're like private property (is what I'm saying). They sure as hell don't belong to the government.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    1.) I can sell my dog. Should people be allowed to sell their children?

    2.) It's argued frequently here that all animal welfare laws are unlibertarian. If I should be free to do all kinds of barbaric things to my dog, should I be allowed to do the same to my kids? For example, should I be allowed to make my kids fight to the death and sell admissions to it?

    3.) Are my adult children my property too? If not, how does property spontaneously become not property?

  • cavalier973||

    http://mises.org/daily/2568

    "Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[2] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[3] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[4] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)"

  • Tonio||

    While consistent with hardcore libertarian principle as I understand it, that philosophy is going to be a hard sell for the voting public.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    What qualifies as allowing freedom to run away? If I give birth to children on my private island 10 miles off the coast, and tell them they have two choices: work in my factory for subsitance rations or starve to death, have I fulfilled my obligation because they could always try swimming to the mainland if they want?

  • Marshall Gill||

    Why don't you shut the fuck up. It isn't like you think that children inside their mothers have even a right to live.

    Consistency, how the fuck does it work?

  • califernian||

    **YAWN**

  • Ken Shultz||

    1.) I can sell my dog. Should people be allowed to sell their children?

    Again, I'm saying they're property in that their parents should be the ones making choices on their behalf. That's one important aspect of "property". If it's mine, then I get to decide what is done with it--not someone else and not the government.

    2.) It's argued frequently here that all animal welfare laws are unlibertarian.

    Not be me. Animals don't have the same rights we do, but unless you think that Jesus infused homo sapiens with a special kind of essence when he created them, then we're just an extreme end on a continuum of rights holders. We have more rights becasue we can make more choices--and it's appropriate to hold us responsible for them. We confer basic rights (like the right not to be physically abused) on severely retarded people--why wouldn't we confer the same rights on animals (and children)?

  • Zeb||

    We confer basic rights (like the right not to be physically abused) on severely retarded people--why wouldn't we confer the same rights on animals (and children)?

    One could also ask why would we confer those rights on a severely retarded or vegetative people.
    I'm not saying we shouldn't, but it is an interesting and important question when thinking about ethics.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It is an interesting question from a purely philosophical standpoint, and I'm not sure what my answer is.

    It might have something to do with universality and reciprocity. If only circumstance separates me from the most vulnerable states a human can experience, then maybe I want to maintain the most basic rights (of non abuse) for the most vulnerable people--in case I become one.

    Maybe I'm no freer than the most vulnerable person--except for by circumstance--so if I want to ensure the most basic rights for myself should I fall into a similar situation, I need to make sure that the most basic rights are afforded everyone in that most vulnerable situation.

  • Ken Shultz||

    3.) Are my adult children my property too? If not, how does property spontaneously become not property?

    As it becomes more appropriate to hold individuals criminally responsible for their choices, they gain more and more rights. That's what a right is, more or less--it's a freedom to choose, on one side, and the ability to be held responsible for your choices on the other. As it became increasingly appropriate to hold children responsible for their choices, they gained more and more rights--and one of your jobs as a parent was to prepare them for that responsibility before they turned eighteen.

    Parents who shirk the responsibility of preparing their children for responsibility are woefully negligent. I'm sure you weren't.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Why do they magically become not property at 18? Just because society says so? Can society decide that my 18 year old lamp is also an adult an thus no longer my property?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The law drew the line.

    It's actually staggered since they can't get a drivers' license until they're 16, and they can't drink until they're 21.

    I'm not saying those lines are correct, or that the government needs to draw those lines, but your children do start out completely immune from responsibility and reach a point, eventually, where they can be held responsible for their actions. ...wherever that point is.

    The law drew one line, and I'm saying that, ethically, regardless of whether you believe in the arbitrary power of the law to draw that line or those lines in the right place(s), there's at least one line there somewhere.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The law drew the line.

    So if "the law" draws the line that all children must be sent to public schools, that's fine because it's the law?

  • Ken Shultz||

    No, but I'm not just talking about the law.

    Our rights in law are just a pale shadow of the real thing. Our rights exist regardless of what the law says at any point in time...

    What I'm saying is that your children do start in a state of immunity from responsibility and somehow end up in state where they should be held responsible for their choices. I think that's true in the real world or real ethics and real rights--regardless of what the law says. It just so happens that the principle is enshrined in law.

    The law drew that line. Regardless of whether I agree with the government drawing that line or where the government drew the line, I have to admit that there's at least one line children cross somewhere that makes them go from immunity from responsibility to responsibility.

    Is there a culture that survived into the historical record that didn't have a way or a ceremony for turning boys into responsible men?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Oh, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing your assertion that prior to obtaining full adulthood, that they are the property of their parents. You still haven't address the process by which something is property can become not property.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You still haven't address the process by which something is property can become not property."

    I argued that they were property in regards to the idea that the people who "own" them are the people who should get to choose what to do with them...

    It's like a car. If it's my car, I get to drive it where I want. That's an important part of what it being my property means--I'm the one that gets to drive it.

    Now, that doesn't mean children don't have the right not be physically abused or that the government doesn't have an interest in protecting their rights from physically abusive parents.

    But generally speaking, apart from that, parents should be the ones who get to decide how to provide for their children--not the government. Because they're more or less their parents' property--not the government's.

    One aspect of owning something means you get to do what you think is best with it. IN THAT SENSE children are property like your dog is property. And I cannot be deprived of my property without due process of law--and that means you can't take MY children away from me or MY control of their education without due process of law, either.

    ...since they're like my property.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You want to convict me of a crime for physically abusing MY children and violating their right not to be physically abused? Then that's one thing. Otherwise, making choices about my children's welfare is my right and my property like my right to choose which TV shows to watch on my TV is my property.

    Children lose that property aspect when they become responsible for the choices they make. If your dog somehow became a moral actor and could be appropriately held criminally responsible for what he did when he got loose in the neighborhood, then your dog probably wouldn't be your property anymore either.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    You want to convict me of a crime for physically abusing MY children and violating their right not to be physically abused? Then that's one thing.

    WHY is the that one thing? You keep making circular arguments that kids have certain rights because they have certain rights and don't have other rights because they don't have other rights. WHY do they have the rights they have and WHY do they not have the rights they don't have? WHY does this change over time? WHY should we recognize 18 as being an adult and not, say, 17 like in the UK?

    Children lose that property aspect when they become responsible for the choices they make.

    If your child runs away from home, can you force them to come back? Or does the decision to live on their on qualify as becoming responsible for the choices they make?

    If my dog runs away, can I force it to come back?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If my Roomba runs away, can I force it to come back?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Roomba's all yours.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "WHY do they have the rights they have and WHY do they not have the rights they don't have?"

    "If there's a continuum of rights, I think they are directly tied to what you can be held responsible for. Dogs and five year-olds can't be held responsible for what they do. Adults are fully formed moral agents, and they can be held responsible for the choices they willingly make--and that's why they have more rights than small children and dogs."

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/02.....nt_3568320

    You can insert whatever logic you want for why children have a right not to be physically abused (or murdered). Natural Law works. Social Contract works. Even if you want to say that a child's right not to be physically abused is just a cultural assumption of mine, I'm willing to live with that assumption.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Or you could just give up the obsession with natural rights and natural law and the endless stacking of epicycle upon epicycle, and become a utilitarian.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Utilitarians just can't account for the all important qualitative aspects of things, and sometimes? I prefer freedom for its qualitative aspects.

    I generally prefer freedom to the alternative, even when the alternative might bring about superior outcomes.

    When you say stuff like that to utilitarians, they just look at you with a blank stare.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If you have a precise definition of freedom, there's no problem having a utility function that places a positive value on freedom. In my experience "qualitative" is another word for sloppiness and imprecision.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tulpa's gone to the dark side.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If you have a precise definition of freedom, there's no problem having a utility function that places a positive value on freedom. In my experience "qualitative" is another word for sloppiness and imprecision."

    Think of it this way...

    If you can't explain to people why they should prefer freedom to something else, then how do you convince them that they should want more of it?

    Isn't the argument about why freedom is better than something else the really important one?

  • KPres||

    If you have a precise definition of freedom, there's no problem having a utility function that places a positive value on freedom.

    No, freedom doesn't have utility in itself, because it's not a thing-in-itself (I suppose it could have some utility if you think it's a nice or interesting idea, but that's a secondary point). Freedom is a relationship among things that have utility . If I say freedom is doing what I want, the actual action is what provides the utility.

    Let me put it this way...suppose I like pot, and I live in a state where I'm free to smoke pot. That provides no utility in itself. The pot is what provides the utility. If the government forced me to smoke pot, I would derive the same utility as I would if I had done it on my own.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't see why freedom can't have utility in itself. Any precise concept can be said to have utility. So as long as we state it precisely, for example as a lack of initiated coercion (with coercion and initiation defined precisely).

  • cavalier973||

    Freedom is absence of government.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Have you ever heard of a naturalism fallacy? Just point out that something is the case ("there's a continuum of rights") is not a justification that it should be the case. Again, what is the basis for that contiunum existing, and how do we determine where something lies on that continuum?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Just point out that something is the case ("there's a continuum of rights") is not a justification that it should be the case."

    I hope you get the point that I'm not just talking about the law, here. Pointing out that the earth orbits the sun isn't a justification that it should be the case either.

    I happen to believe that the Third Reich didn't have the right to deprive Jewish people of their life, liberty or property without due process of law--regardless of what the law said under the Third Reich. There are some universal principles that exist in regards to rights, and I'm arguing about how they originated--regardless of whether that "should be the case".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Pointing out that the earth orbits the sun isn't a justification that it should be the case either.

    Poor comparison; that's a falsifiable statement, while claims of the existence of "rights" are not falsifiable. A "should" question is totally out of place when discussing gravitational relationships, while it is the crux of the matter when talking about morality.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Again, what is the basis for that contiunum existing, and how do we determine where something lies on that continuum?"

    I keep answering this question; I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

    Our rights are the flip side of our responsibilities--and vice versa. Because I have the freedom to choose to drive down a street, I can also be held responsible for the damage I cause while I'm driving and the people I may kill. Dogs can't drive down the street, so they hardly have that right nor that responsibility. It is thought inappropriate to hold children responsible for the damage they cause and the people they kill while driving--so they aren't given the right to drive.

    In other words, entities with fewer abilities have fewer rights--that should be obvious. Dogs don't have freedom of speech because they can't talk! Additionally, entities that shouldn't be held responsible for what they do--don't have the rights that arise from that responsibility. If we can't hold a small child responsible for killing someone while driving, then children aren't given the freedom to drive.

    I believe that this is the source of the continuum of rights I'm talking about. We should be held responsible for those things we choose to do freely, and we are free to do those things for which we can be held responsible. Dogs and dolphins and children and adults have various limitations on both their abilities and their responsibilities--hence the continuum.

  • ||

    Jesus H Christ Stormy

    We've been over this and I told everybody the correct answer. Perhaps you weren't paying attention.

    Do chilrenz have rights? YES, ya can't kill or maim the little bastards and ya gotta keep their little bellies full.

    Can all chilrenz make decisions concerning their well being (consent)? NO, so they cannot have the right to consent until a certain point.

    Where is that point? Well it's obviously different for each individual chilrenz. So someone makes the call based on the least common denominator. If the little bastard is mature and wants to have the right of consent early, it can petition the courts to do so.

    Property? No, they are chilrenz (other than property). But property as Ken says is as good a description as any with the stipulation that you can't dump the screaming little fuckers on the side of the ROADZ.

    I have spoken. This is the correct answer. SUBMIT!

    BTW, you keep asking the questions without providing your own opinion (which is dragging this shit out). What's YOUR opinion?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Well, part of my opinion is that I don't entirely know how to properly apply the NAP to children. I recognize there are some cases where it's proper to use force on children in ways that's not appropriate for an adult. On the other hand I'm not comfortable with "anything the parents wants to do short of beating them to death is okey dokey".

    In this specific case, the one question I'd ask is "Where do the Romeikes' children want to go to school?" I suspect they also want to be homeschooled, in which case this whole thing could be resolved by phrasing the asylum requrest as a desire to protect the children's freedom of choice rather than the parents. On the other hand, if the kids do want to atend public school, should the parents be able to force them to participate in religious indoctrination against their will?

    And in any case, I find the whole "children are just like property, only with a bunch of stipulations" to be untennable. Once you say outside groups should (and note that's "should", not "do") have the ability to place stipulations, it's no longer like property even if theirs some similarities.

  • ||

    I find the whole "children are just like property, only with a bunch of stipulations" to be untennable.

    The only rights they don't have are those concerning consent. Does it follow my philosophy to the letter. No. But I don't know how you could make it better.

  • ||

    ?

    Punctuation, how does it work?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The difference is that SD isn't claiming to have The One True Moral Philosophy that everyone else must follow without question.

    That's a big claim...you better be able to back it up when you make it.

  • ||

    1. A person has the right to do as he pleases, PROVIDED in doing so, does not infringe upon the rights of others.

    2. The ONLY legitimate role of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

    I don't believe it possible to be more moral than that. If you got somethin' better, I'm all ears.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Your position on children's limited rights doesn't follow from either of those statements.

  • ||

    Yep. Only works partially for kids in that they don't have the right/ability to consent. Works nearly perfectly for adults.

    Like I said, if you have something better, let's hear it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Like I said, if you have something better, let's hear it.

    I do have something better: stop straightjacketing your morality into rigid, oversimplified philosophical constructs. The only thing natural law or Objectivism or the like could possibly offer is consistency, and it doesn't even offer that, as you're discovering. So chuck it into the trash and grow up to utilitarianism.

  • ||

    Why would I wish to become immoral by adhering to a system that allows the majority to trample the rights of the minority? You advocate the same philosophy as Tony, except you are red instead of blue.

    This about sums it up.

    Utilitarianism has often been considered the natural ethic of a democracy operating by simple majority without protection of individual rights.
  • Xenocles||

    "grow up to utilitarianism."

    Utilitarianism says you torture a baby to death if it helps everyone else enough. If that's growing up then call me Peter Pan.

  • KPres||

    I do have something better......So chuck it into the trash and grow up to utilitarianism.

    That just kicks the can down the road. Why should I care whether society maximizes utility or not? Are you saying total utility is a platonic "absolute good"? If so, how do you justify that? You're being just as rigid as any natural rights proponent.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No, I'm saying there is no absolute good and utilitarianism at least provides a framework for achieving what we want to achieve. As a LAOL I value stability of coercion, prosperity, and liberty in that order and choose my utility function thusly, but other utility functions are imaginable and just as meaningful (or more accurately, just as meaningless).

  • robc||

    You still haven't address the process by which something is property can become not property.

    Ive asked (and answered) the same question wrt patents and copyrights.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    You can transfer ownership of property. That is essentially what parenting is. When born, your children are your property. As you raise them, you teach them responsibility and "self-ownership". As they get older, they learn to wipe their own ass- they just "bought" some of themselves from you. They learn how to get to school on their own- they bought some more from you. They get good grades, a driver's license, stay out of trouble, etc.- all these actions are essentially purchases of their own autonomy. So yeah, by the time they are 18 (or sooner, depends) they should have exchanged enough "autonomy currency" where they are able to take title of their own personhood. They are now considered adults.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Except the parent doesn't necessarily agree to those "purchases". Which is kind of the point.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Except the parent doesn't necessarily agree to those "purchases".

    I suppose there is a scenario where parents would reject those purchases, and would want to maintain an infantile existence for there adult-aged child. But that seems weird and highly impractical.

  • SIV||

    For example, should I be allowed to make my kids fight to the death and sell admissions to it?

    What kind of gaffs do ya put on 'em?

  • Xenocles||

    It may be that there is a bit more resolution to this picture than the dual categories of "property" and "not property." Perhaps there is room for different levels of property and not property.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's like the nature of light.

    In regards to some things, photons are like a particle. In regards to other things, photons are more like a wave.

    In regards to who gets to make choices about how a child should be raised, those choices should be made by the child's owners. ...just like owners get to make the choices about the rest of their property.

    Of course, that doesn't mean physically cruel parents should be free to abuse their children. But then, as I've written elsewhere, I don't think you should be free to senselessly abuse your dog either. Children and dogs do have some rights--the right not to be physically abused horrendously being a pretty obvious one.

    If there's a continuum of rights, I think they are directly tied to what you can be held responsible for. Dogs and five year-olds can't be held responsible for what they do. Adults are fully formed moral agents, and they can be held responsible for the choices they willingly make--and that's why they have more rights than small children and dogs.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Who decides what's physically cruel? Is corporal punishment physically cruel?

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's an interesting question.

    I'll defer to Adam Smith on that one. Specifically in regards to "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".

    I'm not sure the answer to that question is going to be the same in every culture and at all times, and I'm not sure it needs to be.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Photons are both a wave and a particle at all times. Observations of photons are sometimes wavelike and sometimes particle-like.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, I think kids are like that, too.

    Whatever else they seem like, they're also property in certain respects.

  • Xenocles||

    I can't use the word 'property' to describe kids without inserting "like" before it. God, fate, biology, or what have you has made me responsible for my kids' safety, care, instruction, etc. That obligation temporarily gives me the right to exercise some power over them that would not be legitimate to exercise over an adult. As a general rule it is only legitimate to exercise that power for their good and not out of gratuitous cruelty or exploitation. I consider a similar idea to be true for non-human animal chattels - while it's acceptable to go so far as to kill them at will it is wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to them. (I happen to think that it's wrong to be cruel to them even in the pursuit of maximizing their productivity, but that's a huge digression.) For something that cannot feel, anything is fair game - running your car without oil is stupid and wasteful, but not wrong in the same sense.

    There's a reason we use "paternalistic" to describe an overreaching government - it implies the government is inappropriately exercising power over adults that one would normally expect to see in a parent-child relationship. That doesn't mean it's wrong to exercise over anyone, just that it's not appropriate to do so over a competent adult.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    As a general rule it is only legitimate to exercise that power for their good and not out of gratuitous cruelty or exploitation.

    Explain household chores then...

    As a utitliarian I have no need to place everything in the universe into the binary bins of "property" or "person". I'd say we should trust parents to do what's best for their kids, in addition to making the family economically and otherwise viable, until it becomes clear that they are not doing what's best for their kids in an obvious and undeniable way.

  • Xenocles||

    Explain household chores then...

    Easily. They are instructional, in that the kids will have to do those things for themselves some day, and they are a reasonable form of contribution to the family that - in theory - is providing them with infinitely more in return. I've long thought that the Marxian "from each... to each..." model is as perfect a fit for families as it is disastrous for nations.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Oh come on, that's a self-serving rationalization. My parents weren't making me mow the lawn because they thought it was instructional. They were doing it because they didn't want to mow it themselves and making my brother and I do it was an easy way of avoiding it.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Stormy, their reasons could not have been multi-purpose? Like it provided you with an opportunity to be responsible and freed your parents to do other tasks?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Oh come on. The majority of household chores have nothing to do with inculcating responsibility. The dragon has yinz guys' number here.

  • Xenocles||

    Then read the second half of what I wrote. It's not exploitative to expect contribution to the functioning of the household when the parents are acting properly - providing necessities, care, and instruction. It's fair to distribute the needed labor in a family according to ability to perform it and the other contributions each member provides. When you're driving kids to become the breadwinners, or when their labor would have a major impact on the finances, that's when it can cross the line into exploitation.

    But I don't accept that there is no instructional value in chores. Chores show them what goes in to maintaining a home. They cultivate an appreciation for the work it takes to maintain order and an investment in keeping the home orderly. You just aren't thinking creatively enough. There are many methods of instruction.

  • ||

    This^^^

  • Tonio||

    children are more or less your property like your dog is your property...

    Not a good example since we established several weeks ago here that in mainstream libertarian thought a dog is no different from a lump of clay in that its your property and has no rights and you can do with it what you will.

  • Tonio||

    Oops, sorry, Stormy beat me to it. Thanks, guy.

  • ||

    i thank the Gods(tm) that this is not the state of the law, though.

    i helped with the execution of a search warrant last week where a woman was mistreating her horses and it was awful. you could clearly see their ribs, they were mangy etc. i don't think animals have RIGHTS. i think people have a duty not to do certain acts towards animals (cruelty etc.) and/or if they own the animal, they have a duty to care for it at a minimum standard.

    like feeding it, etc.

    it's perfectly legal to euthanize the animal if you don't want it anymore. you can legally shoot it in the head, in my state (assuming you are in an open shoot jurisdiction), but you can't torture it, starve it, etc.

    sounds reasonable

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Not a good example since we established several weeks ago here that in mainstream libertarian thought a dog is no different from a lump of clay in that its your property and has no rights and you can do with it what you will."

    You determined that without my input.

    Dogs don't have the same rights we do, but that doesn't mean they're like a lump of clay with respect to rights.

    Homo sapiens is just a species. Our species has more rights because we're more rational, and we can be held responsible, appropriately, for more of our choices.

    Not having the ability to choose is important with respect to appropriate responsibility--even with Homo sapiens. I don't have the right to shoot people, generally, but if you stick a shotgun in my face and threaten to kill me, I should not be held responsible for killing you if I draw a gun and shoot you in response. "Self-defense" is just a way of saying, I didn't have a choice, so I can't be held responsible.

    Dogs don't have the faculty to make choices like we do, so they can't be held responsible like we can, so they don't have the same array of rights we do. That doesn't mean, however, like a lump of clay, they don't have any rights at all. You don't have the right to physically abuse someone in a long term coma, so why would you have the right to abuse a dog?

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S.

    Dolphin mothers seem to give their children names.

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscie.....hin-names/

  • Redmanfms||

    You really are a dishonest piece of shit aren't you.

  • Redmanfms||

    Tonio, frames debate disingenuously and gets called on it.

    Tonio, a couple weeks later, attempts to pull the same bullshit as above and is proven to be the dishonest shitheel he is.

    I'm not invested in your accepting this (that you are a dishonest fucking twat), but it is gratifying for me to be able to call you out on this for the edification of others.
  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I always regarded myself as being my own person and always let my "legal guardians" know when they were wrong.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I've been supporting myself, more or less, since I was 14.

    We've got a system for releasing parents from the responsibility for children they can't control, too.

    It used to be called "emancipation". It probably still is. "Emancipation" to me sounds like turning something from property to non-property. ...so the law may be reflecting a little reality there, too.

  • Paul.||

    Your children AREN'T your property. They are their own property.

    No they aren't. They're the property of the state. Sheesh.

  • ||

    Your children AREN'T your property. They are their own property.

    Ahh fuck...there goes the thread.

  • Marshall Gill||

    It is exactly this kind of shit that reinforces the idea that a socialist indoctrination is not what I want for my children. I have come under the opinion that no education for my children would be better than indoctrination from the fucking State.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's definitely a conflict of interest there, somewhere, when the leaders of a democratic government, whose power can depend on people not being able to think critically, are put in charge of teaching children...um...how to think critically.

    Sort of like letting the fox guard the hen house so to speak.

  • A Serious Man||

    This seems like a pretty big human rights violation.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think freedom of religion should be protected, but only if the beliefs in question don't seem stupid to me personally.

  • ||

    isn't germany the country that bans scientology, too?

  • Almanian!||

    Germany's the country that also produced that piece of shit Porsche 914 - bastards!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, sort of as a reaction to the Third Reich, the Germans have been much better about protecting human rights. ...unless people want to do something the government doesn't like.

    Which kind of defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it? I mean if a right doesn't exist regardless of whether the government likes it, then is it really a right at all?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't think it's just Germany. All of Europe has been going down that road for a long time. Even more so than here.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They seem to be truly afraid of and hostile toward freedom generally.

    People doing things without the government's approval seems to really make them scared.

  • Mickey Rat||

    All of Europe has always been on that road. The US is the oddball on that front.

  • ||

    No, but Germany has a rule fetish. I always wondered if Hitler was the cause or if the fact that Germans have such a hard-on for order that it allowed him to manipulate them?

    Germans don't question. ZEE LAW ES UND LAW!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I remember this from a comparative politics class I once took:

    It was just a rule of thumb, but it went, "In the U.S., if it isn't illegal, it's legal. In Germany, if it isn't legal, it's illegal. In France, even if it's illegal, it's legal. And in Russia, even if it's legal, it's illegal."

    Anyway, that was the rule of thumb for Germany. If there isn't a law specifically saying you can do it, then it's illegal. I think I'd rather live in Switzerland.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S.

    How's the powder?

    Are you still skiing?

  • ||

    Snow was good. I'm home. We live about 45 mins from a little mountain in the Little Belts. We have season passes so the wife and I often run up and get a half dozen runs in the afternoon.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's in Montana, right?

    Nice!

  • ||

    Yep.

  • Almanian!||

    Not gonna lie - Germans and German society still make me very......wary. And the treatment of these people is Exhibit, like, 2,333,581,754,262,943.

    Scary little fuckers.

  • ||

    note to self... don't "hot pursue" into a private resident for a "minor" misdemeanor. unless you want to lose qualified immunity and get bitch slapped...

    granted, it's only a 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit, which will probably get overturned by the SCOTUS but still...

    CIVIL RIGHTS ACT LAWSUIT: COURT MAKES MINOR AMENDMENTS TO OPINION BUT CONTINUES TO DENY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY TO OFFICER IN WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO CURTILAGE IN HOT PURSUIT OF MISDEMEANANT – In Sims v. Stanton, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 174448 (9th Cir., Jan. 16, 2013),(Civil Rights Act lawsuit: warrantless entry into curtilage in gang neighborhood in hot pursuit of suspect where arrest probable cause was only for disobeying order to stop was not justified under either exigent circumstances or emergency exceptions to the warrant requirement). The panel, however, does not change its basic analysis or its ruling that denies qualified immunity to the law enforcement officer who kicked open the gate to a six-foot-fence-enclosed front yard in pursuit of a fleeing individual where the officer had probable cause to arrest only for the misdemeanor of disobedience of an order to stop for police.

  • ||

    and note it was merely entry into CURTILAGE (iow the enclosed yard) not the house itself.

  • robc||

    Good. Hope the supremes uphold it.

    The order to stop shouldnt be issued unless there is probable cause for some other crime, which apparently there wasnt, so Im not seeing why the supremes shouldnt uphold.

  • ||

    im not sure what underlying crime the order to stop was issued for. of course under case law, the officer needed either RS of a crime or RS of a traffic infraction in order to issue an order to stop. my understanding of the case is there was no legal problem with his order to stop, but that hot pursuit for a "minor misdemeanor" (LIKE REFUSING TO STOP) into curtilage is not justified. it's a pretty surprising ruling, whne you look at the body of hot pursuit case law in general which has generally drawn a bright line - if you have PC, you can pursue WHEREVER.

    ive seen a case in WA that threw out a hot pursuit into a private residence for a minor in possession offense (minor misdemeanor) but another upheld a hot pursuit for a pursuit for DUI (since the evidence in a DUI erodes over timethere is an exigency issue).

  • robc||

    Their only possible argument is RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH and fuck that.

  • ||

    fwiw, the last time i hot pursued into a residence (not merely curtilage) was for refusal to stop based on the underlying offense of vandalism - shooting out a car window with a pellet gun.

    i ASSUME that would be a "serious" enough crime that the 9th wouldn't recommend stripping QI.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Did you have PC to believe the person you were pursuing had committed the crime of vandalism, or just RS?

  • ||

    probably just RS. he pled guilty, and it was never adjudicated either way.

    once i caught him, he was lyin' and denyin' but my partner responded to the scene and ran the RO of the plate of the car with the broken windows. turns out it was registered to his ex-gf. the one who had a protection order against him. that established more than PC (substantial nexus and motive). iow, that;'s just a WEE bit coincidental that he was fleeing the scene when i arrived of some mystery person having smashed his girlfriend's window.

    reasonable suspicion is the bread and butter of patrol. it allows us to "freeze" a scene, a crime in progress, a bank robber fleeing the bank, etc. ALMOST always the description of the fleeing perp is NOT specific enough to give us PC for arrest (white male in a green van just took off from the bank. medium build, and cop sees a green van 1/2 mile from the bank traveling in a direction from the bank, etc.)

    RS allows us to stop the van (felony stop procedure), THEN investigate further - do a show-up with witnesses and/or check the video, etc.

  • ||

    if we couldn't stop based on RS, then most of the time we respond to crimes just occurred, we couldn't stop the suspect, because there is rarely enough descriptors/facts and circ's to give us PC

    i have zero doubt the founders didnt intend it to be the case that officers responding to a crime just occurred shouldn't be able to detain people based on reasonable suspicion and/or to establish a connection to the scene (case law says its reasonable, especially with more serious crimes, to detain IN GENERAL, not just suspects until you can flesh out is it a witness, a suspect, a victim, whatever).

    he confessed after we were able to overwhelm him with the evidence against him . that put the icing on the case

  • Stormy Dragon||

    i have zero doubt the founders didnt intend it to be the case that officers responding to a crime just occurred shouldn't be able to detain people based on reasonable suspicion and/or to establish a connection to the scene

    I have zero doubt the founders had no opinion on the matter one way or the other, since police officers didn't exist during the founding.

  • ||

    yes, that's a good point. iam aware of that. i should have phrased it better, but my point is i don't think they would think it an unreasonable seizure for there to be a detention based on proximity, description, etc, but one that would not rise to the level of a warrant.

    but yea, that came out really stupid, because we hadn't adopted peel's principles yet, or anything like that.

    good point

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Well more so then that, there weren't many full time law enforcement personel, and what ones there were unlikely to be that responsive. If there's one sheriff for the whole county, someone would have to go get him, bring him back, by which time it's unlikely the suspect is still going to be in the proximty.

    To the extent that suspects were detained, it was more often by members of the general public acting in their role as members of the militia.

  • ||

    "To the extent that suspects were detained, it was more often by members of the general public acting in their role as members of the militia."

    yes. policing was EVERYBODY 's responsibility which is actually kind of ironic because the modern conception of community policing has come full circle - with citizen watches, citizen academies, crime watches, etc. policing is viewed as something that shouldn't just be left to the "pro's" but that we are all responsible for watching out for each other in our communities.

    the old skool cops were VERY suspicious and negative towards this new trend. remember all the shit guardian angels guys got? they had balls of steel, huge respect for them - unarmed and they went right in there and kicked ass.

    PJ ORourke in one of his books describes his ride along with the guardian angels and it's pretty impressive.

    i'm lucky to work in a community where people work WITH us and both give us intel and give us demands about what stuff they want addressed and where they want us to concentrate our efforts.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I have zero doubt the founders had no opinion on the matter one way or the other, since police officers didn't exist during the founding.

    They had sheriffs, watchmen, town elders etc who served an analogous role. The only difference between them and police is hierarchical organization and professionalism (not in the Scalia sense, but the getting paid to specialize sense).

  • ||

    it was pretty different. setting aside our later adoption of peel's principles, which is how modern policing works, the old town watchmen were generaelly not even armed. there job was to "observe and report" and raise the alarm if they saw something.

  • ||

    oh, and the witness who called this in, only heard the breaking glass, then saw a person in a hoodie and shorts running across the lot. couldnt even discern gender

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Here is a post I made in an earlier thread:
    The Justice Department endorses Germany's anti-homeschooling compulsory education law because it vill force eferyone to being tolerant, ja?

    "The general public has a justified interest in counteracting the development of religiously or philosophically motivated “parallel socieites” and in integrating minorities in this area. Integration does not only require that the majority of the population does not exclude relgiious or ideological minorities, but, in fact, that these minorities do not segregate themselves and that they do not close themselves off to a dialogue with dissenters and people of other beliefs. Dialogue with such minorities is an enrichment for an open pluralistic society. The learning and practicing of this in the sense of experienced tolerance is an important lesson right from the elementary school stage. The presence of a broad spectrum of convictions in a classroom can sustainably develop the ability of all pupils in being tolerant and exercising the dialogue that is a basic requirement of democratic decision-making process."

    Because ve all know how important it is being to integrate der German minorities.

    http://www.firstthings.com/blo.....-refugees/

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's a fucking creepy argument.

    However, I think DHS's position on this case is correct in general, because if we allow this flimsy rationale for asylum to stand we're going to have to accept nearly anyone's petition for asylum. These people have no reason to fear for their lives, bodily integrity, or custody of their children if they follow what is really an innocuous German law (even if they don't find it innocuous).

  • robc||

    if we allow this flimsy rationale for asylum to stand we're going to have to accept nearly anyone's petition for asylum.

    That sounds like a PRO not a CON.

    even if they don't find it innocuous

    Thats because it isnt innocuous. Its one of the basic wants of civilized man, according to CS Lewis:

    To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death--these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man. Their realization is almost as necessary to our virtues as to our happiness. From their total frustration disastrous results both moral and psychological might follow.

  • califernian||

    INNOCUOUS? WTF. They will STEAL the children from these parents if they don't force them into the state-run schools. I don't call that innocuous.

  • robc||

    Thats what happens when someone is a law and order utilitarian. Every law in innocuous.

    Of course, he cant even do utilitarianism right, as chaos leads to better growth than order.

  • Hyperion||

    Because ve all know how important it is being to integrate der German minorities.

    Are you saying that there are people in Germany that don't have blonde hair and blue eyes? What do they call them?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I've always found it interesting that the media has always included home schoolers in with the paranoid anti-government militia types. I'm sure the NEA helped them with that meme.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Well, to be fair, this homeschooler IS an "anti-government type".

  • Virginian||

    I mean, I'd argue every single homeschooler is. All of them are going out of their way, making significant financial sacrifices in many cases, to keep their children away from the government.

    If they're not anti-government, they're anti part of the government.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Isn't that true of people who send their kids to private school? So BO is an anti-govt militia type.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, but they're making it out to be a bad thing. Like they're all cucu for coco puffs. We all know anti-government is good, but the media doesn't frame it that way. I guess I should have been more specific,

  • dontlikeusernames||

    Germans picking on religious miniorities...........say it isnt so

  • ||

    The free market profit motive leads to the inclusion of women in UFC... and the woman columnist, though uncomfortable with it, and thinks it's "pretty cool."

  • ||

    totally stoked for the rousey fight. she's an awesome fighter. i'd really like to see her fight cyborg, since cyborg is best qualified imo to challenge rousey's stand-up game

  • Hyperion||

    Are they allowed to pull hair, and at some point do they start kissing?

    If not, meh, I don't really enjoy too much to see women act like men. If there is clothing being torn off, and they don't 'look' like men, then ok, that might be cool.

  • A Serious Man||

    THIS IS WHY THERE ARE NO FEMALE LIBERTARIANS

  • Hyperion||

    Ok. If one of them is willing to punch the shit out of Lindsey Graham and then put him in some kind of really painful tap out situation, while making him say 'Ok, ok, I will vote in lock-step with Rand Paul from now on, please don't hurt me more', nationally televised, then I will watch it.

    Is that better?

  • ||

    I'm shocked that you are interested in such a thing.

  • ||

    not sure if this is directed at me (damn threading), but i'm a huge UFC fan. one of my coworkers (female) is a MMA fighter and I've gone to a couple of her fights.

    Fwiw, i tend to appreciate and be attracted to athletic women. I love me some female weightlifters (lower weight classes). julia rohdes is awesome

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKcpoV3REXY

  • Hyperion||

    Ummm, what is that bulge in the crotch area of her uniform?

    She actually has a fairly feminine shape, but she also appears to have a penis, lol.

  • ||

    i think a lot of it is about what you are surrounded by. i train with muscular women (on my weightlifting team and at my local crossfit) and what would seem overly muscular to some, becomes the norm for me. Granted, I have lost 30 lbs in the last 6 months and am no longer strong, which sucks, but I am going to start training soon, so I'm not put to shame by a female weightlifter :)

  • Hyperion||

    Dunphy, I don't think you read my post at all.

    Read it and watch the video again.

    For me, attraction has nothing to do with what I am surrounded by. My wife is Brazilian, and very feminine. I was not surrounded by Brazilian women when I met her, I was surrounded mostly by tomboy like blondes, so I can say, that at least for me, being surrounded by something doesn't make me like it.

    I am surrounded by statist assholes and clueless government dependent voters, living in MD, and guess what? I don't like either.

  • ||

    at least when it comes womens' physiques, i've found that being surrounded by a certain type over the years has drastically changed my conception of beauty.

    simply put, a bodytype that i would have found grossly overly mesomorphic back when i was a skinny surfer, i now find to be very beautiful.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, everyone is unique. I have always found more curvy and feminine(both in body and behavior) to be more attractive. This has never changed throughout my life from when I first noticed females.

  • ||

    i still like the classic beauties too who aren't buff. i love ashley greene (and yes, i like the twilight movies no matter how dorky that is), and especially kate beckinsdale.

    beckinsdale to me is just the epitome of a hollywood beauty. she ALWAYS looks good

  • Hyperion||

    If my gf(a bigot like me) saw me watching that she'd beat the shit out of me.

    I'm just not exactly sure what to think about that statement...

    Are you saying that your GF is an intolerant tyrant, or that you are a big wuss?

    Or maybe, you're just being sarcastic, not sure. Yesterday at the MVA, some lady was talking to my wife and I, when she suddenly looked at me and said 'Wow, you have beautiful eyes'! And she was pretty nice looking. My wife beat the shit out of me all the way home over that, innocent as I was. But it didn't hurt too much.

  • Hyperion||

    Why would she be justified in being mad?

    I fully support the right of women to beat the shit out of each other, and for anyone who wants to watch it, to watch it. What is the problem?

    I really, really despise feminists, and yes, their main tactic is to portray themselves, and others, as victims. But I still don't get where you are going here... could just be me, it's been a long week working and I am a little inebriated at the moment.

  • ||

    is it just me who thinks rousey is sexy as fuck, and that women fighting is a good thing?

    I'm already used to really strong, aggressive, but imo beautiful and feminine women who are VERY strong and often quite muscular, from being around weightlifters, so it is totally cool with me.

    here's one of the women from my team who imo is headed for the olympics in the future. totally buffed. traps are amazing. for me, that's cool and not at all unfeminine

    http://vimeo.com/46170663

  • Hyperion||

    Hey Dunphy, we all differ about our opinions of the fembots.. or whatever else we prefer, here, and it's all cool. You have the right to like whatever you want to like. It's a Libertarian site. We like to give each other shit, for fun, but no one here is going to seriously criticize you for what you like. If you think that buff chicks are hot, who the fuck is anyone else to tell you not to think so?

  • ||

    that's kewl. we're just talking smack. i'm kind of surprised myself, because this change in my perception of hawtness kind of happened without my recognizing it over the years until now when i recognize it's just totally different.

    i don't take ANY of the shit i get here personally. i mean for fuck's sake, i get numerous posts asking me to die in a fire, etc. :l

    i'm just giving props to the beautiful and buffed women in this world

  • Hyperion||

    I like curvy women. A certain amount of muscle definition is ok for me, until it subtracts from the softness factor, or femininity.

    Women are unique, I mean there are just so many, and none are the same, which is what is so awesome.

    The only thing for me that is a definite no attraction is the women that I can't tell from a ten year old boy without seeing the face, no ass, no tits, no curves at all, I don't really know why some guys like that, but they do, and that's what makes the world an interesting place.

  • ||

    i mean for fuck's sake, i get numerous posts asking me to die in a fire, etc. :l

    In all fairness Dunphy, you do sound like you're pretty flammable.

  • ||

    i'm a guitarist, not a drummer

  • ||

    I think buff chicks are hot too. Even the fairly muscular ones. It can still go overboard though . If you google something like "fit women chive" you get a bunch of galleries of fit women, most of whom I'd say are all the more attractive for being fit.

  • Hyperion||

    It's what makes the world an interesting place, bro.

    I know that John and I always get shit here for liking curvy women( fat chicks according to some, for having curves). I really don't let that bother me too much, since I am happy with what I have found.

  • ||

    i can like me some curvy women. i lurv miranda lambert, for example. she has nice curves.

  • Hyperion||

    You haven't been here long. Dunphy is not a troll. He's a cop from Seattle, and a supporter for the end of the WOD. He also says that he is a Libertarian. I can't support of refute that claim.

    But, he's not a troll.

  • ||

    ?

    i'm being super cereal. traps are sexy. the thing is, in OLifting, it's uniquely one of the muscle groups that sees the most hypertrophy. i have seen some olers with SICK traps. and these are incredibly functional too. when you are holding 100's of pounds over your head in the snatch, you need functional strength

  • Hyperion||

    Only muscle that I have ever noticed being a little over developed on a woman that I thought was sexy, is calves.

    I bet you would be a fan of that, living in Seattle, because I saw a lot of fems there like that, I think is from walking up and down all of those hills in heels.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I thought these folks were already granted asylum like a year ago. Or was that a different family? And if so, shouldn't that set a precedent of letting Germans who want to homeschool their kids come to America? Fuck German paternalism.

  • Hyperion||

    WTF? Did this German couple find some book from 1780 and read in it that there was some freedom in the Murika?

    Maybe they should have got on that interweb thingy and done some research before they decided to flee to the 'land of the free'.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It is the land of the free, which is why they can't stay here. They're not free.

  • Hyperion||

    Where are these 'free' which you speak of?

  • Hyperion||

    I say which because I know you can't be speaking of whom. So are the free you speak of, in the rivers, or in the air?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The people in charge of the land of the free are free. Hence "land of the free". Cops, politicians, bureaucrats, public parking lot attendants, etc.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You know who else fled Germany for the US to practice their religious beliefs...

  • Xenocles||

    Hitler?

  • Hyperion||

    NO! It was Helmut Wolfgang Burgermeister Meisterberger. Geez, everyone knows that.

  • ||

    The Von Trapp Family Singers.

    Austria, Germany...what's the diff?

  • Hyperion||

    One of them is a little SouthEast of the other.

  • A Serious Man||

    Heer Doktor Merkwürdigliebe?

    Well okay, he came here to practice his scientific beliefs.

  • Hyperion||

    I really don't like that U with the weird accent mark over it. That's why I hate all Germans.

  • Ornithorhynchus||

    The Amish.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    ding ding ding.

    come on look at my state!

  • cavalier973||

    Jedis?

  • ||

    Serenity is on Showtime.

  • Hyperion||

    Have it on Blu-ray, great film.

  • A Serious Man||

    Hard to believe Whedon is a liberal given that the Operative is an example of progressivism taken to its logical conclusion.

  • robc||

    Whedon hates libertarianism but admits that for some reason all his heroes end up being libertarians.

  • ||

    Perhaps it's because, deep down in his heart or in his subconscious, he acknowledges right from wrong.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "and described the parents' objections to the government-approved schools as vague."

    Cause you know, a parent needs to demonstrate a good reason that their children won't be taken from them and indoctrinated by the state.

  • YandMand||

    Sounds like some pretty serious plan to me dude.

    www.GoAnon.da.bz

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Hyperion||

    Wow, there's finally something that the Aussies won't ban? I'm shocked. I am sure this decision will be reversed soon. Australia is well on their way of beating both the Brits and the USA in the race to ban everything.

  • A Serious Man||

    David Posted at 1:33 PM February 22, 2013
    Why would we ban them from opening stores? Don't we live in a free country?

    Hahaha, no David, you don't. I wonder if he can see the correlation between these kinds of policies and socialized medicine.

  • Doctor Whom||

    The comments include an impressive amount of sanity. On the other hand, the article includes this quote:

    “Victorian men and women don’t need the experts to tell them what they can see with their own eyes. It’s very clear that this type of food is an unhealthy option," she said.

    “If mandatory kilojoules labelling was introduced in fast food restaurants in Victoria, as it has been in NSW - and will be in South Australia this weekend - Victorians would know exactly how unhealthy these food choices are.

    Contradict yourself much?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • AlmightyJB||

    Dear reader, give your man good head and then he will tell his friends to get on board or go fuck thenselves. If that doesn;t work, call me.

  • Hyperion||

    My wife and I were having a similar conversation today about an x-friend of hers, who just is not happy, and who wonders why no one likes her or wants to be her friend.

    Some people just cannot get it, that it might just be THEIR FAULT when everyone else does not like them.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Watching Justified the other week. Great line from the main charachter. If you wake up in the morning and meet an asshole you just met an asshole. If all day long you're meeting assholes, your the asshole.

  • Hyperion||

  • wakeup||

    I was sceptical of the 9-11 event from the first time I saw it on television. It was on every major network within minutes. All the guilty partieswere declared before any evidence was shown.The first questions of any criminal investigation were erased. Who had the most compelling motives for the event? Who had the means to turn two central iconic buildings in New York into a pile of steel and a cloud of dust in seconds?i
    Other questions soon arose in the aftermath. Why was all the evidence at the crime scenes removed or confiscated?
    Who was behind the continuous false information and non-stop repetition of “foreign/Arab terrorists”when no proof of guilt existed? Who was blocking all independent inquiry?
    Even 11 years on these questions are still not answered.

  • Hyperion||

    Do you guys really think that if the population doubled in a decade it would be good for the country?

    It isn't going to happen. So why worry about it?

    Anyway, the US is going to solve it's own immigration problem, if you want to see it as a problem, because we are spending ourselves into oblivion at warp speed, and becoming a totalitarian state at the same time. Why would anyone want to come here in a few short years if this trend continues? They won't, 'problem' solved.

  • Hyperion||

    I'm not being in the least sarcastic. The US is possibly the most authoritarian society on the planet now, and if we aren't we will be soon. No country imprisons as many as we do. And guess what, almost 100% of those are poor. So, really, come here to the great land of the free if you want an exponentially greater chance of winding up in prison.

    Add the increasingly poor prospect of finding a job here, even if English is your first language, even if you have a college degree, even if you have real skills. Nuff said?

    The US is in no way in any danger of becoming overpopulated. Every time I come back here after a trip abroad and have to look at and put up with the POS retards with DHS, I really wish they will tell me they are not going to let me back into my own country.

    Anyway, if you don't have a lot of skills or an American citizen spouse or parent, your chance of coming here legally is pretty much zero, or you will die of old age before it happens.

  • Hyperion||

    Of course immigration only increases the size of that underclass.

    How? What experience do you have with the immigration process?

    The US has one of the strictest immigration policies in the world. I think that only Australia and a few other countries are stricter.

    Tell me, please, how our immigration policy does what you say that it does?

    Are you telling me that most immigrants are more likely to become a dependent underclass than the born in America residents of Americas inner cities? I would like for you to provide proof of that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The US has one of the strictest immigration policies in the world. I think that only Australia and a few other countries are stricter.

    And yet people wait in line and go through the labyrinthine legal immigration system by the thousands to come to this most authoritarian society on earth, as you say. You must consider them a bunch of dolts, right?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No country imprisons as many people as we do because no country has both the policing skills and underclass that we do.

    We're also the 3rd largest country in population, which makes Hyper's claim even more cherry-picked. If China didn't have secret prisons and a shitload of executions every year, they'd be way ahead of us.

    I hope Hyper enjoys the Brazilian gun laws after he leaves the authoritarianism of the US behind for good.

  • Hyperion||

    Are we going to go there again, Tulpa?

    Yes, Brazil has way stricter gun laws than we do. Does that mean people don't have guns? LOL, you have no fucking idea.

    I would not have the least bit of problem with leaving here tomorrow to live in Brazil. And I will be a lot more free and stress free than you will be, but you don't know that, because you can't know. You need to listen to Shawn Hannity and Ann Coulter to tell you that, and they don't know either. I can leave my home, drinking a beer, even smoking a doob if I want, walk right down the fucking street, all the way to the beach, arrive there, where I will sit drinking my beer, eating fresh shucked oysters, or whatever the fuck else I want until I am ready to walk back home, and nothing bad will happen.

    You don't know, my friend, but if you want to start this shit again, it's ok with me. In the end, you are going to wind up having to say you are wrong, but I don't have a prob with that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You're projecting your own ignorance and delusion here.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I would not have the least bit of problem with leaving here tomorrow to live in Brazil. And I will be a lot more free and stress free than you will be, but you don't know that, because you can't know.

    Then fucking go. I'm sick of reading you whine about how horrible the US is and how much you hate being here. If emigrating to Brazil makes you happy then do it. There's plenty of Brazilians who disagree with you on that point.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You don't know, my friend, but if you want to start this shit again, it's ok with me. In the end, you are going to wind up having to say you are wrong, but I don't have a prob with that.

    This is why I don't like apologizing to people. They never fucking let you forget and take it as a sign of weakness. I'm back on the no apologies train. You overreacted to a joke and I wanted to make peace and get things over with but now I again know better. Things will never be over between you and me.

  • Suellington||

    That brings back good memories of Brasiu. Passei us tres anos fazendo loucuras lá. There is a freedom there that is missing here. And some here that is missing there.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So I make an oblique taunt against a continent, and that's horrid racism, but you go on a ranting insult spree against my country, and we're supposed to be cool? If the US is really as bad as you state, and you wish you wouldn't be allowed to come here, don't flerking come here. I'm not kidding.

    Most authoritarian society on the planet? What a fucking joke you are.

  • Hyperion||

    Tulpa, for Christs fucking sake, I am an American citizen! How many fucking times do I have to tell you this? I was born in Ohio, my ancestors arrived here in MA, 200 fucking year ago! WTF are you talking about?

    I have the right to criticize my own fucking country all that I want to. You are NOT more American than I am.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And Tulpa and I have the right to point out when you're being retarded, such as when you're making obviously false statements like "the US is possibly the most authoritarian society on the planet now".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't care if you're an American citizen.

    If you don't want to be in America (as you stated) you shouldn't be. Your happiness is all that matters to me, and it appears to require you being elsewhere.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Tulpa, for Christs fucking sake, I am an American citizen! How many fucking times do I have to tell you this? I was born in Ohio, my ancestors arrived here in MA, 200 fucking year ago! WTF are you talking about?

    YOU WERE JUST FUCKING TALKING ABOUT HOPING DHS WOULDN'T LET YOU BACK INTO THE COUNTRY

  • Cytotoxic||

    he US is possibly the most authoritarian society on the planet now

    I like you better when you're not being retarded.

  • Hyperion||

    I would like you better too, Cyto, when you're not being retarded, if that ever happened.

    Murika, Fuck Yeah, drone em all!

    Yeah, it's worse when we do it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Somewhere in here is a meaningful statement...or not.

  • califernian||

    sounds like a feature not a bug.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So basically the Germans are hippies now, meaning instead of a jackbook, it will be a Birkenstock stomping on a human face forever.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I just googled it...apparently, the phrase "imagine a birkenstock stomping on a human face...forever" is fairly popular.

  • Gladstone||

    They think the holocuast happened because they didn't have enough of an iron-fisted government that would have thrown the nazis in prison for the crime of antisemitism

    That pretty much is the justification for hate speech laws. We got to rid of Freedom of Speech to prevent a Nazi takeover.

  • Hyperion||

    Damn, Gladstone, here you are again, at H&R, wanting the terrorists to win.

  • Doctor Whom||

    It became necessary to destroy freedom to save it.

  • Gladstone||

    And that is not a joke. Canada's hate speech laws were first created in the 1960s because Jewish groups were concerned about some fringe groups operating in Toronto with white nationalist and anti-semitic beliefs. Because you know who else was a fringe group until they started winning elections?

    And when I was in college one of my profs, while we were discussing J.S. Mill, wondered if the Nazis proved that Freedom of Speech was outdated.

  • John Galt||

    Stupid Germans, they should have dyed their skin brown and sneaked in across the U.S. Mexico border. Jeje jajajaja!!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ja, ich bin ein Mexican. I love der Cinco de Mayo und I drink der tequila. Vy are you lookink at me like zat, don't you believe me? Ay, caramba!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Last week the Massachusetts Department of Education issued directives for handling transgender students – including allowing them to use the bathrooms of their choice or to play on sports teams that correspond to the gender with which they identify....

    "“A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl,” the guidelines stipulate.

    "According to the Dept. of Education, transgender students are those whose assigned birth sex does not match their “internalized sense of their gender.”...

    "...any student who refuses to refer to a transgendered student by the name or sex they identify with could face punishment."

    http://radio.foxnews.com/todds.....hment.html

    "From now on, I want you to call me Loretta" is now legally enforceable.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The new rules can be downloaded here:

    www.doe.mass.edu/ssce/GenderIdentity.docx

    And there is this example of proper enforcement:

    "In one situation where a transgender girl was entering high school, she and her parent asked the principal to inform her teachers that even though her school records indicate that her name is John, she goes by the name Jane and uses female pronouns. The school principal sent the following memorandum to the student’s classroom teachers: “The student John Smith wishes to be referred to by the name Jane Smith, a name that is consistent with the student’s female gender identity. Please be certain to use the student’s preferred name in all contexts, as well as the corresponding pronouns. It is my expectation that students will similarly refer to the student by her chosen name and preferred pronouns. Your role modeling will help make a smooth transition for all concerned. If students do not act accordingly, you may speak to them privately after class to request that they do. Continued, repeated, and intentional misuse of names and pronouns may erode the educational environment for Jane. It should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline. If you need any assistance to make sure that Jane Smith experiences a safe, nondiscriminatory classroom atmosphere, please contact me or Ms. O’Neill. – Mr. Jones, Principal.”"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement