Big Government

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Why Taxation is Theft, Abortion is Murder, & It's Dangerous to Be Right When the Gov't Is Wrong

|

"I'll say this plainly, I've said it before—Taxation is theft. It presumes the government has a higher claim on our property than we do," says Judge Andrew Napolitano, the host of Fox Business' Freedom Watch and the author of the new book, It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom.

Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with the outspoken libertarian commentator to discuss topics ranging from abortion (the judge is fiercely pro-life) to Occupy Wall Street (he welcomes the protest against corporatism) to Rep. Ron Paul ("the Barry Goldwater" of our moment) to the role of religion in the quest for freedom.

About 25 minutes. Camera by Jim Epstein and Joshua Swain; edited by Swain.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

For previous Reason interviews with Judge Napolitano and to read his Reason archive, go here.

NEXT: Virginia Dems Try to Thwart the Will of the People

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.

  1. The Judge is right: The Jacket’s value is incalculable.

    1. I wonder if Nick would take an ounce of gold for it?

      1. Rumor has it, that the jacket is actually part of him.

        1. He took the libertarian trout as a second skin, in order to guide humanity. It was a supreme sacrifice and we should all be grateful.

          1. He also thinks people who obsess about his wardrobe need to get a life.

            1. What does he think about people who speak for him?

              1. I don’t know. I was referring to his interview on C-SPAN where he voiced his exasperation with jerks who always mention his jacket. He said they should stop obsessing over it and move on.

                1. Did he refer to them as “jerks”?

                  1. C’mon, we all know ‘Yup’ is Nick. Open your eyes people! There’s free market magic all around us!

          2. Are you suggesting that Nick is actually the immortal God-Emperor of Libertarianism? And does that mean he’s going to spend a thousand years not telling us what to do?

            1. what’s the point of herding kats ?

            2. +1
              +2 Geek points

              1. Disagree on the geek points. His reign should be over three thousand years. Plus he must breed Epi and rectal’s bloodlines.

                1. Do we sacrifice Students For Liberty to feed him?

            3. “What? Guide your fucking self through the warp!”

  2. goddamn pinko chinese. youtube is blocked. if anyone finds one of these videos on something other than youtube, would you let me know.

    1. I have noticed problems with MANY Google products lately. One of my favorite of theirs used to be their rss reader Google Reader. They screwed that up on Halloween. Yes, I don’t know if they are bowing to pressure from China or not but nothing would surprise me with them anymore.

    2. http://vimeo.com/32523161
      Should be there in 1/2 hour or so vimeo says.

      Please don’t sue me Reason TV.

  3. Judge Andrew Napolitano

    Great hair, or greatest hair?

    1. nah, i’ll go w hair lip

      1. You want a hairlip? I’llgive you a hairlip.

  4. Let the abortion debate…BEGIN!

    1. First trimester abortion away! After that only if it endagers the life of the mother… Problem solved!

      1. I second that.

      2. Probably the best option, but it also completely pisses off both of the more, er… vociferous factions of the debate.

    2. I favor abortion in the first trimester, but only by pepper spray.

      [rimshot]

      1. That would ruin the flavor of the fetus.

        1. I like Mexican food.

    3. I favor abortion, but only if it’s a lifetime option.

    4. We favor abortion retroactively.

        1. Ooh! A tit-for-tat!

    5. Abortion:Murder->Murder:Not Wrong

      🙂

      1. so why should the unborn be exempt fm mankind’s well-developed killing of man?

    6. Re: MWG,

      Let the abortion debate…BEGIN!

      Let the “humans have no rights” debate begin!

      Yes, it’s the same thing.

      1. Let the “Is it the same thing” debate…BEGIN!

        1. …….now…….. now…………now……..

    7. Legal and retroactive to age 18.

      1. Don’t you mean to the 54th trimeseter?

        1. 81st

          (18 years * 4 trimesters per year) + 9 trimesters of gestation

          1. humans have 3 trimesters of gestation

            1. I stand erected, er, corrected.

  5. Thread Jack!

    The agenda, UNLEASHED!!

    We want Free Shit!

    Early Monday afternoon, a group of faculty and student organizers unveiled the Occupy Student Debt campaign from the southeast corner of lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park.

    As part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the national Occupy Student Debt campaign asks that borrowers default on their student loan payments after one million individuals have similarly signed the debtors’ pledge.

    They think they’ll be harming the banks, but really what they’re doing, by virtue of all student loans being 100% guaranteed by the federal government, is facilitating yet another bank bailout. Congratulations, America! You’re on the hook for Generation Dumbfuck deciding that it was in their best interest to get a huge loan so that they could go and get sociology degrees.

    1. We don’t think you have to announce “Thread Jack!” any longer. It’s a given.

      Now, where them DEA agents at?

    2. If only those assholes would Occupy their Student Debt.

      Obviously none of them majored in English.

      1. Of course, these will be the same people who will wonder why they can’t buy a home or a car in 15 years.

        “Why is my credit all fucked?” they’ll ask. “The banks have ruined our lives. We need free housing too, because, you know, it’s a RIGHT!!”

        Fuck them in the ass with a broadhead. Your choice.

        1. Then of course we’ll have the ‘Occupy Credit Rating Agencies’ after that. Sure they’re government mandated oligopolies and fuck credit ratings, but … wait, I can’t think about anyway to defend credit rating agencies.

    3. Ross, who teaches social and cultural analysis at NYU…

      In other words, not a productive member of society.

    4. “You’re on the hook for Generation Dumbfuck…”

      This is, by far, the greatest statement ever made online.

    5. In defense of my Generation even if all student loan debt was forgiven (and let’s be honest its not going to happen) that would be about $1 trillion which is pretty small compared to the debt left to us by the older generations.

      So we may be Generation Dumbfuck but we learned it from the Dumbfuck Generations that came before us and expect us to be on the hook because they decided it was in their best interest to not save for retirement/ get a huge loan to buy a house.

      Also it will be people like me who are working to pay off their loans who would end up paying for this shit in the long run not ya’ll old people.

      1. I’m not old, actually. Still just 35. I’ll be paying for these fucks for a long time.

        But you are right. They learned to swindle from their parents, who learned to swindle from their parents. But it’s starting earlier than ever before.

        Now we have students demanding loan forgiveness, and threatening default if they don’t get it. Of course when they default on their loans, they’ll wonder why they have no purchasing power, blame it on “TEH BANKSTERZ”, and then seek to vote for themselves even more free shit, because living in Manhattan in perpetuity with the freedom to buy iThings with reckless abandon is expensive and, well, someone’s got to pay for it.

        Every single one of these Occutards need to eat shit.

      2. Too true, apatheist.

  6. A very good video, but if anyone but the Judge had said what Napolitano shared about prosecution of abortionists, I believe he would be excoriated here as a religious kook.

    And why can’t this interview launch a hideous slavery debate as well as a terrible abortion debate? Let’s mix things up.

    1. We think you’re supposed to ignore the Judge’s less savory Conservative peccadilloes.

        1. Finally. I’ve been aiming to get a lot of first comments, trying to get some points out of hop-ons.

      1. Last I checked libertarians stance on abortion wasn’t settled. Some argue it as womans rights, others as the rights of human beings period. I wouldn’t call his tance a conservative peccadilloes.

        1. Postrel settled it and moved on to bigger things.

        2. No, it’s settled — a blastocyst comprised of undifferentiated cells isn’t a human being, a baby, or even a fetus. Calling it one marks the caller as a full-on retard.

    2. The question of what human life is and when it begins is actually an important philosophical debate.

      Differences of opinion on this issue should not divide libertarians.

      Tell you what, when we get a truly libertarian society then we can rent a huge stadium and have a long philosophical debate about this. Until then, let us focus on those things we agree on.

      1. Could we (not)sleep in tents?

        1. 🙂 Sure. Just bring pepper spray to defend it from primitivists who think they have a right to gambol inside your tent without your consent.

          1. Re: PIRS,

            Just bring pepper spray to defend it from primitivists who think they have a right to gambol inside your tent without your consent.

            Nah, they’re pussies. Primitivists would cry like little girls if the Soros’ funding for food suddenly went away. Like little wussy girls.

      2. Most Reasonoids seem to accept that there are valid differences of opinion on the topic of when life begins and when that life has its liberty and whatnot, but the Judge’s comments in the interview seem to go a bit beyond.

        And I will investigate your financial ties to any statiums our libertarian collective rents.

        1. If I’m not alive, mom isn’t pregnant.

          1. Hey, I’m alive, too. Try harder.

            1. I’m human.

            2. I have my own unique human DNA sequence at the moment I’m conceived.

                1. Most times I pop out of the womb as a child. Not a death-maker.

          2. I cant find a whole lot of argument against first trimester abortions. It’s not like there’s much there to rid oneself of and it’s plenty of time for a woman to make a decision. After the first trimester can a woman really be unaware of being pregnant (provided she’s not a whale or drug fiend)? Life begins at conception I’ll never buy. Thats a non argument because no one can be aware when that happens and there is a level of complexity to a person an early development fetus can never demonstrate.

            1. yeah, we weren’t considered human either. Thanks for keeping that philosophy alive. Fuckers.

              1. Aren’t you 3/5 human?

            2. “there is a level of complexity to a person an early development fetus can never demonstrate.”

              Or, evidently, some adults.

            3. a fetus has its own DNA two seconds after conception

              you think DNA has no “level of complexity”?

              1. Conifers have far larger genomes…is their DNA “more complex?”

                And anyway, so much stupid in that comment poetry. Two seconds after “conception?”

                1) It’s not a fetus, it’s an embryo at that stage.

                2) What is conception? Egg and sperm meeting and combination of DNA? That takes >=24 hours. Learn some developmental biology if you want to talk about this.

          3. Quick, maybe if I use this cord thingie to tie myself to that kidney over there, I won’t get sucked into that vacuum!

            1. Occupy the Womb.

  7. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_n…..wborn-hons

    This has me apoplectic.

    1. Can’t watch now. On our way to off some pigs.
      Could’ja provide a quick synopsis?

      Do you know how hard it is to text on a Harley?

      1. +1 Caleb

        Way to get on the board, Caleb!

        1. Where’s my point? See upthread^^

          I can haz points?

          1. You can claim your own points, dude. Take them. Take them!

  8. Oh, gosh, isn’t Judge Napolitano’s abortion stance soooooo dreamy!

    Not like those icky Christian fundies. Yuck yuck yuck!

    1. Re: Holy cow dung,

      Oh, gosh, isn’t Judge Napolitano’s abortion stance soooooo dreamy!

      He’s is logically consistent, a rarity among the universe of TV talking heads and ditto-heads.

      Also, Ron Paul explained the schizophrenic nature of abortion when he points out how doctors bend over backwards to save the life of an unborn baby with heart problems yet can also chop another into pieces and call it a “woman’s right to choose.”

      1. Sorry, “his is”, not “He’s is”

  9. “I’ll say this plainly, I’ve said it before – Taxation is theft. It presumes the government has a higher claim on our property than we do,” says Judge Andrew Napolitano[…]

    Leftists make that presumption and then go further to justify the claim by arguing that, without government, civilization would simply melt away, people would suddenly stop blinking their eyes and other scary shit like that.

    1. Good point, OM. I ask them why people chose to come to America prior to the income tax. Their faces go blank.

    2. Leftists make that presumption and then go further to claim that since government has a higher claim on your property than you do, and since “we are government”, that they have more of a claim on your property than you do.

      They of course retain exclusive claim on their property.

  10. Thanks for clarifying that up, Old Mexican. (Oh, Holy Cow Dung– that’s comedy gold, man! Impressive. I hear Gallagher’s looking for a new writer, OM. You’d be perfect.)

    Anyway, I’m sure, say, Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum are against abortion because of the voices they hear in their heads as they sit in their outhouses (with half moons on the door), dreaming of running over Negroes with their Ford pickups.

    Or something like that.

    1. negros is no longer the preferred nomenclature. my great uncle used darkies.

    2. Re: Holy Cow dung,

      Anyway, I’m sure, say, Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum are against abortion because of the voices they hear in their heads[…]

      I can’t presume to know what goes inside the heads of people, HCD. I can only point out the schizophrenic nature of the pro-ABORTION stance, as people value life enought to pay to keep an unborn fetus alive by doing intrauterine surgery yet people can also perfectly dismiss the life of the same fetus by calling it a “woman’s right to choose.” You can’t have it both ways, dung.

      1. Of course you can have it “both ways” you stupid spic, in both cases the fetus is simply an extension of the mother, and she is exercising a health choice.

        You post is both logically inconsistent and wrong.

        1. in both cases the fetus is simply an extension of the mother

          This is just stupid…

        2. “the fetus is simply an extension of the mother”

          …which is why it has its own unique DNA sequence, different from the mother’s. right.

          1. Cancer has its own DNA sequence too.

            1. Cancer will not become a human child. Fail.

        3. Re: dipshit,

          in both cases the fetus is simply an extension of the mother, and she is exercising a health choice.

          You must have arrived late to the free brain giveaways.

          A fetus is not an extension of the mother, you numbnuts.

      2. I’m opposed to abortion, but until I’m convinced that a fetus has rights I won’t be in support of using force against those who make that decision.

        1. Where are rights derived from? Without life there is no liberty.

  11. The {disgruntled mole working at,nefarious hacker targeting} the University of East Anglia strikes again.

    Climategate 2.0

    /// FOIA 2011 ? Background and Context ///

    “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

    “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

    “One dollar can save a life” ? the opposite must also be true.

    “Poverty is a death sentence.”

    “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
    greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

    Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
    hiding the decline.

    This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
    remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

    The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
    to publicly release the passphrase.

    We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics

    1. Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
      troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
      wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
      uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
      further if necessary […]

    2. I’m sure you agree?the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
      never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
      “reconstruction”.

  12. Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
    middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
    MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
    ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

  13. I just gave up on The Walking Dead — six fucking episodes, half of the second season, at a fucking farmhouse talking feelings and discussing how awful and dangerous and unreasonable it is to learn how to shoot and carry guns with you in a zombie-infested post-apocalyptic world. It’s boring as fuck. RIP The Walking Dead — you had potential.

    1. And Napolitano kind of looks like a zombie. He’s cool, but he looks like a zombie.

      1. “And Napolitano kind of looks like a zombie. He’s cool, but he looks like a zombie.”

        How so? Zombies are typically pale and emaciated. Napolitano is well-tanned and, let’s face it, not exactly a scrawny fellow.

        1. He’s a zombie that died only an hour ago, and he’s one of those zombies from Land of the Dead, so he got smart and got a tan. In his living days, he was a wrestler, so he’s big.

          1. So I’m going to hope against hope then that next time he’s on The O’Reilly Factor, he’ll fly across the table, peel off the top of Bill’s skull, and devour his brains.

            1. Devour his what?

            2. Bill O’Reilly? Brains??

              1. Geez, you people are sticklers!

                OK, I’ll be satisfied with just the peeling off of the skull. Better??

            3. He’d starve to non-death.

    2. I’ve been watching it with the wife, mostly because she likes it, and we’re both wondering where they can go with the premise.

      Where’s the fun (for the viewer) in them hiding out at the farm?
      Are they going to venture out, and if so where?
      Don’t the walkers need to eat?

      If they drift into boring soap opera shit then it’s going to become a boring soap opera with zombies.

      Yeah. Fuck that shit.

      Except that for some reason horror type stuff turns my wife on, and soon things are going “bump” in the night 😉

      1. That dumb fucking farmer Democrat dipshit Herschel thinks zombies are people, and killing them is immoral and murderous, and that maybe all this shit is a new beginning.

        What a dick. I’d just pack some shit up and leave.

        Also, Sarcasmic, if the writers of the show made the lore so that the entire WORLD is basically gone (a la I Am Legend), it’s going to be really boring from now on. I really hope they didn’t pull that crap.

        1. Thing is that the show was not expected to be a big hit, so I don’t think they thought that far.
          Traveling around survivalist style and killing zombies with character development seems kinda dumb. It’s not like they’ve got a formula worked out (a la House) or something.
          I really don’t know where the show can go.

          1. I don’t know, find a huge-ass enclave of survivors, where shit’s happening, and give us a third season of FILLER, if necessary, but good filler can be very entertaining.

            I just don’t want anymore of this farmhouse, soap opera bullshit. Seriously, it’s just getting old now.

            1. *any more

            2. I agree. It’s time to leave the farm (with the farmer’s daughter! Oh yeah! score one for the Asian kid! You did good, buddy!) and try to find more survivors.

              *stupid squirrels*

              1. The real storyu behind zombie shows isn’t the zombies. It’s what happens to indidivudals when they are put in horrible situations and the completely fucke up societies that develop. If the show manages to no kill itself it will get very good.

                Provided they follow the comics.

            3. @ sarcasmic:

              Strangely I find myself in the exact same situation as you, re: the wife.

              @ RPA:

              If you read the comics, you’ll know that your fears are unfounded re: other survivors. There’s a big confrontation coming eventually.

              1. Good to know, dude! Maybe they’ll find the Playboy Mansion untouched, with all its population still hiding there! OH YA!!!

              2. There’s a big confrontation coming eventually.

                Of course. Not even a zombie apocalypse is incentive for people to get along.

                1. Yeah, only problem is, who the hell knows when they’re going to get around to it. They’re really not following the comics timeline that well.

                2. I bet Max and Tony are among the survivors the group encounters — Max gets uppity about the southern accents and goes on a rape-and-murder spree, while Tony gets all up in a zombie’s face about income taxes, or some shit. That would be nice.

                  1. I bet Max and Tony are among the survivors

                    If I was a survivor, then they wouldn’t be 😉

                  2. Jeeze, and here I was thinking they were ALREADY zombies.

            4. 3 things that will make me continue to watch: they bring back Merle, Andrea and Lori are eviscerated by zombies, Shane either leaves or becomes the crazy, interesting Shane that shot the fat guy and threatened to kill Dale.

              1. Why don’t you like Andrea and Lori? Not saying I do, just wanna get your perspective

                1. Andrea is annoying. She complains about wanting a gun only to shoot Daryl, the regular cast’s best actor and character. Granted, maybe her and evil Shane can be somewhat interesting, but for now she’s pretty useless.

                  And the girl that plays Lori is just a bad actress. She only has one face, that bug-eyed “I’m so nervous face”.

                  1. The one character I hope gets his ass kicked by zombies, albeit in some interesting way, is Shane. I’ve never liked that asshole.

              2. It will be interesting to see how Merle come back. Andrea causes too much conflict to be killed off. Especially now that she’s hooked up with Shane. Those two make one evil couple. Lori wont be eviscerated. There’s no meat on her.

                1. Andrea’s evil? She got rightly pissed because the ex-Pig In Uniform instituted a total ban on guns, because he’s the only fucking one qualified to handle them (verbatim), in the midst of an apocalypse, and that’s the only time I’ve seen her get malicious.

                  Lori’s a self-righteous, sanctimonious asshole. Shane’s a cock-sucker, I agree on that one.

                  1. Andrea’s evil?
                    I think so. I can see her and Shane pulling some seriously fucked up shit as a team.

                    Lori’s a self-righteous, sanctimonious asshole.
                    She needs a fucking meal.

                    1. Plenty of food for her in the barn.

                  2. Shane is an asshole, but at least he became an interseting asshole after what he did to Otis. That’s the kind of character this show needs and I hope the writer’s set up a Shane/Rick conflict for the end of the season.

                    1. I hope they run into a citizen-army, or something similar, that’s armed to the teeth and nomadic, and something really huge happens. Of course, the budget probably won’t allow it, so yeah.

                    2. RPA, you have psychic powers.

                    3. Thing is, I’ve genuinely never even touched the comic books, but if you’re serious, and that really does happen, awesome. At least we’ll have some fun.

                    4. The comics get into some pretty fucked up shit.

                      *SPOILER*

                      Kind of like Romeros last movie with people trying to live like they used too. Except unlike Romeros last movie it doesn’t suck.

                    5. I want Shane to die because the actor playing him is awful. Same goes for Lori.

                    6. I want Shane to die because he’s a trouble-making dipshit, and totalitarian, to boot. He has zero redeeming qualities. But I’d also want to keep him around, at least for now, because he’s become more interesting since he fucked Otis, as Serious Man said.

                    7. Lori dies, andrea becomes a stone cold killer and shane gets shot by Carl.

                      Rick loss his hand, hooks up with Andrea, and goes a little batshit.

                      There saved you 6 seasons (at the current pace).

          2. AMC fired the shows director. Something to do with a dispute over the budget for the show. Apparently, AMC chopped the season one budget in half, while demanding more episodes.

            1. That explains a lot.

        2. But as long as it gets the wife all horned up I’ll be watching…

      2. What happened was the suits at AMC fired Frank Darabont from his position as show-runner and slashed the budget, hence more talk and less zombies.

        I’m giving it one more episode since next Sunday is the mid-season finale and I figure they’ll go all out and something will happen.

        1. That’s what I’m hoping for. If it doesn’t get good this week, I’m done.

      3. Maybe an action-packed pharmacy/liquor store run.

    3. I loved the first episode, the next few were alright too, but by the end of last season they were getting pretty lame.

      This season is just retarted. They’re hanging out indefinitely at the farmhouse to look for some girl the viewers have no interest in. The writing is so logically inconsistent from episode to episode. So much fiucking melodrama, I told my wife it feels like I’m watching One Life to Live. Something needs to change soon or people are going to start turning away in droves.

      1. I thought the first season was consistently good, and I started having doubts about the second season when 10 minutes were dedicated to the group hiding under cars and standing silently, staring into the distance, and when the zombies had to get within about 30 feet of the group for Dale, with his scope and binoculars and obsessive surveying, to notice the horde on a fucking highway.

        It just gave me the sense it would be going sour from then on, and I was right, I’m sorry to say.

        In-show: If I were Glenn, I’d ravage the walkers in the barn and then dare Farmer Democrat-Don’t-Likin’-No-Guns to try some shit. With his spade, since he doesn’t carry a gun.

        1. I can’t even watch because I know how good the story can be. I think their biggest problem is pacing. A comic can get away with a lot more exposition than a show can

    4. The Walking Dead has the same problem for me that almost all TV series do: it jumps the shark only a few episodes in. There have been lots of TV shows that would’ve made great movies – and Walking Dead is a great example – but almost always, when you try to milk an entire series out of it, it runs out of steam.

    5. Pretty sure zombies can never RIP….That’s why they’re out Walking

  14. the stupid thing about the show is suppposedly it’s pretty contagious, but then they do stupid shit like splatter a zombie’s head with a farm tool and don’t even cover their mouth and eyes, etc.

    doesn’t make sense.

    1. What part of the whole notion of zombies does make sense? When you’re talking about the reanimation of rotting tissue, you’ve got to suspend a shit-ton of disbelief anyway, such that quibbling over the little stuff like that is an exercise in futility. Zombies just need to be fun 😉

      1. it’s the internal inconsistency.

        suspending belief vis a vis zombies is one thing

        but it can’t simultaneously be true that biting from a zombie makes you a zombie, but getting sprayed in the face with zombie blood and guts doesn’t.

        1. You’re right, it’s completely inconsistent, and I’ve noticed that same inconsistency in every zombie movie I’ve ever seen. Then I just sat back and enjoyed 😉

          Speaking of zombies, I just ordered and watched Dead Alive for the first time. It’s one of Peter Jackson’s early movies (1992), and is by far my favorite zombie movie. It’s billed as a horror/comedy, with a heavy emphasis on the comedy. I laughed for 97 straight minutes. Cheesy and low-budget, but even still, the talent of the cast, crew, and writers is very much evident.

          1. dead alive is awesome. but some of the movies maintain the internal consistency pretty well. granted, they aren’t zombies per se, but 28 days/weeks later did. remember where the guy looks up and a single drop of blood falls in his eye?

            stuff like that.

            it’s like in walking dead, they don’t even make a fucking EFFORT to avoid getting splattered with blood. it makes it more difficult for me to suspend belief.

            reminds me of the old eddie murphy routine about black people in the haunted house…

            1. Never have seen 28 Days, though I have heard it broke new ground; i.e., “fast” zombies, treating the zombie virus it like a real-life contagion, etc.

              1. i don’t remember if the remake of dawn of the dead came before 28 days.

                dawn of the dead changed the romero formula to use fast zombies.

                but they clearly were zombies, just like the original. iow, dead come to life.

                28 days wasn’t technically zombies, since they were alive. just infected with a virus that turned them into raging frothing killin’ machines.

                obviously the latter is much easier to suspend disbelief.

                also, fwiw, it’s totally cheezy, but entertaining – doomsday with rhona mitra (wooooof!)

                also, another apocalyptic awesome virus movie.

                it’s kind of like escape from new york meets road warrior meets a zombie flick

          2. The lawnmower scene is epic.

          3. 28 Days Later zombie killers wear gas masks/ riot gear.

  15. If you don’t believe in taxation then you must be an anarchist, as government cannot exist without taxes. So is the judge an anarchist? How would he pay for those policemen that are going to arrest mothers for having abortions? Who’s going to pay for the judge at their trials? Who pay HIM when he was a judge?

    Perspiring Minds Want to Know!

    1. government cannot exist without taxes

      Why not?

    2. You do realize that we had government for over a century without income, payroll, or medicare taxes, right?

      1. Until the 16th Amendment the federal government relied on alcohol taxes for 75% of its revenue.
        Hence the hatred for “revenuers”.

        I’m sure government could exist without taxes. It just wouldn’t be able to do anything that anyone wants.

        And that would be a good thing.

        1. *everything* not anything

      2. But you can’t run your government off tariffs and have free trade at the same time.

        1. That was I thought when I was watching the video.

          Not sure how he squares that one away. He was pretty non-committal when it came to what kind of taxes are ok.

    3. Re: Brandybuck,

      If you don’t believe in taxation then you must be an anarchist, as government cannot exist without taxes.

      Of course it can exist without taxes. The enthusiasts can get together, sit around writing laws and call themselves “da guvernmunt” and sing songs and play games and kick the girls out…

      Oh, wait, that’s Tubby’s clubhouse. Oh well, same thing.

      1. They would just have to convince people that their services are worth paying for.

      2. “”Of course it can exist without taxes. “”

        Maybe yes, maybe no, but that’s not the argument as I see it. Taxation, albeit in a limited form, is in our Constituion. Therefore our founding fathers thought is was necessary for our government.

        I always find it odd when people who give such praise of our Constitution want to call it theft when it’s clearly authorized by that very document which they praise.

        How much taxation is a different story and open for scrutiny.

      3. It’s spelled gub’mint.

    4. You did actually watch the video, right? Remember the part were the judge talked about how the Federal Govt. was funded before the income tax?

    5. Minimal government can function since anyone who’s convicted of a crime usually pays a fine, which would then cover the cost. A lot of positions that are currently paid positions could be unpaid instead. That would certainly reduce both the cost of government and the number of “career politicians.”

  16. Jail, Judge? REALLY???

  17. To poke OM and the good Judge:
    1. If it is the unique DNA and being attached to the uterine wall that confers rights then define the life status of the placenta.
    2. Describe why a “fetus” that is taking all of its resources forcibly from the mother without her consent (this assumes she wishes to abort) thus violating her most basic natural rights is not held accountable for said transgressions.
    3. If an embryo is considered to have rights confered then describe the philisophical boundaries regarding miscarriage and negligence on the part of the mother.

    I, in no way, think that this discussion is resolved…or ever will be. Also, if you are taking a religous stance then I can not argue the point as it is purely faith based. That is fine, and a valid position in the argument, but just make sure to state that so that logic is not used to disucss it (I do have faith based arguments which support the fundamental right of a mother to abort a fetus but that is for another thread).

    1. We exist due to a deliberate act on the part of the mother and father. Freedom, meet responsibility.

      1. So does the placenta. When it is expelled, is it murder?

      2. I would also point out that rape would seem to be a NON deliberate act by one party. Is it your contention that this has the same standing? That because a woman has a uterus she delibertly had each pregnancy and is responsible for them?

        1. Two wrongs make a right? “Sir, for the crime of existing, I hearby sentence you to death.”

          1. You position not mine. You implied that since the mother was responsible in every case that she should be held to perfom an act against her will by the state. I pointed out how your poisiton is inconsistent with the commonly accepted definition of responsible.

      3. *ahem*

    2. Cliche its kind of hard to make the using resources forcibly argument since every human being on the planet knows that fucking makes babies. You could argue that the act of sex alone is a nonverbal acknowledgement that you might you might be carriny around a mini cliche in the near future.

      1. Is an unintended pregnancy anything like an unintended hangover?

      2. See rape above.

      3. Have you ever watched an episode of Maury? Even the stellar individuals who recognize the fucking-leads-to-babies connection think there are all kinds of ridiculous loopholes.

      4. But what would be the consequences of people not fucking all the time that they didn’t want babies?

        We are faced with a contradiction:

        1. Sex is a strong force keeping couples together. I would go so far as to say that it would be unrealistic to expect two people to stay together long-term, i.e. marriage, without having sex.

        2. Raising little humans is a really expensive endeavor that not everyone can always afford.

        So are you saying that any couples who are too poor to have more children should just stop having sex, ever?

        There’s a reason that 98% of Catholics report using birth control. The American classroom says abstinence-only is a sustainable way to live, but any observation of people suggests otherwise.

        1. “There’s a reason that 98% of Catholics report using birth control. The American classroom says abstinence-only is a sustainable way to live, but any observation of people suggests otherwise.

          No it doesn’t but that is ok. Catholics aside I see no sort of contradiction.

          Giving up a child for adoption is a much greater good than killing it. One thing that is started to become stressed in churches is the great good being done via adoption. At least make it a viable choice for unprepared mothers who simply aren’t ready.

    3. Re: Cliche Bandit,

      If it is the unique DNA and being attached to the uterine wall that confers rights then define the life status of the placenta.

      What’s a life status?

      2. Describe why a “fetus” that is taking all of its resources forcibly from the mother without her consent[…]

      It is with her consent. She consented to have the fetus inside the moment the bra was undone.

      3. If an embryo is considered to have rights confered then describe the philisophical boundaries regarding miscarriage and negligence on the part of the mother.

      Did you mean with all that verbiage if the mother is liable for the death of her unborn baby? Only if her actions were a direct cause of the death, like for instance placing herself in the path of a speeding locomotive, on purpose.

      The same way *I* would be liable if the embryo dies as result of me pushing the mother into the path of a speeding locomotive… on purpose.

      1. What’s a life status?
        Your opinion of whether the placenta is a life and thus confered with rights.
        It is with her consent. She consented to have the fetus inside the moment the bra was undone.
        So she is culpabel even for forced rape/incest. Nice to know.

        And to the last point she could drink (a little or a lot), smoke, eat high card foods. She can skydive, swim, eat sushi and oysters. Are all of these, in you philosophy, the same level of negligence? Is she to be caged in a bubble until the fetus comes out the birth canal?

        1. Re: Cliche bandit,

          What’s a life status?
          Your opinion of whether the placenta is a life and thus confered with rights.

          A placenta does not grow to become a zit-covered insolent.

          So she is culpabel even for forced rape/incest. Nice to know.

          You said that – I didn’t. You asked “Describe why a “fetus” that is taking all of its resources forcibly from the mother without her consent[…]”. You didn’t mention rape or incest. You’re being dishonest.

          And to the last point she could drink (a little or a lot), smoke, eat high card foods. She can skydive, swim, eat sushi and oysters. Are all of these, in you philosophy, the same level of negligence?

          “My” philosophy looks at acts as manifestations of moral choice. If a woman decides to eat oysters because that is what there is, I do not see how this can be determined as an immoral act. You don’t explain how is a woman’s skydiving while pregnant an immoral or even criminal act. I instead see a clear act of aggression against a human being – abortion – as an immoral act, as there is an unequivocal purpose to terminate such life. Skydiving, instead, is not, unless the woman never intended to pull the cord.

        2. “”She consented to have the fetus inside the moment the bra was undone.
          “”

          2nd base = a home run???

          1. Re: TrickyVic,

            Ok, ok, I’m paraphrasing something I read in MAD Magazine a long time ago. There, happy?

    4. The life status of placenta is that it tastes like liver. So I’ve heard.

  18. Reason adding an abortion thread is catnip to Libertarian men but women still want to know what we should do
    -we just can’t make up our own mind. LOL

    1. Birth control or anal?

  19. Does it really matter what the judge’s opinion is on abortion? Liberals love to trot out Roe v. Wade as if it’s one of the top priorities of conservatives to undo it, but we’ve been through eras of Republican-controlled Congress and administration and yet Roe v. Wade continues on. We’ve even had Supreme Courts with a mix of justices you’d think would be pro-overturning the decision, and Roe v. Wade goes on.

    It’s like Medicare, Social Security and the income tax – like it or not, it’s not going away anytime soon.

  20. Roe vs Wade is strange – if a woman has a Constitutional right to privacy, how is that right extended to men? And how that right to privacy doesn’t extend to the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, or the other victimless “crimes”.

    1. To be fair, a majority of pro-choicers also probably oppose the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, etc. From my experience anyway.

      1. They just want to enjoy freedom without responsibility.

        1. i am pro-choice, but roe v. wade is RIDICULOUS case law based on penumbras and emanations.

          IF a woman (or a man) truly had a right to privacy about her body, then drug use could not be criminalized, nor could prostitution, or organ sales, etc.

          it’s rare, even amongst pro-drug legalization folks, for them to argue that laws against drug use are UNconstitutional.

          bad policy? yes

          and of course the argument is made that many FEDERAL drug laws are unconstitutional

          but *if* the precepts of roe v. wade were ACTUALLY taken seriously, it would affect a LOT more than just abortion

          it’s a ridiculous case, and most pro-choicers (and pro-lifers) have never actually read it

          i suggest people do. it is judicial activism DEFINED

          and again, i am 100% for abortion rights.

          1. I think you’re probably right about people not reading the damn decision. It’s a fucking punt and most people have no idea how bad it is.

      2. Obviously, you’ve never heard of soccer moms.

    2. it’s because roe v. wade is based on a legal fiction

      1) there is no right to privacy in the federal constitution. no matter how many penumbras and emanations you pretend to see
      2) even if there was a right to privacy, and i wish there was (my state has one), that’s irrelevant to the abortion debate, since they don’t claim it applies to drug use, etc. it certainly shouldn’t apply to terminating a SEPERATE albeit dependant life form

      and i say that as a pro-choicer

      roe v. wade is a ridiculous case. read it.

    3. You’re allowed to jerk off, jerkoff.

  21. Taxation need not be theft. Technically no one should have to pay taxes. However, unless you pay taxes you should not expect police, court, military or fire protection, and you may not trespass on public roads, send your kids to public schools or use public hospitals, owned by taxpayers only. So in essence, unless you have a private helipad or your city permits pay-per-use for roads, services, etc, enjoy hanging around at your house all day, fending off thieves who know they won’t be prosecuted if they steal your property.

    1. While I mostly agree with this, you can’t build roads on every side of somebody’s property and then charge them a toll to leave – that’s exactly the same as building a cage around someone and making them pay for the key. You can say “you can’t use these roads”, but you can’t nullify somebody’s freedom of movement.

      1. Hasn’t most property been bought in the the time since the roads have already been established?

      2. I mean, I’m currently forced to pay taxes for the road outside my house, and I can’t walk across my neighbors’ lawns in either situation. Currently if I don’t pay property taxes for that road, I can lose my property. If I don’t pay my income taxes, I can go to jail. But the point is that taxes could be voluntary, understanding that this comes with logical consequences so you won’t freeload on those paying. Technically this would be a practical way to merge miniarchism and anarchism.

    2. our revolution was fought under the precept that taxation WITHOUT representation is theft.

    3. Re: Propietist,

      However, unless you pay taxes you should not expect police, court, military or fire protection, and you may not trespass on public roads, send your kids to public schools or use public hospitals, owned by taxpayers only.

      The idea that taxes are required to build roads flies in the face of history. Land owners have always agreed on setting aside a strip of land for road construction to allow easy access from land to town and markets. It is not like roads exist since the 16th Amendment was ratified, that’s bullshit.

      1. Sure. I’m not saying that private roads couldn’t exist. If you own the property, build whatever you want. My point was that you COULD argue that only taxpayers should have the right to access public roads built and maintained with tax money. That gives people who don’t want to pay taxes the ability to avoid doing so. If you don’t pay taxes, you get no government protections, privileges or services. But you won’t go to jail or get your property seized by the government. It’s like an opt-out of everything.

    4. Re: roads
      Gas tax = user fee

      1. why does one need to pay for roads? Travel enough on a path and it will form itself. It’s actually better for when snow and rain come through.

        1. Right. Just check out Al-Jazeera’s entertaining video about truckin’ in Africa. One month for two hundred miles and two years per truck. Better than their hash-smoking Himalayan trucker video.

      2. I’m not so into gas taxes due to their inherently regressive nature. I think land value taxes would be a better source of funding. Don’t pay land taxes, the government won’t defend your land or the property or people on it.

      3. Doesn’t work. An electric car uses no gas. My car uses more gas per mile than my neighbor’s car. etc.

        1. Heavier, more powerful car= more wear and tear.

    5. right, because only government can provide those things. and none of those things existed in the world until “government” showed up. good to know, thanks for the helpful info.

    6. I wouldn’t be allowed to use a bus or taxi?

  22. For me, the problem with abortion is that unless we’re talking about the ability to abort a fetus all the way up until it’s born, choosing the point at which it can no longer be aborted seems rather random. It’s like trying to define pornography – for some, Playboy is art, not pornography, and for others, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is absolute smut. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn’t have the ability to just say that they know a life when they see one and thus avoid trying to define the point where a glob of goo definitively becomes a person with rights.

    I shudder at the thought of abortion being outlawed though (even though I’m personally pro-life). There’s going to be those women who are so very motivated to get an abortion that they’ll visit the guy in the dark room with the coathanger, and at least as long as it’s legal, they can get safe services.

    For me, I’d at least like to see an ultrasound performed before the procedure. No woman shall be denied an abortion if she’s that motivated, but it should at least be an educated decision. And studies have shown that the rate of abortions decreases when ultrasounds are performed first.

    1. Fuck all this. Sterilize the poor. Their offspring is what costs us.. crime, violence, starvation, welfare, riots, etc.. Me and my wife deserve to have an abortion if we decide, and we deserve to have a child if we decide. Poor people — mandatory sterilization in exchange for any kind of state benefits.

      1. Higher taxes for people with children. User’s fees for playgrounds, schools, etc…

    2. it’s not “random” but it *is* somewhat arbitrary as MANY bright line laws are: age of consent, drinking age, voting age, etc.

      that doesn’t make it prima facie unreasonable.

    3. No, it’s not random, unless you don’t believe in biology. Fetuses follow a pretty predictable developmental path. Picking a stage along that path?such as when the central nervous system starts to develop and the fetus has a rudimentary brain?makes sense. En-brain-ment is the closest thing the natural world has to ensoulment.

      1. But a brain without much of the synaptic mappings we understand as “human thought”. Do we have to wait for the brain to have formed enough to associate touch on parts of the bodies with other adjacent parts? To associate sound of their mother’s voice? The kid ain’t going to talk at least for a few years, it’ll be hard to poll them.

        Just saying “Biology!” isn’t enough to solve moral and ethical problems, it only informs.

        It isn’t so clear. To me it seems like either we should try to protect a potential child, or we shouldn’t. How exactly? Not sure.

  23. Glob of goo? How did you graduate without taking a biology class?

  24. First of all, about abortion. In my Schweitzerian ethos, abortion is wrong. But I realize that life isn’t black and white. And while I am on the Judge’s and OM’s side, I agree with Yet Another Dave. Even though I disagree with it, it should be available.

    Having said that, if a woman is allowed the sole unilateral right to terminated a pregnancy, she should get stuck with the sole responsibility of raising the child. If women are going to fucking bitch, “it takes two,” I am ok with that. But if a man is going to be on the hook for 18 years, he ought to have a say on whether the pregnancy is terminated. I don’t know if I will have to hand in my libertarian card for saying this, but I think a man should be able to say, “sorry babe, you may not that baby, but I do.”

    1. FUCK…. A man should be able to say, “sorry babe, you may not want that baby but i WANT that baby. so man the fuck up and here is some cream for those stretch marks.”

      1. I don’t think a man has a right to say he wants the baby so it has to be born. Just like I don’t think a man should have to pay child support.

      2. You have a right to your opinion, but as a woman, I’m going to avoid men who think like this. Good luck finding someone who agrees to those terms, though.

        As for when the fetus becomes a person, I think late first trimester (when the nervous system starts to develop) is a reasonable time, except for the people who believe “ensoulment” happens before that. Both the woman and the fetus have valid claims to bodily autonomy; the problem with ideologues is that they choose to ignore one or the other.

  25. Napolitano thinks Newt is a genius, which doesn’t speak well of Napolitano.
    Napolitano is a semi-libertarian.

    1. nobody can honestly doubt newt is very very very smart and knowledgeable.

      i don’t know if i’d go as far as genius, but he’s clearly VERY smart.

      i disagree with him on tons of stuff, but the guy is VERY smart

      1. Citation needed.

  26. Taxation is not theft.

  27. Abortion is not murder.

    1. But it is homocide.

      1. definitionally speaking, it’s homicide IF the fetus is a person, which the law does not recognize as such.

        homicide is somebody dying based on the actions of another person.

        the law does not recognize abortion as homicide, because it does not recognize “personhood” of the fetus

        various fetus murder laws (like the ones that give extra penalties for murdering a pregnant woman bla bla) work around this.

      2. But it is homocide.

        Abortion is not homicide.

      3. This is hard to argue in the very early term. Does that make all women who conceive guilty of involuntary manslaughter 70-80% of the time (since those are the chances of an early miscarriage)? If not, why does an embryo/fetus’s “personhood” at that stage override a woman’s control over her life and health?

      4. I also find it amusing to watch men discussing abortion on a libertarian message board.

        The libertarian worldview typically encompasses assumptions of autonomy, self-sufficiency, and agency.

        Yet for women, not having access to birth control and abortion means the loss of all these things. How do you control a career if you can’t control when and whether to have children? Who would bother educating or hiring someone with such unpredictable prospects? If women couldn’t work, how could they be held accountable for their economic outcomes in a libertarian framework?

        1. Women are fun to fuck

        2. It all hinges on where you draw the line as to where life begins.

          Your argument then has to logically start by refuting his view that life begins at conception.

          If you gloss over that essential point, you are by default conceding his point, and thus – regardless of your intentions – you are arguing that one individual has the right to end another individual’s life solely because it works out better for them that way.

          Or in other words, you have to logically prove that life does not begin at conception to make the case that an unborn child is not an individual due the same rights and protections as the mother.

  28. No mention of Napolitano’s 9/11 Trutherism or love of paranoia merchant Alex Jones and racist paleo-scumbucket Lew Rockwell? Of course not: this is Reason.

  29. my buddy’s mother makes $70 every hour on the computer. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay was $8152 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it here cli.gs/9qb3b41

  30. my buddy’s mother makes $70 every hour on the computer. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay was $8152 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it here scrbe.us/gq

  31. my buddy’s mother makes $70 every hour on the computer. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay was $8152 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it here ur1.ca/5gn2z

  32. my buddy’s mother makes $70 every hour on the computer. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay was $8152 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it here trunc.it/ja2dr

  33. my buddy’s mother makes $70 every hour on the computer. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay was $8152 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it here togl.me/a82

  34. Taxation is theft.

    1. Taxation is not theft.

      1. Perhaps robbery is a better term for the taking of property from someone against their will by force. Theft is taking from someone without them knowing, kind of like the “quantitative easing” perpetrated by the fed.

  35. What this thread is missing is a discussion on circumcision.

    I think the dentile method is safest

  36. Your argument then has to logically start by refuting his view that life begins at conception.

    If you gloss over that essential point, you are by default conceding his point, and thus – regardless of your intentions – you are arguing that one individual has the right to end another individual’s life solely because it works out better for them that way.

  37. I concur with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your future updates. The usefulness and significance is overwhelming and has been invaluable to me!

  38. test

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.