Kit and DaPoodle

Whoodles are highly intelligent and trainable. They can get along well with other animals. All of my pups come with there first vaccine and health certificat, dewormed 4 times and has 1 year health garantee. They also come with a puppy kit that includes; a collar, a blancket with mom smell to help with the transition, a small bag of food 2 days toys and chew bones. Sections of this page. Email or Phone Password Forgotten account?

Doodles of Ottawa Public group. Join group settings More. Jennifer Collins Sparks 2 hrs. Jax loves her new hat lol. Cara Lee Monds Richardson 4 hrs. New to the group so I thought I'd introduce my puppies! Denise Casar shared her post. As for 1 , well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified.

But I have yet to see anyone—criminal, socialist, or anti-anarchist—show how the initiation of force against innocent victims is justified. But that does not mean states are justified. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn it and work to reduce it. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims—i. As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people.

But none of that means the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified. BTW, the debate on related topic continues on the Reason Blog. That was me—and it was meant to point out the criticisms of the minarchists are flawed criticisms, since the criticisms apply equally to minarchy. It was not switching ground. Your MORAL rationale for anarchism is that it does not inherently entail aggression initiation of force , while government inherently does. The necessary services of government—police, laws, courts—could be funded voluntarily, on a fee-for-service basis, along with such supplemental mechanisms as lotteries.

If you only advocate a government that does NOT have the power to tax, maybe we anarchists would have no problem with it. If someone advocates a state that can tax, anarchists are against it. However, it is not unfair here to point out that no limited state — certainly not a tax-free one other than the Vatican, which depends on voluntary donations, but which I suspect Objectivists do NOT want to hold up as an exemplary government — has ever existed.

This is indeed relevant — because it makes it clear that if someone advocates a state, they cannot avoid advocating taxation, since all states as at least a practical matter do tax. We already have an abundance of private detectives, security police, mediators, arbitrators, bodyguards, prisons, etc.

More you might like

Why is it axiomatic that this be the case? Various people have input into this. What makes any minarchist think the state would happen to stumble upon the RIGHT set of principles to enforce uniformly and finally upon all within its domain? Why is it more LIKELY that a state would happen to develop just principles, than those that would be adopted by private justice agencies? This just makes no sense to me. If human nature is such that we would support and indeed insist upon government officials who abide by libertarian principles when setting up the government—why do we assume that the same individuals, when evaluating the standards of justice of their justice agencies, would be radically different?

It just makes no sense. If the standard is that anarchy is not perfect, agreed, it is not. States certainly are not—even minarchist states would not be. They could even apply the wrong standards. They could fail to prevent some criems. They could fail to punish some crimes. It might not even be caught later. Sometimes, criminals WILL get away with it. If there are two justice agencies involved in a given crime situation, one would think they could work out some kind of solution or compromise.

So if a criminal, or criminal gang, or criminal agency, somehow escapes punishment from some justice agency e. This will happen in ANY justice system, of necessity. Suppose a criminal is loose, and has robbed customers of agency A and B. A catches and imprisons him. B wants him to execute him. A might refuse to release him. That does not mean A is a criminal; it just means there is only one criminal to go between them and A got him first.

But at worst, this is, again, only a case where justice was not done; but justice is never guaranteed to be done if it were, there would never be crime, period. But in my view such a result is unlikely in anarhcy anyway: A and B would have agreements with each other about extradition, nepotism, etc. This is not some flaw of the justice system, but rather, one of the consequences of the fact that someone committed multiple crimes. This is different from a state outlawing on principle any competing defense agency.

Minarchy presupposes most people are more libertarian. Otherwise we could not get there. If people were several levels more moral—say, if they were moral enough to support the kind of minarchist government Bidinotto et al. Or that the problem of crime would be so low most poeple would not voluntarily commit one, after all , so marginal, that the PDAs that exist would really have a pretty minor function. Say out of people are law-abiding; and 1 is a bad guy. If he is spotted, or caught, why is it inconceivable that the good guys—and their agencies—would not find some reasonable way to deal with him?

If they impose justice on criminals, no problem. In fact A, B, C, and others would probably tend to have inter-agency agreements that establish ways of dealing with such cases. Why is there an assumption that multiple agencies MUST go to war? I know Rand opined that this must be the case, but I never found her reasoning on this very careful or sincere, or sound.

If between them a given criminal gets away scot-free, that is not a fault of anarchy, but a fault of the fact that crime is possible. Even in a state system, crime happens, and sometiems criminals get away. So I suppose you are talking about a problem where 2 or more agencies disagree about how to handle a given criminal-? Assuming the agencies themselves are not criminal and not fighting one another, seems like the most likelyl WORST case is that a more lenient or more unjust—looser evidence standards, etc. The basic anarchist claim is that anarchism is inherently non-aggressive, while government is inherently aggressive.

I think it is also a good argument that all government has been terrible, and that there is no reason to expect any state ever to be limited. Given this, one could argue that a state-less society might be better than the only other eal alternative—a LARGE state society. But this begs the question, no? That is why people would employ force-wielding agencies to protect them. This is what experience teaches. I will say this. I have a bad job and dislike my boss; therefore, it is morally justifed to steal his property.

The whole issue is confused. Part of it is because the leftist minority is disingenuously using this as a tactic to increase gay rights, e. For many it comes down to mere semantics. For example, a conservative libertarian friend is opposed to gay marriage. But he admitted, he has no problem with the state enforcing agreements between people—two gays, two sibligs, a rock band—and calling it a civil union. Thin gruel, it seems to me. My view is agreements should of course be enforced.

The labeling of the ontology of the relationships protected by the legal system should be left up to tradition and individuals—to private society. No one is obliged to treat this seriously. Nor a political issue. Nor a libertarian issue. Bush wants to constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman.

After all, bigamy is marriage to multiple partners; but if marriage is only marriage between one man and one woman, bigamy is just impossible, legally. Clearly bigamy is a type of marriage, albeit an illegal one. Bigamy is funny not funny-funny, but strange-funny. Nor to refer to them as your wives. You see how the state here subtly equates its dictates with reality. Yet if two men attempt to marry, it just will be ignored, and treated as a non-event. Methinks they are all confused; they should stop relying on the state to define what is or is not marriage; and should drop all causes secondary to that of lowering taxes and spending.

I should add, however, that I do not share your proposal that nation-states be exempted from it. It seems to me that states should be bound more tightly by it than should individuals. This is yet another example of why ethical skepticism is inevitably self-defeating. Those who engage in normative arguments, ultimately, have no choice but to adopt some normative, moral views. Rights-skeptics and similar types thus either a fall into contradiction when they start to utter moral or normative opinions; or b if they want to remain consistent, must just keep their mouths shut and not enter the moral fray.

If we were to achieve a taxless, peaceful, libertarian society, and some yahoo came along griping about the good old days, how we should have taxation—no doubt people would cock an eyebrow or two and view him as an amusing oddity. But get riled up?

Great movie lines

Probably too busy living life retired at the age of 32 to bother with political argumentation any more. Yet every year brings a more vile, demanding and insulting version of the left. The only answer I can come up with is that leftism must have a thread of a pathology running through it that refuses to rest and treats each new step leftward as a missed opportunity to make 2 steps leftward. It is worse if they benefit from it, real or perceived, and have an interest in politics. Wilson who said that human history would be reinterpreted in terms of genetics in the first couple decades of this century.

Below is an excellent article that provides some groundwork. Bush used his executive authority to recess appoint 11th Circuit nominee William H. A Survey of the Arguments. First, what would happen to bigamy statutes which prohibit one man marrying two women? So would bigamy now be decriminalized? Suppose Louisiana passed a law permitting gays to marry. They are not being required to do it by a judge or the feds; they just do it.

Does it refer to the status that society confers upon marriage? If so, how can the Constitution affect it? After all, even its drafters admit civil unions could be permitted—these could be identical to marriage in every way except the label used in the title of the statute.

In sum, this proposed amendment seems to do the following: But it does not seem to prevent states from having civil unions, or even from enacting their own marriage laws. A better amendment would be simply: An even better amendment would be: I wonder if I should get on the Banting diet! In other words, all this is a little silly. This reply does not counter the assertion that bullying is immoral and aggressive, and a crime. What is clear is that libertarianism opposes aggression—whether minor or major—and that clearly, bullying is a type of aggression.

Now libertarianism can distinguish between minor and more severe acts of aggression by having the proportionality requirement for punishment; but it is not clear that bullying is per se trivial or minor aggression. In fact it is typically significant aggression. But this is completely irrelevant. But that does not mean we who are purportedly on the civilized side of the fence should dismiss the rightful claim of a victim that aggression against them is wrong. This is what being a libertarian is all about: So it seems to me that instead of bringing Arab culture from the 14th to the 21st century, we should meet them halfway, around the 18th or so.

His publisher, The Penguin Press, agreed to make the book available online to demonstrate the point. But the copper-maned mogul might want to tread carefully in the Chicago area, where Brenner says she has emblazoned the phrase on plates, mugs, birdhouses and other items in her suburban ceramics studio since Patent and Trademark Office, Benn said in a telephone interview.

And here I thought, all these years, that patent applications were for inventions, trademark applications were for, well, trademarks. Just goes to show you—the press is as good at IP law as they are at economics and politics. How about Download file none of the above? I guess the fame of No Child Left Behind has escaped the trademark office. Exactly why am I paying taxes this week? They may be referring to this trademark application , not sure. Why did the little Greek boy, who had run away from home, return?

Lourie expects to be in Iraq for three to four months. Similarly in the case of spamming: Gil may like getting spam, but I get probably a day lately, and it is becoming a serious problem. It is not so easy to simply delete them. Second, in a free market, I would envision ways of publicizing your preferences as to whether you do, or do not, consent to receive unsolicited faxes, emails, even mail.

After all, when someone shoves a letter in my mailbox I have to dispose of it, which costs. I regard all the tons of snail mail I get as littering on my property. But opposition does not always stem from ignorance of the law or leftism: Some excerpts are pasted below. My view is that corporations are essentially compatible with libertarianism. What about limited liability for torts or crimes?

Who else should be responsible? In my view, those who cause the damage are responsible. The shareholders give money; and elect directors. The officers hire employees and direct what goes on. Now to the extent a given manager orders or otherwise causes a given action that damages someone, a case can be made that the manager is causally responsible, jointly liable with the employee who directly caused the damage. Excerpts from the Hessen article —. But why is governmental permission needed? Who would be wronged if businesses adopted corporate features by contract? Whose rights would be violated if a firm declared itself to be a unit for the purposes of suing and being sued, holding and conveying title to property, or that it would continue in existence despite the death or withdrawal of its officers or investors, that its shares are freely transferable, or if it asserted limited liability for its debt obligations?

Liability for torts is a separate issue; see Hessen, pp. If potential creditors find any of these features objectionable, they can negotiate to exclude or modify them. Economists invariably declare limited liability to be the crucial corporate feature. But there is no need for such mental gymnastics because limited liability actually involves an implied contract between shareholders and outside creditors.

It is an alternative to negotiating explicit limited-liability contracts with each creditor. Creditors, however, are not obligated to accept limited liability. In fact, the industrial revolution was carried out chiefly by partnerships and unincorporated joint stock companies, rarely by corporations. Even in the late nineteenth century, none of the giant industrial corporations drew equity capital from the general investment public.

They were privately held and drew primarily on retained earnings for expansion. The largest enterprise, Carnegie Brothers, was organized as a Limited Partnership Association in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a status that did not inhibit its ability to own properties and sell steel in other states. External financing, through the sale of common stock, was nearly impossible in the nineteenth century because of asymmetrical information.

The time to use them is perhaps near at hand. I think we all agree, the past is over. This is still a dangerous world. Rarely is the question asked Is our children learning? Will the highways of the Internet become more few?

• Job Interviews: Top Answers To Tough Questions.
• Memoirs of a Young Black Scholar!
• Product description?
• She Was Different.
• Kling Valley's Chantilly Lace (Lacie).

How many hands have I shaked? I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity. I know that the human being and the fish can coexist. Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream. Put food on your family! Knock down the tollbooth! Make the pie higher! Either that, or we will die. And since I believe the survival instinct can outweigh even whatever stupid gene makes people socialistic, we will eventually someday have to revv up nuclear fission plants once again.

Now, finally, some green has sense, and also admits this. But they were radical. I predict people will still have crashing PCs, 7 versions of their address files on different systems, all uncoordinated and lost. When you buy a new cell phone the minimum wage idiot at the counter will scratch his head and tell you he dos not think you can transfer the address book from the old one to the new one.

An article on the Future of Windows buttresses this point and after all, points need buttressing, do they not? Do I hear an amen? As the article points out: They schedule a software upgrade for … then , wait, , umm, might be before we see it. Yeah, the future is just around the corner, Ray. The interesting problems invariably turn out to be much more complex than expected, and the capabilities of our technologies are quite primitive in comparison. The human experts were more interested in extending the boundaries of knowledge and working on real problems then to waste endless hours answering clueless questions in an attempt to build human insight into lifeless machines.

By some false measure, maybe we are undergoing exponential progress. This was punctuated with some current incarnations of the same. Microsoft and MIT and Phillips have kitchens of the future with lots of obviously useless stuff. Hosted by Alton Brown. Re the first point—yes, this is correct. However even by their own standards the futurists have a miserable record. Their technical predictions usually do not come true or only come true much later than predicted.

When each has reached adulthood, the man has far surpassed the monkey in brain power. The same contrast is true in the physical development of boys and girls. The baby girl is more advanced than the boy. In adulthuood most men are stronger and have better co-ordination and balance than women. Likewise, if the Pope makes some statement based on fallacious economic reasoning—e. The point is, if we know something is false, we know it cannot be infallible; so having knowledge, gained through reason, can be used as a simple test to determine whether a statement is ex cathedra or not.

No doubt there are more sophistocated, established tests for determining when a papal decree or teaching is infallible or not. But this is a simple one, useful in some circumstances. They do not even mount a serious argument trying to show that or why socialistic-economic pronouncements of certain popes are indeed ex cathedra; they just seem to assume this, because it would shut up Woods.

And this is the tactic modern socailists are increasingly adopting: As the collapse of communism and spectactular failures of the welfare state have become more visible and manifest, it has become ever more difficult for liberals to argue for outright socialism with a straight face, and increasingly difficult for them to justify their socialistic policies such as affirmative action, antidiscrimination laws, minimum wage, political correctness, and so on.

Therefore—since they have virtually no arguments left anymore; the failure of their policy prescriptions has become too obvious— they have increasingly, in their desperation, increased their tone and resort to ad hominem and attempts to literally silence the opposition by force. Thus, the modern phenomenon of being labeled racist or anti-semite at the slightest, mildest challenge to prevailing mainstream orthodoxy to the extent where if someone is called a racist or anti-semite, the prima facie conclusion has to be that the person is probably not , and the resort to antidiscrimination laws and their penumbras and emanations which indeed exert a severe chilling effect on free speech.

But let me first emphasize that I respect Fleming and Chronicles , and none of this is meant personally. Therefore I assumed Fleming and Storck view the Church teachings that Woods disagrees with as ex cathedra. According to Richert, none of them hold this view.

But his demand for apology is unwarranted, for no harm was intended if I indeed did, mistate their view; at worst, their own ambiguity led to their view being misconstrued. Yet it seems to me they are trying to have it both ways. For their attack on Woods is based not on economic substance or arguments but on the incompatibility of pure capitalism with certain Church teachings. This only carries weight only if the Church teachings have some kind of authority to guarantee they are right.

To my mind, this must be infallibility. Yet Richert denies they are saying the teachings are infallible. So which way is it, guys? No appeal to authority makes any sense at that stage of inquiry. Now far be it from me to accuse them of holding a view which an editor of a magazine with which they are associated insists they do not. But I may be excused for quoting some comments of theirs that can perhaps excuse my error. If I accept such and such a teaching of the Church I must go against my God-given reason. But since reason is from God, I cannot contradict it.

Therefore I must reject this teaching of the Church. If Storck does not mean this, then he is speaking of non-infallible teaching, in which case, there is nothing at all wrong, from the point of view of Catholicism, with Woods disagreeing with it. I for one would be happy to see Storck clearly and explicitly state precisely what is the basis of his critique. Second, the issue is not about Papal infallibility, and those who say it is are, as usual, lying. Popes make mistakes all the time, and, as I pointed out in my column, even Councils of the Church have had to reverse direction from time to time.

The basic question is whether or not the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit over time. If it is, then the foundational principles of the Church in theology and ethics are true. If not, it is time to find another religion. Some final comments some drawn from private correspondence with Woods. Additional knowledge has come to light over the years that must influence these questions.

Fleming is not quite correct when he says that the usury teaching changed only because conditions changed. Theologians had begun to realize that certain factors made certain loans not immoral; these factors became more and more numerous until finally, the prohibition essentially withered away. That is what Woods is suggesting should happen here. Consider the case of Galileo: In a follow up , Fleming writes,. I am still waiting for a libertarian to respond to my challenge.

Can they show that their liberal-individualist ethic is represented either in the New Testament or in the authoritative teachings of the Church? If they were not sunk in the mire of 19th century liberalism—a dead tradtion of thought, if ever there was one—they might be able to understand what the issue is. Come on, boys, we are waiting for a single rational argument that is not simply a recital of liberal platitudes.

Third, the issue is not about economic liberty or private property. The Church has consistently defended both. But it is only in the Modern Age that property rights became absolute, while other moral considerations had to be bracketed as matters of private opinion—a position to which the Church has never subscribed. My first comment is—the Church never subscribed to absolute property rights? What about Roman law? If he is not, then he is a libertarian. Why Fleming thinks there is some kind of burden of proof on those who endorse, advocate, and strive for peace, cooperate, prosperity, and civilization to prove that it is morally permissible to be in favor of these things is beyond me.

Rather, the view of those consistently in favor of peace and cooperation and prosperity is not really that those willing to commit, or endorse, aggression have the burden of justifying it; rather, their view is that criminals, like animals, disasters, disease, and forces of nature, which, while unfortunate and a cause of tragedy, misery, and impoverishemnt, are merely technical problems that those who oppose aggression must try to find ways to combat and protect against.

Israel has already said it would ignore the ruling. I will be curious to see how my former teacher, the brilliant and, if I am not mistaken, Jewish Judge Rosalyn Higgins —the British member of the Court—votes in this case. These axioms are so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer; for he is not to be reasoned with who says that non-existence can control existence, or that nothing can move something.

Put it this way: To whom do I need to prove it? Either to fellow civilized men, or to those determined to invade these supposed rights. One does not talk a tiger out of attacking him. Used books are to consumer books as Napster was to the music industry …. Now the proposed amendment is certainly poorly drafted. No doubt it would be clarified before being ever seriously considered. To repeat, the version I found states:.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Product details

Now does the first sentence prevent a state from legislatively providing for gay marriage? I do not think so, for a few reasons. First, if it did, why are the other sentences necessary? Why say that a state constitution or the federal Constitution shall not be construed to require gay marriage? Therefore, these other sentences would be superfluous. But by standard constitutional interpretative techniques we have to assume they are in there for a reason, this implies the first sentence does not automatically do anything like this.

So it is kind of precatory, but has no effect on its own. Suppose this amendment is enacted. This would not be unconstitutional, would it? It would not violate the amendment, would it? Then gay couples start signing up for the civil union. This gets to the heart of the problem with both sides of the gay marriage debate.

They are not clear about whether they are debating substance or semantics. Therefore, the entire debate seems to be what label should be used in the title of the statute. This is not too far off, but I would say libertarianism is, at its essence 2 , simply based on the preference for peaceful interaction and opposition to violent conflict with our neighbors. In short, it is opposed to aggression, the initiation of force against others; or worded differently, the unconsented to use or invasion of the borders of the bodies or property of others.

As a consequence of this, we naturally oppose institutionalized aggression, i. I find this utterly bizarre. But it does not permit, say, axe-murdering, if that happens to be your gig. Libertarians are opposed to aggression. We favor voluntary, peaceful, cooperative interaction between people. So we are not neutral as between the entrepreneur and the criminal, the saint and the socialist , the victim and the aggressor, the civilized man and the savage. We are not neutral at all.

I, for one, am not. I hate the latter, and love the former. I would stamp out the latter, for the sake of the former. The criminals are a wretched excuse for humanity, but really just a technical problem. Our fellow, civilized kith and kin are what life is all about.

• Premium Image Preview.
• Svanendo nella sera (Italian Edition).
• Der Einfluss der Aufgabe auf das Gruppenergebnis bei interkultureller Gruppenarbeit (German Edition)!
• Griffins Calling.
• Kit and DaPoodle eBook: Steven Wiseblood: www.newyorkethnicfood.com: Kindle Store.

Speed Buggy , where are you? A vehicle expression operation control system for controlling an expression operation of a vehicle, comprising:. A friend directed me to your reply to my article. Some comments on your comments:. Obviously, ax-murdering is, as you say, out. What I said was that libertarians generally take their view to be neutral between the main worldviews represented in contemporary pluralistic societies: Does abortion count as aggression? Does refusing to legalize same-sex marriage count as aggression?

Does outlawing stem-cell research count as aggression? Different versions of libertarianism will give very different answers to these questions, because they have very different conceptions of rights. The point of my article was to suggest that the differences between these versions of libertarianism are often far more important and interesting than the similarities. Libertarians of a Lockean, Aristotelian, or Hayekian bent are, in my view, miles away from libertarians of the contractarian or utilitarian type.

Frank Zappa 10/24/

Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that the latter are closer to modern liberals and the former closer to modern conservatives than the two camps of libertarians are to each other. My reply is as folllows. First, let me make it clear that I meant no disrespect to the Fesenator, nor that I uncharitably construed his words. The main question for me is: If he does not, his title is inapropos and frankly, I am qua libertarian completely uninterested.

If he does not assert or maintain that libertarianism is flawed or incorrect, then I withdraw my response. If, on the other hand, he does for whatever reason claim that libertarianism is flawed, then I feel compelled to take issue with this. I disagree with this. Now the question in this case is, what is his argument? Nor does its justification. That is why I did not delve into the details that, and I am short on time. I honestly see no other logical alternative.

Now I ask you: Of course it does not. Feser may be interested in this and indeed it may be an interesting thing to show, but I fail to see how it shows that aggression is justified; or that the state does not necessarily employ aggression. Of course, I am focusing with a monomania on aggression. But then, I am a libertarian. Shall I apologize for that? Thanks for your note, and for your latest comments on the Rockwell blog.

Wilkinson seems to think it is desperately important to defend the claim that libertarianism is neutral in this Rawlsian sense, so my article was by no means directed against a view that no libertarians are committed to. I plan to respond to Wilkinson in another TCS piece. And, of course, applications of this, details, investigations into what aggression is, in the gray or difficult issues, etc.

In the end, libertarianism is about being civilized: But none of these are libertarianism per se. To be a libertarian is to endorse the simple proposition that peaceful interaction is preferable to violence. It does not mean one believes we have liberty; or that perfect liberty will ever be achieved.

It does not mean that one even thinks that true liberty is possible. He is not like the others. He is not goofy. We even use the same adhesive that was used originally by the factory! The clocks are then tested for several days for accuracy before shipping. We are the one and only parts and service provider for Electric Kit Cat style clocks authorized by the manufacturer, California Clock Company.

Please contact California Clock Company at for your battery clock needs. Please see our EBAY store for a partial listing or contact us with your request. We also carry a full complement of replacement parts for these highly collectable electric plug in clocks only. Items are being added to our store on a regular basis, but again, please don't hesitate to contact us with your specific needs.

Whether you are just getting started with your collection, or you are the consummate collector of these vintage clocks, we are happy to assist you with your selection. Antique Windsor Chairs Rocking—or Not?