<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hold Harmless</title>
	<atom:link href="http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/</link>
	<description>a physician looks at medicine, religion, politics, pets, &#38; passion in life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:54:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Law and Restraint &#124; The Doctor Is In</title>
		<link>http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/comment-page-1/#comment-11266</link>
		<dc:creator>Law and Restraint &#124; The Doctor Is In</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:08:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/#comment-11266</guid>
		<description>[...] RSS        In passing, we should note this curious mark of our own age: the only absolute allowed is the absolute insistence that there is no absolute. --Francis Schaeffer--   &#8592; Hold Harmless [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] RSS        In passing, we should note this curious mark of our own age: the only absolute allowed is the absolute insistence that there is no absolute. &#8211;Francis Schaeffer&#8211;   &larr; Hold Harmless [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kenju</title>
		<link>http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/comment-page-1/#comment-11264</link>
		<dc:creator>kenju</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/#comment-11264</guid>
		<description>Spot on, Dr. Bob, as usual!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Spot on, Dr. Bob, as usual!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Henke</title>
		<link>http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/comment-page-1/#comment-11262</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Henke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/#comment-11262</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;ve completely misapprehended me.  At no point did I suggest there should be no social rejection or approbation for his conduct.  In fact, I think that&#039;s precisely what should occur.  The libertarian position is not that private behavior is beyond reproach, but that private behavior that does not hurt others (as in, &quot;violate the rights of others&quot;, not &quot;make them feel bad&quot;) should not be illegal. 

I&#039;m quite sure his adultery hurt his family emotionally, but we don&#039;t imprison people for adultery.  The fact that he paid for it, however, was not harmful.  But that is what we have criminalized.  

This idea that, because we don&#039;t want something criminalized, we must not think it is bad is a frustrating misperception of libertarians.  It&#039;s doubly frustrating, because it&#039;s not a difficult distinction to make.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;ve completely misapprehended me.  At no point did I suggest there should be no social rejection or approbation for his conduct.  In fact, I think that&#8217;s precisely what should occur.  The libertarian position is not that private behavior is beyond reproach, but that private behavior that does not hurt others (as in, &#8220;violate the rights of others&#8221;, not &#8220;make them feel bad&#8221;) should not be illegal. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m quite sure his adultery hurt his family emotionally, but we don&#8217;t imprison people for adultery.  The fact that he paid for it, however, was not harmful.  But that is what we have criminalized.  </p>
<p>This idea that, because we don&#8217;t want something criminalized, we must not think it is bad is a frustrating misperception of libertarians.  It&#8217;s doubly frustrating, because it&#8217;s not a difficult distinction to make.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hootsbuddy</title>
		<link>http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/comment-page-1/#comment-11261</link>
		<dc:creator>Hootsbuddy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/#comment-11261</guid>
		<description>Excellent observations, Dr. Bob. I have the same misgivings about the indifference of doctrinaire libertarians to the consequences of bad choices that ricochet far beyond the immediate &quot;scene of the crime.&quot; It was Thomas Paine who said &quot;That governmnet is best that governs least&quot; which is a sentiment everyone can understand. But taken to its logical conclusion we have: &lt;em&gt;That governmnet is best of all that governs not at all&lt;/em&gt;, which is another way to describe anarchy. 

My heart aches more for children than for the adults in all these cases. It is well and good to condemn, even prosecute, those who argue that &quot;no one got hurt&quot; but what is best for those who looked to them as role models? And when can we expect children growing up in those situations to select and follow better examples?

I don&#039;t have good answers to these questions, but I know that at some point external constraints on what we like to call &quot;private&quot; matters are not only appropriate but necessary. Only two weeks ago I heard an elderly lady sweetly advancing the argument that if someone owned a restaurant and wanted to serve only blue-eyed people it should be their right and no one should tell them whom they should or should not serve. (We were talking about Lester Maddox, the famous segregationist restaurant owner and former governor of Georgia whom we both knew.) I haven&#039;t heard that kind of thinking since before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but there are people alive who still believe it in their hearts. 

I rather like the notion that America is made up of many states. If prostitution (or gambling or smoking dope whatever stripe of moral terpitude you like) is legal in one place but not in another I don&#039;t like it but I&#039;m not prepared to make those matters federally normative. In other communities or states those values (or lack of values) aren&#039;t acceptable so Americans have choices. If people come here from all over the world for whatever reasons, it&#039;s not unreasonable to suggest that those wanting a better place to live find a place they like better and move there or, failing that, define and protect boundaries in their local church, school, neighborhood or community.

In the end we will stand or fall as a society not because of laws crafted by politicians but according to values transmitted by our respective family units. If you think about it, some of our &quot;best families&quot; somehow grew from disreputable roots.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent observations, Dr. Bob. I have the same misgivings about the indifference of doctrinaire libertarians to the consequences of bad choices that ricochet far beyond the immediate &#8220;scene of the crime.&#8221; It was Thomas Paine who said &#8220;That governmnet is best that governs least&#8221; which is a sentiment everyone can understand. But taken to its logical conclusion we have: <em>That governmnet is best of all that governs not at all</em>, which is another way to describe anarchy. </p>
<p>My heart aches more for children than for the adults in all these cases. It is well and good to condemn, even prosecute, those who argue that &#8220;no one got hurt&#8221; but what is best for those who looked to them as role models? And when can we expect children growing up in those situations to select and follow better examples?</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t have good answers to these questions, but I know that at some point external constraints on what we like to call &#8220;private&#8221; matters are not only appropriate but necessary. Only two weeks ago I heard an elderly lady sweetly advancing the argument that if someone owned a restaurant and wanted to serve only blue-eyed people it should be their right and no one should tell them whom they should or should not serve. (We were talking about Lester Maddox, the famous segregationist restaurant owner and former governor of Georgia whom we both knew.) I haven&#8217;t heard that kind of thinking since before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but there are people alive who still believe it in their hearts. </p>
<p>I rather like the notion that America is made up of many states. If prostitution (or gambling or smoking dope whatever stripe of moral terpitude you like) is legal in one place but not in another I don&#8217;t like it but I&#8217;m not prepared to make those matters federally normative. In other communities or states those values (or lack of values) aren&#8217;t acceptable so Americans have choices. If people come here from all over the world for whatever reasons, it&#8217;s not unreasonable to suggest that those wanting a better place to live find a place they like better and move there or, failing that, define and protect boundaries in their local church, school, neighborhood or community.</p>
<p>In the end we will stand or fall as a society not because of laws crafted by politicians but according to values transmitted by our respective family units. If you think about it, some of our &#8220;best families&#8221; somehow grew from disreputable roots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hold Harmless</title>
		<link>http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/comment-page-1/#comment-11253</link>
		<dc:creator>Hold Harmless</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:02:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/03/11/hold-harmless/#comment-11253</guid>
		<description>[...] BlueGrassRoots wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerpt Todayâ€™s big viral buzz whipping around the web is, of course, the white-hot story about Elliott Spitzer. This storyâ€™s got it all: power, politics, arrogance, big money, sex. Now, Spitzer is not one of those fellows much on my radar screen â€” just another power-hungry prosecutor who hacked his way through peopleâ€™s lives in his climb to the top: think Mike Nifong, only luckier â€” at least up until now. Canâ€™t make an omelet without breaking some eggs, now, can you? Perhaps there is truly Karma in th [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] BlueGrassRoots wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerpt Todayâ€™s big viral buzz whipping around the web is, of course, the white-hot story about Elliott Spitzer. This storyâ€™s got it all: power, politics, arrogance, big money, sex. Now, Spitzer is not one of those fellows much on my radar screen â€” just another power-hungry prosecutor who hacked his way through peopleâ€™s lives in his climb to the top: think Mike Nifong, only luckier â€” at least up until now. Canâ€™t make an omelet without breaking some eggs, now, can you? Perhaps there is truly Karma in th [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

