Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.

Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy.

Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.

Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy.

Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.

Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy.

Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.

Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy.

Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.

Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy.

This is no different than rejecting creationism as an alternative to science. In both cases it’s one group (us) saying to another group (radical Islamists or creationists) that their system is not consistent with our values.

All I’m saying is that there are certain baselines for civil society, and that we shouldn’t allow divergent cults to move off in separate directions for the sake of freedom.

Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.

At what point does this become a bad idea?

Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy. That means not allowing Muhammadans to take over giant swaths of your country and start poisoning the minds of their children. Does this mean making judgements? Yes. So be it. And it’s the same with creationism or any other harmful ideology.

Stopping them from going along their natural course is bad, but the alternative is far, far worse.

This is no different than rejecting creationism as an alternative to science. In both cases it’s one group (us) saying to another group (radical Islamists or creationists) that their system is not consistent with our values.

All I’m saying is that there are certain baselines for civil society, and that we shouldn’t allow divergent cults to move off in separate directions for the sake of freedom.

Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.

At what point does this become a bad idea?

Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy. That means not allowing Muhammadans to take over giant swaths of your country and start poisoning the minds of their children. Does this mean making judgements? Yes. So be it. And it’s the same with creationism or any other harmful ideology.

Stopping them from going along their natural course is bad, but the alternative is far, far worse.

This is no different than rejecting creationism as an alternative to science. In both cases it’s one group (us) saying to another group (radical Islamists or creationists) that their system is not consistent with our values.

All I’m saying is that there are certain baselines for civil society, and that we shouldn’t allow divergent cults to move off in separate directions for the sake of freedom.

Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.

At what point does this become a bad idea?

Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy. That means not allowing Muhammadans to take over giant swaths of your country and start poisoning the minds of their children. Does this mean making judgements? Yes. So be it. And it’s the same with creationism or any other harmful ideology.

Stopping them from going along their natural course is bad, but the alternative is far, far worse.

This is no different than rejecting creationism as an alternative to science. In both cases it’s one group (us) saying to another group (radical Islamists or creationists) that their system is not consistent with our values.

All I’m saying is that there are certain baselines for civil society, and that we shouldn’t allow divergent cults to move off in separate directions for the sake of freedom.

Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.

At what point does this become a bad idea?

Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy. That means not allowing Muhammadans to take over giant swaths of your country and start poisoning the minds of their children. Does this mean making judgements? Yes. So be it. And it’s the same with creationism or any other harmful ideology.

Stopping them from going along their natural course is bad, but the alternative is far, far worse.

Daniel, what do you have against greed? My definition of greed is the ambition to get a better deal and life for yourself and your group/family/company. Greed isn’t synonymous with corruption. Corruption is still horrible, but corruption is more often caused because of government intervention and regulation. If you would like a better description google “milton friedman greed”.

I don’t buy the “road to good intentions …” bit because I don’t blame a guy for trying to good and anything can be considered a “slippery slope”. But it just seems like so many issues, family problems, business management conflicts, network security, and political debates involve situations where problems are best tackled at the lowest level possible (locally, or at least State level for example). Let Californians have gay marriages, abortions and let Georgia have creationism in the class room and the commandments on their buildings. Eventually the states in between can look at both sides and say: “Hmm abortions are working out fine for them, there doesn’t seem to be any big problems there and it turns out the commandments had no effect on church-vs-state issues. But the creationism totally failed so we won’t do that.” And then eventually Georgia can look around and say “Hmm I guess the creationism thing ended up being a bad idea”. As long as constitutional rights aren’t being violated, the Fed should deal with their own problems.

Probably the biggest issue, though, is the financial “disaster”. Libertarians say “let the market do its thing and it will work out” and everyone else disagrees. So let some states regulate their business and let some states ride it out. Some businesses will fail and some will move but at least the large scale risk from both “Socialism” and “Pure unadulterated Capitalistic Greed” is somewhat mitigated.

Daniel, what do you have against greed? My definition of greed is the ambition to get a better deal and life for yourself and your group/family/company. Greed isn’t synonymous with corruption. Corruption is still horrible, but corruption is more often caused because of government intervention and regulation. If you would like a better description google “milton friedman greed”.

I don’t buy the “road to good intentions …” bit because I don’t blame a guy for trying to good and anything can be considered a “slippery slope”. But it just seems like so many issues, family problems, business management conflicts, network security, and political debates involve situations where problems are best tackled at the lowest level possible (locally, or at least State level for example). Let Californians have gay marriages, abortions and let Georgia have creationism in the class room and the commandments on their buildings. Eventually the states in between can look at both sides and say: “Hmm abortions are working out fine for them, there doesn’t seem to be any big problems there and it turns out the commandments had no effect on church-vs-state issues. But the creationism totally failed so we won’t do that.” And then eventually Georgia can look around and say “Hmm I guess the creationism thing ended up being a bad idea”. As long as constitutional rights aren’t being violated, the Fed should deal with their own problems.

Probably the biggest issue, though, is the financial “disaster”. Libertarians say “let the market do its thing and it will work out” and everyone else disagrees. So let some states regulate their business and let some states ride it out. Some businesses will fail and some will move but at least the large scale risk from both “Socialism” and “Pure unadulterated Capitalistic Greed” is somewhat mitigated.

Daniel, what do you have against greed? My definition of greed is the ambition to get a better deal and life for yourself and your group/family/company. Greed isn’t synonymous with corruption. Corruption is still horrible, but corruption is more often caused because of government intervention and regulation. If you would like a better description google “milton friedman greed”.

I don’t buy the “road to good intentions …” bit because I don’t blame a guy for trying to good and anything can be considered a “slippery slope”. But it just seems like so many issues, family problems, business management conflicts, network security, and political debates involve situations where problems are best tackled at the lowest level possible (locally, or at least State level for example). Let Californians have gay marriages, abortions and let Georgia have creationism in the class room and the commandments on their buildings. Eventually the states in between can look at both sides and say: “Hmm abortions are working out fine for them, there doesn’t seem to be any big problems there and it turns out the commandments had no effect on church-vs-state issues. But the creationism totally failed so we won’t do that.” And then eventually Georgia can look around and say “Hmm I guess the creationism thing ended up being a bad idea”. As long as constitutional rights aren’t being violated, the Fed should deal with their own problems.

Probably the biggest issue, though, is the financial “disaster”. Libertarians say “let the market do its thing and it will work out” and everyone else disagrees. So let some states regulate their business and let some states ride it out. Some businesses will fail and some will move but at least the large scale risk from both “Socialism” and “Pure unadulterated Capitalistic Greed” is somewhat mitigated.

Daniel, what do you have against greed? My definition of greed is the ambition to get a better deal and life for yourself and your group/family/company. Greed isn’t synonymous with corruption. Corruption is still horrible, but corruption is more often caused because of government intervention and regulation. If you would like a better description google “milton friedman greed”.

I don’t buy the “road to good intentions …” bit because I don’t blame a guy for trying to good and anything can be considered a “slippery slope”. But it just seems like so many issues, family problems, business management conflicts, network security, and political debates involve situations where problems are best tackled at the lowest level possible (locally, or at least State level for example). Let Californians have gay marriages, abortions and let Georgia have creationism in the class room and the commandments on their buildings. Eventually the states in between can look at both sides and say: “Hmm abortions are working out fine for them, there doesn’t seem to be any big problems there and it turns out the commandments had no effect on church-vs-state issues. But the creationism totally failed so we won’t do that.” And then eventually Georgia can look around and say “Hmm I guess the creationism thing ended up being a bad idea”. As long as constitutional rights aren’t being violated, the Fed should deal with their own problems.

Probably the biggest issue, though, is the financial “disaster”. Libertarians say “let the market do its thing and it will work out” and everyone else disagrees. So let some states regulate their business and let some states ride it out. Some businesses will fail and some will move but at least the large scale risk from both “Socialism” and “Pure unadulterated Capitalistic Greed” is somewhat mitigated.

Daniel, what do you have against greed? My definition of greed is the ambition to get a better deal and life for yourself and your group/family/company. Greed isn’t synonymous with corruption. Corruption is still horrible, but corruption is more often caused because of government intervention and regulation. If you would like a better description google “milton friedman greed”.

I don’t buy the “road to good intentions …” bit because I don’t blame a guy for trying to good and anything can be considered a “slippery slope”. But it just seems like so many issues, family problems, business management conflicts, network security, and political debates involve situations where problems are best tackled at the lowest level possible (locally, or at least State level for example). Let Californians have gay marriages, abortions and let Georgia have creationism in the class room and the commandments on their buildings. Eventually the states in between can look at both sides and say: “Hmm abortions are working out fine for them, there doesn’t seem to be any big problems there and it turns out the commandments had no effect on church-vs-state issues. But the creationism totally failed so we won’t do that.” And then eventually Georgia can look around and say “Hmm I guess the creationism thing ended up being a bad idea”. As long as constitutional rights aren’t being violated, the Fed should deal with their own problems.

Probably the biggest issue, though, is the financial “disaster”. Libertarians say “let the market do its thing and it will work out” and everyone else disagrees. So let some states regulate their business and let some states ride it out. Some businesses will fail and some will move but at least the large scale risk from both “Socialism” and “Pure unadulterated Capitalistic Greed” is somewhat mitigated.

Daniel, what do you have against greed? My definition of greed is the ambition to get a better deal and life for yourself and your group/family/company. Greed isn’t synonymous with corruption. Corruption is still horrible, but corruption is more often caused because of government intervention and regulation. If you would like a better description google “milton friedman greed”.

I don’t buy the “road to good intentions …” bit because I don’t blame a guy for trying to good and anything can be considered a “slippery slope”. But it just seems like so many issues, family problems, business management conflicts, network security, and political debates involve situations where problems are best tackled at the lowest level possible (locally, or at least State level for example). Let Californians have gay marriages, abortions and let Georgia have creationism in the class room and the commandments on their buildings. Eventually the states in between can look at both sides and say: “Hmm abortions are working out fine for them, there doesn’t seem to be any big problems there and it turns out the commandments had no effect on church-vs-state issues. But the creationism totally failed so we won’t do that.” And then eventually Georgia can look around and say “Hmm I guess the creationism thing ended up being a bad idea”. As long as constitutional rights aren’t being violated, the Fed should deal with their own problems.

Probably the biggest issue, though, is the financial “disaster”. Libertarians say “let the market do its thing and it will work out” and everyone else disagrees. So let some states regulate their business and let some states ride it out. Some businesses will fail and some will move but at least the large scale risk from both “Socialism” and “Pure unadulterated Capitalistic Greed” is somewhat mitigated.

Daniel, what do you have against greed? My definition of greed is the ambition to get a better deal and life for yourself and your group/family/company. Greed isn’t synonymous with corruption. Corruption is still horrible, but corruption is more often caused because of government intervention and regulation. If you would like a better description google “milton friedman greed”.

I don’t buy the “road to good intentions …” bit because I don’t blame a guy for trying to good and anything can be considered a “slippery slope”. But it just seems like so many issues, family problems, business management conflicts, network security, and political debates involve situations where problems are best tackled at the lowest level possible (locally, or at least State level for example). Let Californians have gay marriages, abortions and let Georgia have creationism in the class room and the commandments on their buildings. Eventually the states in between can look at both sides and say: “Hmm abortions are working out fine for them, there doesn’t seem to be any big problems there and it turns out the commandments had no effect on church-vs-state issues. But the creationism totally failed so we won’t do that.” And then eventually Georgia can look around and say “Hmm I guess the creationism thing ended up being a bad idea”. As long as constitutional rights aren’t being violated, the Fed should deal with their own problems.

Probably the biggest issue, though, is the financial “disaster”. Libertarians say “let the market do its thing and it will work out” and everyone else disagrees. So let some states regulate their business and let some states ride it out. Some businesses will fail and some will move but at least the large scale risk from both “Socialism” and “Pure unadulterated Capitalistic Greed” is somewhat mitigated.