bradw2k

This misinterprets the principle of the onus of proof. When a claim is arbitrary (has no evidence), then there is no way to give evidence *that* is has no evidence -- that's the meaning of this principle. It most certainly does not mean that the *opposite* claim is true. Every statement is a claim to knowledge that must be justified, including the statement that theocracy "will not and cannot happen" (post 49). The epistemological "negative" of "theocracy is possible" is not "theocracy is impossible" but "there is no evidence that theocracy is possible" -- and this is what one has no need to prove beyond stating it, when it is true. But it's not true. The reason no one can prove theocracy cannot happen within 50 years is because such would deny the volition of hundreds of millions of people, half of whom have not yet been born. Regards, Brad Williams

Betsy, I don't read Peikoff's statement as a prediction of what "will" happen, but of what is made more likely by those who support the Right. His statement as quoted in this thread implies that theocracy within 50 years will be a real, significant possibility if the Right stays in power -- that's it. If he says more than this about the magnitude of the possibility, it's not in the supplied quote. As for theocracy within 50 years being impossible or even nearly impossible, as some are saying, on the contrary history doesn't follow a nice slope in which one can know such things. Perhaps a political trend may occur smoothly for a few decades -- but when a big change occurs, it happens very fast and no one sees it coming. For this reason, discussions about the rate of pro-religious legislation in the last several decades simply do not add up to the knowledge that theocracy can't happen in the next five decades. To say theocracy can't happen in the US is about as justified as saying that it will happen -- if anybody actually said that. Regards, Brad Williams

I agree in the sense that it is a somewhat complicated measure: it allows the parents to sue a doctor for performing an abortion on a girl over 15 should he not inform them via certified mail at least 48 hours prior, unless the girl has privately requested a board for an exception, and the board has assigned a judge within 3 days ... etc etc. It fills two pages in the voter's pamphlet. Some states already require notification of some sort, and some states require explicit parental approval. However, the fundamental in all this complexity and in all of these cases is the notion that parents have some right to challenge their daughter's wish to free herself of an enormous burden. This notion is monstrous. I think it is cut and dry that in all the possible ways to legally handle this issue, by far the worst violation of rights would follow when a girl is compelled to continue her pregnancy, give birth, and become a parent against her wishes unencumbered by the "guidance" of guardians whose agenda may be religious or abusive. I brought this up originally as an example of the kind of political poison that the right will be bringing into Oregon in the coming years, thanks to population projections which translate to an expanding base of support here. On every ballot I can remember in Oregon there has been something attacking gays, abortion rights, etc. Unfortunately such measures may get the votes they need in a few years. This is supporting evidence for why I don't think it is wise to minimize the threat of Christian politics. Regards, Brad Williams

It is also relevant to ask if a 17-year-old girl can be expected to make a responsible judgment about her body and the rest of her life, about not wanting to become a parent yet, even when her parents disagree. It is the young woman who may pay for the rest of her life if she is forced to go full term, not her parents. I think consideration of such facts is more important than is maintaining consistency with the necessarily arbitrary standard of full legal independence at 18 years of age. Regards, Brad Williams

A threat is, by definition, a potential danger. And I think it is anyone's guess which is more likely in the coming decades: that an American woman will be denied an abortion by Christians, or that she will be killed by Muslims. More immediately, a current ballot measure in my state would require teenage girls to have parental permission to obtain an abortion. As Oregon becomes more and more "red," I expect measures like this to pass in the near future, if not this election. It doesn't take a perfect theocracy to ruin your life, a little religion applied at just the right spot in the system will do. I also question the premise that the Republicans are a more effective defense, in either the short- or long-term, against the Islamic totalitarians than would be the Democrats (which is to say: not much). I wonder if this is the fundamental issue over which Objectivists disagree at election time. My view is that thousands of Americans have been killed fighting the current administration's altruistic, Islam-supporting wars. And yet victory with this strategy, inspired in part by our Command-in-Chief's communion with God, is inconceivable. Regards, Brad Williams

Mr. Salsman, There is a lot of recent economic doomsday talk in the popular media (books, magazines, and web sites -- just try googling "peak oil") based on the notion that oil prices are going to start becoming dramatically and irrevocably higher in just a few years. What do you make of these proclamations, and what is a realistic outlook? Regards, Brad Williams