Man Made Super-Flu Could Kill Half Humanity
A virus with the potential to kill up to half the world’s population has been made in a lab. Now academics and bio-terrorism experts are arguing over whether to publish the recipe, and whether the research should have been done in the first place.
Have we reached the limits of free speech? Discuss.
Some concluding remarks from Martin Luther’s The Bondage of the Will.
Sect. CLXVII.
I SHALL here draw this book to a conclusion: prepared if it were necessary to pursue this Discussion still farther. Though I consider that I have now abundantly satisfied the godly man, who wishes to believe the truth without making resistance. For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess;) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no “Free-will” — in man, — in angel, — or in any creature!
Hence: — If we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing as — “Free-will!”
Again: — If we believe that original sin has so destroyed us, that even in the godly who are led by the Spirit, it causes the utmost molestation by striving against that which is good; it is manifest, that there can be nothing left in a man devoid of the Spirit, which can turn itself towards good, but which must turn towards evil!
Again: — If the Jews, who followed after righteousness with all their powers, ran rather into unrighteousness, while the Gentiles who followed after unrighteousness attained unto a free righteousness which they never hoped for; it is equally manifest, from their very works, and from experience, that man, without grace, can do nothing but will evil!
Finally: — If we believe that Christ redeemed men by His blood, we are compelled to confess, that the whole man was lost: otherwise, we shall make Christ superfluous, or a Redeemer of the grossest part of man only, — which is blasphemy and sacrilege!
To do evil is to act against God’s will.
If we live in a deterministic universe then everything that happens is God’s will.
If everything that happens is God’s will then there is no evil.
We do evil.
Therefore we do act against God’s will and we do not not live in a deterministic universe.
A Socially conscientious face book friend asked me …. “just curious, what is your view on schooling? do you think it is something that should be the states responsibility to provide or the parents responsibility to provide/find an appropriate organization to provide it for them? just curious as to what you thought :)”
As this is a very important topic, I think it is appropriate to post my response here for discussion.
It is a brief overview of my position as a Kiwi Libertarian who has had a guts full of the absolute BS that goes for education in this country…
My reply…
This is a subject of the highest importance.
The reality is that when you clearly define what are the proper duties of Government, things like Education and Health fall outside the proper domain of political coercion and governmental responsibility.
In fact it is very dangerous to grant politicians power and control over such things.
Before the advent of ‘State education’ schooling was fast growing as a successful private institution, and when the Socialists wanted to nationalize schooling, enlightened minds rightly recoiled at this knowing the State would inevitably use the education system to indoctrinate the population with it’s own political agenda… and this is exactly what has happened. eg All the false propaganda about European colonization of New Zealand, and the treaty as being a partnership etc.
Another example is all the ‘Green / climate change propaganda’ creating a generation of sheeple whom will allow the government to tyrannize over their lives and the economy under the guise of ‘Caring for dolphins, etc’.
Intellectual Giant. The Self-educated Individualist/ Libertarian Herbert Spencer.
He warned of the inevitable evils which would follow in the wake of the State Nationalisation of education… and time has absolutely vindicated his prophesies!
His ‘The Man vs the State’ is a must read.
The ‘Indoctrination system’ has created generations of Sheeple who today think it’s the states job to ‘mother’/ nanny everyone and that all life’s problems have political solutions… and thus ought to be regulated.
There is a constant bleating about ‘too much liberty… not enough State control’.
Plus because the state monopoly virtually eliminates the virtues of ‘Free-market’ forces/ competition the system tends to stagnate, whereas the dymanics of free-market competition always seeks to improve the value it supplies to its consumers so as to increase its market share.
Thus the free-market in Education would produce the highest value for the lowest cost.
Conversely it was recently calculated that our State system sucks $9 out of every $10 into it’s bureaucracy with only $1 going on to actually educating our kids.
Thus there is potential for huge cost savings to the NZ public whom are still under the delusion that education is ‘free’ in this country when in fact they pay exorbitant amounts via taxation.
Furthermore there is an entrenched ‘Soviet’ unionized mentality within the Collectivized Teaching fraternity who seek to aviod the ‘horrors’ of Free market quality controls, and instead maintain themselves as a state bureaucracy…. resisting reform.
The prevailing political ideology of teachers in this country are die hard advocates of totalitarian control of everything.
Then you have the Ministry of Education playing God, deciding what will be taught to you kids,… what values are taught robbing parents to their rights to choose what they believe is in the best interest of the children.
The whole business stinks to high heaven, yet the sheeple have been so successfully indoctrinated to believe that ‘our system is wonderful, and that privatization will mean poor kids will miss out’ that the very notion of removing the state from education is absolutely unconscionable.
The Proper duty of government is strictly limited to upholding the Natural rights and liberties of the individual, not implementing socialist agendas… not social engineering.
Yet because this limited sphere of operation severely restricts political power, and maximizes self responsibility, the power tripping politicians will always attempt to overstep the bounds of legitimate political intervention, using emotive excuses to justify their usurpations, and the sheeple who don’t like self responsibility will vote for politicians who offer to ‘mummy’ them… and tax others to pay for things which they themselves ought to pay.
Socialism is one great big tit sucking scam where people are under the delusion that they are getting something for nothing.
The reality is Socialism is chronically ‘top heavy’, shuns progressive innovation and is bankrupt!
Yet how are enlightened self educated folk like myself supposed to get the truth across to the masses in the face of the multi Billion dollar multi headed hydra of State Indoctrination and media… whom constantly preach that freedom is bad and state power is good?
We are said to be radicals whom ought to be simply ignored.
The Beast reigns!
Tim Wikiriwhi
Libertarian.
More Contemplations here: Why Mandatory State Education?
Read how State Education has ‘Lobotomised’ the so-called Free Press Here:
Read how State indoctrination has bred a lust for Socialist Nannism and disregard for personal liberty and self responciblity Here:
Blaming you, that’s what. It’s your fault!
I’m fast coming around to the view that the Socialist Salvation Army expresses like this.
our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.
This is the doctrine of original sin. It was Adam (and Eve) who committed the orginal sin, but you have inherited that sin. You were born bad. Free will is commonly believed to be a precondition of moral agency and moral responsibility, but it’s not. Just as well, since we don’t have free will!
Contrary to popular opinion, moral responsibility is not consequent upon our actions (whether freely chosen or otherwise). Moral responsibility is not gotten through acts of commission or omission. In fact, it’s a matter of give and take. You are morally responsible if you are justly held accountable by other people (including God) or if you rightly take responsibility yourself for your own (or other people’s) actions.
The view I have just expressed is not a popular one. It gets intransigent atheists, in particular, in a real lather. Here‘s Ayn Rand.
The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.
The doctrine of original sin squares the existence of morality with the non-existence of free will.
The doctrine of original sin is Biblically sound, whereas the doctrine of free will is not (notwithstanding that it’s a very popular theodicy).
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (NIV)
“It’s mine too! Even though I live in a socialist Bananna State 13000 miles away from the US!
I can claim this because the 2nd embodies a universal truth.
And my claim does not rest upon the recognition of the Beehive.
It rests upon my inalienable rights which are mine even if the tyrants in wellington refuse to endorse them.”
Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot sweep it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of one’s house for love,
it would be utterly scorned. (NIV)
To compromise between right and wrong is to choose wrong.
To compromise between just and unjust is to choose injustice.
I was speaking with a professional mediator/arbitrator tonight and he threw this supposedly wise saying into the conversation.
It takes two to tango.
The meaning of the saying is that whenever there is a dispute both parties are at least partly at fault. The saying is false. It is possible for one party to be entirely in the right but he has ruled out this possibility beforehand.
Where to find people who will judge righteously?
Since August 2011, Peter Dunne has banned 30 synthetic cannabinoids by issuing Temporary Class Drug Notices. These are published in the New Zealand Gazette, “the official newspaper of the Government of New Zealand.” Here’s an example.
Pursuant to section 4C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, I give notice that the following substances are classified as temporary class drugs:
CB-13
1-naphthalen-1-yl-(4-pentyloxynaphthalen-1-yl)methanone
MAM-2201
(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(4-methyl-1-naphthalenyl)-methanone
AKB48
N-(1-adamantyl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
XLR11
(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone
This notice will take effect on 13 July 2012 and will expire on 13 July 2013, unless cancelled or renewed as specified in section 4E of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Dated at Wellington this 2nd day of July 2012.
HON PETER DUNNE, Associate Minister of Health.
The legislation enabling the issuance of Temporary Class Drug Notices was the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act (No 2) 2011, which became law on 9 August 2011. Let’s take a closer look at what it says.
4C Temporary class drug notice
(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, specify any substance, preparation, mixture, or article as a temporary class drug.
(2) The Minister must not give notice under subsection (1) if the substance, preparation, mixture, or article is a Class A controlled drug, a Class B controlled drug, a Class C controlled drug, a precursor substance, or a restricted substance (as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005).
(3) The Minister must not give notice under subsection (1) unless he or she is satisfied that the substance, preparation, mixture, or article that is to be specified in the notice poses, or may pose, a risk of harm to individuals, or to society.
(4) A notice under subsection (1) may describe the substance, preparation, mixture, or article by any 1 or more of the following:
(a) its chemical name, or 1 of its chemical names:
(b) its product name:
(c) a description of the substance, preparation, mixture, or article, in the form that the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of the notice.
(5) A notice under subsection (1) must state the date on which the notice comes into force.
(6) The date specified under subsection (5) must not be earlier than 7 days after the date of the publication of the notice in the Gazette.
4D Effect of temporary class drug notice
(1) Except as provided in this section, a temporary class drug is to be treated, while the temporary class drug notice remains in force, in the same way as if the drug were a controlled drug that is specified or described in Part 1 of Schedule 3.
(2) A temporary class drug specified or described in a temporary class drug notice is not to be added to any schedule of this Act while the notice is in force.
(3) Despite section 7(1), it is not an offence for a person, in relation to a temporary class drug, to do either or both of the following while the temporary class drug notice relating to that drug is in force:
(a) to possess for his or her own use less than 56 grams in total of any products (including cigarettes), or any drug forms (including flakes, tablets, or capsules), each containing some quantity of that temporary class drug:
(b) to use that temporary class drug.
(4) Possession by a person of 56 grams or more in total of any products (including cigarettes), or any drug forms (including flakes, tablets, or capsules), each containing some quantity of that temporary class drug is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as possession by that person of an amount, level, or quantity at and over which a controlled drug that is specified or described in Part 1 of Schedule 3 is presumed to be for supply.
(5) A substance that has a structure substantially similar to a temporary class drug is not to be treated as a controlled drug analogue by reason only of that similarity.
(6) While a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Minister must seek advice, as he or she considers appropriate, under section 5 or 5AA, or both, in relation to the temporary class drug and its appropriate classification, if any (including as a precursor substance, or as a restricted substance as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005), under this Act.
(7) As soon as possible after the publication of a temporary class drug notice in the Gazette, and while a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Director-General of Health must ensure that the notice, and information about its effects, is available—
(a) on the Ministry of Health’s Internet site, in an electronic form that is publicly accessible; and
(b) in any other way that the Director-General considers appropriate in the circumstances.
(8) Despite the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989, a temporary class drug notice is not to be treated as a regulation for the purposes of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989.
4E Duration of temporary class drug notice
(1) A temporary class drug notice expires at the earliest of—
(a) the close of the day that is 1 year after the date on which the notice came into force; or
(b) the date on which the substance, preparation, mixture, or article is—
(i) classified as a Class A controlled drug; or
(ii) classified as a Class B controlled drug; or
(iii) classified as a Class C controlled drug; or
(iv) added to Schedule 4 as a precursor substance; or
(v) classified as a restricted substance (as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005); or
(c) its revocation by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.
(2) A temporary class drug notice may be renewed by the Minister—
(a) prior to the date of its expiry as calculated under subsection (1); and
(b) on 1 occasion only; and
(c) only for the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Minister to obtain the advice that is to be sought under section 4D(6).
Did you pay special attention to the highlighted bits?
According to 4C(3), since August 2011 Peter Dunne has been satisfied 30 different times that a particular substance poses, or may pose, a risk of harm to individuals, or to society. Well, it’s nice to know that someone’s getting some satisfaction.
Now, according to 4D(6), “while a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Minister must seek advice, as he or she considers appropriate, under section 5 or 5AA, or both, in relation to the temporary class drug and its appropriate classification, if any (including as a precursor substance, or as a restricted substance as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005), under this Act.” What advice did Peter Dunne consider it appropriate to seek, regarding the 30 substances he’s banned? He must have sought it. So what was it?
So far, Peter Dunne has renewed all his Temporary Class Drug Notices issued in 2011, prior to their expiry. Note that, according to 4E(2), this is only for the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Minister to obtain the advice that is to be sought under section 4D(6). Peter Dunne must be seeking lots of advice. Otherwise, what’s taking him so long?
You know what I think? I don’t think Dunne’s been keeping his side of the deal at all. I’m going to ask him to find out.
