Dear Charles Howard,

I am surprised at your reply. Should I interpret the fact that you
chose to pay attention to only one sentence as a strong disagreement
on that topic?

You put forth roughly a dozen new questions. You presented no
argument whatsoever, and but a single opinion (or working assumption).
What about the questions you posed before, to which I offered reply?
I see no point in tackling a whole raft of new questions if my
replies to your questions will be ignored.

My comment about the minor importance of the meaning of words was to
caution against mistaking definitions as the stuff from which
intellectual problems are solved. I certainly was not suggesting that
I have some priviliged position from which to decree what is or is not
important, nor what shall or shall not be under discussion. In fact,
my reply *included* consideration for the questions of terminology you
raised. I am willing to discuss that, and sometimes it is worthwhile.
I just wanted to clarify from the start that attention should be
focused on propositions and problems, not definitions and meanings.


Tracy B. Harms


--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Charles Howard
<ozarkheretic@y...> wrote:
> "Tracy B. Harms" <t_b_harms@y...> wrote:
> --- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Charles Howard
> <ozarkheretic@y...> wrote:
> > Good points, Tracy. Notice how we are debating the meaning
> > and connotation of words. What does it mean to "regulate"?
>
> This does not seem an important aspect of our discussion, to me.
>
> What does not seem to be an important aspect of our discussion? Are
we only going to discuss "important aspects of our discussion"? Who
is to decide what's important and what is less important, or not
important?
>
>
>
> I am interested in "liberty" and "freedom". Should people be free
to do whatever they want if what they do is not a crime? Let's agree
that they can. What should be a crime? Should society put
restrictions on a person's reproduction and if a person does not obey
those restrictions, should his conduct be deemed to be a crime?
Should there be limits on the number of children that a woman should
be allowed to bear? If the woman is destitute, should she be allowed
to have children? One, two, three,.... ten? Does each child become a
ward of the state? Does the child have a right to expect the state to
take care of it if his mother (or father) will not take care of it? To
what extent should "responsible" people have money taken from them,
that they might use to take care of their own children, to be used to
take care of children of men and women who don't take care of their
children? Should irresponsible men and women not be allowed to
reproduce? Is the number of children whose
> parents do not make a true effort to take care of them becoming a
problem in society? American society? How about other countries?
>
>
>