this is an interesting notion.
and while you may think it, i doubt you live by this.
which then completely undoes everything you say per say. If you arent willing to walk the walk, then we can all give the go ahead about idealisms.
but this isn't a dig, and i'm sure you are smart enough to understand this without it being discussed further.
i just found it interesting.
Why would you doubt I live this way? I mean the only way I could really live contrary to my belief would be if I was in government and told people how to live their life, or voted in a way that would indicate I want to tell people how to live their life, or boss around friends and girlfriends and tell them how to live their life. I don't do any of that.
In fact I work in government and stand by libertarian principles that are in no way popular and in fact serve to hinder the ease with which I may rise. Being in Washington and being a Ron Paul supporter is not easy. But its right. So I do it.
You are right, I am smart enough to understand how much hypocrisy can undermine a belief. Thats why I actively work every day to live life as I think it should be lived. Its worked well for me so far.
Norman you must have far more faith in people and their intellect/decision making ability than I do. The market does not cure all.
Its not a matter of faith in people. It's a matter of common sense.
You can't force people to be good, they have to chose to be good. Thats why drug laws don't work. Banning heroine and crack and cocaine, criminalizing prostitution, mandating religious practice - it doesn't change what people do.
You are right, the market doesn't "cure all", but that's not its purpose. Its not the purpose of economics to make people moral.
the thing is that his notion would ultimately lead back to one similar to this one if it was allowed to be implemented. society goes through swings and roundabouts with liberal and conservative view points.
the real truth is that neither option necessarily works in their extremeties.
It's not a matter of liberal or conservative. I could be called both.
Again, human interaction should be voluntary - and when that happens, the political leanings of government are irrelevant. People should use their own reason to make decisions, there is no good from having government bureaucrats make such decisions for them.
We shouldn't protect people from the consequences of their thoughts and actions.
there's no real sexual connotation to these garments either, they are just designer undies for kids.
the article is somewhat written in a radical manner to stir up trouble me thinks.
if anything the issue isn't with the garments rather the way one of the models look in her pics. if a different type of picture was taken, then it wouldn't be an issue.
i'm personally not a fan of kids wearing make up but then if i wanted to make that point, i would look at beauty pagents for younger children etc.
i would say this is on that level but no worse.
This further helps my case. These garments possess no threat to the soul of humanity, yet people want to treat them like a great evil. Its ridiculous.
Let people make decisions for themselves. Bad products with no appeal don't sell on the market by the mere fact they exist. There is no danger from a product no one wants.
). 
