Libertarianism - Page 11

There's the rudeness again.  For someone who's so uptight about language and manners, you sure don't show any.  Here, look, I did you the courtesy of copying my response from the other thread.  I did answer your dumb question.  You just choose not to accept it.

 

Let me let you in on a little secret...government...is made of...PEOPLE.  Look, you have every right to do your best to convince enough people that government sucks and we should strip it away entirely.  But in the meantime...while your ideas are nowhere close to mainstream...how about we work together to fix some of the things we can--starting with some of these "band-aids" you so callously call them.  The parents who have lost custody of their adopted children because the state never recognized their marriages don't see these changes as "band-aids."  The people who could not be with their spouses in their last hours because they were barred visitation don't see these changes as "band-aids."  Nor should you.

 

 

Finally! Congratulations. I know why you've avoided it for so long (and I suspect you do also).

 

You want the government to recognize the relationships so it can force others to recognize them too and to force people to take specific actions as result of that recognition. Which is you wanting to force your morality onto everyone.

No, you are forcing your morality on others by barring spouses from seeing each other in the waning moments of one of their lives.  How insanely twisted are you?  You are inhuman.  That is some real Nazi shit there.  Yes, I went there...because it's just that despicable.

 

I say let loved ones say goodbye to each other and I'M SOMEHOW IN THE WRONG?  Are you out of your motherfucking goddamned mind?

 

Wow.  Up is down.  Black is white.  War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  I don't want your dystopia anywhere near me.

I'm going to make a rare appearance here to address some complete and utter bullshit.

MJ, you say you stand for individual freedom. Exactly whose individual freedom was taken away by allowing a same sex couple to adopt a child? Exactly whose freedom is taken away when you allow a man to visit his dying husband in the hospital? You're criticizing BR for wanting the government to impose his morals on people by allowing these things to happen?

Now, were any individual freedoms taken away by the new law that reversed the freedom that allowed these adoptions and hospital visits? Absolutely. Were any individual freedoms given because of this law? To anyone? No.

Do you honestly oppose reversal of an action that very clearly took away individual freedoms from many and gave individual freedoms to none?

Why? Because the means aren't justified by the ends? What's wrong with the means? Not legal (according to you)? If you believe that, then how can you support any civil disobedience, ever?

You've said many times here that using civil disobedience to overturn bad laws is fully justified.

So, if what the judges did was legal, then the outcome was good (more individual freedoms) and a bad law was overturned.

If what the judges did was not legal, then effectively, what they did was to use civil disobedience (in the clever guise of a legal decision) to overturn a bad law, and the end result was again, more individual freedoms.

Unless you think this is not a bad law, and more individual freedoms isn't always a good thing? Is that what you think?

Keep in mind that no one ever in history is being forced to act against their moral beliefs by gay marriage being made legal. If your moral belief is that gay marriage is wrong you 100% have the right to act on your moral beliefs. By not marrying someone of the same sex as you. No one will ever take that right away from you.

Or is is it that what you really want is to be able to take away other people's freedom to make their own decision on their own moral beliefs, in the guise of your 'freedom' to discriminate against those people?
Edited by tonton - 4/26/12 at 3:11am

Well, MJ's "freedom" to institutionally treat others as subhuman was taken away.  His "freedom" to have the government use its guns to cause misery against a group of people who he considers abominations was revoked.  He lost his "freedom" to have his morally bankrupt stone age code of conduct determine who is fit to love and who isn't.  Good fucking riddance to those "freedoms."

 

Good riddance to the American Taliban.

 

 

No. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm not proposing forcing anyone to do anything. You, however, are. I'm a little amazed that you're unable to see this.

 

 

 

And now to the name-calling again.

 

 

 

It is you who are highly and deeply confused here. I think that loved ones should be allowed to say goodbye to one another also. I'm not forcing anyone to not do that. You are confused and mistaken in thinking this.

 

Let me try to see if I can clarify this.

 

Who is preventing love ones from saying goodbye to each other?

 

 

 

Wow.

 

What the **** are you talking about? What you are saying here is an utterly insane interpretation of everything I've said here. You are lying here based on the caricature of me you have fabricated in your mind.

 

I've never seen a more bizarrely incorrect interpretation in my life.

 

I have never argued for "institutionally treating others as subhuman?" You however do when you support the right to kill a human in the womb.

 

I don't advocate "having the government use its guns against" anyone! You however do when you wish to use the government to compel people to do what you want them to do because they won't do what you want voluntarily.

 

 

 

I'm arguing that BR is wanting the government to impose his morality on other by forcing those who are processing adoptions and running hospitals to do what BR wants them to do.

 

A hospital is private entity. They should have the right to determine whatever conduct they want on their property.

 

An adoption agency is a private entity and should be allowed to determine the rules of engagement with them.

 

Now I don't think the government should do anything to prevent hospitals from granting visitation privileges to whoever they want, nor prevent adoption agencies from adopting children to whomever they want like the Jim Crow laws once did by institutionalizing discrimination by government force. But BR wants to force these kinds of organizations to do what he wants. What he thinks should be done.

 

I'm going to argue that there is no "right" to adopt a child. There is no "right" to adopt a child from any specific adoption agency. There is no "right" to step onto anyone's private property without their permission to visit anyone.

 

All that said, it is highly doubtful that many if any hospitals would disallow such visitations. Some adoption agencies may not chose to deal with same sex couples while others may. There's nothing wrong with that. Adopting a child is not a "right."

 

 

 

What law are you speaking of? I cannot comment without knowing exactly what you're referring to.

 

 

 

OK. So, are you saying that anyone who say owns a hotel, hospital, apartment building, restaurant, etc. would be free to deny service to a same sex couple or would they be compelled under the law to provide service even if they felt same-sex marriage was morally wrong and did not want to serve folks in that situation?

 

 

 

Absolutely not! I do not want to take away anyone's freedom to make their own decisions and take their own actions based on their own moral beliefs. However, where you cross the line is in failing to realize that the option to discriminate is a right. If I don't like people with red hair, I should be free to not associate with them, hire them, rent my hotel to them. That might not make be a very nice or good (or successful) person. But it should be within my rights to do. What you and BR (et al) wish to do is to take that right away from some people and compel them to act against their own beliefs and values by substituting your beliefs and values by force.

 

That is the whole point of the the government recognizing these things...to force other to act in accordance with this recognition.

 

There's absolutely nothing stopping me (or other free people) from recognizing (or not) these unions and acting accordingly. A same sex couple can tell me they are married and I can chose to recognize and acknowledge this or not. But what you and BR want is for me to be compelled, in certain situations, to acknowledge and accept it without discrimination and act accordingly.

 

P.S. I'm not even saying your beliefs and values are wrong. I personally think it is wrong (and stupid frankly) to discriminate against people because of their race or gender or hair color or even sexual preferences. But we're talking here about forcing these values onto other people. In fact I think a society and culture that widely discriminates based on a lot of these things would be worse than a society that does not, however, I'd argue that a society that forces people to conform in these ways is worse still...and it unlikely to solve the underlying problems anyway.

 

P.P.S. I'll grant you that this is not a popular position to take, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

Edited by MJ1970 - 4/26/12 at 7:01am

BR, let's try to boil this down:

 

If you and I wanted to get married (assuming it was ok for a liberal anti-Christian and Christian anarcho-capitalist to marry...and assuming that you loved me as much as I love you)...

 

What's stopping us from doing so?

 

We can move in together, buy a house together, do all the things that married liberal/anarcho-capitalist/same-sex couples do together.

 

What's the problem?

 

Why do we need the state's permission for all of this?

Can I be the best man?

 

 

Of course!

 

Who wants to be the "Maid of Honor"?

 

;-)

Well, life is about to get super busy, so I'm going to be taking a break.

 

But I will leave you with some great reads:

 

"Do the Ends Justify the Means?"

 

An Open Letter to Statists Everywhere

 

"How Obamacare Will Affect Your Driving"

 

And another:

 

Robert Wenzel's speech to the New York Federal Reserve Bank

Edited by MJ1970 - 4/30/12 at 7:59am

 

 

Useless.  Neither position is realistic.  The true statists are wrong, as are the true anarchists.  Realistically, government of some kind is necessary in a modern society.  I'm sure we could make the case it isn't, but that would just be an academic exercise.  On planet Earth in 2012, we need at least some government.  Government is also too big and too involved in our lives...it should not regulate and tax at anywhere near current levels.  

 

You continue to beg the question here with providing any support for this claim.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure he meant " Without ".

 

And by the way I'm pretty much with SDW on this one. That isn't to say that we've got the best here that it could be but it's better than nothing. And no I don't want to get into this you guys are just doing fine. I just thought I would clarify. Sorry.

Edited by jimmac - 7/7/12 at 6:45pm

 

I'm not surprised.

 

 

 

This claim keeps being made without anyone actually support the claim with any logic or reason.

 

 

 

Of course not. You hate to have to actually defend your claim in any way.

Nah! I just find it a waste of time trying to share another point view with a closed mind ( having spent a lot of time on that already ). I'm already wasting enough with SDW!

 

You are claiming the we need some government. This claim begs the question (assumes the point) that we need it.

 

 

OK. It's your opinion. One which you have failed to support other than to say you think we "need" to have some government.

 

My mind is open to valid, rational, logical, supportable arguments in favor of what you claim. But you won't give any.

I think we both understand that "need" in this case is used with a little bit of metaphor.  That is, you could substitute it with "benefit from."  Sometimes, you just need to admit that you don't have all the answers, that there are unproven elements in a given philosophical framework.  Does contemporary society benefit from some level of government?  Probably.  The market is not completely perfect, as it is finite.

 

I'm not playing a semantical game here. I think the questions and burden of reasoning and proof still fall on the claimant whichever word you chose to use.

 

 

 

I agree, but I haven't claimed to have all of the answers or that all elements of my own philosophical framework are "proven."

 

 

 

I'd say maybe, and that even this is somewhat questionable. I think this is the point, some assume this/these benefits (and their source...the state) without actually demonstrating or attempting to prove it.

 

Further, I'd agree if we could agree on the boundaries and limits of the role the state can and should play in society and how those limits and boundaries can remain in force. I believe one of the fundamental problems with the state is that it is the one institution that the people, ostensibly, have given the "right" to use force. This is a risky and dangerous thing to do. One can argue that it gives this right and power for good reasons. But then this institution must be carefully monitored and guarded against because the temptation to overuse, misuse, abuse extend and expand its powers beyond the reasonable and legitimate boundaries it was given is so strong that it appears to inevitably expand and grow. I think George Washington put it well when he said that “A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master.” There are other great thinkers from the past who have warned us about the power of the state.

 

Does all that mean that anarchism is the only solution? I don't know. Maybe not. I've said before that I'm willing to concede to minarchism as a practical and pragmatic compromise, assuming that the proper checks and balances are in place to keep the state in its place. But history appears to suggest this to be an impossible challenge. I believe the root problem is a poorly educated populous that allows (or at least can can easily swayed by) politicians to continually expand the power of the state beyond reasonable or practical limits. And who controls the education of the populous in this day and age? It's like some kind of vicious circle.

 

Perhaps another problem was/is a written constitution that was phrased and structured in a way that actually doesn't limit state power (leaves too much ambiguity and loopholes in certain areas) and isn't explicit enough. There are some who suggest that this was actually the intent of the constitution...give the appearance of limited powers but the reality of unlimited powers. Maybe having a constitution that explicitly called for the "separation of education and state" and the "separation of money and state" (as it currently calls for the "separation of church and state") might be better. Something that was explicit enough that it would be much harder to wiggle around. I don't know.

 

P.S. I'll even grant that you are meaning to suggest that government provides some kind of net benefit. But even this is questionable.

 

 

 

I have not claimed it to be.

 

And to be clear, I'm not speaking specifically of capitalism (though that clearly is a component of the whole picture.) I'm speaking at a little higher level in the realm of the philosophy of governing, of society and of liberty. Capitalism is merely the name we give to the economic system that generally emerges out of a political regime of freedom*.

 

*You'll notice I did not say "political freedom" or "economic freedom" because, I believe, these terms falsely and incorrectly (and dangerously) divide the idea of freedom into components.

The benefit of government comes when there's a service it can provide that the market cannot do, or cannot do efficiently.  Let's consider, for example, the SEC.  Stock and resource traders today exploit government interaction in stock and resource markets, but before the government was particularly involved in these markets, they were exploiting them in other ways.  So, we have two data points: no government involvement = corruption, too much government involvement = corruption.  Can we hypothesize that there's a maximally efficient mix in between?  [i]Yes[/i].  Is this hypothesis accurate?  [i]Probably[/i].

 

So, the fact that a given market is imperfect is central to the concept of whether or not government can be beneficial, particularly regarding the interaction between that market and society.

 

Anyway, I find that the solution for government is probably to have harsh penalties for failure, as this model seems to do quite nicely for labor supply markets, or really for enforcing performance criteria in any supply market.  No budget for the year: decimation (you're fired).  No budget in two years: each party's leader goes to jail.

 

Your desire for this perfection is basically Utopian.

 

We can hypothesize about lots of things. All you've done here is you've hypothesized and then attached a probability to your hypothesis. :-/

 

The problem with the harsh penalties you've recommended is that the ones that create the penalties are the ones the would be ones receiving the penalties. I say don't given them so much power.

Look who's talking. And your mind is open only to things you agree with. That's clear.

 

Why did you come back again?

Why to bother you of course!

 

Seriously someone has to stand up for what's right ( or left in your mind ) here.

 

Oh gosh! Now it's a triple threat looking at who's here. Like I've said sadly most of the liberal people have left here. Out of disgust and the sheer exaustion of replying to people who have blinders on. But is that really what you guys want? To win by wearing out the opposition so they simply go to somewhere else where they can talk to real people? It's not like this is the only place. You guys simply devoted more time to it.

Edited by jimmac - 7/10/12 at 11:25am

 

You merely amuse me. You don't rise to a level of importance to bother me.

 

 

Yes, that's what I'm doing here.

That's what I'm doing also. And your feigned superiority doesn't impress anyone.

 

Funny isn't it. You get to declare yourself to be right, but when I do it is "feigned superiority" and you fail to see both the irony and hypocrisy in this. 

Feigned superiority was concerning your " Amused " comment. I'm sure you see yourself as " In the right ". Really MJ you and I do agree on some things ( more than I do with SDW ). Like the wrongness of invading Iraq for example.

Edited by jimmac - 7/10/12 at 8:58pm

 

Ahhh...so you have a comprehension problem. Got it.

That's making a comment about the poster not the substance and feigned superiority also. You just can't adopt another tact can you? Hence my comments in kind.

 

It's much easier to insult and attempt to discredit isn't it? The other takes real thought and effort. Like I've said if you don't like it we could consider being civil ( it's not as fun or funny but we really might communicate ).

Edited by jimmac - 7/10/12 at 6:53pm

Many different types :

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately the link to th3e jpeg cut off the rest.

I guess it's just easier to work with caricatures of those you disagree with.

Which set of caricatures presented here are you referring to? Jazzy's or mine? ( wink if I could )

Edited by jimmac - 7/11/12 at 8:27pm