or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage - Page 3

post #81 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Four and a bit years on from Apple's opposition to California's prop 8, it'll be interesting to see how this thread develops versus the thread back then. Will there be fewer homophobes posting this time around?

 

Everyone against gay marriage is a homophobe? Just like all those voting against Obama are racists right?  Typical of these groups.  If someone has a different view they are obviously either racist, sexist, homophobic or are religious fanatics.  But it is ok to trash them if they don't think like you.  For a group of people who are against stereotyping they sure do it quite a lot.

post #82 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

That is how a free society should operate. If two people of the same sex want to marry, why should the government have any say? Religious institutions should be free to voice their displeasure, but such views shouldn't be recognized by governments. 

 

The people did vote, and they did not want it.  It is the government that is forcing this on the people.

post #83 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

 

Everyone against gay marriage is a homophobe? Just like all those voting against Obama are racists right?  Typical of these groups.  If someone has a different view they are obviously either racist, sexist, homophobic or are religious fanatics.  But it is ok to trash them if they don't think like you.  For a group of people who are against stereotyping they sure do it quite a lot.

I certainly don't believe that everyone who voted against Obama are racists, but to your first question: why else would you be against gay marriage?

 

"Everyone against blacks getting married is a racist? Typical of these groups."

 

Tell me, what could you possibly have against gay marriage, if you're not against gays?

post #84 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferdinandcc View Post

I certainly don't believe that everyone who voted against Obama are racists, but to your first question: why else would you be against gay marriage?

 

"Everyone against blacks getting married is a racist? Typical of these groups."

 

Tell me, what could you possibly have against gay marriage, if you're not against gays?

SDW2001 will claim that he is very attached to the definition of the word "marriage" and thinks society will fall apart if that one word has it's meaning slightly altered to include gays.  Of course, he also falsely claims that marriage has always been between one man and one woman throughout history--despite having several counterexamples paraded before him many times.  

 

So yes, some claim not to be homophobes, but the reasoning is suspect and deep down it still is.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #85 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by IYFCalvin View Post

How sad. Now the homophobes will have to boycott Apple products.  Can't drink Starbucks, wear Nike shoes, use MS Windows and on and on and on.
All I can say is "quit the hating".

 

Just because you are not in favor of a particular issue doesn't mean you hate anybody.  It just means you differ from their opinion on the issue.  Being against gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gay people.  
It certainly does mean that you have enough disdain for them that you don't think their rights are worthy of doing something so insignificant (or even useful) as "changing the definition" (more accurately modernizing the definition) of marriage. You may not call that hate but it's certainly not respect.
post #86 of 192

Since when has doing the right thing become such a polarizing event?

 

As a gay veteran who is also a engineer, I love this country and fought for her.

 

I feel compassion for all those who believe that our county will be stronger if we deny rights to a certain class of people. History tells me quite the opposite; America may stumble and fall at times but in the end we usually do the right thing. 


Edited by ctylerla - 2/28/13 at 2:50am
post #87 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakekub View Post

Crowley, anything goes right? Rotting from within, it's already happened in the UK, we are trying to stop the rot here. You're outside your mind, you just cannot see it.
Certainly not, everything does not "go". Marriage equality does, because its the right thing to do for people who are doing no wrong. Your distaste is not their sin.

If there's rot in my country it's economics, inequality and erosion of labour rights, not anything to do with gay marriage. Your country is leading the way with that particular rot.

I'm "outside my mind"? What does that even mean?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #88 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I am also very curious about the origins of Jazzy's inferiority complex...

 

And now tonton joins in. Totally unsurprising.

 

And that fact that both muppetry and tonton are totally oblivious to what they're doing speaks volumes here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #89 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

Everyone against gay marriage is a homophobe? Just like all those voting against Obama are racists right?  Typical of these groups.  If someone has a different view they are obviously either racist, sexist, homophobic or are religious fanatics.  But it is ok to trash them if they don't think like you.  For a group of people who are against stereotyping they sure do it quite a lot.

 

Bingo!

 

And there are some recent comments by muppetry and tonton that demonstrate this leftist hypocrisy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #90 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I am also very curious about the origins of Jazzy's inferiority complex...

 

And now tonton joins in. Totally unsurprising.

 

And that fact that both muppetry and tonton are totally oblivious to what they're doing speaks volumes here.

 

And yet still you cannot bring yourself to spell out whatever it is you are accusing us of.  Let me speculate. You, yourself, are really are not sure that you have a clue what you are talking about, and hence your reluctance to be exposed to the embarrassment of being wrong. So deniable innuendo like "I see what you did there" and "is this a liberal thing?" is easier. It's certainly amusing to watch.

post #91 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And yet still you cannot bring yourself to spell out whatever it is you are accusing us of.

 

Funny. I pointed you right to it and you ignored it. Or...you don't even see what you're doing. Which is probably more worrisome, though less surprising.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Let me speculate. You, yourself, are really are not sure that you have a clue what you are talking about, and hence your reluctance to be exposed to the embarrassment of being wrong.

 

Wrong. I'll ask again: Why don't you tell us then what you were doing here:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm curious - where did your oppression complex come from?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #92 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And yet still you cannot bring yourself to spell out whatever it is you are accusing us of.

 

Funny. I pointed you right to it and you ignored it. Or...you don't even see what you're doing. Which is probably more worrisome, though less surprising.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Let me speculate. You, yourself, are really are not sure that you have a clue what you are talking about, and hence your reluctance to be exposed to the embarrassment of being wrong.

 

Wrong. I'll ask again: Why don't you tell us then what you were doing here:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm curious - where did your oppression complex come from?

 

You pointed to something (a question that I asked) but are still totally mute on what your problem with it is. Then tonton asked fundamentally the same question, and you had the same response. Your posts remain completely devoid of content. 

post #93 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You pointed to something (a question that I asked) but are still totally mute on what your problem with it is. Then tonton asked fundamentally the same question, and you had the same response. Your posts remain completely devoid of content. 

 

I'm now asking you what you were doing with that question. Let's have it. I think I know, but let's hear your side of it.

 

Tell us, what were you doing here:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm curious - where did your oppression complex come from?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #94 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You pointed to something (a question that I asked) but are still totally mute on what your problem with it is. Then tonton asked fundamentally the same question, and you had the same response. Your posts remain completely devoid of content. 

 

I'm now asking you what you were doing with that question. Let's have it. I think I know, but let's hear your side of it.

 

Tell us, what were you doing here:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm curious - where did your oppression complex come from?

 

Infinite loop detected. Process terminated.

post #95 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Infinite loop detected.

 

It's an infinite loop because you have refused to answer (at least) two times. Why is that?

 

But I think we all* know why.

 

*Well probably not tonton.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #96 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

My mistake.  When you wrote "Why does it not follow?", I assumed that to be a question.

 

I'm curious - where did your oppression complex come from?  By institutionalized violence and plunder, I'm guessing that you mean, for example, law enforcement and the mechanism to pay for it (taxation). Assuming that you support such draconian edicts as "though shalt not steal", and that you do not wish to be the victim of actual plunder - the kind that happens a lot where there is no effective law enforcement - how would you propose to implement a practical mechanism to ensure that such laws are followed?  Barricade yourself in your home with some big guns?  Note that even your personal guru, Mr Rothbard, declares that the libertarian does not dispute the need for laws and law enforcement.

 

I'm sorry, but you're becoming much too condescending for me to want to continue this conversation with you. Every other sentence seems to be a straw man fallacy or argumentum ad hominem.

 

If you can stick to the issues and refrain from making this personal, then I'd be happy to continue.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #97 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Before I respond, let me try to understand you more clearly. Do you admit that absent government, people or groups of people have continued in the past, and would continue in the future, to force others to conform to their beliefs? Meanwhile, although you may not be satisfied with the control we have of selecting those who represent us in government, and those two whom we give additional powers that other individuals may not have, do you deny that limited control of these things is a far better option than no control of these things?

 

So you will not admit that your statement about me was utterly false. Got it. I suspect you knew it was false when you posted it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #98 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Infinite loop detected.

 

It's an infinite loop because you have refused to answer (at least) two times. Why is that?

 

But I think we all* know why.

 

*Well probably not tonton.

 

Except that I asked the question. You made a snide comment about it, and then refused to elaborate at all, multiple times. Since the question wasn't even directed at you, and since I learned long ago that you are not interested in discussion, I have little interest in playing your juvenile game.

post #99 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I am also very curious about the origins of Jazzy's inferiority complex that has led to him believing so much that we are victims of the system, and not participants in the system? Was he upset that he had to go to bed at 9:00 as a child ("Mom, where is my FREEDOM!?") Did his dad tell him he was not allowed to have a dog? Did he lose a job, promotion or school placement because affirmative action favored a colleague? Did a family business fail, and somehow someone blamed it on taxes or regulation?

Same question goes to MJ.

 

You have a great talent for combining argumentum ad hominem with straw man fallacy. Sadly, it's not the kind of talent I would consider laudable or list on a resume.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #100 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Except that I asked the question. You made a snide comment about it, and then refused to elaborate at all, multiple times. Since the question wasn't even directed at you, and since I learned long ago that you are not interested in discussion, I have little interest in playing your juvenile game.

 

So you won't tell us what you were doing with that question. We get it.

 

P.S. The person who asked that question is in no position to accuse others of being juvenile or failing to be interested in reasonable discussion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #101 of 192

I love how Political Outsider is the same half a dozen people squabbling ad nauseam. No-one else reads this part of AI and you're definitely never going to win the other side over, so why bother?

post #102 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I am also very curious about the origins of Jazzy's inferiority complex that has led to him believing so much that we are victims of the system, and not participants in the system? Was he upset that he had to go to bed at 9:00 as a child ("Mom, where is my FREEDOM!?") Did his dad tell him he was not allowed to have a dog? Did he lose a job, promotion or school placement because affirmative action favored a colleague? Did a family business fail, and somehow someone blamed it on taxes or regulation?

Same question goes to MJ.

 

You have a great talent for combining argumentum ad hominem with straw man fallacy. Sadly, it's not the kind of talent I would consider laudable or list on a resume.

 

Disregarding his speculation, you do strongly give the impression that we are all victims rather than participants, with your equation that government = plunder and violence etc..

Just to confirm - you recommended him, but have you actually read Rothbard?

post #103 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

I love how Political Outsider is the same half a dozen people squabbling ad nauseam. No-one else reads this part of AI and you're definitely never going to win the other side over, so why bother?

 

Not sure. Half dozen in about right. It is strangely compulsive, and every couple of months or so I find myself dragged in by some kind of fascination with the discussions. It obviously isn't to convert or reach a wide audience. What triggered you to stick your head in here?

post #104 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

I love how Political Outsider is the same half a dozen people squabbling ad nauseam. No-one else reads this part of AI and you're definitely never going to win the other side over, so why bother?

 

You love it, do you? 1wink.gif

 

I certainly don't keep posting for the sake of the so-called "other side".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #105 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Disregarding his speculation, you do strongly give the impression that we are all victims rather than participants, with your equation that government = plunder and violence etc..

Just to confirm - you recommended him, but have you actually read Rothbard?

 

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. Do you consider someone forced to pay taxes under threat of violence a "willing participant" because he prefers to let his money be taken rather than have that violence used against him? Do you consider someone a "willing participant" because he does not have the money and time necessary to expatriate from the country of his birth, or because does not want to leave the company of his dear family and friends?

 

 

Quote:
The State! Always and ever the government and its rulers and operators have been considered above the general moral law. The "Pentagon Papers" are only one recent instance among innumerable instances in history of men, most of whom are perfectly honorable in their private lives, who lie in their teeth before the public. Why? For "reasons of State." Service to the State is supposed to excuse all actions that would be considered immoral or criminal if committed by "private" citizens. The distinctive feature of libertarians is that they coolly and uncompromisingly apply the general moral law to people acting in their roles as members of the State apparatus. Libertarians make no exceptions. For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as "members of the government") has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it "war"; then ennobled the mass slaughter that "war" involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it "conscription" in the "national service." For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it "taxation." In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.

 

 

That quote is, of course, by Rothbard, whom I have indeed read. And he is, by no means, the definitive voice on the subject of libertarianism. He is, however, considered one of the fathers of the modern libertarian movement and a great place to start a study of libertarian philosophy, which is why I frequently recommend his work to those who are unfamiliar with it. I have recommended other sources and authors, as well.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #106 of 192

They that can give up essential security to purchase freedom from any taxation, deserve neither safety nor liberty

- Frenjamin Banklin

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #107 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Disregarding his speculation, you do strongly give the impression that we are all victims rather than participants, with your equation that government = plunder and violence etc..

Just to confirm - you recommended him, but have you actually read Rothbard?

 

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. Do you consider someone forced to pay taxes under threat of violence a "willing participant" because he prefers to let his money be taken rather than have that violence used against him? Do you consider someone a "willing participant" because he does not have the money and time necessary to expatriate from the country of his birth, or because does not want to leave the company of his dear family and friends?

 

 

Quote:
The State! Always and ever the government and its rulers and operators have been considered above the general moral law. The "Pentagon Papers" are only one recent instance among innumerable instances in history of men, most of whom are perfectly honorable in their private lives, who lie in their teeth before the public. Why? For "reasons of State." Service to the State is supposed to excuse all actions that would be considered immoral or criminal if committed by "private" citizens. The distinctive feature of libertarians is that they coolly and uncompromisingly apply the general moral law to people acting in their roles as members of the State apparatus. Libertarians make no exceptions. For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as "members of the government") has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it "war"; then ennobled the mass slaughter that "war" involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it "conscription" in the "national service." For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it "taxation." In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.

 

 

That quote is, of course, by Rothbard, whom I have indeed read. And he is, by no means, the definitive voice on the subject of libertarianism. He is, however, considered one of the fathers of the modern libertarian movement and a great place to start a study of libertarian philosophy, which is why I frequently recommend his work to those who are unfamiliar with it. I have recommended other sources and authors, as well.

 

It may, indeed, depend on how you look at it. You (apparently) choose not to consider that people pay taxes because they are honest and do not wish to steal the services of which they avail themselves that society (of which they are a part of) provides via the mechanism of a government (that was elected to represent them).

 

As for freedom to expatriate - everyone has that. If they do not have the means to do so then they cannot reasonably blame the rest of society.  

 

It is the obsession with the "us and them" view of government that I really don't understand. Rothbard also repeatedly returns to that theme (as above), but clearly conflates individual failure and corruptibility with failure of the system. For example, he claims not to disapprove of law enforcement, but makes the (in my view) ludicrous assertion that arrest should be treated as kidnapping should the suspect turn out to be innocent, and the LE officers, prosecutors, judges etc. involved should themselves be charged and imprisoned. Clearly an unworkable system.

 

He rails about how organized LE protects us from criminals, but asks who protects us from LE. The answer, that he acknowledges, but then arbitrarily rejects, is that the constitution plus our elected representatives protect us. Is the system perfect? Obviously not. Do you have a better plan? As far as I can tell, and human history suggests, obviously not.

post #108 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It may, indeed, depend on how you look at it. You (apparently) choose not to consider that people pay taxes because they are honest and do not wish to steal the services of which they avail themselves that society (of which they are a part of) provides via the mechanism of a government (that was elected to represent them).

 

As for freedom to expatriate - everyone has that. If they do not have the means to do so then they cannot reasonably blame the rest of society.  

 

It is the obsession with the "us and them" view of government that I really don't understand. Rothbard also repeatedly returns to that theme (as above), but clearly conflates individual failure and corruptibility with failure of the system. For example, he claims not to disapprove of law enforcement, but makes the (in my view) ludicrous assertion that arrest should be treated as kidnapping should the suspect turn out to be innocent, and the LE officers, prosecutors, judges etc. involved should themselves be charged and imprisoned. Clearly an unworkable system.

 

He rails about how organized LE protects us from criminals, but asks who protects us from LE. The answer, that he acknowledges, but then arbitrarily rejects, is that the constitution plus our elected representatives protect us. Is the system perfect? Obviously not. Do you have a better plan? As far as I can tell, and human history suggests, obviously not.

 

Please show me the contract I signed consenting to the provision these services by the government.

 

Do you really consider Rothbard's perspective to be what all libertarians believe? I certainly don't agree with everything Rothbard ever wrote or said.

 

I suggest you next read The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman for a different perspective on libertarianism.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #109 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It may, indeed, depend on how you look at it. You (apparently) choose not to consider that people pay taxes because they are honest and do not wish to steal the services of which they avail themselves that society (of which they are a part of) provides via the mechanism of a government (that was elected to represent them).

 

As for freedom to expatriate - everyone has that. If they do not have the means to do so then they cannot reasonably blame the rest of society.  

 

It is the obsession with the "us and them" view of government that I really don't understand. Rothbard also repeatedly returns to that theme (as above), but clearly conflates individual failure and corruptibility with failure of the system. For example, he claims not to disapprove of law enforcement, but makes the (in my view) ludicrous assertion that arrest should be treated as kidnapping should the suspect turn out to be innocent, and the LE officers, prosecutors, judges etc. involved should themselves be charged and imprisoned. Clearly an unworkable system.

 

He rails about how organized LE protects us from criminals, but asks who protects us from LE. The answer, that he acknowledges, but then arbitrarily rejects, is that the constitution plus our elected representatives protect us. Is the system perfect? Obviously not. Do you have a better plan? As far as I can tell, and human history suggests, obviously not.

 

Please show me the contract I signed consenting to the provision these services by the government.

 

Do you really consider Rothbard's perspective to be what all libertarians believe? I certainly don't agree with everything Rothbard ever wrote or said.

 

I suggest you next read The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman for a different perspective on libertarianism.

 

I'm sure you didn't sign one, but use of such services would be enough to make an implicit contract. If you get on a train, arguing that you did not sign a contract does not excuse you from paying the fare. Maybe I'm being unfair, and you really have not used any of these services? But no - you are posting on the internet, so clearly you have.

 

It seems odd that you pointed me to Rothbard, and then disowned him when I pointed out some of the problems with his arguments. I have not read Friedman - is he going to fare any better?

post #110 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm sure you didn't sign one, but use of such services would be enough to make an implicit contract. If you get on a train, arguing that you did not sign a contract does not excuse you from paying the fare. Maybe I'm being unfair, and you really have not used any of these services? But no - you are posting on the internet, so clearly you have.

 

It seems odd that you pointed me to Rothbard, and then disowned him when I pointed out some of the problems with his arguments. I have not read Friedman - is he going to fare any better?

 

Money is taken from us  - under threat of violence - to fund these services and other actions whether we use or approve of them or not. Consent is not involved.

 

If I homeschool my children, am I exempt from paying taxes that fund public schools? No.

 

If I intend to plan and provide for my own retirement income, am I exempt from paying Social Security taxes? No.

 

Also, that the government has a monopoly on the provision of some of those services does not imply my consent when I use them.

 

 

*

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #111 of 192
'Apple has reportedly joined a group of high-power companies, including Apple'...... there's a slight problem with that sentence 1tongue.gif
post #112 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm sure you didn't sign one, but use of such services would be enough to make an implicit contract. If you get on a train, arguing that you did not sign a contract does not excuse you from paying the fare. Maybe I'm being unfair, and you really have not used any of these services? But no - you are posting on the internet, so clearly you have.

 

It seems odd that you pointed me to Rothbard, and then disowned him when I pointed out some of the problems with his arguments. I have not read Friedman - is he going to fare any better?

 

Money is taken from us  - under threat of violence - to fund these services and other actions whether we use or approve of them or not. Consent is not involved.

 

If I homeschool my children, am I exempt from paying taxes that fund public schools? No.

 

If I intend to plan and provide for my own retirement income, am I exempt from paying Social Security taxes? No.

 

Also, that the government has a monopoly on the provision of some of those services does not imply my consent when I use them.

 

 

*

 

 

OK. So, to continue your line of thought - you listed a few things that you might, or might not use. I did not miss that you carefully avoided claiming actually not to use them. So what about all the ones that you do use? Because unless you are a hermit in the hills, you make extensive use of tax-funded services and infrastructure. I think that your position is dishonest and untenable. Now you want to get on the train and avoid paying the fare because the operator has a monopoly that you disagree with? That's still theft.

 

On top of which you are out of step with the culture in which you are trying to do that. Take an example - you intend to plan for your retirement. You intend to. What happens if you fail? Instead of letting you starve to death, society takes care of you. You may not want that safety net, but most do. Shared responsibility and all that stuff, rather than survival of the fittest. You don't get to opt out because our society does not want to see homeless people dying of starvation in the streets.


Edited by muppetry - 2/28/13 at 12:01pm
post #113 of 192
Some folks just hate the idea of evolution so much that they want to pretend that humans aren't social creatures.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #114 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK. So, to continue your line of thought - you listed a few things that you might, or might not use. I did not miss that you carefully avoided claiming actually not to use them. So what about all the ones that you do use? Because unless you are a hermit in the hills, you make extensive use of tax-funded services and infrastructure. I think that your position is dishonest and untenable. Now you want to get on the train and avoid paying the fare because the operator has a monopoly that you disagree with? That's still theft.

 

You seem to think that I want to use services without having to pay for them. This is not true. I want to pay only for the services I use - and I want the freedom to choose from more than one provider.

 

You claim I want to steal - that I am being dishonest by not wanting the government to tax me for services I don't use. Your claim would be valid only if I had the opportunity to consent - to opt-in - to this system. I had no such opportunity.

 

What makes government monopolies any more virtuous or desirable than private monopolies? In my mind, there is no difference.

 

Quote:
On top of that you are out of step with the culture in which you are trying to do that. Take an example - you intend to plan for your retirement. You intend to. What happens if you fail? Instead of letting you starve to death, society takes care of you. You may not want that safety net, but most do. Shared responsibility and all that stuff, rather than survival of the fittest. You don't get to opt out because our society does not want to see homeless people dying of starvation in the streets.

 

The force of government cannot eliminate the consequences of bad choices or the possibility of failure. Take the bailouts, for example. Companies which should have been allowed to fail - and their leadership with them - were bailed out in the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever known. All this did was shift the consequences of that failure from those who should have suffered it to everyone else.

 

Any honest, successful person will tell you that failure is necessary for success. Remove the risk of failure and you have no incentive to innovate, to grow, to change, to adapt.

 

I have no expectation of being bailed out by you or anyone else. I don't believe I am entitled to your property. It is yours to do with as you choose, and if you wish to impart some of it to others, that should be your decision alone.

 

I don't want to see homeless people dying of starvation in the streets anymore than you do. I just believe it is wrong to force you under threat of violence - whether personally or vicariously though government - to help those homeless people, no matter how noble and just a cause it may be.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #115 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK. So, to continue your line of thought - you listed a few things that you might, or might not use. I did not miss that you carefully avoided claiming actually not to use them. So what about all the ones that you do use? Because unless you are a hermit in the hills, you make extensive use of tax-funded services and infrastructure. I think that your position is dishonest and untenable. Now you want to get on the train and avoid paying the fare because the operator has a monopoly that you disagree with? That's still theft.

 

You seem to think that I want to use services without having to pay for them. This is not true. I want to pay only for the services I use - and I want the freedom to choose from more than one provider.

 

You claim I want to steal - that I am being dishonest by not wanting the government to tax me for services I don't use. Your claim would be valid only if I had the opportunity to consent - to opt-in - to this system. I had no such opportunity.

 

What makes government monopolies any more virtuous or desirable than private monopolies? In my mind, there is no difference.

 

Quote:
On top of that you are out of step with the culture in which you are trying to do that. Take an example - you intend to plan for your retirement. You intend to. What happens if you fail? Instead of letting you starve to death, society takes care of you. You may not want that safety net, but most do. Shared responsibility and all that stuff, rather than survival of the fittest. You don't get to opt out because our society does not want to see homeless people dying of starvation in the streets.

 

The force of government cannot eliminate the consequences of bad choices or the possibility of failure. Take the bailouts, for example. Companies which should have been allowed to fail - and their leadership with them - were bailed out in the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever known. All this did was shift the consequences of that failure from those who should have suffered it to everyone else.

 

Any honest, successful person will tell you that failure is necessary for success. Remove the risk of failure and you have no incentive to innovate, to grow, to change, to adapt.

 

I have no expectation of being bailed out by you or anyone else. I don't believe I am entitled to your property. It is yours to do with as you choose, and if you wish to impart some of it to others, that should be your decision alone.

 

I don't want to see homeless people dying of starvation in the streets anymore than you do. I just believe it is wrong to force you under threat of violence - whether personally or vicariously though government - to help those homeless people, no matter how noble and just a cause it may be.

 

Well OK - I don't disagree with much of what you wrote there, and I'm quite willing to accept that you want to pay for what you use. I wish you would drop the continual "threat of violence" theme though, because it is superfluous to the basic argument that you dislike taxes. But given that, I still have not seen a credible libertarian alternative to an elected organizational structure and some form of taxation to pay for that structure at whatever level it occurs.

 

It would be nice if taxation could be somewhat more targeted - i.e. if what you paid more accurately reflected what you used.  That does happen in some forms of taxation, but it adds complexity and it misses the point that some of the tax burden is akin to insurance.

 

What one needs a government monopoly on is regulatory power, because the government is accountable to the people. The rest can be, and often is, privatized, although note that the US is highly privatized compared to the rest of the first world but not noticeable better off for it.

 

History demonstrates that either we have a social contract (e.g. a constitution or equivalent, an elected government etc.), or we have everyone for themselves, under which the strongest end up ruling anyway, with no say or consent at all from the rest. And if you try to privatize the oversight of that then the private oversight entity inevitably assumes the powers that your elected and somewhat accountable government would otherwise hold - without the accountability  I just cannot conceive of the level of naivety and ignorance of history necessary to imagine any other outcome.

post #116 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I just cannot conceive of the level of naivety and ignorance of history necessary to imagine any other outcome.

 

If that is the mindset with which you approach your study of libertarianism or any other philosophies different from your own, I dare say you will not get much out of your studies.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #117 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I wish you would drop the continual "threat of violence" theme though, because it is superfluous to the basic argument that you dislike taxes.

 

Of course it isn't. Just because you dislike this fact isn't good enough reason to sweep it under the rug.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #118 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I just cannot conceive of the level of naivety and ignorance of history necessary to imagine any other outcome.

 

If that is the mindset with which you approach your study of libertarianism or any other philosophies different from your own, I dare say you will not get much out of your studies.

 

That's it? Not a word of comment on any of my other points. Just latch onto one that you can respond to ad hominem. I thought for a moment that you actually wanted a discussion.

post #119 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I wish you would drop the continual "threat of violence" theme though, because it is superfluous to the basic argument that you dislike taxes.

 

Of course it isn't. Just because you dislike this fact isn't good enough reason to sweep it under the rug.

 

I wasn't suggesting sweeping it under the rug - just pointing out that his argument does not hinge on it but it appears, like an old slogan, in all his posts. And by the way - it's not a fact - it's an assertion, and an unsupported one.

post #120 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That's it? Not a word of comment on any of my other points. Just latch onto one that you can respond to ad hominem. I thought for a moment that you actually wanted a discussion.

 

No, not a word of comment on any of your other points.

 

You make such a statement ("I just cannot conceive of the level of naivety and ignorance of history necessary to imagine any other outcome") and I'm the one engaging in argumentum ad hominem? I'm the one who doesn't want a discussion?

 

We can converse until we're blue in the face (we've probably arrived at that point), but if you process everything I say and everything you read through the mindset reflected in that single statement, we're both wasting our time.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage