OK - so what stopped it from being a free market? And in the civil war through the 1960s period, how did it differ and become a free market? Both those periods were characterized by significant racial discrimination. And if the latter period was a free market, when segregation was widespread, how do you still maintain the argument that a free market will naturally prevent discrimination. I fail to see how you are furthering your argument in the slightest - in fact you seem to be making the counter-argument - that discrimination has only ever been tackled successfully by legislative methods.
How many times do I have to explain the same thing?
Free market means that goods, services, capital and labour can move FREELY. The government doesn't restrict those movements except when the rights of someone or a group is being attacked by someone else, to police fraud and theft, and to arbitrate disputes.
No country has ever had an entirely free market but after the civil war the US was FREER after the civil war because blacks - a huge component of the labour force - had some freedom of movement and government regulation was minimal. There was no income tax until 1913 and the federal government functioned just fine.
The Great Depression was made worse and lasted longer than it needed to by Roosevelt's policies, in my opinion. but even then the federal government was tiny compared with today.
The device you're typing to me on was created by a capitalist market. If the government didn't try to double tax Apple on overseas profit, or reduced the rate, Tim Cook has said Apple would be investing more money in the states. It's a stupid tax policy and an example of government regulating away jobs and domestic investment. Capital is not "free" to be repatriated, which hurts the economy.
If you're a person who thinks the government needs to punish the people and companies who are creating all the jobs, increasing taxes and arbitrarily redistributing the wealth as a bribe for votes, then you'll never understand the concept called Free Market Economy. You think that the labour component being subjected to slavery is a "free market" which is just bizarre.
Why is religion so important? And how is religion no longer about respect, love, cooperation and compassion?
You seem to have confused respect, cooperation, love, and compassion with agreeing with you. That seems rather self-centered. Where is your respect, love, cooperation and compassion for those who disagree with you?
Freedom of worship and freedom of expression are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.
There seem to be a few people here who want to return to an authoritarian government that burns heretics at the stake -- only in this case, the heretics are those who do not want to be forced to say that they support same sex marriage.
I recognize you do not want to literally burn heretics at the stake. You just want to sue them, fine them, maybe throw them in jail, seize their property, make them work against their will, prohibit them from having a job or owning a business, drive them from the public square, prohibit them from voting or holding office if they belong to a church you don't like, forcibly indoctrinate their children with your beliefs, and maybe take their children away from them for teaching them wrong doctrines. You know, the whole "gay agenda" thing that you claim you do not have. But not actually burn people at the stake because you are so compassionate and respectful, right?
Has it occurred to you that the rhetoric of a lot of LGBT activists might just be perceived as somewhat threatening? Bullying, even?
You seem to have confused respect, cooperation, love, and compassion with agreeing with you. That seems rather self-centered. Where is your respect, love, cooperation and compassion for those who disagree with you?
Freedom of worship and freedom of expression are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.
There seem to be a few people here who want to return to an authoritarian government that burns heretics at the stake -- only in this case, the heretics are those who do not want to be forced to say that they support same sex marriage.
I think that faith is a crutch, a way for people to avoid thinking about the fact that existence is ultimately futile and pointless, that everything, including the Universe itself (well, matter, anyways) will someday no longer exist. People accept faith in order to not have to deal with those sorts of revelations. So, while I don't feel a lack of respect for those who are religious, and I don't treat them any differently than anyone else, it is true that I have no respect for religion itself. Then again, I have no respect for any belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. For instance, I don't have respect for the belief in ghosts, or in Bigfoot, or whatever.
As to freedom of worship, I believe that it's very important to maintain. OTOH, what I truly wish is that mankind would evolve past the point where they believe in (what I believe to be) silly mythology.
However, I don't for one second have respect for anyone who discriminates against those of different races, genders, those who have different sexual orientation, or those of different faiths. IOW, I do not respect bigots, and I don't know why anyone would. Believe me, I completely understand why people are bigots, but why supposed non-bigots would have even a modicum of respect for them is completely incomprehensible.
Do I want to burn anyone at the stake? Of course not. Not literally nor figuratively. But I don't think that speaking up against racism or sexism or anti-Semitism or homophobia is "burning anyone at the stake."
Don't you understand?! Tim Cook's life goal is to make every guy choose to be gay so he can have butt sex with them¡
This is a terrible post, what could be a sensible debate has not hit rock bottom but has burrowed down to find the sludge. You should apologise to the whole thread for this.
This is a terrible post, what could be a sensible debate has not hit rock bottom but has burrowed down to find the sludge. You should apologise to the whole thread for this.
Absolutely not! If you want to be homophobic bigot you have that right, but I also have the right to use sarcasm to express my disdain for such people.
The Great Depression was made worse and lasted longer than it needed to by Roosevelt's policies, in my opinion. but even then the federal government was tiny compared with today.
If you study the Civil Rights movement in the Southern US, you can see it was driven by economics. Whites said they would boycott businesses who didn't allow blacks. Once that happened, it was inevitable that segregation would be over for good. Anyone who thinks that any significant business is going to act discriminatory and NOT be punished by the market is being naive
The problem for small businesses in Indiana is that everyone is going to be punished, whether they agree with the new law or not. Investors are moving their money elsewhere.
I think that faith is a crutch, a way for people to avoid thinking about the fact that existence is ultimately futile and pointless, that everything, including the Universe itself (well, matter, anyways) will someday no longer exist. People accept faith in order to not have to deal with those sorts of revelations. So, while I don't feel a lack of respect for those who are religious, and I don't treat them any differently than anyone else, it is true that I have no respect for religion itself. Then again, I have no respect for any belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. For instance, I don't have respect for the belief in ghosts, or in Bigfoot, or whatever.
As to freedom of worship, I believe that it's very important to maintain. OTOH, what I truly wish is that mankind would evolve past the point where they believe in (what I believe to be) silly mythology.
However, I don't for one second have respect for anyone who discriminates against those of different races, genders, those who have different sexual orientation, or those of different faiths. IOW, I do not respect bigots, and I don't know why anyone would. Believe me, I completely understand why people are bigots, but why supposed non-bigots would have even a modicum of respect for them is completely incomprehensible.
Do I want to burn anyone at the stake? Of course not. Not literally nor figuratively. But I don't think that speaking up against racism or sexism or anti-Semitism or homophobia is "burning anyone at the stake."
+1 and deserves a repeat.
As for a "crutch being a necessary support aid if used properly" addendum request, may I respectfully wish that the intellectually crippled on this rock, get well soon!
You seem to have confused respect, cooperation, love, and compassion with agreeing with you. That seems rather self-centered. Where is your respect, love, cooperation and compassion for those who disagree with you?
Freedom of worship and freedom of expression are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.
There seem to be a few people here who want to return to an authoritarian government that burns heretics at the stake -- only in this case, the heretics are those who do not want to be forced to say that they support same sex marriage.
I think that faith is a crutch, a way for people to avoid thinking about the fact that existence is ultimately futile and pointless, that everything, including the Universe itself (well, matter, anyways) will someday no longer exist. People accept faith in order to not have to deal with those sorts of revelations. So, while I don't feel a lack of respect for those who are religious, and I don't treat them any differently than anyone else, it is true that I have no respect for religion itself. Then again, I have no respect for any belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. For instance, I don't have respect for the belief in ghosts, or in Bigfoot, or whatever.
As to freedom of worship, I believe that it's very important to maintain. OTOH, what I truly wish is that mankind would evolve past the point where they believe in (what I believe to be) silly mythology.
However, I don't for one second have respect for anyone who discriminates against those of different races, genders, those who have different sexual orientation, or those of different faiths. IOW, I do not respect bigots, and I don't know why anyone would. Believe me, I completely understand why people are bigots, but why supposed non-bigots would have even a modicum of respect for them is completely incomprehensible.
Do I want to burn anyone at the stake? Of course not. Not literally nor figuratively. But I don't think that speaking up against racism or sexism or anti-Semitism or homophobia is "burning anyone at the stake."
I see God all around me.
I find your statement that you have no respect for people who 'believe in ghosts' telling. Why no respect? Ghosts have been recorded throughout history; plenty of people have seen them. To dismiss all those people is stupidly arrogant.
One thing that I disagree with is the idea that as long as two adults consent, anything they do with each other is fine. There was a case a few years ago in Germany where a man was charged with murder. He was a cannibal and got his kicks from eating another man. He had killed him and stored his body in pieces in his freezer. His defence was that the man he had killed had consented. Even if he had consented—and I suspect the man had, at least, at some level—I regard that as intrinsically wrong and perverse. What consenting adults do in private is not always good or to be condoned. So it is with sodomy.
I find your statement that you have no respect for people who 'believe in ghosts' telling. Why no respect? Ghosts have been recorded throughout history; plenty of people have seen them. To dismiss all those people is stupidly arrogant.
One thing that I disagree with is the idea that as long as two adults consent, anything they do with each other is fine. There was a case a few years ago in Germany where a man was charged with murder. He was a cannibal and got his kicks from eating another man. He had killed him and stored his body in pieces in his freezer. His defence was that the man he had killed had consented. Even if he had consented—and I suspect the man had, at least, at some level—I regard that as intrinsically wrong and perverse. What consenting adults do in private is not always good or to be condoned. So it is with sodomy.
Except for the fact that murder/cannibalism is illegal and last time I looked homosexuality is legal in the vast majority of the world.
I'm an atheist and can't wait for religion to become nothing more than a sideshow (not that it will happen in my lifetime), but I'll defend a person's right to religious freedom to the hilt. But your point of view is typical of the religious zealots with regards to being gay. Throw in a few references to illegal activity (there are already references here to paedophilia and no doubt someone will throw in the bestiality argument soon) and then indirectly link those behaviours to being the same as being gay.
Ironic how Christianity preaches tolerance and yet the most intolerant people I know are christians.
I find your statement that you have no respect for people who 'believe in ghosts' telling. Why no respect? Ghosts have been recorded throughout history; plenty of people have seen them. To dismiss all those people is stupidly arrogant.
One thing that I disagree with is the idea that as long as two adults consent, anything they do with each other is fine. There was a case a few years ago in Germany where a man was charged with murder. He was a cannibal and got his kicks from eating another man. He had killed him and stored his body in pieces in his freezer. His defence was that the man he had killed had consented. Even if he had consented—and I suspect the man had, at least, at some level—I regard that as intrinsically wrong and perverse. What consenting adults do in private is not always good or to be condoned. So it is with sodomy.
Except for the fact that murder/cannibalism is illegal and last time I looked homosexuality is legal in the vast majority of the world.
I'm an atheist and can't wait for religion to become nothing more than a sideshow (not that it will happen in my lifetime), but I'll defend a person's right to religious freedom to the hilt. But your point of view is typical of the religious zealots with regards to being gay. Throw in a few references to illegal activity (there are already references here to paedophilia and no doubt someone will throw in the bestiality argument soon) and then indirectly link those behaviours to being the same as being gay.
Ironic how Christianity preaches tolerance and yet the most intolerant people I know are christians.
Mutilation is legal if consented to. So is consensual torture. That doesn't make those things right.
Mutilation is legal if consented to. So is consensual torture. That doesn't make those things right.
It only doesn't make it right from your moral viewpoint. Fortunately morality is not an absolute.
If two or more consenting adults get their kicks out of causing pain to each other, and as long as no laws are broken (i.e. someone dies), then they have absolutely every right to behave how they wish.
I think you're getting right/wrong confused with agree/disagree. You may disagree with homosexual behaviour, that doesn't make it wrong.
It's fairly simple. They want to push everyone into buying into their lifestyle yet refuse to accept anyone that may not believe in their way of life. It's interesting when a minority group is always talking about tolerance while at the same time attacking those that may disagree with them.
Lets be honest if a social conservative from a large high profile company tweeted about how great the law is every LGBT group would be trying to get him fired. Perfect example Brendan Eich had to resign , lets face it he was fired for supporting am anti gay bill.
So Tim Cook publicly being an advocate for a bill to fail is okay, but having a different opinion is not and you're forced to resign.
Tolerance isn't trying to beat the shit out of people that believe something different.
I don't know what 'buying into the lifestyle' means. If you mean by that they want others to show tolerance, I don't think that's an 'agenda' but rather, not much more than a live-and-let-live request.
Arguably, other groups, based on race and gender, have more of an 'agenda.'
Regarding your point about social conservatives, I do agree. It's wrong that someone is hounded or forced out for expressing a view on social issues (but then, logically, it's just as wrong on your part to condemn Cook for his tweet). But if it did translate into, say, Mr. Eich not employing gays in his company, that would be a huge problem. It would also run afoul of employment laws in this country.
That's just it. They don't read the bible which is why they're so ignorant of it.
I'm not so sure why people need to read a fictional book that you recommend , I dont ask you to read Star Wars and try to make laws related to it that that affect everybody.
Yup. I've read earnest libertarian writings that advocate a free-market solution to ending discrimination, but they woefully assume that all economic actors behave out of pure economic self-interest, which is an idealization. In reality people discriminate for all sorts of irrational reasons, including religious prejudice, racial prejudice, etc. We don't have a color-blind egalitarian society.
Why don't you post links to these opinions instead of painting "libertarians" with a broad brush?
Comments
That's because you're not paying attention.
Don't you understand?! Tim Cook's life goal is to make every guy choose to be gay so he can have butt sex with them¡
How many times do I have to explain the same thing?
Free market means that goods, services, capital and labour can move FREELY. The government doesn't restrict those movements except when the rights of someone or a group is being attacked by someone else, to police fraud and theft, and to arbitrate disputes.
No country has ever had an entirely free market but after the civil war the US was FREER after the civil war because blacks - a huge component of the labour force - had some freedom of movement and government regulation was minimal. There was no income tax until 1913 and the federal government functioned just fine.
The Great Depression was made worse and lasted longer than it needed to by Roosevelt's policies, in my opinion. but even then the federal government was tiny compared with today.
The device you're typing to me on was created by a capitalist market. If the government didn't try to double tax Apple on overseas profit, or reduced the rate, Tim Cook has said Apple would be investing more money in the states. It's a stupid tax policy and an example of government regulating away jobs and domestic investment. Capital is not "free" to be repatriated, which hurts the economy.
If you're a person who thinks the government needs to punish the people and companies who are creating all the jobs, increasing taxes and arbitrarily redistributing the wealth as a bribe for votes, then you'll never understand the concept called Free Market Economy. You think that the labour component being subjected to slavery is a "free market" which is just bizarre.
Why is religion so important? And how is religion no longer about respect, love, cooperation and compassion?
You seem to have confused respect, cooperation, love, and compassion with agreeing with you. That seems rather self-centered. Where is your respect, love, cooperation and compassion for those who disagree with you?
Freedom of worship and freedom of expression are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.
There seem to be a few people here who want to return to an authoritarian government that burns heretics at the stake -- only in this case, the heretics are those who do not want to be forced to say that they support same sex marriage.
I recognize you do not want to literally burn heretics at the stake. You just want to sue them, fine them, maybe throw them in jail, seize their property, make them work against their will, prohibit them from having a job or owning a business, drive them from the public square, prohibit them from voting or holding office if they belong to a church you don't like, forcibly indoctrinate their children with your beliefs, and maybe take their children away from them for teaching them wrong doctrines. You know, the whole "gay agenda" thing that you claim you do not have. But not actually burn people at the stake because you are so compassionate and respectful, right?
Has it occurred to you that the rhetoric of a lot of LGBT activists might just be perceived as somewhat threatening? Bullying, even?
You seem to have confused respect, cooperation, love, and compassion with agreeing with you. That seems rather self-centered. Where is your respect, love, cooperation and compassion for those who disagree with you?
Freedom of worship and freedom of expression are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.
There seem to be a few people here who want to return to an authoritarian government that burns heretics at the stake -- only in this case, the heretics are those who do not want to be forced to say that they support same sex marriage.
I think that faith is a crutch, a way for people to avoid thinking about the fact that existence is ultimately futile and pointless, that everything, including the Universe itself (well, matter, anyways) will someday no longer exist. People accept faith in order to not have to deal with those sorts of revelations. So, while I don't feel a lack of respect for those who are religious, and I don't treat them any differently than anyone else, it is true that I have no respect for religion itself. Then again, I have no respect for any belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. For instance, I don't have respect for the belief in ghosts, or in Bigfoot, or whatever.
As to freedom of worship, I believe that it's very important to maintain. OTOH, what I truly wish is that mankind would evolve past the point where they believe in (what I believe to be) silly mythology.
However, I don't for one second have respect for anyone who discriminates against those of different races, genders, those who have different sexual orientation, or those of different faiths. IOW, I do not respect bigots, and I don't know why anyone would. Believe me, I completely understand why people are bigots, but why supposed non-bigots would have even a modicum of respect for them is completely incomprehensible.
Do I want to burn anyone at the stake? Of course not. Not literally nor figuratively. But I don't think that speaking up against racism or sexism or anti-Semitism or homophobia is "burning anyone at the stake."
I will agree with the use of that term if we agree that a crutch can be a necessary support aid when used properly.
Don't you understand?! Tim Cook's life goal is to make every guy choose to be gay so he can have butt sex with them¡
This is a terrible post, what could be a sensible debate has not hit rock bottom but has burrowed down to find the sludge. You should apologise to the whole thread for this.
Absolutely not! If you want to be homophobic bigot you have that right, but I also have the right to use sarcasm to express my disdain for such people.
FDR ran into trouble only when he moved away from fiscal expansion toward austerity in 1937.
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/real-lesson-great-depression-fiscal-policy-works
The Great Depression was made worse and lasted longer than it needed to by Roosevelt's policies, in my opinion. but even then the federal government was tiny compared with today.
I will agree with the use of that term if we agree that a crutch can be a necessary support aid when used properly.
That seems fair enough.
If you study the Civil Rights movement in the Southern US, you can see it was driven by economics. Whites said they would boycott businesses who didn't allow blacks. Once that happened, it was inevitable that segregation would be over for good. Anyone who thinks that any significant business is going to act discriminatory and NOT be punished by the market is being naive
The problem for small businesses in Indiana is that everyone is going to be punished, whether they agree with the new law or not. Investors are moving their money elsewhere.
+1 and deserves a repeat.
As for a "crutch being a necessary support aid if used properly" addendum request, may I respectfully wish that the intellectually crippled on this rock, get well soon!
I see God all around me.
I find your statement that you have no respect for people who 'believe in ghosts' telling. Why no respect? Ghosts have been recorded throughout history; plenty of people have seen them. To dismiss all those people is stupidly arrogant.
One thing that I disagree with is the idea that as long as two adults consent, anything they do with each other is fine. There was a case a few years ago in Germany where a man was charged with murder. He was a cannibal and got his kicks from eating another man. He had killed him and stored his body in pieces in his freezer. His defence was that the man he had killed had consented. Even if he had consented—and I suspect the man had, at least, at some level—I regard that as intrinsically wrong and perverse. What consenting adults do in private is not always good or to be condoned. So it is with sodomy.
I see God all around me.
I find your statement that you have no respect for people who 'believe in ghosts' telling. Why no respect? Ghosts have been recorded throughout history; plenty of people have seen them. To dismiss all those people is stupidly arrogant.
One thing that I disagree with is the idea that as long as two adults consent, anything they do with each other is fine. There was a case a few years ago in Germany where a man was charged with murder. He was a cannibal and got his kicks from eating another man. He had killed him and stored his body in pieces in his freezer. His defence was that the man he had killed had consented. Even if he had consented—and I suspect the man had, at least, at some level—I regard that as intrinsically wrong and perverse. What consenting adults do in private is not always good or to be condoned. So it is with sodomy.
Except for the fact that murder/cannibalism is illegal and last time I looked homosexuality is legal in the vast majority of the world.
I'm an atheist and can't wait for religion to become nothing more than a sideshow (not that it will happen in my lifetime), but I'll defend a person's right to religious freedom to the hilt. But your point of view is typical of the religious zealots with regards to being gay. Throw in a few references to illegal activity (there are already references here to paedophilia and no doubt someone will throw in the bestiality argument soon) and then indirectly link those behaviours to being the same as being gay.
Ironic how Christianity preaches tolerance and yet the most intolerant people I know are christians.
Mutilation is legal if consented to. So is consensual torture. That doesn't make those things right.
Mutilation is legal if consented to. So is consensual torture. That doesn't make those things right.
It only doesn't make it right from your moral viewpoint. Fortunately morality is not an absolute.
If two or more consenting adults get their kicks out of causing pain to each other, and as long as no laws are broken (i.e. someone dies), then they have absolutely every right to behave how they wish.
I think you're getting right/wrong confused with agree/disagree. You may disagree with homosexual behaviour, that doesn't make it wrong.
I don't know what 'buying into the lifestyle' means. If you mean by that they want others to show tolerance, I don't think that's an 'agenda' but rather, not much more than a live-and-let-live request.
Arguably, other groups, based on race and gender, have more of an 'agenda.'
Regarding your point about social conservatives, I do agree. It's wrong that someone is hounded or forced out for expressing a view on social issues (but then, logically, it's just as wrong on your part to condemn Cook for his tweet). But if it did translate into, say, Mr. Eich not employing gays in his company, that would be a huge problem. It would also run afoul of employment laws in this country.
That's drivel. You obviously don't travel much, or read the newspaper, or even know a lot of people.
(Fwiw, I am not religious).
I'm not so sure why people need to read a fictional book that you recommend , I dont ask you to read Star Wars and try to make laws related to it that that affect everybody.
Why don't you post links to these opinions instead of painting "libertarians" with a broad brush?