Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 194195196197198 285>
Author
Message
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15405
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
    Posted: July 11 2013 at 09:06
But if the republicans don't practice what they preach, how did what they preach break the system? (Libertarian and Republican rhetoric is completely different anyway)
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 09:34
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

But if the republicans don't practice what they preach, how did what they preach break the system? (Libertarian and Republican rhetoric is completely different anyway)

You're not understanding what I'm getting at.  Most of Republican rhetoric today is basically the same as conservative Libertarian rhetoric - government is bad or broken or what have you, just look at how broken it is, therefore we should have less of it.  What I'm saying is that the Republican party has gone about using this rhetoric, then breaking many of the systems in our government, and then pointing to those broken systems as proof that their rhetoric is correct.  But they've been hypocritical in certain areas, such as telling gays how to live and spending incredible sums on military expeditions.  They are employing cognitive dissonance in the way they say Keynes was wrong but then employ Keynesian rhetoric when it comes to the military.  The fact that the Republican party has been inconsistent does not prove me wrong in saying that the idealistic view of "government should be small to nothing, period" is a system that does not work.  On the contrary, I would use the fact the Republicans have broken many of our systems using this ideal by doing such things as minimizing bank regulations is proof that the ideal itself is wrong.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Online
Posts: 16407
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 09:47
Cognitive dissonance is not something you "employ", it is not a tactic.

Pedantic comment aside, I'm not sure a system that would depend on a reliable, big government would be the best in a country where a prevailing mentality is accumulation of wealth and money.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15405
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 10:02
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

But if the republicans don't practice what they preach, how did what they preach break the system? (Libertarian and Republican rhetoric is completely different anyway)

You're not understanding what I'm getting at.  Most of Republican rhetoric today is basically the same as conservative Libertarian rhetoric - government is bad or broken or what have you, just look at how broken it is, therefore we should have less of it.  What I'm saying is that the Republican party has gone about using this rhetoric, then breaking many of the systems in our government, and then pointing to those broken systems as proof that their rhetoric is correct.  But they've been hypocritical in certain areas, such as telling gays how to live and spending incredible sums on military expeditions.  They are employing cognitive dissonance in the way they say Keynes was wrong but then employ Keynesian rhetoric when it comes to the military.  The fact that the Republican party has been inconsistent does not prove me wrong in saying that the idealistic view of "government should be small to nothing, period" is a system that does not work.  On the contrary, I would use the fact the Republicans have broken many of our systems using this ideal by doing such things as minimizing bank regulations is proof that the ideal itself is wrong.


But we haven't had small government, republicans haven't pushed for small government, republicans have followed the same economic policies as democrats. I get what you're saying, but you're spouting a complete non sequitur when you look at the facts. You can't say that a free market broke our government when we haven't had a political party which has attempted to free the market in a century. Republicans are Keynesian in every regard despite their rhetoric. Your critique makes no sense.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8329
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 10:14
Aso, as a bit of a side note, who's telling gays how to live? I have not heard that from anyone.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29298
Post Options Post Options   Quote Padraic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 10:15
Originally posted by thellama73

Aso, as a bit of a side note, who's telling gays how to live? I have not heard that from anyone.

He means telling them they can't get married.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8329
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 10:34
Originally posted by Padraic

Originally posted by thellama73

Aso, as a bit of a side note, who's telling gays how to live? I have not heard that from anyone.

He means telling them they can't get married.


Failing go grant government benefits to someone is not the same as telling them how to live. That would be like me saying the government is telling me how to live because they won't give me Medicare, a program to which I am not entitled and do not qualify.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29298
Post Options Post Options   Quote Padraic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 10:42
Originally posted by thellama73

Originally posted by Padraic

Originally posted by thellama73

Aso, as a bit of a side note, who's telling gays how to live? I have not heard that from anyone.

He means telling them they can't get married.


Failing go grant government benefits to someone is not the same as telling them how to live. That would be like me saying the government is telling me how to live because they won't give me Medicare, a program to which I am not entitled and do not qualify.

Maybe "acting like complete douchebags towards gay people" is a better rephrasing.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8329
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 10:48
Originally posted by Padraic

Originally posted by thellama73

Originally posted by Padraic

Originally posted by thellama73

Aso, as a bit of a side note, who's telling gays how to live? I have not heard that from anyone.

He means telling them they can't get married.


Failing go grant government benefits to someone is not the same as telling them how to live. That would be like me saying the government is telling me how to live because they won't give me Medicare, a program to which I am not entitled and do not qualify.

Maybe "acting like complete douchebags towards gay people" is a better rephrasing.


Maybe. I think it's absurd that the government is involved in marriage at all, but if they must be I agree that they should extend that to gay couples as well. It's yet another example of how, with government, we are forced to pick a single answer for everyone, inevitably leaving many people unhappy. In the private market, we can each have our own way. The fact that I prefer Coke doesn't prevent you from enjoying Pepsi. In a private marriage system, the fact that some institutions would recognize gay marriage would not force others to do the same, and everybody wins!
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3280
Post Options Post Options   Quote timothy leary Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 10:58
Everybody wins.........sure.......that will ever happen.
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2526
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 11:02
Originally posted by timothy leary

Everybody wins.........sure.......that will ever happen.


Why not?  It would be a completely free system - Bob can get married if he wants and Joe doesn't have to recognize the marriage but he can't force Bob to not get married.  Traditional marriage proponents can have their way (no government redefinition of marriage) and gay marriage proponents can have their way too (no denial of marriage recognition/benefits).
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3280
Post Options Post Options   Quote timothy leary Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 11:04
Let me know when it is implemented.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Online
Posts: 16407
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 11:05
It doesn't help that some groups express actual contempt (or more) for gays, and that they sometimes are associated to the Republican Party, and then in turn people associate that party with libertarians, if only because their most vocal members (the Pauls) are Republicans.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15405
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 11:32
Originally posted by thellama73



Maybe. I think it's absurd that the government is involved in marriage at all, but if they must be I agree that they should extend that to gay couples as well. It's yet another example of how, with government, we are forced to pick a single answer for everyone, inevitably leaving many people unhappy. In the private market, we can each have our own way. The fact that I prefer Coke doesn't prevent you from enjoying Pepsi. In a private marriage system, the fact that some institutions would recognize gay marriage would not force others to do the same, and everybody wins!


It's kinda different here though. Fundamentalists still wouldn't be happy because they don't want gays to be able to get married at all regardless of the myriad acts that the word can represent and they want their own version of marriage codified to affirm  their beliefs, or for conversion purposes, or because of narcissism, or through some strange structural sociological argument, or because they are just kinda illogically grossed out by gay people so they want to never have to see them be happy, or something; I'm not really sure what goes through the head of a person like that. But anyway, while getting the government out of the marriage game is the best solution, it will only ameliorate the vitriolic attitudes of the bigots.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8329
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 11:48
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

Originally posted by thellama73



Maybe. I think it's absurd that the government is involved in marriage at all, but if they must be I agree that they should extend that to gay couples as well. It's yet another example of how, with government, we are forced to pick a single answer for everyone, inevitably leaving many people unhappy. In the private market, we can each have our own way. The fact that I prefer Coke doesn't prevent you from enjoying Pepsi. In a private marriage system, the fact that some institutions would recognize gay marriage would not force others to do the same, and everybody wins!


It's kinda different here though. Fundamentalists still wouldn't be happy because they don't want gays to be able to get married at all regardless of the myriad acts that the word can represent and they want their own version of marriage codified to affirm  their beliefs, or for conversion purposes, or because of narcissism, or through some strange structural sociological argument, or because they are just kinda illogically grossed out by gay people so they want to never have to see them be happy, or something; I'm not really sure what goes through the head of a person like that. But anyway, while getting the government out of the marriage game is the best solution, it will only ameliorate the vitriolic attitudes of the bigots.


That's true, but I'm not really interested in satisfying the preferences of those whose goal is to force others to adhere to their worldview. If you like Pepsi and I like Coke, the market can make us both happy, but if you want to prevent me from having Coke, then that's just too bad for you.

I think most people who oppose gay marriage, however, excepting the really crazy fundamentalists. Would be perfectly happy with a private system, since their church and their government would not be participating, and they would be free to not consider it a "real" marriage. I know it's popular to portray opponents of gay marriage as Bible thumping lunatics full of hatred and bigotry, but I know a lot of those folks and in most cases they are perfectly nice and reasonable, but just don't like the idea of government redefining marriage for everyone.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15405
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 12:58
I agree with all that.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Online
Posts: 16407
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 13:07
There are people who are not fans of gay marriage who are not crazy fundamentalists. There are other cultures and the US being so multicultural it's bound to have people who don't support the idea who are not lunatic extreme evangelicals or something like that.
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2526
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 13:59
Originally posted by thellama73

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

Originally posted by thellama73



Maybe. I think it's absurd that the government is involved in marriage at all, but if they must be I agree that they should extend that to gay couples as well. It's yet another example of how, with government, we are forced to pick a single answer for everyone, inevitably leaving many people unhappy. In the private market, we can each have our own way. The fact that I prefer Coke doesn't prevent you from enjoying Pepsi. In a private marriage system, the fact that some institutions would recognize gay marriage would not force others to do the same, and everybody wins!


It's kinda different here though. Fundamentalists still wouldn't be happy because they don't want gays to be able to get married at all regardless of the myriad acts that the word can represent and they want their own version of marriage codified to affirm  their beliefs, or for conversion purposes, or because of narcissism, or through some strange structural sociological argument, or because they are just kinda illogically grossed out by gay people so they want to never have to see them be happy, or something; I'm not really sure what goes through the head of a person like that. But anyway, while getting the government out of the marriage game is the best solution, it will only ameliorate the vitriolic attitudes of the bigots.


That's true, but I'm not really interested in satisfying the preferences of those whose goal is to force others to adhere to their worldview. If you like Pepsi and I like Coke, the market can make us both happy, but if you want to prevent me from having Coke, then that's just too bad for you.

I think most people who oppose gay marriage, however, excepting the really crazy fundamentalists. Would be perfectly happy with a private system, since their church and their government would not be participating, and they would be free to not consider it a "real" marriage. I know it's popular to portray opponents of gay marriage as Bible thumping lunatics full of hatred and bigotry, but I know a lot of those folks and in most cases they are perfectly nice and reasonable, but just don't like the idea of government redefining marriage for everyone.


As someone who was a social conservative my entire life before becoming a libertarian, I think I can provide some perspective on this.

Logan's right, most gay marriage opponents are perfectly reasonable people, not crazy, hateful bigots.  They are legitimately concerned about legislation that they think would endorse what they see as immoral behavior, and also concerned about the effect that same-sex marriage will have on society.  While I don't agree with their claims (I think that homosexual activity is wrong but see no reason why the morality or immorality of a consensual, unharmful act should matter with regard to public policy), their points are reasonable.  Consider:

 - Marriage has been defined as a union between opposite sexes for thousands of years and a government redefinition is unprecedented.  Gay marriage doesn't make any sense because the definition of marriage itself does not include homosexual unions.
 - Gay marriage will hurt children because scientific studies show that children are better off with both a mom and a dad (yes, there's actually evidence that supports this)
 - Gay marriage will lead to the labeling of anyone opposing homosexuality as a bigot and the repression of the freedoms of religion and conscience.

Many social conservatives, furthermore, would not support the privatization of marriage because they see the government as having an important role in maintaining morality in society (yes, bad idea, I know).

That's not everything...but it might help you understand exactly what the thought process of gay marriage opponents is.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3280
Post Options Post Options   Quote timothy leary Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 15:24
So should the government allowed the mormons to practice polygamy? Does not seem to moral to me for an old Mormon bishop to have a harem of 14 year old girls. Who should of stopped polygamy if the government didn't?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15405
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 15:37
What's wrong with polygamy?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 194195196197198 285>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.563 seconds.