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 195196197198199 285>
Author
Message
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2529
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
    Posted: July 11 2013 at 15:39
Originally posted by timothy leary

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?


Yes, polygamy should be allowed.  If someone wants to have multiple husbands or wives and the people he or she wants to marry agree to enter into such a union, why should anyone stop them?

As far as sex with minors goes; I don't think it's unreasonable to have an established age of consent, as we do now.  I don't know if 18 is the right age, but whatever it is, it would work like it does now; your parents or guardian would be responsible for you before you turned 18 and after that you would be responsible for yourself.  You wouldn't be able to have a harem of teenagers because they would be below the legal age of consent.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16425
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 15:39
Really... Outside of polygamy with minors involved, what's so wrong about consenting adults in a polygamous relation?
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 15:45
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

What's wrong with polygamy?


Exactly. Whose rights are violated by polygamy? Adultery is legal. Surely that is worse than consenting adults having multiple partners.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31720
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 15:50
If you have multiple spouses, you get what you deserve.  Wacko
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: 2529
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 15:51
Originally posted by thellama73

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

What's wrong with polygamy?


Exactly. Whose rights are violated by polygamy? Adultery is legal. Surely that is worse than consenting adults having multiple partners.


Yeah, I'm not a fan of polygamy, but it's at least better than multiple sex partners who you're not married to (which is perfectly legal).

On a related note, I find it somewhat amusing that opponents of gay marriage (usually Christians) often use the argument that if we legalize gay marriage, it's only a matter of time before polygamy gets legalized, and of course no one would want that, it would be even worse - and yet the Bible never explicitly condemns polygamy and it's treated as a legitimate (if problematic) form of marriage in the Old Testament.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
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 16:01
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by thellama73

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

What's wrong with polygamy?


Exactly. Whose rights are violated by polygamy? Adultery is legal. Surely that is worse than consenting adults having multiple partners.


Yeah, I'm not a fan of polygamy, but it's at least better than multiple sex partners who you're not married to (which is perfectly legal).

On a related note, I find it somewhat amusing that opponents of gay marriage (usually Christians) often use the argument that if we legalize gay marriage, it's only a matter of time before polygamy gets legalized, and of course no one would want that, it would be even worse - and yet the Bible never explicitly condemns polygamy and it's treated as a legitimate (if problematic) form of marriage in the Old Testament.


The old testament is not particularly concerned with incest either, to the best of my recollection. It sure is a funny testament.
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: 2529
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2013 at 16:10
Originally posted by thellama73

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by thellama73

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

What's wrong with polygamy?


Exactly. Whose rights are violated by polygamy? Adultery is legal. Surely that is worse than consenting adults having multiple partners.


Yeah, I'm not a fan of polygamy, but it's at least better than multiple sex partners who you're not married to (which is perfectly legal).

On a related note, I find it somewhat amusing that opponents of gay marriage (usually Christians) often use the argument that if we legalize gay marriage, it's only a matter of time before polygamy gets legalized, and of course no one would want that, it would be even worse - and yet the Bible never explicitly condemns polygamy and it's treated as a legitimate (if problematic) form of marriage in the Old Testament.


The old testament is not particularly concerned with incest either, to the best of my recollection. It sure is a funny testament.


Passages like Leviticus 18 are pretty harsh on incest, actually.  If you're referring to the custom where a widow would marry her husband's closest living relative, that was a different situation (the husband would have been dead and the new husband wouldn't be a blood relative) and was common because it protected widows and was seen as a matter of family honor (you were supposed to produce children in the name of the dead relative).
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
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 12 2013 at 05:15
Originally posted by The T


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.

Ah, you hit the nail on the head.  That is the main reason people don't like the idea of socialism - we don't want to give up our greed.  But I'm saying that greed keeps us from having a society at peace, as well as personally being at peace.  Greed is a sickness, and we need to eradicate it, not enable it.

Originally posted by The T

There are people who are not fans of gay marriage who are not crazy fundamentalists.

You're right, but I'd argue that those people, while not actually qualifying for the label "fundamentalist", have been infected by the sickness of fundamentalism.  I say this because they cannot defend their views against homosexuality with anything but bible thumping.  Now as I expound on that, keep something in mind:
I was going to say "I am a Christian."  However, I have come to hate that label lately.  I hate it mainly because it is a label.  It limits me.  Soren Kierkegaard said "Once you label me, you negate me."  I hate the label "Christian" because there's too much baggage that comes with it.  Once I carry that label, people will make assumptions that are most likely not correct about me.  Also, there is a certain sense that carrying the label is like a boy scout badge - if I carry the label, I've accomplished what I need to accomplish.  Boom, it's done.  Whereas I think that what it's about is not something easy - it's not a magical incantation that works like a "get out of hell free card" (if you knew my views on the subject of hell, you'd know why I think this is absolute rubbish - to summarize: hell is here and now, and is the results ON EARTH of our bad decisions).  So, I much prefer to say "I'm trying to follow Jesus."  This is a much more humble way of going about it and admits that I haven't "arrived" - I'm on a journey and I have a long way to go.

Ok, sorry for the rabbit trail.  Back to what I was saying - those whom the "fundamentalist" label does not apply to but don't like the idea of homosexuality are still suffering from fundamentalist ideas.  They can't rationally explain their dislike of homosexuality, though they try - as Jacob did by saying that it's harmful to the children.  By the way, it's not: here are six scholarly research papers on the subject that all come to the conclusion that having two parents of the same sex is not harmful in and of itself.  The only tool they are able to employ in their justification of their dislike for homosexuality are mistranslated Bible verses.  I have argued at length with some of these people about the reasons those verses do not mean what they think it means, and they always fall back to illogical reasoning, such as telling me I've been led astray and I shouldn't be trying to outsmart God and such nonsense.  If there is a God in heaven who made me with the brain I have, I'd think He'd want me to use it by examining translation and history before I blindly adopt a view based on an ancient text written in an extinct language.

The Buddhists have a saying that I like very much.  The collection of the Buddha's words, which is close to what Christians call "The Bible" for them, is known as the Dharma.  Buddhists will say "The Dharma is not the Buddha's teachings.  The Dharma only points to the Buddha's teachings.  Look at the way the Buddha lived.  Those are the Buddha's teachings.  Live in the Buddha's teachings."  So I say "The Bible is not God's teachings.  The Bible only points to God's teachings.  Look at the life of Jesus - the way he treated people.  Those are God's teachings.  Live in the life of Jesus and you will live in God's teachings."

When I try to live by that principle, I can't see any possible way of justifying the way people think about homosexuality based on ancient texts written in extinct languages that have been mistranslated and misinterpreted.


Edited by dtguitarfan - July 12 2013 at 05:17
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: 2529
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2013 at 11:57
^How are we defining "fundamentalist" anyway?  As someone who takes the Bible literally?  Someone who affirms the five fundamentals?  An uber-zealous religious nut?  "Fundamentalist" is such a vague term that it means almost nothing anymore except that it has a negative connotation and can be a good insult.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16425
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2013 at 12:18
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by The T


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.

Ah, you hit the nail on the head.  That is the main reason people don't like the idea of socialism - we don't want to give up our greed.  But I'm saying that greed keeps us from having a society at peace, as well as personally being at peace.  Greed is a sickness, and we need to eradicate it, not enable it.
I'm not the biggest fan of the all-for-profit mentality and greed, but I don't think that would be the main reason socialism isn't successful here. For one, is the less collectivistic, more individualistic (not in a bad way) prevailing mentality; two, this country grew and became what it is (or was) thanks to an entrepreneurship that is not as common in more socialistic societies; third, socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system; this country is too large to apply a one-size-fits-all solution. Not everybody in the world can have a big welfare state run efficiently and honestly like the Scandinavians. Cultures are different. I agree some things can change but you can't change the way people is at wish, it just isn't possible.  

Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by The T

There are people who are not fans of gay marriage who are not crazy fundamentalists.

You're right, but I'd argue that those people, while not actually qualifying for the label "fundamentalist", have been infected by the sickness of fundamentalism.  I say this because they cannot defend their views against homosexuality with anything but bible thumping.
. False. There might be religious influence in many of them, but just go south of the Rio Grande all the way to the Cabo de Hornos and see how much more people don't like gay marriage without being crazy fundamentalist bible fanatics (some SouthAmerican countries even allow gay marriage now but many with a large percentage of the population opposed to it). It might be related to religion still (catholicism in this case) but not to the same degree. Not to speak about large parts of world outside of western Europe and the US.   
Now as I expound on that, keep something in mind:
I was going to say "I am a Christian."  However, I have come to hate that label lately.  I hate it mainly because it is a label.  It limits me.  Soren Kierkegaard said "Once you label me, you negate me."  I hate the label "Christian" because there's too much baggage that comes with it.  Once I carry that label, people will make assumptions that are most likely not correct about me.  Also, there is a certain sense that carrying the label is like a boy scout badge - if I carry the label, I've accomplished what I need to accomplish.  Boom, it's done.  Whereas I think that what it's about is not something easy - it's not a magical incantation that works like a "get out of hell free card" (if you knew my views on the subject of hell, you'd know why I think this is absolute rubbish - to summarize: hell is here and now, and is the results ON EARTH of our bad decisions).  So, I much prefer to say "I'm trying to follow Jesus."  This is a much more humble way of going about it and admits that I haven't "arrived" - I'm on a journey and I have a long way to go.
I'd hope you applied that same idea to people who oppose you and started ignoring labels and going to what people say and think. You are quite good at throwing labels Geoff to those who don't think like you.  

Ok, sorry for the rabbit trail.  Back to what I was saying - those whom the "fundamentalist" label does not apply to but don't like the idea of homosexuality are still suffering from fundamentalist ideas.  They can't rationally explain their dislike of homosexuality, though they try - as Jacob did by saying that it's harmful to the children.  By the way, it's not: here are six scholarly research papers on the subject that all come to the conclusion that having two parents of the same sex is not harmful in and of itself.  The only tool they are able to employ in their justification of their dislike for homosexuality are mistranslated Bible verses.  I have argued at length with some of these people about the reasons those verses do not mean what they think it means, and they always fall back to illogical reasoning, such as telling me I've been led astray and I shouldn't be trying to outsmart God and such nonsense.  If there is a God in heaven who made me with the brain I have, I'd think He'd want me to use it by examining translation and history before I blindly adopt a view based on an ancient text written in an extinct language.
That's generalizing. There are people who have no problem with people having sex and partnerships with whomever they want but for whom marriage is a man/woman thing, out of tradition, out of personal values, out of societal needs. There are reasonable reasons other than pure hate or religious fanatism. 


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 12 2013 at 17:32
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

^How are we defining "fundamentalist" anyway?  As someone who takes the Bible literally?

That's close, but not complete.  What I'm getting at is a tendency to interpret a Biblical passage a certain way, and then being unwilling to face a reality that doesn't match up to that interpretation or to allow the possibility that there are other interpretations that might match reality better.

Originally posted by The T

I'm not the biggest fan of the all-for-profit mentality and greed, but I don't think that would be the main reason socialism isn't successful here. For one, is the less collectivistic, more individualistic (not in a bad way) prevailing mentality; two, this country grew and became what it is (or was) thanks to an entrepreneurship that is not as common in more socialistic societies; third, socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system; this country is too large to apply a one-size-fits-all solution. Not everybody in the world can have a big welfare state run efficiently and honestly like the Scandinavians. Cultures are different. I agree some things can change but you can't change the way people is at wish, it just isn't possible. 

Socialism is not failed.  Not as long as Canada, England, Scandinavian countries, etc. are still existing and enjoying universal healthcare and the like.  You think it wouldn't work here because people have bad attitudes.  So if my kids have bad attitudes about eating their vegetables, I guess I should just say "oh well"?

Originally posted by The T

I'd hope you applied that same idea to people who oppose you and started ignoring labels and going to what people say and think. You are quite good at throwing labels Geoff to those who don't think like you.  

When you're arguing with people like Rob and Jacob who deal with absolutes such as "all taxes are unjust - PERIOD", I'd say labels are justified.

Besides, Jesus had some rather harsh labels for Pharisees....  Oh, I'm aware of how difficult it is to judge when it is appropriate and when it is not.  But when people deal with absolutes, sometimes a good shock is the only thing that can wake them up to the reality that absolutes simply do not work in reality.
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 12 2013 at 17:39
Originally posted by The T

socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system

Also - please explain why the NFL is so successful if socialism is failed.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16425
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2013 at 17:54


You're watching too much Bill Maher Geoff. Comparing an entire country with multiple people and infinite number of needs and interests with a football for-profit-as-only-goal organization. Of course an organization does better with one head and a highly centralized structure and share of profits and interests.

Curiously, that socialist paradise of the NFL has flourished in the capitalist hell of the US. Why didn't it arise in the Warsaw Pact? Why did eastern Europe soccer teams always suck in continental competitions against western teams?

Sorry Geoff but the NFL example (which I heard Maher mention about two years ago) is extremely stupid. Instead, compare countries to COUNTRIES. Then see how well pure socialism has fared (I'm not talking about social market economies like Northern Europe).
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 12 2013 at 17:57
Originally posted by The T



You're watching too much Bill Maher Geoff. Comparing an entire country with multiple people and infinite number of needs and interests with a football for-profit-as-only-goal organization. Of course an organization does better with one head and a highly centralized structure and share of profits and interests.

Curiously, that socialist paradise of the NFL has flourished in the capitalist hell of the US. Why didn't it arise in the Warsaw Pact? Why did eastern Europe soccer teams always suck in continental competitions against western teams?

Sorry Geoff but the NFL example (which I heard Maher mention about two years ago) is extremely stupid. Instead, compare countries to COUNTRIES. Then see how well pure socialism has fared (I'm not talking about social market economies like Northern Europe).


You're missing the point.  I've never argued for a pure "socialist paradise".  I simply think there are things we can learn from the countries that have put "socialist" programs into place with great success.  I think we could do great things by combining "socialist" principles with capitalist principles.  And those who say socialism is failed need to contend with the success of the universal healthcare programs of MANY countries.

EDIT: And I RARELY watch Bill Maher.  Occasionally I hear about something he did and watch a segment and find it funny.  But too often I've found him to be to crass and unaccepting of anything spiritual.


Edited by dtguitarfan - July 12 2013 at 17:59
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31720
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2013 at 18:07
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by The T

socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system

Also - please explain why the NFL is so successful if socialism is failed.


LOL
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 12 2013 at 18:18
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by The T

socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system

Also - please explain why the NFL is so successful if socialism is failed.


LOL

Laugh it up.  If the NFL was run the way a Libertarian would run it, it would suck.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29448
Post Options Post Options   Quote Padraic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2013 at 18:20
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by The T

socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system

Also - please explain why the NFL is so successful if socialism is failed.


LOL

Laugh it up.  If the NFL was run the way a Libertarian would run it, it would suck.


Please explain.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2013 at 18:23
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

I think we could do great things by combining "socialist" principles with capitalist principles. 
That.
And think about it, most sci-fi stories and movies about utopian futures depict rather socialist societies. Likely naive, but it should make us think about why is it so.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29448
Post Options Post Options   Quote Padraic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2013 at 18:26
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by dtguitarfan

I think we could do great things by combining "socialist" principles with capitalist principles. 
That.
And think about it, most sci-fi stories and movies about utopian futures depict rather socialist societies. Likely naive, but it should make us think about why is it so.


They could also be considered libertarian I suppose.  In any case they depict a future where the cost of providing everyone with everything they need is essentially zero, so everyone sort of comes and goes as they please.
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 12 2013 at 18:36
Originally posted by Padraic

Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by The T

socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system

Also - please explain why the NFL is so successful if socialism is failed.


LOL

Laugh it up.  If the NFL was run the way a Libertarian would run it, it would suck.


Please explain.

The "socialism" of the NFL is what keeps it competitive.  We never know who's going to make it to the Superbowl.  A team could suck for years and then all of a sudden do quite well.  The profit sharing is what keeps it competitive like that.  Without it, you'd have a few teams that ALWAYS went to the superbowl and most teams wouldn't stand a chance because they'd never be able to afford to pay the good players.  I wouldn't want to watch it if it were like that.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 195196197198199 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 0.648 seconds.