Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Libertarianism/Anarchism - Page 3







Post#51 at 05-16-2009 09:55 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
05-16-2009, 09:55 PM #51
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Cool The lame war on drugs

I despise self-righteous ninnies, nags, nicotine Nazis, marijuana meddlers, neo-prohibitionists, etc.

A bunch say, "oh, its for the children". Whatever, bite me.

http://www.forces.org/static_page/constitution.php

Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Cafferty of CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Here's something to think about:
How many police officers and sheriff's deputies are involved in investigating and solving crimes involving illegal drugs? And arresting and transporting and interrogating and jailing the suspects?
How many prosecutors and their staffs spend time prosecuting drug cases? How many defense lawyers spend their time defending drug suspects?
How many hours of courtroom time are devoted to drug trials? How many judges, bailiffs, courtroom security officers, stenographers, etc., spend their time on drug trials?
How many prison cells are filled with drug offenders? And how many corrections officers does it take to guard them? How much food do these convicts consume?
And when they get out, how many parole and probation officers does it take to supervise their release? And how many ex-offenders turn right around and do it again?
So how's this war on drugs going?
Someone described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. That's a perfect description of the war on drugs.
The United States is the largest illegal drug market in the world. Americans want their weed, crack, cocaine, heroin, whatever. And they're willing to pay big money to get it.
The drug suppliers are only too happy to oblige. The Mexican drug cartels now have operations in 230 American cities. That's 230 American cities!
And we're not just talking about border towns, but places such as Anchorage, Alaska; Boston, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; and Billings, Montana. They're everywhere. And they don't just bring drugs, but violence and crime as well -- lots of it at no extra charge.
They have been able to infiltrate those 230 cities because we have not bothered to secure our borders. In addition to illegal aliens who come here to work and avail themselves of our social programs, we have criminals from Mexico bringing drugs in, taking money and guns back, and recruiting American kids into their criminal enterprises while they're here. iReport.com: Is it time to legalize pot?
What do you suppose the total price tag is for this failed war on drugs? One senior Harvard economist estimates we spend $44 billion a year fighting the war on drugs. He says if they were legal, governments would realize about $33 billion a year in tax revenue. Net swing of $77 billion. Could we use that money today for something else? You bet your ass we could.Plus the cartels would be out of business. Instantly. Goodbye crime and violence.
If drugs were legalized, we could empty out a lot of our prison cells. People will use this stuff whether it's legal or not. Just like they do booze. And you could make the argument that in some cases alcohol is just as dangerous as some drugs. I know.
Like I said ... something to think about. It's time.


Some "Conservatives" hate it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

Some "Liberals" hate it.

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter...n_long_enough/

Stop the War!
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#52 at 05-18-2009 06:19 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
05-18-2009, 06:19 PM #52
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

From the Future of the Gop Thread

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I don't know of any libertarians who would go so far as to say the majority of laws infringe individual rights, let alone 99%.
Why not? Under this schema, any law that is 'aggressive' is rights-violating. This limits just laws to pretty much anything that is designed to stop aggressive behavior, i.e. murder, rape, theft, violent threats, reckless/dangerous behavior, and a handful of others and their variations.

Justin is an anarchist, not a libertarian, though.
Well, the term libertarian was created by a French anarchist as a substitute for anarchism when the government cracked down on his periodical, and for a long time, anarchism was a synonym for libertarianism. Now anarchism is usually considered one of the divisions of libertarianism, so I'm surprised you make the two mutually exclusive.







Post#53 at 05-19-2009 06:48 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
05-19-2009, 06:48 AM #53
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Matt1989 View Post
Why not? Under this schema, any law that is 'aggressive' is rights-violating. This limits just laws to pretty much anything that is designed to stop aggressive behavior, i.e. murder, rape, theft, violent threats, reckless/dangerous behavior, and a handful of others and their variations.
Pretty much. And, volume for volume, well more than 99% of the written laws are well outside the legitimate scope of protection against rights-violation. You'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who'd disagree with that contention.

Well, the term libertarian was created by a French anarchist as a substitute for anarchism when the government cracked down on his periodical, and for a long time, anarchism was a synonym for libertarianism. Now anarchism is usually considered one of the divisions of libertarianism, so I'm surprised you make the two mutually exclusive.
I let him get away with it, since it lets me avoid having to use thу modifier 'minarchist'. Since the minarchist party goes under the name 'libertarian', I don't mind him using the two terms interchangeably.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc ętre dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant ā moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce ętre dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#54 at 05-26-2009 01:33 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
05-26-2009, 01:33 AM #54
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

A Post-IP World?








Post#55 at 05-26-2009 11:31 AM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
05-26-2009, 11:31 AM #55
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Pretty much. And, volume for volume, well more than 99% of the written laws are well outside the legitimate scope of protection against rights-violation. You'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who'd disagree with that contention.

I let him get away with it, since it lets me avoid having to use thу modifier 'minarchist'. Since the minarchist party goes under the name 'libertarian', I don't mind him using the two terms interchangeably.
So what's your opinion of Ron Paul? I'm guessing you consider him a fascist...







Post#56 at 05-26-2009 11:47 AM by SVE-KRD [at joined Apr 2007 #posts 1,097]
---
05-26-2009, 11:47 AM #56
Join Date
Apr 2007
Posts
1,097

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
For quite some time, this site has been blessed or plagued by people viewing all problems through partisan lenses. It had been Red / Blue or Republican / Democrat until recently. The Republicans have seemingly been replaced by Libertarians recently.

I suspect that, with the liberal progressive victory in the culture wars, the conservatives now see libertarianism as their last shield for their values and way of life. No longer in a position to try to impose their will upon everyone else, the cultural conservatives seek to keep others from imposing their will, using libertarianism as their weapon. 'States' rights' has also been thus used, in the past. Of course, 'states' rights' failed in that regard, and I suspect that libertarianism will also fail.
Last edited by SVE-KRD; 05-26-2009 at 11:51 AM.







Post#57 at 05-27-2009 05:06 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
05-27-2009, 05:06 AM #57
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
So what's your opinion of Ron Paul? I'm guessing you consider him a fascist...
You guess wrong a whole lot. I'd consider him more of a Don Quixote figure, ultimately.

Of course, he's said things along the lines of what I posted above with a fair frequency. So at least his head is in the right place, even if his tactics are totally nonproductive.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc ętre dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant ā moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce ętre dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#58 at 05-27-2009 08:55 AM by independent [at Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here joined Apr 2008 #posts 1,286]
---
05-27-2009, 08:55 AM #58
Join Date
Apr 2008
Location
Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here
Posts
1,286

Quote Originally Posted by SVE-KRD View Post
I suspect that, with the liberal progressive victory in the culture wars, the conservatives now see libertarianism as their last shield for their values and way of life. No longer in a position to try to impose their will upon everyone else, the cultural conservatives seek to keep others from imposing their will, using libertarianism as their weapon. 'States' rights' has also been thus used, in the past. Of course, 'states' rights' failed in that regard, and I suspect that libertarianism will also fail.
Social conservatives are not suddenly converting... the demographics are changing. Younger libertarians may sound somewhat like oldschool conservatives on economic issues, but they're a hundred times more socially liberal than today's "centrist Democrat." Most of 'em are signed up with Obama, but there's a group definitely starting to see him as "too slow," "too conservative," and "too authoritarian" on social issues.

I'm not even exactly sure what this liberal progressive victory in the culture wars you're celebrating is ... gay marriage is still illegal in most places, Obama's building up a bigger faith-based alliance than Bush did, and we're still spying on citizens, torturing combatants, and looking for a "legal procedure" for indefinite detetention w/o trial... Other than abortion, the social conservatives got everything they wanted and Obama's practically solidifying it as a new center.
'82 iNTp
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Jefferson







Post#59 at 05-27-2009 03:56 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
05-27-2009, 03:56 PM #59
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by SVE-KRD View Post
I suspect that, with the liberal progressive victory in the culture wars, the conservatives now see libertarianism as their last shield for their values and way of life. No longer in a position to try to impose their will upon everyone else, the cultural conservatives seek to keep others from imposing their will, using libertarianism as their weapon. 'States' rights' has also been thus used, in the past. Of course, 'states' rights' failed in that regard, and I suspect that libertarianism will also fail.
On the contrary, the liberal positions in the culture wars seem to have reached their extreme during the 3T, and have been trending in the opposite direction, as S&H predicted.

The recent failure of the Republican Party can be summed up to a large extent as an abandonment of the libertarianism that was such a large part of the movement that brought Reagan to office. After a while in power, the Republican leadership in Congress lost its interest in giving that power away by limiting the federal government - big surprise there. Bush openly rejected limited government in favor of "compassionate conservatism", which included new entitlement programs.

So you're seeing libertarian/conservative rumblings like the Tea Parties, or the recent votes in CA, or Ron Paul's candidacy, because the Republican Party has been neglecting that constituency which it once served. Since they have no one representing their POV (Bush authored the original TARP), they're forced to go out and do it themselves. Many would say (and I would be one of them) that rediscovering those past principles is the only way the Republicans will get back on track.

Not least because Obama is going so far in the opposite direction in that realim, while remaining relatively moderate in other areas, that that is the area he has left wide open for successful opposition. When the government expands its reach and power, as well as its spending and debt, as rapidly as it has since Obama took office, something eventually has to give. The Republicans haven't figured it out yet, but I think it's coming from the grass roots. If the GOP does not catch on, then it could be stuck with a third party splitting the vote.

To put it another way, there is added urgency to the preservation of liberty because of Obama's actions, and Republican complicity. What you are seeing is Obama creating his own opposition. And he knew the danger when the Tea Partyies happened, because he went out and started paying lip service to paying down the debt. That was a good laugh for about 5 minutes.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 05-27-2009 at 04:04 PM.







Post#60 at 05-27-2009 04:09 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
05-27-2009, 04:09 PM #60
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by independent View Post
Younger libertarians may sound somewhat like oldschool conservatives on economic issues, but they're a hundred times more socially liberal than today's "centrist Democrat."
Anyone who places enough importance on "libertarian" social issues that they're willing to accept Obama is not a libertarian. More importantly, the libertarian position on gay marriage is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. And support for abortion is only a libertarian position if you do not consider an unborn child to be a human being with rights. If you come to a different conclusion, the libertarian position is to be pro-life.







Post#61 at 05-27-2009 05:13 PM by Kurt Horner [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 1,656]
---
05-27-2009, 05:13 PM #61
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
1,656

Quote Originally Posted by independent View Post
I'm not even exactly sure what this liberal progressive victory in the culture wars you're celebrating is ... gay marriage is still illegal in most places, Obama's building up a bigger faith-based alliance than Bush did, and we're still spying on citizens, torturing combatants, and looking for a "legal procedure" for indefinite detetention w/o trial... Other than abortion, the social conservatives got everything they wanted and Obama's practically solidifying it as a new center.
The Crisis is just getting started. The Continental Congress spent time petitioning the King, Lincoln tried to leave slavery in place and FDR attacked Hoover for not balancing the budget. The question is not whether these issues will shift, but under what circumstances.







Post#62 at 05-27-2009 05:32 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-27-2009, 05:32 PM #62
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by independent View Post
...the modern right is an obsession with corporatism and the corporation is an invention of monarchs exchanging wealth & social status for services rendered.
The modern corporation is a recent invention, I believe limited liability began in 1855 in Britain. At that time Britain no longer had a ruling monarch, the Queen was a figurehead.

The whole idea of limited liability seems to me as an offshoot of the sovereign's immunity and the fact that a charter was legally-binding proof that the corporation was working for the sovereign's will and enjoyed a share in that immunity.
That's not the impression I get.







Post#63 at 05-28-2009 01:07 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
05-28-2009, 01:07 AM #63
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Anyone who places enough importance on "libertarian" social issues that they're willing to accept Obama is not a libertarian. More importantly, the libertarian position on gay marriage is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. And support for abortion is only a libertarian position if you do not consider an unborn child to be a human being with rights. If you come to a different conclusion, the libertarian position is to be pro-life.
All true, but also highly misleading. The libertarian position regarding gay marriage, IMO, would be the abolition of marriage privilege. Getting the government out of relationships is ideal, but expanding marriage in scope (to include homosexual couples) would actually defeat much of the force of that privilege in the first place.

As Rothbard astutely pointed out, the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan conservative fusion between liberty and 'tradition' (i.e. right-wing cultural values) is utterly ridiculous, and should be incoherent to most principled libertarians.
Last edited by Matt1989; 05-28-2009 at 01:11 AM. Reason: Link Added - A Good One







Post#64 at 05-28-2009 09:58 AM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
05-28-2009, 09:58 AM #64
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Matt1989 View Post
All true, but also highly misleading. The libertarian position regarding gay marriage, IMO, would be the abolition of marriage privilege. Getting the government out of relationships is ideal, but expanding marriage in scope (to include homosexual couples) would actually defeat much of the force of that privilege in the first place.
If you think libertarianism is about "destroying privilege"...I'm not sure what to say. Maybe you should go to square one and read Atlas Shrugged.

As Rothbard astutely pointed out, the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan conservative fusion between liberty and 'tradition' (i.e. right-wing cultural values) is utterly ridiculous, and should be incoherent to most principled libertarians.
That article is simply an expression of what I talked about in my previous post. Libertarians have not been happy with the GOP, for good reason. My argument is that the Republicans must move back in that direction.

Purist libertarians will never be fully happy with either party, but if they want to be involved with or have an influence on one of the two major parties, the Republicans are it, and they must surely know it now if they had any doubts last year.

In other words, I'm saying Republicans and libertarians need each other, and the sooner they both figure that out, the better off they'll both be.







Post#65 at 05-28-2009 11:28 AM by independent [at Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here joined Apr 2008 #posts 1,286]
---
05-28-2009, 11:28 AM #65
Join Date
Apr 2008
Location
Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here
Posts
1,286

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
The modern corporation is a recent invention, I believe limited liability began in 1855 in Britain. At that time Britain no longer had a ruling monarch, the Queen was a figurehead.

<The whole idea of limited liability seems to me as an offshoot of the sovereign's immunity and the fact that a charter was legally-binding proof that the corporation was working for the sovereign's will and enjoyed a share in that immunity.>

That's not the impression I get.
The semi-modern LLC was pioneered in England 1855, but just 20 years before that the would-be CEO needed the crown's direct permission. In a way, that was sort of a "class victory," but it really just allowed the old aristocracy to admit some new members. America enacted laws similar to English corporate law after the Civil War (coinciding with the national banking subsidies that led to robber-baron empires). In the 1789-Civil War period, American businesses needed to prove a 'public good' to get a charter from the government and the majority of economic activity was in the form of agricultural estates and sole priopriotorships.

The 1890s, 1930s, and 1980s waves of "regulation" and "deregulation" were designed to protect the prestige & priveledge of corporate owners while making the externalities of their wealth a bit more palatable to the voting masses. Bandaids on a relic of monarchy.

If the industrial era required consolidation of capital in private hands for a public good, it has also externalized the costs in the form of environmental desolation. Moral hazard is inherent in the system, and this leads to a tendency toward drawing against future productive potential.

Further, the implicit government backing in a limited liability or corporate charter helps to explain police, military, and other international responses to what are inherently economic concerns. Armed backing of financial & business interests, externalized social costs, clogged business courts, emergency regulations & corporate protections & bailouts - these are not signs of a healthy or competitive economy. Its more like the old mercantilism with a new aristocracy.
'82 iNTp
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Jefferson







Post#66 at 05-28-2009 11:32 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
05-28-2009, 11:32 AM #66
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
If you think libertarianism is about "destroying privilege"...I'm not sure what to say. Maybe you should go to square one and read Atlas Shrugged.
Another wrong guess. Privilege -- that is, a sphere of behavior accorded a preferred individual or class by the favor of the ruling structure -- is one of things most basically abhorrent to libertarianism. And Atlas Shrugged pounded that fact home from several different angles.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc ętre dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant ā moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce ętre dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#67 at 05-28-2009 12:42 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-28-2009, 12:42 PM #67
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Privilege

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Another wrong guess. Privilege -- that is, a sphere of behavior accorded a preferred individual or class by the favor of the ruling structure -- is one of things most basically abhorrent to libertarianism. And Atlas Shrugged pounded that fact home from several different angles.
I guess I see two sorts of privilege. The first has explicit rules. Only warriors can hold property. Only children of kings can become kings. Only males may vote and hold property. Only whites sit at the front of the bus. Only heterosexuals may have the privileges associated with family. Here we have specific rules enforced by society and government that divides between haves and have nots. These sort of things are generally shunned by Americans. We seem to be slowly migrating from a society that honors the words 'all men are created equal' in theory to one that tries to implement them in practice.

Such explicit inequality throve in the Agricultural Age. Such is slowly being removed. Still, there is another form of inequality, one that derives from economy of scale. One who owns a bunch of coal mines has more knowledge and funds to acquire more coal mines. One who controls a bunch of retail stores or fast food outlets is in a better position to expand market share. The resultant concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few does not require laws creating special privilege. Still, if wealth is allowed to accumulate, political power follows. While no laws are required for an elite class to develop, if an elite class exists, the laws are apt to follow.

There is an old 19th century myth that man was once happy in a no government state of nature. If one takes that myth to heart, as Marx did with his assertion that the state would inevitably fade away, government is at core the source of inequality and privilege. The existence of government power in itself implies inequality. Government coerces and coercion is bad. Therefore government should not exist.

Many police forces are corrupt. Police powers tempt police officers towards abuse. To solve this problem, should all police organization be dissolved? Some Crime is caused by police, thus to eliminate crime one eliminates police?

Actually, this possibility is not as absurd as one might think from modern perspectives. In colonial America, there were no police forces. The militia, all adult males, enforced the law. In many places there was no enforcement officer with special privledges, and the supervising officers were appointed by election by the whole.

But how does one apply such a principle to Wal Mart? If the government agencies overseeing Wall Street go away, will the economy really thrive? Can every man be given the authority to regulate the economy, to collect taxes, to print money?

This distinction between explicit priviledge and priviledge resulting from economy of scale is significant for the Republicans and libertarians. To a great extent, they are parties of the priviledged. Many of them have succeeded into positions of wealth and power. They wish to maintain their priviledged position of wealth and power. Thus, in the name of small government, they fight any attempt at diminishing the sort of priviledges that result from economy of scale. Let wealth buy wealth and then wealth buy political power.

To a great extent the Republicans and libertarians are champions of one sort of privilege while attempting double speak to pretend to be opponents of priviledge. Oh, yes, they might on occasion oppose explicit privilege, but often enough the Republicans at least have favored continued unfavorable treatment by gender, religion, race or class.

I believe this is a significant part of the Republican and libertarian problem. Government seems to have been the primary successful mechanism for fighting the inequality of scale. At this point, the explicit privileges are no longer the primary problem. It is the economics of scale that is leading to the greater problems. Thus, the libertarians have no real practical program to attack the current problems, while the Republicans have been caught with their hand stuck in the cookie jar. Both groups have abstract philosophy and values, but no solutions to the current problems. Thus, they remain on the fringes.







Post#68 at 05-28-2009 12:46 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
05-28-2009, 12:46 PM #68
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

And yet - back when Starbucks was starting to take over the coffee shop business, a little Double Rainbow franchise went independent here in Albuquerque and called itself the Flying Star and started offering coffee, pastries, and good lunch and breakfast food of the Yuppie Food variety. Now, here in New Mexico, they've gone viral, and bid fair to be the next Starbucks is the Recession doesn't get them. And all they had to begin with was a Double Rainbow franchise.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#69 at 05-28-2009 12:51 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
05-28-2009, 12:51 PM #69
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Another wrong guess. Privilege -- that is, a sphere of behavior accorded a preferred individual or class by the favor of the ruling structure -- is one of things most basically abhorrent to libertarianism. And Atlas Shrugged pounded that fact home from several different angles.
I know exactly what you mean, but I was responding to what I believe to be the understanding of "privilege" that Matt1989 is most likely using - the socialist one which seeks to take what someone else has, rather than leaving people free to do as they please. In any case, the issue of gay marriage cannot possibly be a top priority of anyone who calls themselves a libertarian, and the position Matt1989 has stated is simply incorrect. Legalizing gay marriage will only result in more conflicts with the liberties of others, which is no solution at all.







Post#70 at 05-28-2009 01:20 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-28-2009, 01:20 PM #70
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Legalizing gay marriage will only result in more conflicts with the liberties of others, which is no solution at all.
Which liberties would those be?







Post#71 at 05-28-2009 01:27 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-28-2009, 01:27 PM #71
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Huh?

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Legalizing gay marriage will only result in more conflicts with the liberties of others, which is no solution at all.
How will giving the all couples equal status diminish liberty? The issue is about prejudice and religious groups using government authority to impose their values on others.
Last edited by Bob Butler 54; 05-28-2009 at 01:29 PM. Reason: Tweak for Clarity







Post#72 at 05-28-2009 01:36 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-28-2009, 01:36 PM #72
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
How will giving the all couples equal status diminish liberty? The issue is about prejudice and religious groups using government authority to impose their values on others.
I wonder if it's not one of those "negative" liberties; i.e., the "freedom" not to have to associate with certain classes of people. This to my mind does not seem very free. You mentioned doublespeak earlier. This might be a prime example of such.







Post#73 at 05-28-2009 01:38 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-28-2009, 01:38 PM #73
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Old Fashioned...

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
And yet - back when Starbucks was starting to take over the coffee shop business, a little Double Rainbow franchise went independent here in Albuquerque and called itself the Flying Star and started offering coffee, pastries, and good lunch and breakfast food of the Yuppie Food variety. Now, here in New Mexico, they've gone viral, and bid fair to be the next Starbucks is the Recession doesn't get them. And all they had to begin with was a Double Rainbow franchise.
This might be more illustration of the problem rather than an exception. Yes, all it takes is a bit of cash, knowledge and a desirable product to "go viral." In Rockland there used to be a handful of family owned donut shops, some of which were counters in the front of drug or variety stores. These tend to be failing in competition with chains.

I may just be old fashion in this respect, but I'd rather see numerous small businesses spreading the wealth rather than the big chains dominating. In addition, the chains lack atmosphere, generally. I'm not sure the old independent diners could be considered exemplars of fine cooking, but they had character. And I just don't like to see too much wealth, power and influence concentrated in the hands of a few.







Post#74 at 05-28-2009 01:43 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-28-2009, 01:43 PM #74
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Yep

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
I wonder if it's not one of those "negative" liberties; i.e., the "freedom" not to have to associate with certain classes of people. This to my mind does not seem very free. You mentioned doublespeak earlier. This might be a prime example of such.
Agreed. It is about preventing a minority group from getting what the establishment people have. It is far less about spreading liberty than about keeping a disliked group in their place. It is part of a long long story.







Post#75 at 05-28-2009 02:08 PM by DaveGarber1975 [at Provo, UT, USA joined Jul 2008 #posts 372]
---
05-28-2009, 02:08 PM #75
Join Date
Jul 2008
Location
Provo, UT, USA
Posts
372

Lightbulb Libertarianism and Marriage

Quote Originally Posted by Matt1989 View Post
The libertarian position regarding gay marriage, IMO, would be the abolition of marriage privilege. Getting the government out of relationships is ideal, but expanding marriage in scope (to include homosexual couples) would actually defeat much of the force of that privilege in the first place.
It's my understanding that, from a libertarian perspective, our inherent rights include the right to freely enter into contractual relationships with each other, provided that we don't violate the equal rights of others in doing so. Such contractual relationships can be simple or complex, verbal or written, social or economic or political (as in forming governments), et cetera. And they include marriage.

Traditionally, marriage was a matter of common law -- a private contract between a man, a woman, and possibly God. And governments intervened only in very limited cases such as adultery (which is breach of contract) or divorce (if those involved required an impartial third party to help them to resolve their disputes on how to divvy up property and such). It was only rather recently in history that states began to both license and regulate marriages, partly to restrict interracial marriage and such. A license, by the way, is a privilege to do something that is granted by the state -- in this case, the "privilege" of having your marital relationship regulated by statutory law and subject to the family courts. So, in a licensed marriage, the state becomes a third (and dominant) party in that relationship and it can arbitrarily rewrite that relationship's contractual terms whenever and however it pleases. This is completely anathema to libertarian philosophy, which views contracts as a natural right, which governments should help to protect, and not a government-granted privilege.

I agree that most libertarians are sympathetic to revising state marriage licensing laws to extend homosexual partnerships. As for myself, I support my Church's position against this, for as long as it remains a political issue. But it shouldn't be a political issue in the first place -- governments should not be licensing ANY relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual. I think that the very fact that this debate has ever become a political issue in the first place reflects on how corrupt our nation's laws have become during these last two centuries. Ultimately, I'd love to see marriages restored as a matter of natural right under common law, not regulated privilege under civil law.
-----------------------------------------