I find it very disturbing

[bripat9643]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

We realize you prefer to allow unelected judges to ram your agenda down our throats.

 

[PratchettFan]

So whether or not a right doesn't require anyone's help is irrelevant.

It's utterly relevant to the kind of laws required to protect said right. That's the entire point. Inalienable rights require only that we mind our own business. That we refrain from forcing our will on others.

All laws are forcing our will upon others.

You can't conceive of laws that prohibit forcing one's will on others? That's not a meaningless distinction, and it's a copout to say that all laws are simply one group bullying another. Ideally, law is an institutional response to those who would initiate force, and doesn't come into play - doesn't force anyone's will on anyone else - unless someone initiates a coercive act.

I really think we're discussing two fundamentally incompatible conceptions of government. And the main difference between the two is the nominal purpose. In my preferred conception, the purpose of government is to maximally protect our inalienable individual rights, leaving the people free to form the society they want through voluntary collaboration. The alternative, and the kind we seem to be adopting, is a government that is primarily concerned with "managing" society. In this conception, individual inalienable rights aren't recognized, and government serves merely to balance the competing power of society's interest groups.

How does one enforce a law against forcing your will on another without forcing the collective will on you? Is that not preventing you from doing what you want by force?

Libertarians aren't blindly opposed to the use of force. It's the initiation of force we find unacceptable.

The entire purpose of government is to manage society.

Yeah. Well that's definitely where we disagree. Libertarians think government should be the referee, not the coach.

In your preferred conception, what do you do with someone who does not wish to voluntarily collaborate?

Leave them alone.

So the use of force is fine so long as someone is doing something you aren't in favor of.

What is it you think a referee does? Let me help.. They manage the game. They make sure people follow the rules and they discipline those who do not.

So the assumption is people will voluntarily collaborate but there is no plan if they do not. No consequences for those who will happily sit by while others do the work for them. No consequences for those who lie, cheat and swindle. We'll just leaven them alone. And if they don't collaborate then the roads won't get fixed, the power won't come back on and the goods won't move. Because outside of their narrow worlds, people don't collaborate.

The reason we don't agree is because I get that we have laws to address issues, we don't have issues because of laws that just popped out of nowhere. There are laws against murder because people kill each other, people don't kill each other because murder is illegal. The reason all of these laws you don't approve of exist is because doing it your way was such a magnificent failure that the people who lived through it were willing to take on taxation in order to stop it. The problem is that doing it through those laws has worked so well that people assume it wasn't a problem to begin with.

 

[dblack]

Libertarians aren't blindly opposed to the use of force. It's the initiation of force we find unacceptable.

The entire purpose of government is to manage society.

Yeah. Well that's definitely where we disagree. Libertarians think government should be the referee, not the coach.

In your preferred conception, what do you do with someone who does not wish to voluntarily collaborate?

Leave them alone.

So the use of force is fine so long as someone is doing something you aren't in favor of.

No. That's not what I said. Please read it again.

What is it you think a referee does? Let me help.. They manage the game. They make sure people follow the rules and they discipline those who do not.

Exactly. But they don't manage the teams. They don't tell the players how to practice and which plays to run.

So the assumption is people will voluntarily collaborate

No. You keep trying to inject that assumption, but it's simply not there. We're just saying it's fine if they don't. If some people want to be anti-social, or otherwise do their own thing, it's no one else's concern. They might not get invited the best parties, but it's their call.

No consequences for those who lie, cheat and swindle.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Fraud and theft are forms of coercion, and libertarians are consistently in favor of laws that prohibit them.

 

[PratchettFan]

Libertarians aren't blindly opposed to the use of force. It's the initiation of force we find unacceptable.

The entire purpose of government is to manage society.

Yeah. Well that's definitely where we disagree. Libertarians think government should be the referee, not the coach.

In your preferred conception, what do you do with someone who does not wish to voluntarily collaborate?

Leave them alone.

So the use of force is fine so long as someone is doing something you aren't in favor of.

No. That's not what I said. Please read it again.

What is it you think a referee does? Let me help.. They manage the game. They make sure people follow the rules and they discipline those who do not.

Exactly. But they don't manage the teams. They don't tell the players how to practice and which plays to run.

So the assumption is people will voluntarily collaborate

No. You keep trying to inject that assumption, but it's simply not there. We're just saying it's fine if they don't. If some people want to be anti-social, or otherwise do their own thing, it's no one else's concern. They might not get invited the best parties, but it's their call.

No consequences for those who lie, cheat and swindle.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Fraud and theft are forms of coercion, and libertarians are consistently in favor of laws that prohibit them.

Then just what is it they are going to collaborate on?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You know what I never get Redfish is, president Jefferson in his letters argued for a separation of church and state, the supreme court said he was right about it and the constitution.

So ok when did the US government get involved again with religion and marriage?

When did they decided again to get involved with a 6,000 year old religious ceremony?

Why?

I never can understand it?

Marriage under the law is a legal contract.
Whatever significance your church or faith places on it is irrelevant to the law. Without a marriage certificate a church can perform weddings all day long but they won't be legally recognized. Society only recognizes the legal arrangement and not the religious. You go to a judge to dissolve a marriage not the clergy.So the idea that same sex marriage infringes on faith is ridiculous.It's a legal contract like every other marriage.

 

[dblack]

Libertarians aren't blindly opposed to the use of force. It's the initiation of force we find unacceptable.

The entire purpose of government is to manage society.

Yeah. Well that's definitely where we disagree. Libertarians think government should be the referee, not the coach.

In your preferred conception, what do you do with someone who does not wish to voluntarily collaborate?

Leave them alone.

So the use of force is fine so long as someone is doing something you aren't in favor of.

No. That's not what I said. Please read it again.

What is it you think a referee does? Let me help.. They manage the game. They make sure people follow the rules and they discipline those who do not.

Exactly. But they don't manage the teams. They don't tell the players how to practice and which plays to run.

So the assumption is people will voluntarily collaborate

No. You keep trying to inject that assumption, but it's simply not there. We're just saying it's fine if they don't. If some people want to be anti-social, or otherwise do their own thing, it's no one else's concern. They might not get invited the best parties, but it's their call.

No consequences for those who lie, cheat and swindle.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Fraud and theft are forms of coercion, and libertarians are consistently in favor of laws that prohibit them.

Then just what is it they are going to collaborate on?

Anything they want. Why do you ask?

 

[PratchettFan]

Libertarians aren't blindly opposed to the use of force. It's the initiation of force we find unacceptable.

The entire purpose of government is to manage society.

Yeah. Well that's definitely where we disagree. Libertarians think government should be the referee, not the coach.

In your preferred conception, what do you do with someone who does not wish to voluntarily collaborate?

Leave them alone.

So the use of force is fine so long as someone is doing something you aren't in favor of.

No. That's not what I said. Please read it again.

What is it you think a referee does? Let me help.. They manage the game. They make sure people follow the rules and they discipline those who do not.

Exactly. But they don't manage the teams. They don't tell the players how to practice and which plays to run.

So the assumption is people will voluntarily collaborate

No. You keep trying to inject that assumption, but it's simply not there. We're just saying it's fine if they don't. If some people want to be anti-social, or otherwise do their own thing, it's no one else's concern. They might not get invited the best parties, but it's their call.

No consequences for those who lie, cheat and swindle.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Fraud and theft are forms of coercion, and libertarians are consistently in favor of laws that prohibit them.

Then just what is it they are going to collaborate on?

Anything they want. Why do you ask?

Ok. Then the problem is solved. Nothing prevents people from collaborating.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Yes .. Put it to a vote by Electoral College

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

No. The fascist Left think they have won. The people must decide. The Left and gays say the public is behind them. Well then let's test out their theory.

Any brave Leftys out there?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Nope. We have a system in place to do it. We don't need to revamp that system every time a new issue comes up.

Chicken!

 

[dblack]

Libertarians aren't blindly opposed to the use of force. It's the initiation of force we find unacceptable.

Yeah. Well that's definitely where we disagree. Libertarians think government should be the referee, not the coach.

Leave them alone.

So the use of force is fine so long as someone is doing something you aren't in favor of.

No. That's not what I said. Please read it again.

What is it you think a referee does? Let me help.. They manage the game. They make sure people follow the rules and they discipline those who do not.

Exactly. But they don't manage the teams. They don't tell the players how to practice and which plays to run.

So the assumption is people will voluntarily collaborate

No. You keep trying to inject that assumption, but it's simply not there. We're just saying it's fine if they don't. If some people want to be anti-social, or otherwise do their own thing, it's no one else's concern. They might not get invited the best parties, but it's their call.

No consequences for those who lie, cheat and swindle.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Fraud and theft are forms of coercion, and libertarians are consistently in favor of laws that prohibit them.

Then just what is it they are going to collaborate on?

Anything they want. Why do you ask?

Ok. Then the problem is solved. Nothing prevents people from collaborating.

If you say so. I seem to be missing your point.

 

[bodecea]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

We realize you prefer to allow unelected judges to ram your agenda down our throats.

You're talking gay dirty again. I wonder why. Again, did I mention that I love your avie, especially since I saw it in a prominent place in a gay bar in Palm Springs?

 

[bodecea]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Yes .. Put it to a vote by Electoral College

Presidential election, eh? Seems like the last two were won by the guy giving more support to gay equality.

 

[Liminal]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

 

[PratchettFan]

So the use of force is fine so long as someone is doing something you aren't in favor of.

No. That's not what I said. Please read it again.

What is it you think a referee does? Let me help.. They manage the game. They make sure people follow the rules and they discipline those who do not.

Exactly. But they don't manage the teams. They don't tell the players how to practice and which plays to run.

So the assumption is people will voluntarily collaborate

No. You keep trying to inject that assumption, but it's simply not there. We're just saying it's fine if they don't. If some people want to be anti-social, or otherwise do their own thing, it's no one else's concern. They might not get invited the best parties, but it's their call.

No consequences for those who lie, cheat and swindle.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Fraud and theft are forms of coercion, and libertarians are consistently in favor of laws that prohibit them.

Then just what is it they are going to collaborate on?

Anything they want. Why do you ask?

Ok. Then the problem is solved. Nothing prevents people from collaborating.

If you say so. I seem to be missing your point.

I don't see how. You want people to be able to voluntarily collaborate and I am pointing out that nothing stops them from doing so. So it appears we have no issue. We are in agreement.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

 

[Redfish]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Yes .. Put it to a vote by Electoral College

Presidential election, eh? Seems like the last two were won by the guy giving more support to gay equality.

he was against it while running and for it after being elected. in other words, he is a liar.

 

[Redfish]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

Wrong, totally wrong. Civil rights are put in place by majority vote i.e. the majority. All of our rights were established by majority vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote, we elect presidents and representatives by majority vote, laws are passed by majority vote. Everything we do in this society is done by majority vote--------------not minority dictate.

 

[bodecea]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Yes .. Put it to a vote by Electoral College

Presidential election, eh? Seems like the last two were won by the guy giving more support to gay equality.

he was against it while running and for it after being elected. in other words, he is a liar.

Aww...Redminnow has never, ever changed his mind in his life. Ever.

 

[Seawytch]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

Wrong, totally wrong. Civil rights are put in place by majority vote i.e. the majority. All of our rights were established by majority vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote, we elect presidents and representatives by majority vote, laws are passed by majority vote. Everything we do in this society is done by majority vote--------------not minority dictate.

Equal marriage rights for gays will be voted on by the SCOTUS...no worries.