Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Duke]

If the public perception is anything like Brian's is, nothing.

 

[Swift]

If you mean like Biblical morals, then you're right, there aren't any. That's no reason to force them on everybody else though. I have no morals that would harm anybody, but I don't have the right to think that that's what's best for everybody else.

Who said anything about forcing. But at the same time, if a moral is good and helps to keep society in order, how is that possibly a bad thing?

 

[Duke]

Does preventing homosexual marriage help keep society in order? Would allowing it lead to the breakdown of society?

That's what we're talking about. We've already stipulated "thall shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" and even "thou shalt not bear false witness". Those are morals, yes, but there's nothing inherently religious about them. However, once you get past those basics you move directly into the realm of imposed morality and victimless "crimes".

 

[Swift]

Does preventing homosexual marriage help keep society in order? Would allowing it lead to the breakdown of society?

That's what we're talking about. We've already stipulated "thall shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" and even "thou shalt not bear false witness". Those are morals, yes, but there's nothing inherently religious about them. However, once you get past those basics you move directly into the realm of imposed morality and victimless "crimes".

Yes, it does. Why? Because homosexuality, not the person, corrupts the nations of our family that would be the most important part of the libertarian society.

Again, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. That's an oxymoron.

 

[Duke]

Yes, it does. Why? Because homosexuality, not the person, corrupts the nations of our family that would be the most important part of the libertarian society.

So a happily commited, stable, monogamous gay couple is a worse family for an adopted child than an unstable, dysfunctional houshold would be with its biological parents? Absurd.

Here you go. This is a perfect argument against legislated morality. We haven't been able to exchange 50 words on the subject without reaching a fundamental breach in our feelings. If we make the laws by your morality, I'm legally prohibited from holding my opinion. Yet if we make the laws by my morality, you're perfectly within your rights to disapprove of homosexual couples. That should be crystal clear.

Again, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. That's an oxymoron.

You're right, it's an oxymoron. That should be telling you that your definition of "crime" is flawed.

 

[Swift]

So a happily commited, stable, monogamous gay couple is a worse family for an adopted child than an unstable, dysfunctional houshold would be with its biological parents? Absurd.

Here you go. This is a perfect argument against legislated morality. We haven't been able to exchange 50 words on the subject without reaching a fundamental breach in our feelings. If we make the laws by your morality, I'm legally prohibited from holding my opinion. Yet if we make the laws by my morality, you're perfectly within your rights to disapprove of homosexual couples. That should be crystal clear.

You're right, it's an oxymoron. That should be telling you that your definition of "crime" is flawed.

Actually Duke, that's the Libertarian term. So wouldn't that mean their defintion of crime is flawed?

I agree that it's ludicrous for biological parents to be incredibly incompetent and adopting takes such stringent work. But at the same time, having 2 dads or two moms simply isn't the way nature intended families to be.

 

[Danoff]

Again, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. That's an oxymoron.

Oh you're so close! You would say that it is obviously not victimless, and I would say it's obviously not a crime.

Property = power

I already refuted this assertion.

Do you have a right to purchase that store owners products?

Yes. It's my money.

So your money can buy whatever you want it to? No. It's their product, they don't have to give it to you for any amount of money - they OWN it.

Why are you so averse to reform? Why are you hell bent on elimination?

Because government B.S. like the FDA serves no purpose but to waste time and money. It's a job better suited to the free market.

In Chile, the poverty rate jumped from 20% to 41% under Pinochet and his free market reforms (not unlike the one's your advocating).

I'm sure that's exactly what would happen here if what I'm advocating were put in place. I've made a case for why the unemployment rate would decrease - but you claimed that unemployment was good. I don't see why I would be out of a job if if there were no minimum wage or OSHA. I don't see why you would be paid any less - or Duke, or ledhed (though I think he said he was a volunteer). My boss wouldn't lose her job - nor my wife - nor my neighbor - nor the guy who runs...

you know what? I can't figure out who would be worse off? Oh, maybe someone who makes minimum wage now (there are very few and they tend to get raises quickly) would start out at a dollar or two less per hour - but I think it's worth it so that the system can be fair. They're overpaid (for the market value of their job) now and someone else is unemployed because of it. Is it worth throwing someone on the street who wants to work in order to give someone else a 50 cent raise per hour? I don't think so.

I keep going back to the 1920s for inspiration.

Why do you go back to a government blunder for inspiration - go back to the industrial revolution when America's economy jumped onto the map.

You claim that we have "nearly" a free market. Isn't that enough for you? Why would you want to have a totally unrestricted market economy?

It's enough for me to live and work here yes - but I see organizations like the FDA and stupid laws that say things like "you can't put this chemical in your body" or I see publicly funded institutions racially discriminating against some of the very people that fund them and I see room for improvement.

Businesses are looking for cheap labor. Businesses want to move to other countries because the labor laws there are rather "Libertarian".

👍 👍 👍

 

[Duke]

Actually Duke, that's the Libertarian term. So wouldn't that mean their defintion of crime is flawed?

Nope. Because Libertarians aren't the ones defining what's currently considered a crime. We've already established what we think of as crime, and each one of those things has an actual victim.

Ohio says homosexual marriage is illegal. That defines it as a crime. We say there is no victim, therefore there is no crime.

I agree that it's ludicrous for biological parents to be incredibly incompetent and adopting takes such stringent work. But at the same time, having 2 dads or two moms simply isn't the way nature intended families to be.

What is the way "nature" intended families to be? Like a pride of lions, where numerous females are bred by a single dominant male, who drives off his rivals and kills their cubs to force the females back into heat and make sure his own genetic issue is passed on?

Again, you're welcome to disapprove of what you don't like. But you need to be extremely careful before you say it is universally wrong.

 

[Swift]

Nope. Because Libertarians aren't the ones defining what's currently considered a crime. We've already established what we think of as crime, and each one of those things has an actual victim.

Ohio says homosexual marriage is illegal. That defines it as a crime. We say there is no victim, therefore there is no crime.

What is the way "nature" intended families to be? Like a pride of lions, where numerous females are bred by a single dominant male, who drives off his rivals and kills their cubs to force the females back into heat and make sure his own genetic issue is passed on?

Again, you're welcome to disapprove of what you don't like. But you need to be extremely careful before you say it is universally wrong.

Well, I'm really happy for Ohio. and in my mind that's a step in the right direction. Look, just because there's not a victim right now, doesn't mean it won't impact on society in a negative way.

I would to God that parents would have there children taken from them when they are clearly being neglected or abused. But I also find it ludicrous that they will take a child away from the parents when they are spanked. What kind of garbage is that.

As far as the gay thing...Gay people can't naturally have children, so why should they be allowed to be parents. I don't mean a couple that is unable due to chemical imballances like a woman's body that attacks sperm or a man with a low sperm count. I mean you don't have the physical equipment to have children. I mean, look at Rosie Odonell. She has a son, her son asked why he didn't have a father, she said, "If you had a father, I wouldn't be your mother" What kind of answer is that? He's denied a father because she chose to be gay and wanted a child? That sounds rather twisted to me. I'm not saying that every child needs a mother and a father to be a cared for properly. But at the same time, when there is no chance of having a mother and/or a father, what kind of system is that child going to believe in?

 

[Famine]

Gay people can't naturally have children, so why should they be allowed to be parents. I don't mean a couple that is unable due to chemical imballances like a woman's body that attacks sperm or a man with a low sperm count. I mean you don't have the physical equipment to have children.

Those two people both lack the physical equipment to have children.

 

[Swift]

Those two people both lack the physical equipment to have children.

Nope, they just had, as Duke said in another thread, bad luck. But it's impossible for two men to have a child naturally is it not? The couple has all the proper equipment though it may not be working perfectly. Big difference!

 

[Famine]

Nope, they just had, as Duke said in another thread, bad luck. But it's impossible for two men to have a child naturally is it not? The couple has all the proper equipment though it may not be working perfectly. Big difference!

And your point is?

Two couples who are unable to have children naturally. You think one couple should be allowed to have kids and the other shouldn't?

 

[Danoff]

Two couples who are unable to have children naturally. You think one couple should be allowed to have kids and the other shouldn't?

👍

I think (could be wrong) that he's arguing that two dads can't parent the same way a mom and dad can - and that allowing a gay couple to adopt would mean that the child is deprived of "proper" parenting.

...which is a poor argument considering that one mom or dad seems to be able to raise healthy children. At the core of it, he doesn't think homosexuality is a moral lifestyle and doesn't want children exposed to it - which is a judgement call that he doesn't get to make about other people's lives.


...but of course there is a thread or two dedicated to this issue.

 

[Swift]

👍

I think (could be wrong) that he's arguing that two dads can't parent the same way a mom and dad can - and that allowing a gay couple to adopt would mean that the child is deprived of "proper" parenting.

...which is a poor argument considering that one mom or dad seems to be able to raise healthy children. At the core of it, he doesn't think homosexuality is a moral lifestyle and doesn't want children exposed to it - which is a judgement call that he doesn't get to make about other people's lives.


...but of course there is a thread or two dedicated to this issue.

And you chose to not read my previous posts on this subject just a little while ago. I addressed the single parent situation.

 

[Danoff]

And you chose to not read my previous posts on this subject just a little while ago. I addressed the single parent situation.

It was weak at best. You said that the potential for having parents of two different genders was sufficient. But how is it different to have a mother who refuses to get married from two mothers. In either case, the parents are 100% female. In one case, they can be there for the child more often - spend more time with the child - help ensure that the child is provided for by having multiple incomes.

Just admit that you think it's immoral to be gay and you don't want children to be exposed to something you consider immoral.

Consider this. What if a heterosexual couple, acting within the law, were immoral by your definition but wanted to adopt? Let's say they were devil worshipers for example.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I already refuted this assertion.

If airports are privatized then what? They have the power to determine what planes are allowed to land there.

If I build a small store on your property is that legal? When you own property, you have power over what happens on your property (with the exception of natural disasters). Now, just so we're clear, I'm all for ownership -- but I don't delude myself into thinking that ownership doesn't equal power. It does.

So your money can buy whatever you want it to? No. It's their product, they don't have to give it to you for any amount of money - they OWN it.

Doesn't sound like a free market to me.

Because government B.S. like the FDA serves no purpose but to waste time and money. It's a job better suited to the free market.

In your opinion, why haven't these organizations been eliminated already? If they're more deadly than the 19 hijackers that flew airplanes into buildings 8-9 miles from my house, why isn't anyone else calling for the elimination of the FDA and other "government B.S."?

I'm sure that's exactly what would happen here if what I'm advocating were put in place. I've made a case for why the unemployment rate would decrease - but you claimed that unemployment was good.

If the unemployment rate decreases the economy is going to be in deep poo. Here's why:

First of all, it's important to know the different types of unemployment. There's "frictional" or temporary unemployment that accounts for approximately 3% out of the 5.5% total unemployment. These people mostly include recent college graduates currently searching for jobs in their field among others. Then there's "structural" unemployment that changes with the structure of the economy (Germany's good at keeping this number low through re-education). Lastly, there's cyclical unemployment which occurs during recessions and depressions.

As a general rule, when unemployment increases inflation decreases. In March, inflation went up 0.6% across the country (thanks to oil). Annualized, that's about 7%. In New York alone, inflation went up 1.7%. 1.7%!!! That's 20% annualized! So as you can see, when unemployment is low, inflation (usually) tends to be high.

Here's something to think about: If unemployment were to go down to 0% (or very close to it) that would be VERY bad for the economy. We need unemployed workers in an economy in order to function. If there are few or no unemployed workers, corporations must RAISE salaries in order stay competitive. When salaries go up (an expense), income must go up as well and these labor expenses are then passed on to the consumer. So prices rise (read: inflation) dramatically. Combine that with a lack of minimum wage and workers earning $2/hr won't be able to meet the minimum standard of living. Inflation will reduce their purchasing power and more and more people will become poor. Just as in Chile when the poverty rate doubled from 20% to 41%. You wouldn't see a problem with that, though, because cheap labor is more important than maintaining or certain standard of living.

you know what? I can't figure out who would be worse off? Oh, maybe someone who makes minimum wage now (there are very few and they tend to get raises quickly) would start out at a dollar or two less per hour - but I think it's worth it so that the system can be fair. They're overpaid (for the market value of their job) now and someone else is unemployed because of it. Is it worth throwing someone on the street who wants to work in order to give someone else a 50 cent raise per hour? I don't think so.

Unemployment is good. EXTREMELY HIGH unemployment (> 12%) is bad. LOW unemployment (< 3%) is worse. Stagflation is the worst thing that can happen to an economy.

Why do you go back to a government blunder for inspiration - go back to the industrial revolution when America's economy jumped onto the map.

Yes, the economy DID jump onto the map; but what happened to the workers? Stop deluding yourself -- workers were underpaid, overworked, and the conditions were horrible. Need I remind you of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire in New York (1911)? It was a lack of government regulation that caused that fire.

It's enough for me to live and work here yes - but I see organizations like the FDA and stupid laws that say things like "you can't put this chemical in your body" or I see publicly funded institutions racially discriminating against some of the very people that fund them and I see room for improvement.

That's fine but... why would want a totally unrestricted free market economy?

👍 👍 👍

I hope you know that includes a lack of child labor laws, no minimum wage, no unions, and no work safety legislation.

Just admit that you think it's immoral to be gay and you don't want children to be exposed to something you consider immoral.

As soon as you admit that Libertarianism's roots are in anarchism.

 

[Swift]

It was weak at best. You said that the potential for having parents of two different genders was sufficient. But how is it different to have a mother who refuses to get married from two mothers. In either case, the parents are 100% female. In one case, they can be there for the child more often - spend more time with the child - help ensure that the child is provided for by having multiple incomes.

Just admit that you think it's immoral to be gay and you don't want children to be exposed to something you consider immoral.

Consider this. What if a heterosexual couple, acting within the law, were immoral by your definition but wanted to adopt? Let's say they were devil worshipers for example.

Hmm...let me think. I wouldn't like it. Duh.

Yeah, it's wrong for gay people, that choose to be gay, to subject others to homosexuality without a choice. and before you go saying homophobe, one of my best friends decided to be gay not long before he died. So I know both sides of this thing. Homosexuality is a choice, unnatrual and immoral. So why put a child into a situation like that.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Hmm...let me think. I wouldn't like it. Duh.

Yeah, it's wrong for gay people, that choose to be gay, to subject others to homosexuality without a choice. and before you go saying homophobe, one of my best friends decided to be gay not long before he died. So I know both sides of this thing. Homosexuality is a choice, unnatrual and immoral. So why put a child into a situation like that.

Why? Selfishness. Individualists unite!

 

[Famine]

I must stop typing in invisible indigo...

Two couples who are unable to have children naturally. You think one couple should be allowed to have kids and the other shouldn't?

Explain to me the logic here.

Delving further, do you believe the childless heterosexual couple have a right to tax-paid interventional medical techniques in order to have a child, or should they have to pay for it themselves?

 

[Duke]

Hmm...let me think. I wouldn't like it. Duh.

Yeah, it's wrong for gay people, that choose to be gay, to subject others to homosexuality without a choice. and before you go saying homophobe, one of my best friends decided to be gay not long before he died. So I know both sides of this thing. Homosexuality is a choice, unnatrual and immoral. So why put a child into a situation like that.

I'm slipping this reply over to the Gay Marriage thread.

 

[Swift]

And your point is?

Two couples who are unable to have children naturally. You think one couple should be allowed to have kids and the other shouldn't?

Your definition of couple is obviously very different then mine.

 

[Duke]

You define a couple as "a man and a woman", while he defines a couple as "two people".

 

[Swift]

You define a couple as "a man and a woman", while he defines a couple as "two people".

That's about it right there! 👍

 

[Danoff]

That's about it right there!

Couple means two - of anything. Like I have a couple of quarters, or a couple of people.

If I build a small store on your property is that legal? When you own property, you have power over what happens on your property (with the exception of natural disasters). Now, just so we're clear, I'm all for ownership -- but I don't delude myself into thinking that ownership doesn't equal power. It does.

sigh... contracts must be enforiced by law. This is getting tedious.

So your money can buy whatever you want it to? No. It's their product, they don't have to give it to you for any amount of money - they OWN it.

Doesn't sound like a free market to me.

If you mean by free, that everything costs nothing, well then we're talking about two different definitions of a free market. I think you understand ownership, and so you should understand why a store owner owns his goods and is not required to sell them to anyone. Just like you own your car and are not required to sell it to anyone.

why haven't these organizations been eliminated already? If they're more deadly than the 19 hijackers that flew airplanes into buildings 8-9 miles from my house, why isn't anyone else calling for the elimination of the FDA and other "government B.S."?

I don't know. You tell me why you don't want it to be eliminated since it has done more damage than the 19 hijackers.

Unemployment is good. EXTREMELY HIGH unemployment (> 12%) is bad. LOW unemployment (< 3%) is worse. Stagflation is the worst thing that can happen to an economy.

Eliminating minimum wage would not eliminate all of the kinds of unemployment you outlined - so it would not result in infation (which the government has some control over anyway). So you answered your own question.

Stop deluding yourself -- workers were underpaid, overworked, and the conditions were horrible.

...and before that they weren't paid at all, overworked and had to fend for themselves in most aspects... even worse. The industrial revolution improved life.

I hope you know that includes a lack of child labor laws, no minimum wage, no unions, and no work safety legislation.

Well the second two are fine but the first one is not.

As soon as you admit that Libertarianism's roots are in anarchism.

They are not. However, swift did admit what I was asking him to.

 

[Swift]

They are not. However, swift did admit what I was asking him to.

I guess I'm slow...what did I admit?

 

[Famine]

One day it'll happen... One day a direct answer will be forthcoming...

Two couples who are unable to have children naturally. You think one couple should be allowed to have kids and the other shouldn't?

Explain to me the logic here.

Delving further, do you believe the childless heterosexual couple have a right to tax-paid interventional medical techniques in order to have a child, or should they have to pay for it themselves?

 

[ledhed]

Businesses are looking for cheap labor. Businesses want to move to other countries because the labor laws there are rather "Libertarian

is this a joke ? china is one of our biggest trading partners...china is libertarian ? India is Libertarian ? what kind of knucklehead assertation is this ?

 

[Danoff]

is this a joke ? china is one of our biggest trading partners...china is libertarian ? India is Libertarian ? what kind of knucklehead assertation is this ?

Agreed,

What is the real problem with outsourcing? People in other countries are offering cheap labor. Well, why are people in other countries cheaper? Because of the heavy burden that people like Brian are all to eager to lay on those greedy corporate CEO types who "can afford it". Then he doesn't want to lay in the bed he's made.

 

[Swift]

Agreed,

What is the real problem with outsourcing? People in other countries are offering cheap labor. Well, why are people in other countries cheaper? Because of the heavy burden that people like Brian are all to eager to lay on those greedy corporate CEO types who "can afford it". Then he doesn't want to lay in the bed he's made.

What? II don't have a clue what you just said.

don't like outsourcing because it takes money that america puts into companies and it goes out of the country. Not just in trading, but in jobs. That's just not cool. But I guess being a libertarian, you'd just say get another career or something. Sheesh.

 

[Duke]

What? II don't have a clue what you just said.

don't like outsourcing because it takes money that america puts into companies and it goes out of the country. Not just in trading, but in jobs. That's just not cool. But I guess being a libertarian, you'd just say get another career or something. Sheesh.

What Dan's saying is that Brian and his ilk want to have their cake and eat it, too.

• They want to dictate minimum wages for low-trained labor.
• They want mandatory protections like Unemployment Insurance.
• They want strict rules on safety measures, etc.
• They support powerful unions that companies are required to hire
• Et Cetera

...and then they act offended that companies won't willingly bear these costs when cheaper alternatives exist.

It's like taking a small sporty car, and then piling power seats, locks, windows, mirrors, sunroof, navigation, yada yada, big rims, big body kit, big wing, big stereo, and big subwoofer onto it, while wondering why it's not cheap, light, and fast any more.

I mean, this stuff shouldn't be rocket science.