quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: sorry to sound like I am using the "undecided" line to weasel out of having said something wrong, but I think I was making the point that I can see why people are in favor for laws that supress homosexuality within society, as it appears to those who are against homosexuality that their views are being ignored.
again I AM NOT SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT ALL. All I know is that RIGHT NOW I am ok with homosexuals being granted civil marriages, adoption rights may come down the road. Is there anything else I should be allowing in order to not be overtly anti homosexual?
The Pixiest: I need to think about that for a bit, but my initial response is, "If they are unwilling to give up homosexuality then no they wouldnt be happy, if they want to see if they could be happy without it then yes."
I don't think you are trying to weasel out of anything - I am glad that you are still undecided. To be able to examine your own beliefs is a sign of maturity.
But this:
quote: but I think I was making the point that I can see why people are in favor for laws that supress homosexuality within society, as it appears to those who are against homosexuality that their views are being ignored.
is a little unclear. Do you understand them, but think they are wrong? Or do you agree? I think that their views, about what consenting adults do should be ignored. In the same way that the views of a devout Muslim on whether I must be veiled should be ignored.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Since there are large numbers of people of faith who believe that all women should be covered in a Burka, any law allowing woman to avoid wearing a Burka are predjudiced against Islam.
Its not that we are telling woman what to wear. They can wear anything they desire, as skimpy of clothing as they wish, underneath their Burka.
That's reasonable, isn't it?
Mainly, if I wish to raise my family in a traditionally religious way, how can I spare my wife and children from seeing the blatant appearance of an elbow, an ankle, or heaven forbid--a belly button.
How can I explain this deviant Burkaless appearance to my five year old?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can by cynical that the truth I think I posess is not as impressive as I think it is. But at least grant me the possibility of having had a genuine experience with God that validated my belief in him.
Why? All I see in your posts tells me you haven't thought about it much, and your impression of college philosophy tells me you didn't take much interest in what the wider world has been doing for 2500 years. Learning how to be convincing, and learning how to learn are two seperate things, and they are sometimes mutually exclusive.
Edit: Blackblade please write "edit" into your posts when you revise them. As it is, it looks like I am ignoring the half of your post that was added later, when in fact I didn't see it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: Your faith would make me utterly miserable and probably would have pushed me over the edge of suicide had I been mormon growing up. (I got really really close as it was.)
Happiness is my Basis of Value, so you can not say that happiness is unimportant to me.
*nod*
Its so easy to recognize the manipulation in BBs statement, forcing you or anyone to defend themselves "I really am happy!" No one need be on the defensive about their beliefs here, only in their carriage toward others and in how they act. BBs putting you on the defensive is a classic manipulation in missionary work: "be afraid, you don't even know happiness... but you could!" Instead of ever listening to what hapiness might be to you, it is all about how you are refusing to admit your need of faith to yourself... and you must always expend your energies fending off these mental assaults.
Pretty weak though, Pix saw right through that.
I am not sure whether to be annoyed that you are accusing me of such a judgemental attitude or flattered that you have endowed me with such manipulating abilities.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: sorry to sound like I am using the "undecided" line to weasel out of having said something wrong, but I think I was making the point that I can see why people are in favor for laws that supress homosexuality within society, as it appears to those who are against homosexuality that their views are being ignored.
again I AM NOT SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT ALL. All I know is that RIGHT NOW I am ok with homosexuals being granted civil marriages, adoption rights may come down the road. Is there anything else I should be allowing in order to not be overtly anti homosexual?
The Pixiest: I need to think about that for a bit, but my initial response is, "If they are unwilling to give up homosexuality then no they wouldnt be happy, if they want to see if they could be happy without it then yes."
I don't think you are trying to weasel out of anything - I am glad that you are still undecided. To be able to examine your own beliefs is a sign of maturity.
But this:
quote: but I think I was making the point that I can see why people are in favor for laws that supress homosexuality within society, as it appears to those who are against homosexuality that their views are being ignored.
is a little unclear. Do you understand them, but think they are wrong? Or do you agree? I think that their views, about what consenting adults do should be ignored. In the same way that the views of a devout Muslim on whether I must be veiled should be ignored.
I understand them, but I also see how laws of this type are intrinsically wrong.
Orincoro: My apologies about not writing "edit" I debated whether to apologize for double posting or just edit, and I choose edit.
edit: at least I see why they are wrong in a democracy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I did call them "weak." And you are judgemental, so am I, and I never said that was so bad really. My problem comes when you say "I know I'm right," but then the first challenge is met with a manipulative jab to offset the discussion and put Pix or me on the defensive.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, I did call them "weak." And you are judgemental, so am I, and I never said that was so bad really. My problem comes when you say "I know I'm right," but then the first challenge is met with a manipulative jab to offset the discussion and put Pix or me on the defensive.
What? The first thing you said on this thread was that I was egotistical? (or maybe you made earlier posts that I am not thinking of) but that constitutes being on the offensive in my book.
I said much earlier in this thread that were I positively proved wrong in my beliefs I would probably be unable to be certain of anything again, or even be confident of anything.
So fine I acknowledge the possibility of being wrong but it does little good.
I dont understand what you mean by judgemental, it seems we are operating under slightly different definitions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I said much earlier in this thread that were I positively proved wrong in my beliefs I would probably be unable to be certain of anything again, or even be confident of anything.
Everybody judges, all the time, that's all I was acknowledging, we are judging people- not necessarily in the harshest sense of the word.
This above is worrying though. It is what worries me about "complete philosophy" and doctrine. You have invested everything you have in this, and you acknowledge that if THIS is wrong, that's it, there is nothing left to trust.
I have always thought that what you should do is continue to learn and expand and reflect and question forever, and never arrive totally at a fixed position. Now that you have committed yourself to this thing, gone out and told people "the truth" and made it the mantra of your life. What if it were wrong, as you say? Your life is based on it, but why is it based on it? My life is based on questioning and learning, (at least I hope it is, but sometimes I am wrong about that), and I am guaranteed never to run out of things to learn and think about. Christian philosophers feel as I do, not as you do. Particularly Aquinis believes both in the complete philosophic domain of christianity, but dually in a continual revision of that doctrine according to present understanding and in view of all that one can learn. You have, it seems to me, excluded that from all possible consideration, and taken a hard and fast line that will not allow you to grow-- like the TV evangelists, your work will be in learning how to manipulate and convince, in order to avoid being caught out or contradicted.
I don't know, that's all my suposition and it may be off, but that is the impression I get, and my reasoning for hating evangelism, missionary work, and that kind of thinking in general.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believing that there is a God, that he speaks to men today, and that he has revealed, does now reveal, and will yet reveal many important things hardly closes my mind to anything. I believe in being cautious about ones beliefs as rigidly held beliefs tend to retard ones progress not enhance it.
I modify my beliefs all the time concerning things that I have intelectually studied (BTW just because I mentioned some philosophers in my college freshmen philosophy class does not mean that that was my only exposure to philosophy)
But again you are assuming that NOBODY can be sure of ANYTHING. Just because you have seemingly yet to find a shred of truth that could be divinely verified does not mean it is impossible, or that nobody has yet had that happened.
You can meet my claim that I hold to my belief in God because He has confirmed it to me with derision, you wouldn't be the first. But my belief in God and his gospel is pretty much the ONLY belief I hold to rigidly for reasons I feel are valid. Everything else I believe is much less guarded.
I have simply seen that the more trust I have put in God, the more knowledge I have been rewarded with, and I have yet to have cause to doubt that that trend will continue.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I avoided everyone who would deny me and people like me equal rights I would be very lonely.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: My apologies about not writing "edit" I debated whether to apologize for double posting or just edit, and I choose edit.
That apology was weak, I demand a series of increasingly groveling apologies! Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I've frequently claimed in the past, I don't think that just because a word is misused commonly it is okay to misuse it.
I'm at odds with the idea that using a contemporary, accepted definition over other definitions is misuse. Keep in mind that if departure from the technical definition is misuse, then we're both misusing it: homophobia is technically and originally a term describing fear of men. It originally had nothing to do with attitudes towards sexual orientation specifically.
Words being what they are, the meaning changed greatly. Today, it means the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. Merriam-Webster and other dictionaries will even back me up on this one, and the wikipedia article on the term has a fascinating etymology describing the lead-up to this.
quote:but if you do, don't go back and forth by then implying that being a homophobe is a terrible, hateful thing. Homophobia is only a terrible, hateful thing under the proper definition of it. Under this other definition, it is, at worst, just a mistaken belief.
I think I've been pretty consistant. I saved the term homophobia for the attitudes people who actively stated to the effect that they want to discriminate significantly against homosexuals. I do not apply it to people who say something to the effect of 'homosexuality is morally wrong.' In fact, I went even further -- I saved it for stuff which I found comfortably within the realm of the intent for outright criminalization of homosexuality as a sexual deviance. Card's statement is safely within the realm of the commonly accepted definition of homophobia. You are just using a different definition than that. That's okay, really -- I respect that, and I understand that the ambiguities create an atmosphere where, in this environment, my use of the word 'homophobia' will create confusion as to my intent and meaning.
So I'm replacing it entirely and won't use it again.
I don't think that the words on OSC's little anti-homosexual speech there are in any way hateful or motivated by fear, and I don't believe that I've stated to that effect. This is cold comfort, though -- Whether the sexual discrimination originates from hateful passion, cold dispassion, or ostensible compassion, I treat it only based on how dangerous and discriminatory I find the stated goal behind the motive. This one's pretty discriminatory.
And, conveniently and thankfully enough, societally irrelevant and based on more of that thoroughly defunct and wishfully paranoid 'teh gay sexs is bad for teh societys!!' jazz, which -- as you can probably tell from my summarization of it -- I have next to no respect for. Hell will freeze over and turn several shades of puce before the United States re-criminalizes homosexuality, so it doesn't inspire a lot of continued debate.
IN CONCLUSION: semantics, lol, why in god's holy name am I arguing semantics again, this is a thread about Mel Gibson getting drunk and swearing about jews.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:IN CONCLUSION: semantics, lol, why in god's holy name am I arguing semantics again, this is a thread about Mel Gibson getting drunk and swearing about jews.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't think that the words on OSC's little anti-homosexual speech there are in any way hateful or motivated by fear, and I don't believe that I've stated to that effect. This is cold comfort, though -- Whether the sexual discrimination originates from hateful passion, cold dispassion, or ostensible compassion, I treat it only based on how dangerous and discriminatory I find the stated goal behind the motive. This one's pretty discriminatory.
I suppose we may always have thrust upon us, or given us by our parents, a belief system which says: "every individual is special, and created for the divine harmony of life- etc," and from the other side of its mouth: "but here are the rules: don't be THIS way."
That question as to whether its a choice or something you just are? I can't know that, I didn't make any choices about who I am; I didn't choose to be straight just like I didn't choose to be gay. I guess if I were gay I might know. I just wish more people would consider listening to people and trusting them to tell as much of the truth about themselves as they can.
This whole thing with gays hinges on that listening problem. If we all of a sudden discovered, conclusively and without question that homosexuality happens for THIS reason and this reason alone, and that it is genetic, or developmental (as I have read it may be connected to birthing order) and that it is irreversible, and that there is an evolutionary purpose to it, then what do the homophobes, or the anti-gay rights people have left?
It wouldn't be a threat to the family, because gays aren't meant to have that kind of family after all. It wouldn't be a moral question, because there would be no more choice involved, no choice about anything. It simply WOULD BE CONNECTED to morals. That's the issue as I see it: like (and please pardon the comparison which is unfair) alcoholism, like being tall, like being left handed (which has traditionally been considered a sign of evil, and IS connected with schitzophrenia and artistic ability)!
We learned what being left-handed meant, and why people are lefties, and it isn't a moral problem; teachers don't beat students with rulers to make them write righty (as I have heard from older teachers who were left handed). If we could just listen to each other, and look at the thing without interest, investment, or pride involved in our interpretations of the evidence, then maybe this would be, as it should be, a non-issue. As it is, it does as big a disservice to religious institutions as it does to gays to even have this ridiculous debate.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homosexual freedoms are sort of a non-issue in slow motion. Think about it -- not too long ago, we had traditionalists introducing flamingly racist anti-miscegenation bills to Congress, whinging and bloviating over how letting minorities marry white folk was dangerously destabilizing to the sanctity of American families, how it was dangerous to society, how it must not be permitted under law, blah blah.
In another fifty to seventy years, we'll think of the present-day anti-homosexual legislation and moralizing blitz to be, essentially, as retarded and backwards as we think of the anti-miscegenation bills today. I'll bet everything I have on it.
Religion, too, will change. Back then, marriages between whites and races of color were widely preached to be against God's natural order and were immoral. At some point in American history, churches were willing to claim that things like abolition and women's suffrage were attacks on God's natural order. Today, it's homomarriage. In another generation, I bet you that attitude changes too!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In another fifty to seventy years, we'll think of the present-day anti-homosexual legislation and moralizing blitz to be, essentially, as retarded and backwards as we think of the anti-miscegenation bills today. I'll bet everything I have on it.
This reminds me of a girl I took a poli sci class with once. She had something called the "Three Hundred Year Theory." She claimed that, following the logical progression of social change, all social problems would be practically solved whithin 300 years.
I'm still not sure if she was joking or not.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is cold comfort, though -- Whether the sexual discrimination originates from hateful passion, cold dispassion, or ostensible compassion, I treat it only based on how dangerous and discriminatory I find the stated goal behind the motive. This one's pretty discriminatory.
All laws are discriminatory. Banning drugs hurts only those who want to use drugs. Banning murder hurts only those who want to commit murder. Banning flag burning only hurts those who want to protest stuff by burning flags. Hence, being discriminatory does not imply a law is dangerous or bad. It is only a problem if it is unfairly discriminating.
Of course, then the question is: What determines what is fair and what is not?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Laws banning drug use are wrong. "Society" does not have a right to infringe on the freedoms of any individual so long as that individual doesn't harm others.
My right to swing my fist is inviolate -- right up until the point where I swing it into your nose.
You don't have a right to treat people like pawns in some game you're playing. You don't have a right to try and create some social reality that you like by restricting the freedoms of others except to the extent that is necessary to prevent them from restricting the freedoms of others.
Banning murder is right, because murder infringes on the right of the victim. Same with theft. Same with fraud.
But you know, there used to be a bookstore in the town where I grew up. It was called the Chestnut Court Book Shop. I have many pleasant memories of time spent there. I miss it. It closed years ago.
Could I have asserted some "right" to have the store stay open? After all, I prefer a world where the store exists.
Of course, that's idiotic. No one has such "rights". I wasn't "entitled" to have CCBS exist when it did. It existed. I benefited from it. Lucky me. But that benefit didn't grant me any kind of "ownership" or "entitlement" or "right".
This is no different. You don't want icky queero homos in society, so you think it's legitimate to have laws against us. But it isn't. Because you have no right to a "society" that looks the way you want it to. All you have a right to is for me to refrain from punching you in the nose.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dasa: By your logic we should ban churches because they make gay people feel bad and cause our youth to kill themselves.
But just as we have no right to demand churches close down because they hurt our feelings, they have no right to demand we go into hiding because we make them feel icky.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Laws banning drug use are wrong. "Society" does not have a right to infringe on the freedoms of any individual so long as that individual doesn't harm others.
This sounds very non-coercion principle. Keep in mind that any workable heterogeneous society does actively have that right. It took it a long time ago, and plans on keeping it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Dasa: By your logic we should ban churches because they make gay people feel bad and cause our youth to kill themselves.
But just as we have no right to demand churches close down because they hurt our feelings, they have no right to demand we go into hiding because we make them feel icky.
I am sorry if I came across that way but I didn't say that at all. I even said that I am for gay marriage (incidentally, it is against my religion).
The point is that feeling bad is not substantial damage. On the other hand, if substantial damage can be shown (and spiritual damage doesn't count as it is non-demonstrable), I think it something worth *thinking* about.
My (not so well expressed) point was that it is not sufficient to say that your action does not immediately affect someone.
Nor is to sufficient to say that I need to point to a specific victim before I can show the action to be harmful. It is possible sometimes that a series of probable events could lead to a victim. We should look at the likelihood of that event and balance it with the evil of having to infringe upon individual freedom.
I agree with gay marriage because I think it does not do substantial harm to anyone in the near or far future. Not only does it not have any definite victims, it has none. It also has several positives apart from making those who are marrying happy.
I do not see the same happening with the drug issue. The libertarian "nose-fist" idea I think doesn't fit well in all situations.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Laws banning drug use are wrong. "Society" does not have a right to infringe on the freedoms of any individual so long as that individual doesn't harm others.
This sounds very non-coercion principle. Keep in mind that any workable heterogeneous society does actively have that right. It took it a long time ago, and plans on keeping it.
Taking something does not confer a right. There was a time when people would have said, similarly, that societies are ruled by kings. It's just a fact. But it's not a fact, and we've moved towards liberty by recognizing that people are not meant to be subjected to the tyranny of a monarch.
Neither, though, are people meant to be subjected to the tyranny of their neighbors. No society has any "rights" that its component individuals do not have. If I can't take your money to use for my own purposes, then neither can a majority of fellow citizens do it.
Rather, they can do it. But it's wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The libertarian philosophy has its practical limits just like any other political school of thought.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't answer anything, though. You can't just say, vaguely, that there are limits. You need to demonstrate what they are. You need to justify by what right a group of people can take from someone what they have earned against that person's will.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone benefits from an infrastructure and has input into how that infrastrucure is administered, society has a right to demand reasonable contribution toward that infrastrucure.
quote:Neither, though, are people meant to be subjected to the tyranny of their neighbors. No society has any "rights" that its component individuals do not have. If I can't take your money to use for my own purposes, then neither can a majority of fellow citizens do it.
Rather, they can do it. But it's wrong.
That's a nice moral philosophy, but it wouldn't realistically translate into a workable societal structure. It would eventually begin to microfederalize, and we'd simply have swapped out democracy for a vaguely oligarchical system. If even that! It would train-wreck the structure we have in place, first. Strangely, nearly absolutely nobody nobody nobody seems to think it would work, unless their axiomatic philosophy demands that no other way be allowed to work, and I haven't wondered for a second why that is.
But I'm sure you've heard this all before, from about anyone who isn't in the objectivist or anarcho-capitalist camps of hyperlibertarianism.
It's fun to fantasize about how whacky such a system would be, though. Wow, imagine if the United States had gone without Eminent Domain. Or building codes. Boy, that'd be messed up! Urbanization would have been a full-scale disaster!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: All laws are discriminatory. Banning drugs hurts only those who want to use drugs.
And the economy, and the people who get shot in the crossfire of the drugwar, the people who don't get police attention because the cops are chasing drugs, and the families of people who are sent away for 20 year drug possession raps, and cancer victims... need I go on?
The outlawing of certain drugs has far-reaching consequences, beyond what happens to those who break the law. You can see that right? It is just the same with these laws regarding homosexuality, they are not self-contained, they are representative of, connected with and effected by other societal issues. This kind of narrow thinking helps no-one. At least acknowledge that there IS a great effect, the law of unforseen consequences, involved in all policies.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If someone benefits from an infrastructure and has input into how that infrastrucure is administered, society has a right to demand reasonable contribution toward that infrastrucure.
For example.
There is no "society". If people want infrastructure, they can build infrastructure. You're talking about the "free rider" issue. If I go outside and play a flute, that doesn't give me the right to charge people walking by who might enjoy it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neither, though, are people meant to be subjected to the tyranny of their neighbors. No society has any "rights" that its component individuals do not have. If I can't take your money to use for my own purposes, then neither can a majority of fellow citizens do it.
Rather, they can do it. But it's wrong.
That's a nice moral philosophy, but it wouldn't realistically translate into a workable societal structure.
You mean it wouldn't translate into the same societal structure we have now. That's no argument at all, though.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It would eventually begin to microfederalize, and we'd simply have swapped out democracy for a vaguely oligarchical system. If even that!
How does it change democracy at all? On the contrary. Right now, the biggest failure of our system is the fact that candidates can essentially bribe the voters with their ability to manipulate the economy. This is the single most fundamental cause of political corruption.
Imagine if the government was only there to make sure that no one hurt anyone else. Imagine getting rid of the disgusting bloat that eats most of our earnings. Imagine the government limited to its basic Constitutional functions.
You talk about oligarchy, but what do you think our current government is? We have a vast, unelected bureaucracy, which runs most of the country. We have a political class that is essentially a ruling class. And there's about as much potential for movement into that class as there is into any upper economic class. It can happen, but it's the exception, rather than the rule.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It would train-wreck the structure we have in place, first.
And that's a bad thing?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But I'm sure you've heard this all before, from about anyone who isn't in the objectivist or anarcho-capitalist camps of hyperlibertarianism.
Well, hey. I guess you've managed to find a good label. That's certainly more efficient that actually addressing the issue.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's fun to fantasize about how whacky such a system would be, though. Wow, imagine if the United States had gone without Eminent Domain. Or building codes. Boy, that'd be messed up! Urbanization would have been a full-scale disaster!
Tell it to the people in Houston.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Nu? So demonstrate. Since I'm not speaking in a vacuum, and you know exactly what I mean by it, but since there may be people here who don't, let me expand the statement. There is no such thing as a corporate entity called "society" to which individuals are subordinate. What we label "society" is simply the aggregate of the individuals which compose it. There is no critical mass at which it becomes greater than the sum of its parts in terms of perogatives. Certainly, lots of people have the physical power to force things on fewer people, but that's just thuggery. There's no legitimacy to it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You mean it wouldn't translate into the same societal structure we have now.
No, no, I mean it would be a ker-flaming disaster! It would totally not work at all.
It's a shame, though, since it's fun to imagine ideal societies that work without the need to sacrifice some positive liberties as well as negative liberties.
quote:Well, hey. I guess you've managed to find a good label. That's certainly more efficient that actually addressing the issue.
I don't know exactly how to place this sentiment. It sounds reliant on the idea that my use and application of accurate terminology precludes my ability or intent to address the issue.
I can be a super big help and tell you upfront that this is not the case! I'm just pointing out -- rather accurately, I might add -- that few people not in those camps are inclined to pretend even for a moment that societies can work while adhering dogmatically to a non-coercion principle of governance.
quote:And that's a bad thing?
Yup, unless one isn't used to the conveniences equipped and enabled by the social contract. Like, say, working highway systems, communal water systems, me not being able to build towers or oil derricks in the middle of a residential district just because I want to.
Also there's the whole common defense thing, unless we're willing to assume that strictly voluntary taxation is capable of providing police forces and military forces as a public service.
Also: monopolies. Still a consequence of fully untethered markets! Actually, in the real world, a very bad thing!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Give a single example of a monopoly that (1) didn't become a monopoly by using government coercion to attain that status, and (2) is a bad thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. From Mel Gibson to Libertian rants, by way of Gay Rights. I love Hatrack.
OK, if drug laws are bad, and Alcohol is a drug, then in StarLisa's Libertarian world, Mel Gibson would not have been arrested, and this whole thread should just vanish in a puff of logical smoke.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes and no. In a proper world, the owners of streets and highways would have the right to impose rules for their use. Someone violating those rules, while he might not get arrested, would surely be stopped and banned from using said streets and highways.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Give a single example of a monopoly that (1) didn't become a monopoly by using government coercion to attain that status, and (2) is a bad thing.
De Beers.
There were a whole slew of service monopolies in Somalia after the collapse of the government into anarchy. They attached themselves (or were absorbed) pretty quickly to armed militias which quickly split the country into factional principalities. After scant months of federalism, it degenerated into feudal warlordism and the place became very dangerous.
But hey, at least they had cheap telecom!
Anyway, as long as you've got an even half-functional government, most all monopolies pretty much have to develop under a buddy-buddy relationship with the government (since the government regulates the markets), so all monopolies can be associated with government coercion.
This doesn't mean that it's impossible to claim that monopolies are bad, but it probably means that it's a good thing when governments don't collude with businesses in a way that creates monopoly! So the question seems somewhat skewed. Especially given that if the government is stripped from its capacity to regulate markets, monopolies can exist in larger and more total formats than before. I sure wouldn't like that!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Give a single example of a monopoly that (1) didn't become a monopoly by using government coercion to attain that status, and (2) is a bad thing.
De Beers.
It gives me a physical pain in my breast even just to read that company's name.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Give a single example of a monopoly that (1) didn't become a monopoly by using government coercion to attain that status, and (2) is a bad thing.
De Beers.
Oh, for crying out loud. So the best you can do is find a company that used armed force to attain its monopoly.
A monopoly that becomes a monopoly without the use of coercive force, either governmental or military, is never a bad thing. Because it can only become a monopoly in such a situation because it offers the best value to its customers.
The so-called "robber barons" existed on government land grants and patronage. None of them could have attained their power without the coercive force of government. Yet the government used them as an excuse to intrude even more into the economy, where it uses anti-trust legislation as a weapon.
The government broke up Ma Bell (which screwed us all, btw) for being a monopoly, when it became a monopoly only because the government prevented competition by force in the first place.
You statists have your faith, is all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the best you can do is find a company that used armed force to attain its monopoly.
I answered your question, lady. Apparently, there were hidden super-secret stipulations that you are now using to belittle me! Oh, okay, DeBeers counts as a legitimate answer to your challenge, but 'oh please, I scoff at your answer because X, Y, Z ..'
Please let me know in advance when you plan to play these runarounds!
quote:You statists have your faith, is all.
The irony in this kind of quote is profound to me, especially considering that any nation that runs the way you think it should be forced to is entirely theoretical.
Heh.
You are as elegant as you are dismissive, though. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were uninterested in doing anything but accelerating our discourse towards contentiousness.
Don't worry, I read you loud and clear. I'll be sure to dance carefully around this issue with you from now on!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Give a single example of a monopoly that (1) didn't become a monopoly by using government coercion to attain that status, and (2) is a bad thing.
De Beers.
Oh, for crying out loud. So the best you can do is find a company that used armed force to attain its monopoly.
A monopoly that becomes a monopoly without the use of coercive force, either governmental or military, is never a bad thing. Because it can only become a monopoly in such a situation because it offers the best value to its customers.
The so-called "robber barons" existed on government land grants and patronage. None of them could have attained their power without the coercive force of government. Yet the government used them as an excuse to intrude even more into the economy, where it uses anti-trust legislation as a weapon.
The government broke up Ma Bell (which screwed us all, btw) for being a monopoly, when it became a monopoly only because the government prevented competition by force in the first place.
You statists have your faith, is all.
Lisa, isn't de Beers the very model of a modern major monopoly, for libertarians? I thought you were striving for abolishing governments' monopoly of force?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Lisa, isn't de Beers the very model of a modern major monopoly, for libertarians?
How would I know?
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: I thought you were striving for abolishing governments' monopoly of force?
You may have gotten me confused with libertarians. Of course, I can only assume that this is a libertarian foolishness, based on what you wrote above. But the government absolutely must have a monopoly on the retributory use of coercive force. And no one, individual or government, should be allowed to initiate coercive force. Ever.
The only case in which an individual may legitimately use force is to defend himself in a case where the government is unable to, such as an emergency situation of self-defense. Or if a government is not fulfilling its responsibilities in that area.
quote:So the best you can do is find a company that used armed force to attain its monopoly.
I answered your question, lady. Apparently, there were hidden super-secret stipulations that you are now using to belittle me! Oh, okay, DeBeers counts as a legitimate answer to your challenge, but 'oh please, I scoff at your answer because X, Y, Z ..'
Oh, grow up. The reason I mentioned government coercion is that it's the type that people like you think is legitimate. It hadn't even occurred to me that someone would bring an example of non-governmental coercion. You might as well use the Mafia as an example.
The fact remains, that monopolies that come into existence without the use of physical force can only maintain their monopoly status by providing the best deal. Otherwise, they're inevitably supplanted.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, In your version of economics, do you have some sort of label for the average worker? Like, I don't know: Self-directed Economically Restricted Functionaries? We could call them serfs for short.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking human being. Someone who trades his or her labor for recompense. You know, actually earns money. Which is cool, because then you can use that money to trade for other nifty things, like food and housing and medical care.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
