Restoring America: Start with distinguishing "government" from "society"

[steveh_131]

So until we have fascism, we can never be free.

You, sir, are a libertarian who would put us all in chains, just to allow us to prove that we deserve to be free.

We have no such obligation.

That's not how I took it.

I think he's saying that we ought to take away the taxpayer-sponsored safety nets before we start letting people take the plunge. This way the consequences fall on them and not on the rest of us.

 

[downzero]

That's not how I took it.

I think he's saying that we ought to take away the taxpayer-sponsored safety nets before we start letting people take the plunge. This way the consequences fall on them and not on the rest of us.

Either way, freedom becomes a privilege until you can convince the masses to dismantle the welfare state, instead of allowing it to fail under its own weight, because it is a fundamentally flawed policy.

 

[hornadylnl]

Interesting POV because I consider myself a Libertarian.

However, in a true libertarian world where everyone determines their own freedom, they would also be 100% accountable and responsible for the consequences of their own decisions.

I have yet to meet a "Libertarian" who would agree with that as practically applied.

My take on it is, first make people 100% accountable and responsible for their decisions, and then we can talk about complete freedom to make those decisions.

Since that will never happen, you're left with people, whom I suppose you would call Conservatives, trying to mitigate the consequences forced upon them by other peoples decisions.

Many conservatives don't want to just mitigate the consequence foisted upon them by others. I agree with that point. Many conservatives want to legislate their morality on others. What consequence is it to your or I if 2 guys want to get married?

 

[steveh_131]

Either way, freedom becomes a privilege until you can convince the masses to dismantle the welfare state, instead of allowing it to fail under its own weight, because it is a fundamentally flawed policy.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with it, I was just clarifying.

Liberty and personal responsibility go hand-in-hand. You can't really have one without the other.

 

[downzero]

Liberty and personal responsibility go hand-in-hand. You can't really have one without the other.

I disagree with this statement as well. They only go hand in hand if you expect to have an orderly society. My position is that we are entitled to freedom even if we lack sufficient government to hold people accountable. That would be chaos, so I hope we wouldn't reach that point. But it does not follow that we cannot have freedom without a government to hold others accountable. On the contrary, we were entitled to freedom before there ever was a government and we would still be entitled to one even in the absence of government.

Freedom predates government and we are entitled to it even in the absence of government. We may have a problem enforcing our rights, but that doesn't mean that we don't still have them.

 

[steveh_131]

I disagree with this statement as well. They only go hand in hand if you expect to have an orderly society. My position is that we are entitled to freedom even if we lack sufficient government to hold people accountable. That would be chaos, so I hope we wouldn't reach that point.

I don't think we disagree, actually. I'm not talking about a government protecting rights. I'm talking about a government that is taking money by force from those of us who behave responsibility and using it to mitigate the consequences for those who behave irresponsibly.

Personal responsibility (to me) doesn't necessarily mean government enforcement of some type. It can exist with minimal government.

 

[Liberty1911]

I don't think we disagree, actually. I'm not talking about a government protecting rights. I'm talking about a government that is taking money by force from those of us who behave responsibility and using it to mitigate the consequences for those who behave irresponsibly.

Personal responsibility (to me) doesn't necessarily mean government enforcement of some type. It can exist with minimal government.

That is exactly my point.

 

[Liberty1911]

Many conservatives don't want to just mitigate the consequence foisted upon them by others. I agree with that point. Many conservatives want to legislate their morality on others. What consequence is it to your or I if 2 guys want to get married?

Nothing, if it ends there. But it never ends there. Ever.

First, the government indoctrinates society to make sure no one disagrees with it. Then they legislate their "morality" on us to make sure we comply.

As a practical example, and expanding on my original point, if two men want to get "married", then they must accept the consequences, which may include other people not wanting to do business with them, or wanting to hire them as employees.

However, as I pointed out, no one really wants to let them be held accountable by others in society. Instead, society will force a private business owner to hire them, or force a private land lord to rent to them.

Since society does that, then it becomes a matter of people you would call conservatives, trying to mitigate other people exercising their "freedom", while being denied their own personal exercise of freedom.

Back to my original point then. When you allow private business owners the freedom to do business with whom they please, and when you stop using my tax money to indoctrinate my children with something I disagree with, then we can talk about two men getting "married".

 

[hornadylnl]

Nothing, if it ends there. But it never ends there. Ever.

First, the government indoctrinates society to make sure no one disagrees with it. Then they legislate their "morality" on us to make sure we comply.

As a practical example, and expanding on my original point, if two men want to get "married", then they must accept the consequences, which may include other people not wanting to do business with them, or wanting to hire them as employees.

However, as I pointed out, no one really wants to let them be held accountable by others in society. Instead, society will force a private business owner to hire them, or force a private land lord to rent to them.

Since society does that, then it becomes a matter of people you would call conservatives, trying to mitigate other people exercising their "freedom", while being denied their own personal exercise of freedom.

Back to my original point then. When you allow private business owners the freedom to do business with whom they please, and when you stop using my tax money to indoctrinate my children with something I disagree with, then we can talk about two men getting "married".

I don't support the prevention of people choosing who they want to do business with regardless of the reason. I don't support indoctrinating your children via public schools.

Many don't oppose same sex marriage on the grounds of business. The oppose it on the grounds that they're morally against it and its their religious duty to prevent it.

 

[Liberty1911]

I don't support the prevention of people choosing who they want to do business with regardless of the reason. I don't support indoctrinating your children via public schools.

Many don't oppose same sex marriage on the grounds of business. The oppose it on the grounds that they're morally against it and its their religious duty to prevent it.

I'm sure some do. It's irrelevant though, a red herring, and here's why. The reality is that under our current system when you grant "freedom" for men to "marry", then you put chains on others and force them to support that "freedom" with their compliance to regulation and confiscation of wealth.

As long as the forced system of compliance and confiscation is a reality, the reason people oppose gay marriage is irrelevant. The person who opposes it on "moral" grounds is faced with the same compliance and confiscation as the person who opposes it on "business" grounds.

So, a true Libertarian should be focused on the real problem, which is a system that denies liberty to private citizens, and not look for ways to bind them further by extending "freedom" to people who seek compliance and confiscation.

Fix the system, then you can tell me how "gay marriage" doesn't affect me.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm sure some do. It's irrelevant though, a red herring, and here's why. The reality is that under our current system when you grant "freedom" for men to "marry", then you put chains on others and force them to support that "freedom" with their compliance to regulation and confiscation of wealth.

As long as the forced system of compliance and confiscation is a reality, the reason people oppose gay marriage is irrelevant. The person who opposes it on "moral" grounds is faced with the same compliance and confiscation as the person who opposes it on "business" grounds.

So, a true Libertarian should be focused on the real problem, which is a system that denies liberty to private citizens, and not look for ways to bind them further by extending "freedom" to people who seek compliance and confiscation.

Fix the system, then you can tell me how "gay marriage" doesn't affect me.

This, exactly.

I don't care what two people do. They can have a religious ceremony and call each other spouses and do what they please. I believe it to be immoral, but consensual and therefore outside of the scope of government intervention.

But like you said, my tax dollars are being taken from me and used to sanction these sorts of things. And this, unfortunately, puts my libertarian stance at odds with my morals.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't support the prevention of people choosing who they want to do business with regardless of the reason. I don't support indoctrinating your children via public schools.

Many don't oppose same sex marriage on the grounds of business. The oppose it on the grounds that they're morally against it and its their religious duty to prevent it.

Gotta agree with this also.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

The country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and beliefs, which have fallen by the wayside and so too, the moral fabric of society which holds our country together. There's a Bible passage about the pharoah not knowing of Joseph. The younger people don't know about Joseph either, as is "Stalin". Socialism is what will bring down our country and maybe sooner than later.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm sure some do. It's irrelevant though, a red herring, and here's why. The reality is that under our current system when you grant "freedom" for men to "marry", then you put chains on others and force them to support that "freedom" with their compliance to regulation and confiscation of wealth.

As long as the forced system of compliance and confiscation is a reality, the reason people oppose gay marriage is irrelevant. The person who opposes it on "moral" grounds is faced with the same compliance and confiscation as the person who opposes it on "business" grounds.

So, a true Libertarian should be focused on the real problem, which is a system that denies liberty to private citizens, and not look for ways to bind them further by extending "freedom" to people who seek compliance and confiscation.

Fix the system, then you can tell me how "gay marriage" doesn't affect me.

This, exactly.

I don't care what two people do. They can have a religious ceremony and call each other spouses and do what they please. I believe it to be immoral, but consensual and therefore outside of the scope of government intervention.

But like you said, my tax dollars are being taken from me and used to sanction these sorts of things. And this, unfortunately, puts my libertarian stance at odds with my morals.

Why is marriage a function of the state in the first place? My solution is to get the government out of marriage altogether, be it gay, straight, or any combination in any numbers.

 

[steveh_131]

Why is marriage a function of the state in the first place? My solution is to get the government out of marriage altogether, be it gay, straight, or any combination in any numbers.

Absolutely. That's pretty much what I'm trying to say.

 

[hornadylnl]

Absolutely. That's pretty much what I'm trying to say.

I've said it for years. Most conservatives love state sanctioned marriage. Hence their efforts to ban gay marriage.

 

[Liberty1911]

Why is marriage a function of the state in the first place? My solution is to get the government out of marriage altogether, be it gay, straight, or any combination in any numbers.

It's historically a function of the state because until about 100 years ago, it was a contractual obligation between parties and the state had the right to regulate it as a contract.

That's gone however with "no fault" divorce laws taking effect in all 50 states. Government no longer enforces marriage contracts, they just dole out "benefits" (or sometimes penalties) to people with that box checked off on their forms. Hence the clamor of the homosexual community to get their piece of the benefit pie.

In the current climate that defines "marriage", I would tend to agree that it should no longer be a function of the state since they no longer regulate it as a contract between parties.

 

[hornadylnl]

It's historically a function of the state because until about 100 years ago, it was a contractual obligation between parties and the state had the right to regulate it as a contract.

That's gone however with "no fault" divorce laws taking effect in all 50 states. Government no longer enforces marriage contracts, they just dole out "benefits" (or sometimes penalties) to people with that box checked off on their forms. Hence the clamor of the homosexual community to get their piece of the benefit pie.

In the current climate that defines "marriage", I would tend to agree that it should no longer be a function of the state since they no longer regulate it as a contract between parties.

Government should have never been in the business of marriage in the first place. I've been married almost 15 years to the only woman I've ever slept with. Should I ever end up single again, my name will never grace another marriage license. I've never cheated in a relationship and I never will.

ETA: If I want my wife or my coworker's cousin's uncle to make life or death decisions about me while I lay in a coma, I can do that with a contract drawn up by a lawyer. I don't need a marriage license to assign that responsibility to another.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and beliefs, which have fallen by the wayside and so too, the moral fabric of society which holds our country together. There's a Bible passage about the pharoah not knowing of Joseph. The younger people don't know about Joseph either, as is "Stalin". Socialism is what will bring down our country and maybe sooner than later.

I agree completely, but attempting to force righteousness by law is predestined to failure. The only way to restore morality to society is to restore it individually to those who make up the society.

 

[thebishopp]

Maybe next time, I got the 'spread the rep' scold.

got him for you.