Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states (Read 9,553 times)
Lomelis
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

Wonderboy

Posts: 13,987
Location: California
Joined: Dec 20th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #70 - Apr 18th, 2015 at 8:03pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Apr 18th, 2015 at 6:25pm:
Dude I disagree.


Lol.  You might not have intended to imply what you did but how you structured your sentence leads any reader to infer that you are relating a society's level of freedom with how civilized they are.
  

Deny, Ignore, Evade, Distract, Place Blame Elsewhere!  Must defend the Trump Messiah!

But, but, but....but Hillary, but Lynch, but Obama, but Boosh, but Clinton!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF House Leader
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
****
Offline


Posts: 9,787
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #71 - Apr 18th, 2015 at 9:23pm
Print Post  
Lomelis wrote on Apr 18th, 2015 at 8:03pm:
Lol.  You might not have intended to imply what you did but how you structured your sentence leads any reader to infer that you are relating a society's level of freedom with how civilized they are.



Only readers who infer non sequiturs.
  

non sumus stulti
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF House Leader
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
****
Offline


Posts: 9,787
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #72 - Apr 18th, 2015 at 9:27pm
Print Post  
wyattstorch2004 wrote on Apr 18th, 2015 at 7:23pm:
Well, those people would be quite wrong.

Maybe we can delve into why you think absolute freedom (whatever that is, and if even possible) "isn't going to be pretty".


No restraints in absolute freedom other than one's own conscience.  "Red in tooth and claw."
  

non sumus stulti
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
wyattstorch2004
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

GO CUBS

Posts: 12,908
Joined: May 11th, 2004
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #73 - Apr 18th, 2015 at 10:42pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Apr 18th, 2015 at 9:27pm:
No restraints in absolute freedom other than one's own conscience.  "Red in tooth and claw."


Absolute freedom =/= no restraints.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF House Leader
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
****
Offline


Posts: 9,787
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #74 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 3:54pm
Print Post  
Lomelis wrote on Apr 18th, 2015 at 8:03pm:
Lol.  You might not have intended to imply what you did but how you structured your sentence leads any reader to infer that you are relating a society's level of freedom with how civilized they are.


Here's a cut and paste from my post (#47)

The freest society would be one in which the fittest survived, one that is red in tooth and claw.  Like the animal kingdom.  On the other extreme is a society ruled by a person like Idi Amin, say.


Did you infer from that that I was implying Idi Amin ruled the most civilized society on earth?
  

non sumus stulti
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF House Leader
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
****
Offline


Posts: 9,787
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #75 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 3:57pm
Print Post  
wyattstorch2004 wrote on Apr 18th, 2015 at 10:42pm:
Absolute freedom =/= no restraints.


I'll take your word for it, but I can't see how a person who is restrained in any way is absolutely free. 

But back to Somalia.  Somalia has been referred to as, if not a libertarian ideal, at least a model of how much better less government can be when it's compared to the government Somalia had previously.  Of course, Somalia's previous government was piss-poor, so maybe that's not really a fair test.  In any event, if Somalia's current status is an example of how good it is under libertarianism, I'll pass.
  

non sumus stulti
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
wyattstorch2004
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

GO CUBS

Posts: 12,908
Joined: May 11th, 2004
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #76 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 4:32pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 3:57pm:
I'll take your word for it, but I can't see how a person who is restrained in any way is absolutely free. 


Then there is our problem.  We are not operating under the same definition of freedom.  Or absolute freedom.

Absolute freedom does not, to me, mean that someone is free to, for example, enslave someone else.  Because it would infringe on the absolute freedom of the enslaved individual.  Thus, my absolute freedom is restrained by yours. 

Quote:
But back to Somalia.  Somalia has been referred to as, if not a libertarian ideal, at least a model of how much better less government can be when it's compared to the government Somalia had previously.


I believe TowardLiberty has written about the improvements experienced there brought on by a shift away from the competing socialist regimes that have previously exist in (and fought over) what is Somalia.

Quote:
  Of course, Somalia's previous government was piss-poor, so maybe that's not really a fair test.


Yes, that is my understanding.

Quote:
  In any event, if Somalia's current status is an example of how good it is under libertarianism, I'll pass.


And if Iraq or Afghanistan, in their current status, are examples of how good it is under a federal democracy, I'll pass.

Is it possible that, maybe, there are other contributing factors?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF House Leader
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
****
Offline


Posts: 9,787
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #77 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 4:41pm
Print Post  
wyattstorch2004 wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 4:32pm:
Then there is our problem.  We are not operating under the same definition of freedom.  Or absolute freedom.

Absolute freedom does not, to me, mean that someone is free to, for example, enslave someone else.  Because it would infringe on the absolute freedom of the enslaved individual.  Thus, my absolute freedom is restrained by yours. 


I believe TowardLiberty has written about the improvements experienced there brought on by a shift away from the competing socialist regimes that have previously exist in (and fought over) what is Somalia.


Yes, that is my understanding.


And if Iraq or Afghanistan, in their current status, are examples of how good it is under a federal democracy, I'll pass.

Is it possible that, maybe, there are other contributing factors?


But they aren't.  We are. So I'll stick with it.  And if absolute does not mean absolute, then I don't know how one can communicate with you.
  

non sumus stulti
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
wyattstorch2004
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

GO CUBS

Posts: 12,908
Joined: May 11th, 2004
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #78 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 4:55pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 4:41pm:
But they aren't.  We are. So I'll stick with it.


Well, "we" were also a pretty darn good example of libertarian society at one point, too.

My point was to show the fallacy in using Somalia as an example.  If you are going to present Somalia as representative of libertarianism, Iraq and Afghanistan are an even more apt representation of democratic republicanism.

Quote:
And if absolute does not mean absolute, then I don't know how one can communicate with you.



I am not sure how one can communicate successfully on the topic with you, considering it is impossible for more than one, single individual to be "absolutely" free under your definition.  Such a phrase is absolutely worthless when discussing social relationships if that is how you are going to define it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF House Leader
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
****
Offline


Posts: 9,787
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #79 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 5:13pm
Print Post  
wyattstorch2004 wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 4:55pm:
Well, "we" were also a pretty darn good example of libertarian society at one point, too.

My point was to show the fallacy in using Somalia as an example.  If you are going to present Somalia as representative of libertarianism, Iraq and Afghanistan are an even more apt representation of democratic republicanism.



I am not sure how one can communicate successfully on the topic with you, considering it is impossible for more than one, single individual to be "absolutely" free under your definition.  Such a phrase is absolutely worthless when discussing social relationships if that is how you are going to define it.



Could be on the libertarian society.  I am not as sure of that as you are, though, and I don't think a careful and thorough reading of American history would support that contention.  But I guess it depends on the definition of "libertarian."

Would a libertarian government tax the crap out of liquor and threaten those evading that tax with military action?  If one's answer is yes, then that might be used as evidence we were once a libertarian society.  If one's answer is no, then one can stop right there, because that happened in the very, very early days of this federal republic.

I think the point of disagreement is where does one draw the line when one starts making rules, and rules are the basis of civilization.  And that's not just my opinion, that's an historical fact.  At least I think it is.  I'll stick with it until given sufficient, competent evidential matter to refute it, anyway.

Libertarians seem to want as few rules as possible.  Somalia is a good example of how that's working out, I think.  Maybe not, but it seems to be one that crops up in libertarian circles.

Now the particular question that started all this can be summed up, I think, as follows: is it unreasonable to require a seller of goods and services in the ordinary course of business to sell those goods and services to persons in a protected class (currently race, color, national origin, ethnicity, but not LGBT) but not require those persons in those protected classes to shop at certain businesses. 

Libertarians apparently think it is.  I don't. That means we have drawn the line in a different place.

But now let's address this question: which society appears to be more civilized?  One that doesn't allow sellers of goods and services to discriminate against members of protected classes or one that does?  I think the one that does not is more civilized, though the one that does is definitely more free (at least in the sense of fewer regulations, which is apparently how libertarians define freedom).
  

non sumus stulti
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
A1 News Page
David Limbaugh
Political Frog
Conservatives Directory
President Trump Approval Poll
Presidential Party Election Poll News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules