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! Algorithm free!
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 ... 7 8 [9] 10  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states (Read 10,094 times)
wyattstorch2004
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

GO CUBS

Posts: 13,631
Joined: May 11th, 2004
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #80 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 5:42pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 5:13pm:
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.


Ideally, it wouldn't.  But if that was it's worst transgression (I don't think it was), it was considerably better than today.

But "most libertarian" wasn't what we were looking for.  We were looking for an example of how libertarian ideals can succeed.  You pointed to Somalia because you thought it was unsuccessful.  Fine.  We are all biased at times.

I pointed to another, and to me, better, example of libertarian thought.  Early America.  Maybe my choice is also biased.

Quote:
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.


That is certainly a failing of the early government.  I wasn't attempting to point to perfection.  That is impossible.

Quote:
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.


What do you mean "the basis"?


Quote:
Libertarians seem to want as few rules as possible.


Says who?  I could care less how many rules there are.  My concern is with rights.

Quote:
Somalia is a good example of how that's working out, I think.


Not when you consider the lack of respect for rights like life and property.

Quote:
Maybe not, but it seems to be one that crops up in libertarian circles.


Is it? The only time I have ever seen it "crop up" is when someone who is anti-libertarianism chooses, instead of making an argument, to suggest that the libertarian "move to the horn of Africa/Somalia".  Or when someone who is anti-libertarian claims that it is a proper example of the result of libertarian philosophy.

Quote:
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.


Well, I think using government to force someone to act in a certain way with their life or property is, in my mind, uncivilized and unreasonable.

And I would feel the same way about that being the case for "customers"/"the public".  the reason that the idea of forcing customers to also not discriminate is to point out the apparent hypocrisy and to point out that the folks fighting for regulation of businesses are out to manipulate businesses more so than to seek an end to discrimination.

Quote:
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


I would say the one that forces folks, under threat, to act with their lives and property according to the tastes of those who happen to control government is the much less civilized society.

Quote:
(at least in the sense of fewer regulations, which is apparently how libertarians define freedom).


Again, the definition of freedom is about rights.

I think your understanding of some of the concepts being discussed are causing a disconnect.

Libertarians define freedom as the right to ones life, liberty and property.  There can be all kinds of rules.  And they can be anywhere and everywhere.

But the key is that I have an absolute right to live, enjoy my property, do to my property what I wish and contract in any way that I wish, provided that the rights of others to do the same are not infringed.

And, again, this leads to quite a lot of restraints.  For example, if I have an absolute right to arms.  I can own and operate arms which I choose.  But, if my neighbor has an absolute right to his life, property and liberty, I am constrained in that I cannot infringe on those rights by shooting him or his windows, or threatening him or his property with harm.  In that sense, I am absolutely free.  But so, too, is my neighbor.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline


Posts: 10,911
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #81 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 6:08pm
Print Post  
wyattstorch2004 wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 5:42pm:
Ideally, it wouldn't. But if that was it's worst transgression (I don't think it was), it was considerably better than today.

But "most libertarian" wasn't what we were looking for. We were looking for an example of how libertarian ideals can succeed. You pointed to Somalia because you thought it was unsuccessful. Fine. We are all biased at times.

I pointed to another, and to me, better, example of libertarian thought. Early America. Maybe my choice is also biased.


That is certainly a failing of the early government. I wasn't attempting to point to perfection. That is impossible.


What do you mean "the basis"?



Says who? I could care less how many rules there are. My concern is with rights.


Not when you consider the lack of respect for rights like life and property.


Is it? The only time I have ever seen it "crop up" is when someone who is anti-libertarianism chooses, instead of making an argument, to suggest that the libertarian "move to the horn of Africa/Somalia". Or when someone who is anti-libertarian claims that it is a proper example of the result of libertarian philosophy.


Well, I think using government to force someone to act in a certain way with their life or property is, in my mind, uncivilized and unreasonable.

And I would feel the same way about that being the case for "customers"/"the public". the reason that the idea of forcing customers to also not discriminate is to point out the apparent hypocrisy and to point out that the folks fighting for regulation of businesses are out to manipulate businesses more so than to seek an end to discrimination.


I would say the one that forces folks, under threat, to act with their lives and property according to the tastes of those who happen to control government is the much less civilized society.


Again, the definition of freedom is about rights.

I think your understanding of some of the concepts being discussed are causing a disconnect.

Libertarians define freedom as the right to ones life, liberty and property. There can be all kinds of rules. And they can be anywhere and everywhere.

But the key is that I have an absolute right to live, enjoy my property, do to my property what I wish and contract in any way that I wish, provided that the rights of others to do the same are not infringed.

And, again, this leads to quite a lot of restraints. For example, if I have an absolute right to arms. I can own and operate arms which I choose. But, if my neighbor has an absolute right to his life, property and liberty, I am constrained in that I cannot infringe on those rights by shooting him or his windows, or threatening him or his property with harm. In that sense, I am absolutely free. But so, too, is my neighbor.


I mean basis in the plain dictionary meaning of the word. 
In this sense: without enforceable rules, civilization does not exist.

Somalia as an example of a libertarian success story was actually first brought up to me by TL.  At least that's my recollection.  His will differ I feel sure.

Neither you nor your neighbor is absolutely free, unless absolutely means something other than what the dictionary says the plain meaning of the word is.

Not to nitpick, but I am pretty sure you meant you "couldn't" care less, not you "could" care less.  I know, I know, I tend to get hung up on the plain meaning of words, but that's not my worst fault.

I did some reading on libertarianism some time back.  Frankly, libertarians are a pretty diverse, almost schizophrenic group.  There are, for example, liberal libertarian socialists. 

Do you think federalism is a synonym for libertarianism?  I don't.  And if I am not mistaken, many of the founders of this country, including George Washington, were federalists.  I admit I have not read all of the federalist papers, but what I have read does not seem to support the notion that this was founded as a libertarian society.
  

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

GO CUBS

Posts: 13,631
Joined: May 11th, 2004
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #82 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 6:28pm
Print Post  
Your post is hard to comprehend properly, since you are quoting a whole post and responding to multiple different points. Why don't you respond point by point?

EF wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 6:08pm:
I mean basis in the plain dictionary meaning of the word.
In this sense: without enforceable rules, civilization does not exist.


OK. Rules don't have to come from government. So the notion that rules are the basis of civilization, says nothing about the proper form government should take.

Quote:
Somalia as an example of a libertarian success story was actually first brought up to me by TL. At least that's my recollection. His will differ I feel sure.


Do you have a link? My guess is that he could point to Somalia today as being a success relative to, say, 50 years ago. But that does not make it a model libertarian society. Same goes for Iraq or Afghanistan. See why I made that analogy?

Quote:
Neither you nor your neighbor is absolutely free, unless absolutely means something other than what the dictionary says the plain meaning of the word is.


Yes we are, if by free, we are referring to rights that are not infringed. I think your problem is with how you are defining free.

Tell me how, by your definition, more than one person at any one time could be absolutely free? Because the way you are presenting absolute freedom, requires that no more than one individual succeeds at being absolutely free. Is that really what you think libertarians believe? If so, is it possible that you are wrong in your understanding? Do you really think a whole swath of people would support an ideal that can not be achieved by more than one person at a time?


Quote:
Not to nitpick, but I am pretty sure you meant you "couldn't" care less, not you "could" care less. I know, I know, I tend to get hung up on the plain meaning of words, but that's not my worst fault.


Sure. OK.

Quote:
I did some reading on libertarianism some time back. Frankly, libertarians are a pretty diverse, almost schizophrenic group. There are, for example, liberal libertarian socialists.


Sure, if rights are absolute, you can have all kinds of organizations. That is not a flaw. Wink

Quote:
Do you think federalism is a synonym for libertarianism?


No. But they are also not mutually exclusive.

Quote:
I don't. And if I am not mistaken, many of the founders of this country, including George Washington, were federalists.


OK.

Quote:
I admit I have not read all of the federalist papers, but what I have read does not seem to support the notion that this was founded as a libertarian society.


Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Does that come across as libertarian? The declaration of Independence is a pretty darn libertarian document. With its references to natural and unalienable Rights and disdain for tyranny.

Whether or not they stated it directly, the government that followed the independence of the USA was relatively more libertarian than today's USA and certainly more so than existed under the rule of Great Britain, at least for those for whom liberty was afforded. I think we all know of their grand failure in terms of the protections not afforded non-whites.
« Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2015 at 6:41pm by wyattstorch2004 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TowardLiberty
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

anti-state, anti-war and
pro-market

Posts: 34,716
Location: Houston
Joined: Apr 6th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #83 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 6:39pm
Print Post  
If our vision of absolute freedom does not involve clear rules, boundaries and limitations, then it is no kind of freedom at all, unless we are discussing the fractured freedom of a single individual.

But when we leave the idea of man as an island unto himself, we realize that freedom requires rules and boundaries, as paradoxical as that may seem.

Therefore, the distinction is not between a system of rules vs a system without rules, but rather, it is a choice between horizontal and vertical systems.
  

Open Trade, Open Borders, Taco Trucks on Every Corner
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline


Posts: 10,911
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #84 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 8:32pm
Print Post  
TowardLiberty wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 6:39pm:
If our vision of absolute freedom does not involve clear rules, boundaries and limitations, then it is no kind of freedom at all, unless we are discussing the fractured freedom of a single individual.

But when we leave the idea of man as an island unto himself, we realize that freedom requires rules and boundaries, as paradoxical as that may seem.

Therefore, the distinction is not between a system of rules vs a system without rules, but rather, it is a choice between horizontal and vertical systems.


From an earlier post of yours:
"Who are these sloppy libertarians, so that I might ridicule them with you? "

Take your pick.  Libertarians, according to my reading, run form anarchists at one extreme to liberal libertarian socialists at the other.

I think I prefer a diagonal system.  I am not sure this country was ever anything other than what it is now, which is a federal republic.  Some of its principles are libertarian, but libertarian is  an incredibly fuzzy term. I think it would be safe to say this country was libertarian except when it wasn't, which was often, and I agree that it definitely was more libertarian than the England of the 1700's, but it's more libertarian than that in 2015, too.  So is England. 
  

non sumus stulti
but
accidit stercore
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TowardLiberty
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

anti-state, anti-war and
pro-market

Posts: 34,716
Location: Houston
Joined: Apr 6th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #85 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 8:47pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 8:32pm:
From an earlier post of yours:
"Who are these sloppy libertarians, so that I might ridicule them with you? "

Take your pick. Libertarians, according to my reading, run form anarchists at one extreme to liberal libertarian socialists at the other.

And I would repeat the question-

Who are these sloppy libertarians (whom point to Somalia as a success)?

Also- what do you think about the argument that absolute freedom implies careful limits and boundaries?
  

Open Trade, Open Borders, Taco Trucks on Every Corner
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lomelis
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

Wonderboy

Posts: 14,897
Location: California
Joined: Dec 20th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #86 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 3:54pm:
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?


Yes I was thinking you implied his more controlled society was more civilized, I might have missed the sarcasm.
  

Ignorant Blessings from Wads:

Wadsworth wrote on Jul 2nd, 2018 at 4:13pm:
Watched it.  A shotgun is for long ranged shooting.  That is why hunters like them.  An AR-15 is not.  That video was misleading.

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Thor3
Ex Member


Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #87 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 9:50pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 8:32pm:
From an earlier post of yours:
"Who are these sloppy libertarians, so that I might ridicule them with you? "

Take your pick. Libertarians, according to my reading, run form anarchists at one extreme to liberal libertarian socialists at the other.

I think I prefer a diagonal system. I am not sure this country was ever anything other than what it is now, which is a federal republic. Some of its principles are libertarian, but libertarian is an incredibly fuzzy term. I think it would be safe to say this country was libertarian except when it wasn't, which was often, and I agree that it definitely was more libertarian than the England of the 1700's, but it's more libertarian than that in 2015, too. So is England.


The Articles of Confederation were certainly more 'libertarian' than what we have today, but they didn't work for the new nation, which is why they were abandoned in favor of the Constitution.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lomelis
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

Wonderboy

Posts: 14,897
Location: California
Joined: Dec 20th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #88 - Apr 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm
Print Post  
Quote:
The Articles of Confederation were certainly more 'libertarian' than what we have today, but they didn't work for the new nation, which is why they were abandoned in favor of the Constitution.


They actually worked fine but some men, we can call them Vajayays, wanted a larger warfare state that eventually puts yours, mine, and all of of our buddies lives in danger for the sake of old rich white people. Good job, Thor, good job! Smiley
  

Ignorant Blessings from Wads:

Wadsworth wrote on Jul 2nd, 2018 at 4:13pm:
Watched it.  A shotgun is for long ranged shooting.  That is why hunters like them.  An AR-15 is not.  That video was misleading.

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Thor3
Ex Member


Re: Gays, businesses and Indiana + 19 othe states
Reply #89 - Apr 20th, 2015 at 12:47am
Print Post  
Lomelis wrote on Apr 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm:
They actually worked fine but some men, we can call them Vajayays, wanted a larger warfare state that eventually puts yours, mine, and all of of our buddies lives in danger for the sake of old rich white people. Good job, Thor, good job! Smiley


'Worked fine''....


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 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