"Freedom" thread or something

Equality 7-2521 wrote: But if the republicans don't practice what they preach, how did what they preach break the system? (Libertarian and Republican rhetoric is completely different anyway)

You're not understanding what I'm getting at.  Most of Republican rhetoric today is basically the same as conservative Libertarian rhetoric - government is bad or broken or what have you, just look at how broken it is, therefore we should have less of it.  What I'm saying is that the Republican party has gone about using this rhetoric, then breaking many of the systems in our government, and then pointing to those broken systems as proof that their rhetoric is correct.  But they've been hypocritical in certain areas, such as telling gays how to live and spending incredible sums on military expeditions.  They are employing cognitive dissonance in the way they say Keynes was wrong but then employ Keynesian rhetoric when it comes to the military.  The fact that the Republican party has been inconsistent does not prove me wrong in saying that the idealistic view of "government should be small to nothing, period" is a system that does not work.  On the contrary, I would use the fact the Republicans have broken many of our systems using this ideal by doing such things as minimizing bank regulations is proof that the ideal itself is wrong.

dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: But if the republicans don't practice what they preach, how did what they preach break the system? (Libertarian and Republican rhetoric is completely different anyway) You're not understanding what I'm getting at.  Most of Republican rhetoric today is basically the same as conservative Libertarian rhetoric - government is bad or broken or what have you, just look at how broken it is, therefore we should have less of it.  What I'm saying is that the Republican party has gone about using this rhetoric, then breaking many of the systems in our government, and then pointing to those broken systems as proof that their rhetoric is correct.  But they've been hypocritical in certain areas, such as telling gays how to live and spending incredible sums on military expeditions.  They are employing cognitive dissonance in the way they say Keynes was wrong but then employ Keynesian rhetoric when it comes to the military.  The fact that the Republican party has been inconsistent does not prove me wrong in saying that the idealistic view of "government should be small to nothing, period" is a system that does not work.  On the contrary, I would use the fact the Republicans have broken many of our systems using this ideal by doing such things as minimizing bank regulations is proof that the ideal itself is wrong.

But we haven't had small government, republicans haven't pushed for small government, republicans have followed the same economic policies as democrats. I get what you're saying, but you're spouting a complete non sequitur when you look at the facts. You can't say that a free market broke our government when we haven't had a political party which has attempted to free the market in a century. Republicans are Keynesian in every regard despite their rhetoric. Your critique makes no sense.

thellama73 wrote: Aso, as a bit of a side note, who's telling gays how to live? I have not heard that from anyone.

thellama73 wrote: Padraic wrote: thellama73 wrote: Aso, as a bit of a side note, who's telling gays how to live? I have not heard that from anyone. He means telling them they can't get married. Failing go grant government benefits to someone is not the same as telling them how to live. That would be like me saying the government is telling me how to live because they won't give me Medicare, a program to which I am not entitled and do not qualify.

Everybody wins.........sure.......that will ever happen.

Let me know when it is implemented.

thellama73 wrote: Maybe. I think it's absurd that the government is involved in marriage at all, but if they must be I agree that they should extend that to gay couples as well. It's yet another example of how, with government, we are forced to pick a single answer for everyone, inevitably leaving many people unhappy. In the private market, we can each have our own way. The fact that I prefer Coke doesn't prevent you from enjoying Pepsi. In a private marriage system, the fact that some institutions would recognize gay marriage would not force others to do the same, and everybody wins!

It's kinda different here though. Fundamentalists still wouldn't be happy because they don't want gays to be able to get married at all regardless of the myriad acts that the word can represent and they want their own version of marriage codified to affirm  their beliefs, or for conversion purposes, or because of narcissism, or through some strange structural sociological argument, or because they are just kinda illogically grossed out by gay people so they want to never have to see them be happy, or something; I'm not really sure what goes through the head of a person like that. But anyway, while getting the government out of the marriage game is the best solution, it will only ameliorate the vitriolic attitudes of the bigots.

I agree with all that.

thellama73 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: thellama73 wrote: Maybe. I think it's absurd that the government is involved in marriage at all, but if they must be I agree that they should extend that to gay couples as well. It's yet another example of how, with government, we are forced to pick a single answer for everyone, inevitably leaving many people unhappy. In the private market, we can each have our own way. The fact that I prefer Coke doesn't prevent you from enjoying Pepsi. In a private marriage system, the fact that some institutions would recognize gay marriage would not force others to do the same, and everybody wins! It's kinda different here though. Fundamentalists still wouldn't be happy because they don't want gays to be able to get married at all regardless of the myriad acts that the word can represent and they want their own version of marriage codified to affirm  their beliefs, or for conversion purposes, or because of narcissism, or through some strange structural sociological argument, or because they are just kinda illogically grossed out by gay people so they want to never have to see them be happy, or something; I'm not really sure what goes through the head of a person like that. But anyway, while getting the government out of the marriage game is the best solution, it will only ameliorate the vitriolic attitudes of the bigots. That's true, but I'm not really interested in satisfying the preferences of those whose goal is to force others to adhere to their worldview. If you like Pepsi and I like Coke, the market can make us both happy, but if you want to prevent me from having Coke, then that's just too bad for you. I think most people who oppose gay marriage, however, excepting the really crazy fundamentalists. Would be perfectly happy with a private system, since their church and their government would not be participating, and they would be free to not consider it a "real" marriage. I know it's popular to portray opponents of gay marriage as Bible thumping lunatics full of hatred and bigotry, but I know a lot of those folks and in most cases they are perfectly nice and reasonable, but just don't like the idea of government redefining marriage for everyone.

As someone who was a social conservative my entire life before becoming a libertarian, I think I can provide some perspective on this.

Logan's right, most gay marriage opponents are perfectly reasonable people, not crazy, hateful bigots.  They are legitimately concerned about legislation that they think would endorse what they see as immoral behavior, and also concerned about the effect that same-sex marriage will have on society.  While I don't agree with their claims (I think that homosexual activity is wrong but see no reason why the morality or immorality of a consensual, unharmful act should matter with regard to public policy), their points are reasonable.  Consider:

 - Marriage has been defined as a union between opposite sexes for thousands of years and a government redefinition is unprecedented.  Gay marriage doesn't make any sense because the definition of marriage itself does not include homosexual unions.
 - Gay marriage will hurt children because scientific studies show that children are better off with both a mom and a dad (yes, there's actually evidence that supports this)
 - Gay marriage will lead to the labeling of anyone opposing homosexuality as a bigot and the repression of the freedoms of religion and conscience.

Many social conservatives, furthermore, would not support the privatization of marriage because they see the government as having an important role in maintaining morality in society (yes, bad idea, I know).

That's not everything...but it might help you understand exactly what the thought process of gay marriage opponents is.

What's wrong with polygamy?