She can't turn off her ability to see what is in front of her, you are choosing to ignore that. You want to paint strict libertarian philosophy as not crazy, but you are defending crazy behavior.
right and good is irrelevant in this discussion.
You don't own the sightlines. If you want a say over what people do on other property then buy it. Otherwise make sure your daughter doesn't look over there.
Not at all. We always want the government to do what is right and good.
the system we have now, which we always have because your rigid ideology is crazy, allows me and my peers to petition government to protect her "sight lines".
your insane ideology also protects animated child pornography. It really is high school dogma and I've wasted enough time with it because I will never have to buy squat, I already have a say. Freedom pursued with such reckless abandon is as realistic as Marxism.
right and good are subjective. Nearly all of us feel protecting the "site lines" of young children is right and good. We think pure libertarian dogma is wrong and bad.
Interesting debate you two are having. Can't say I agree with either of you, really.
That's because you just aren't libertarian enough. :doh
Freedom is the ability to do whatever we want as long as we do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Anything beyond that is not freedom.
You're not a libertarian because you don't seem to like libertarian principals.
Oh but it makes perfect sense. Slavery is better than everyone getting killed (how having gay marriage and regular marriage sponsored by the state is better than just having regular marriage sponsored by the state), but slavery is still not a good thing.
I'll only support getting the state out altogether.
You can't understand my position until you look at the analogy seriously.
I'm not abandoning it. The state should not have any say in marriage, so I'll always vote that way: always. Just because I vote against gay marriage does not mean I am against the right of association or free speech, it means that I'm against government involvement.
Don't look at it like I'm voting against gay marriage, look at it like I'm voting against state involvement with marriage.
Look at it this way. I don't think gay marriage is really marriage, but with freedom of association, it really doesn't matter.
Hopefully this makes it clearer for you.
Freedom of association means that if you don't like him then you don't have to have anything to do with him.
So we should kick people out of the country if we don't like them? The guy down the street pays taxes which go towards communal services. I'm associated with him that way and I don't like him. Should I be free from having to pay taxes for emergency services on the basis of your freedom of association?
No. I'm not even going to explain why because you're just trying to :spin: me with that post. That's not what I said and you know it.
So freedom to maim is not freedom?
Which are of course defined by you and just you. Nice setup there. You get to define what libertarian principals are and whenever anyone deviates from what you believe to be libertarian principles you declare they aren't a libertarian.
Once again, I'm not a libertarian because you don't want me to be.
So you want maximum freedom, but more freedoms than the previous state is a no-no?
Really, do you expect me to buy you're a libertarian when you refuse to accept the next best freedom maximizing option?
And when that never happens....?
You realize your stance is very anti-libertarian no? If you can't get the best option, you accept and even condone anti-libertarian positions?
You are the vegetarian who dislikes the choices of vegetarian dishes and thus orders a 16 oz steak. Can't have the ideal? Well, then it's okay to go with an anti-thetical idea.
I can't take your position seriously when you refuse to push for the most freedom maximizing option.
How's the T-bone steak my fair weathered vegetarian friend?
In fact you are abandoning it. Instead of realizing that some things will not go the way you want them and thus accept that we should push for the next best freedom maximizing option, you have an all or nothing take on it. If you can't get state less marriage, then it's okay to bar certain people from marriage and limit their freedoms, which is the antithesis of Libertarianism.
Just because you don't like the menu does not mean you pick something that is against your diet.
But you are voting against gay marriage. Instead of expanding personal freedoms to people, you are for curtailing them. How is that libertarian? Furthermore, your stances end in the most freedom curtailing scenarios. Instead of accepting that somethings are too entrenched to move and thus look for the next most libertarian position, you just throw your hands up and accept anti-libertarian positions.
The ideal is no state marriage. But since we cannot get that, do we just abandon our ideas and accept freedom limiting measures upon people in our society or do we push for freedom maximizing measures?
You want the high and mighty, or nothing at all. As we so rarely ever get the high and mighty, under your stance, we get many anti-libertarian laws rather than libertarian leaning laws. Hard to consider you a libertarian when you are complement with that.
When it comes to personal freedom and rights it is marriage. Unless you want to argue that the 1,000 or so rights that come with marriage and not civil rights aren't rights because it's two gay people in the contract.
How the hell is it freedom of association?
Nope. My position has not changed.
The difference between you and I is that you only support the high and mighty and have no problems abandoning libertarianism when you run into turbulence. Also, you have no problems accepting anti-libertarian ideas because you can't get the absolute. If all libertarians followed your stance, we'd get very anti-libertarian laws that did not lean towards personal freedom rather than libertarian leaning laws that seek to maximize personal freedom.
A vegetarian does not order a steak because they do not like the vegetarian options. Similarity, a libertarian does not advocate for anti-libertarian positions because they don't like the options.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?