So then you disagree with the part of the Declaration of Independence that people "...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."?
They are words. There is no "creator" and rights don't work that way.
Fair enough. You are coming from a completely different premise than I am. I will grant you your logic based upon that premise. My focus wasn't so much on the "creator" aspect as it was on the concept that we do have certain basic rights that are not granted by law but protected by it.
The problem is, this isn't a premise, it deals with reality. There simply is no evidence that rights exist or operate the way that many libertarians wish they did. It's just a bunch of philosophical masturbation, not borne out by facts or logic, only by wishful thinking and faith. The question is, where did these "rights" come from, what guarantees them and how have you worked out exactly what these rights are, using only evidence and reason? It's something that I've yet to see a single libertarian be able to answer logically.
Again, yes you did, right here:
You specified "two". You went out of your way to include an arbitrary limit on the number of consenting adults in the union. That's bigoted and very intolerant.
How many libertarians don't know (In their mind.) that it's everyone's God-given right to exclude all Black people from their restaurants? (Not because they're prejudiced, but strictly for property rights, of course.)
When they manage to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and make that legal, I'll start paying a little attention to that minority group.
The problem is, this isn't a premise, it deals with reality. There simply is no evidence that rights exist or operate the way that many libertarians wish they did. It's just a bunch of philosophical masturbation, not borne out by facts or logic, only by wishful thinking and faith. The question is, where did these "rights" come from, what guarantees them and how have you worked out exactly what these rights are, using only evidence and reason? It's something that I've yet to see a single libertarian be able to answer logically.
How many libertarians don't know (In their mind.) that it's everyone's God-given right to exclude all Black people from their restaurants? (Not because they're prejudiced, but strictly for property rights, of course.
Let's make this easy. There is no evidence for any gods so let's take that right off the table. And yes, lots of libertarians are completely alright with personal racism, sexism, discrimination, etc. Personally, I don't care who you hate, I just care that you're not allowed to openly act on that hatred. I don't go in for mindcrime, that's a liberal thing.
It's a premise and a perception. Unless you want to call out the founding fathers on the same premise I share which then would say to me that you also question the premise the foundation the constitution was written upon. As for right not working the way I am touting then at this point gays don't have a right to marry and are trying to create that right. But the way the liberals are saying it they are being denied a right they currently have. Liberals, libertarians, and conservatives all carry on about what rights they have, so this isn't just a libertarian issue.
There is a difference between being alright with something and being willing to tolerate it because you value freedom over your personal beliefs, likes and dislikes. We have freedom of speech. One can say all kinds of hateful things about whatever race. That is as much openly acting on a hatred as trying to cause one physical harm. Yet that is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Libertarians simply believe that some things should be changed by social pressure and not by force of law to remove freedoms.
But the law is a form of social pressure, the people elect people to represent their wishes and desires and codify them into law. That's the one thing that libertarians don't seem to be able to grasp. The government isn't an alien entity imposed on us from above, it's the legislative arm of society! It is the way it is because society wants it that way!
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
Libertarians are not all racists, but they advocate laws that make life better for racists and bigots.
I doubt that libertarians will ever control the U.S. government.
I think the chances of them ever being in charge are somewhere between none and none.
"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
I never said for a second that any libertarians were racists, I just don't think they understand the world around them.
A lot of their positions, and I am speaking in very general terms, are based on wishful thinking, not in demonstrable reality IMO.
An example perhaps?
Some of the libertarians on this thread 'think' that they are going to change the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Not going to happen.
Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
About thirty years from now whites will be a minority of the U.S. population.
Think about it.
"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
Natural rights.
maybe i missed that post. I am a card carrying member of the libertarian party. I have been to the rallies from time to time and have helped raise funds. In short, i have been around a lot of libertarians. I can say that not once has repealling the 1964 civil rights act come up. Maybe they are hiding it from me, but it seems more likely that you are mistaken.
It was brought up on this thread.
That is a fact.
Ok, can you elaborate and actually explain what you are talking about? If you are going to give some vague nonsensical answer you should just not reply. It would be simpler.
You asked for an example of something ridiculous that libertarians hold to be true, I gave you an example. If you don't understand the example, ask specific questions and I'd be happy to answer them.
Because it's wholly unsupported by logic or reason, of course.
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?