You clearly are a caricature of people who misuse economics to ‘justify’ conservative garbage.
That doesn’t even make sense, his point is purely about marketing.
No, and I didn’t say that. I’m saying certain lifestyles are choices, care to deny this?
What does that even mean? The state allows marriage, it just limits who you can marry. Homosexuals can marry, they just can’t marry who they would like to be able to and I say tough. I won’t be able to live my ideal lifestyle either, few people can, but according to you its perfectly legitimate by “libertarian standards” for me to go lobby to the state to pay me to read Human Action.
Once again, this is Cato, modal libertarian nonsense.
I’ll return to this once you even attempt to come up with anything other than baseless assertions.
In a free market, competition is everything. Competition is about efficiency. You keep assuming that means and ends are locked, and also locked into specific preferences with no evolutions in efficiency. There is absolutely no truth to that. You’re proposing an anachronism. It’s an argument I would expect from a social and technological luddite.
Please explain my “neocon” positions and then back them up with my own words - do not interpret or make assumptions. After you get done embarrassing yourselves, you may finally learn something.
That’s the argument of a statist, not a libertarian.
That’s a false argument. He’s talking about a negative right, and you are rewording it as a positive one.
Sometimes you let your social hangups dominate reason.
Homosexuals do not have the right to heterosexually marry? I fail to see the lack of equality by the state. I still find it ironic you seek state recognition.
It means that if you want to live with your boyfriend and if you wish to marry your boyfriend that’s a choice. Just as eating 3 hamburgers a day and not doing an exercise is. If you wish to socialize the costs of doing so, then that’s fine. But don’t attempt to justify it with some vague attempt to “libertarian principles”. It seems that most people here would rather extend nonsensical positive rights to various “oppressed minorities” than get the state out of marriage altogether.
Honestly, one would have thought libertarians didn’t buy into PC bullshit.
We are talking about drug users and their presence in the libertarian movement.
The freedom to act out these lifestyles in a fashion that does not violate the rights of others is not a choice but a right. Care to deny this?
The freedom to marry who you wish…some would think that a natural right of liberty…but you tell the community ‘well I notice your natural right of liberty is being transgressed against…but tough luck’
Indeed it is, go lobby. I will not stop you.
I’ll pass, I am not into causing myself brain damage…
Cannabis Could Increase Risks Of Psychotic Illness By 40 Percent (The Lancet Medical Journal)
Cannabis Increases Risk Of Psychosis (British Medical Journal)
Cannabis increases risk of depression and schizophrenia (British Medical Journal)
Cannabis Triggers Transient Schizophrenia-like Symptoms (Neuropsychopharmacology Journal)
Cannabis use ‘dulls the brain’ (Journal of the American Medical Association)
Concerns over mental health risk of smoking cannabis (British Journal of Psychiatry)
Daily Consumption Of Cannabis Predisposes To Appearance Of Psychosis And Schizophrenia (University of Granada)
Early Cannabis Use Increases Risk of Schizophrenia (University of Otago, New Zealand)
Frequent Marijuana Use May Affect Brain Function (NeuroReport Journal)
Heavy Cannabis Use May Lead to Psychotic Symptoms (University of Otago, New Zealand)
Heavy Marijuana use has a detrimental impact on intelligence (Canadian Medical Association Journal)
Heavy Marijuana Use May Damage Developing Brain In Teens, Young Adults (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia)
How Smoking Marijuana Damages The Fetal Brain (Science Journal)
Lab study shows THC exposure as adolescents linked to negative effects of THC as adults (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology)
Long-term Cannabis Users May Have Structural Brain Abnormalities (Archives of General Psychiatry Journal)
Marijuana And Alcohol Taken Together Induced Widespread Nerve Cell Death In Brains Of Young Rats (Annals of Neurology Journal)
Marijuana Damages Brain (King’s College, UK)
Marijuana Is Linked to Brain Damage (The Lancet Medical Journal)
Marijuana Use Affects Blood Flow In Brain Even After Abstinence (Neurology Journal)
Marijuana use in pregnancy damages kids’ learning (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
Marijuana Use Takes Toll On Adolescent Brain Function (American Academy of Pediatrics)
Memory, speed of thinking get worse over time with marijuana use (American Academy of Neurology)
More Evidence Of Cannabis-induced Psychosis (BMC Psychiatry Journal)
Scans reveal brain damage from cannabis is like schizophrenia (Albert Einstein College of Medicine)
Schizophrenia Linked To Dysfunction In Molecular Brain Pathway Activated By Marijuana (Archives of General Psychiatry Journal)
Skunk smokers 18 times more likely to be psychotic (Royal College of Psychiatrists)
Smoking Marijuana Impairs Cognitive Function In MS Patients (Neurology Journal)
Starting marijuana use during teens may result in cognitive impairment later in life (NIH/National Institute on Drug Abuse)
Teen Drug Use Associated With Psychiatric Disorders Later In Life (NIH/National Institute On Drug Abuse)
Teen Marijuana Use Worsens Depression, Leads To More Serious Mental Illness (Office of National Drug Control Policy)
Thus far, the embarassment is all yours. No one needs to do anything else to make their case.
No homosexuals don’t have the right to be in a same-sex marriage…see the inequality now?
Really? You just called me a Neocon, now please backup your bullshit.
You stated inequality by the state. Do homosexuals have the right to heterosexually marry or not? State recognized same-sex marriage is a separate issue. Please explain how state sanctioned “equality” is a libertarian position.
Yes, a social union choice. A marriage.
That’s a poor example. That is a choice, but it is not an example of the right to associate.
Have you ever had anal sex? Do you feel it imposes social costs?
Laughing man was making a second-best argument. He never indicated he would oppose seeing the whole thing removed from state purview.
There is a difference between being politically incorrect, and being an intolerant fascist. I think you’re still looking for that line.
Your hangups are your problem. Your insecurity and inability to deal with people who make different social decisions that impose NO costs on you in a free market, and may not even impose a cost in the statist market betray a lack of tolerance. That lack of tolerance will be an expensive attitude for you to afford in the free market, and may even offset any benefits derived from having a low time preference. Shooting one’s self in the foot so-to-speak.
You can answer my previous questions about LGF. It took enormous balls, or a total lack of brains to post that garbage to this site in particular, in reference to a criticism of Ron Paul, and second amongst libertarians at all as it is THE fascist neocon site and the posting you linked to reflects that.
Or you could try to own up and admit you just Googled the first thing that looked good.
What hang-ups? Where did he state he has a problem with homosexual behavior or wished to impose laws preventing it? You seem to be the one seeking state equality laws to push politically correct positions.
This is interesting, politically correct libertarians.
No, it’s not. You seem to think homosexuals lack free will, that they can’t choose to marry normally and lives normal lives. What’s more is that I’m guessing you’re going to justify this with some appeal to their “wants” or “urges”, well, some people have “urges” to eat multiple hamburgers every day. Do you propose that we socialize their costs too?
It’s funny, I’m called a statist for not wanting to expand positive rights.
No, he’s quite clearly saying that he wants the state to recognise gay marriage. Keep in mind, I want the state out of marriage and family altogether, but I especially don’t want the state to be used to pander to the preferences of every minority the PC crowd feels are oppressed.
I’ll repeat, this is the stuff you’re likely to hear over at Cato.
What does this even mean? If you want to do something in a free society, you pay for it. No externalizing the costs. So when you drink yourself stupid every day, don’t be suprised when your costs begin to rise considerably.
I think it’s clear what the incentive system is and what results its likely to have. I suggest you give the first two chapters of Democracy: The God that Failed a read.
Over here a neocon/ Nazi/ fascist is just about anybody who doesn’t spit on tradition.
That’s quite besides the point. If you want to do something in a free society, you bear the costs and the risks. We all know that isn’t the case right now. Moreover, using the state to recognise gay marriage? That’s violation of other’s rights, sorry.
There’s no such thing as a right to marry who you wish. At best, there’s a right to liberty, and if we assume everybody has such a right you can’t force other’s to recognise your marriage. Which is exactly what you do when you lobby the state to recognise gay marriage.
So much for libertarian “principles”.
There’s no such right. They have the same rights to marry as everybody else. I’m sorry you feel it’s unfair that the state is not currently pandering to their wishes.
Perhaps you should go lobby the state to recognise your “right” to marry Human Action, if they don’t, that’s just not fair, right?
In your mind there’s a connection between what you call “high time preference” and activities that you don’t like because you are utterly narrow minded. The connection exists only in your mind. It’s just fantasy and delusion.
Your position has nothing to do with economics, common sense, or anything vaguely ‘scientific’. You just want a pseudo-scientific excuse for your prejudices.
Oh the irony.
I have worked in IT for over 15 years- enough with the bullshit. LGF captured the spamming instructions before they were deleted. You constant insults to the site instead of dealing with the information speaks volumes. You can make all the excuses in the world but without question Paul supporters spammed polls - everyone they could. The excuses don’t work anymore. You don’t see how ridiculous it is to call LGF fascist?
Now please back up your Neocon bullshit accusation (which you can’t so please apologize).