I think libertarianism would be a lot more popular if supporters of it weren't so radical.

Miscellaneous General
121

That is a strawman. No one implied we should use the state to “pander” to minorities, it was a second-best argument.

I asked you what the costs of marriage are. Explain them, or stop insisting they have an externalized cost under the state.

It’s not a positive right. You haven’t indicated what the costs are. I posit there are no costs. You keep claiming there are. What are the costs? A positive right is an obligation, this is strictly acknowledgement of a negative right. Anyway, COSTS. Back up your position.

Strawman. We’re not lobbying for gays, and it’s poor argumentation for you to conflate laughing man or my position with a gay lobby. Lazy and shoddy.

What would they be afraid of? You can’t even justify your own claim that sexual preferences come at a cost. By the way, are you going to do that, or continue to make unbacked assertions?

If gays could get married under the state, there would be more gays or gay marriages? Do you realize how incredibly stupid that statement is? The state has been licensing heterosexual marriages proper for the longest time, and state licensed heterosexual marriages as civil unions are in decline.

You keep dodging backing up your claim about costs.

Jesus was a hippie, not a hoppean.

122

None really. The government has violated my rights in the acquistion of money but that is another issue. Now please answer my question.

I see no problem with a hetereosexual marrying a homosexual but I would inquire as to why they would.

123

Sure it is. Discounted marginal revenue productivity theory of wage determination.

Sure, but bigots sacrifice profits to afford their bigotry.

Do you really think that employing gay people is suicidal?

I think PC is an ad hom/strawman that bigots hide behind.

Again, socially we share a lot of the same preferences but insecurity is what drives people to be so fanatically obsessed with other people’s differences in preferences. I’m not insecure about race, or sexuality. I don’t think these particular attributes or preferences pose any more risk to me than hundreds of other preferences and attributes. I would certainly be less concerned with a homosexual than a sadist, or a drug addict. I would certainly be more terrified of a white US marine in Iraq than a black policeman in Ethiopia. To make these most base delineations for selection, claiming that they provide more and better information than nuance and deeper analysis, well that just seems disingenous.

You assume that action over inaction is always the preferable course when confronted by an epistimological problem. I think you are wrong.

You can be selective about your own choices, but if you start selecting your trading partners too narrowly, you limit your market, which means less trades, and less trades mean… less prosperity.

No one is asking you to be gay, be friends with gays, to subsidize gays, or to like gays. They are merely saying, someone else’s bedroom choices really shouldn’t matter if you are going to wash their car or prepare their taxes. If it matters that much to you, then you will be giving up market opportunities to your competitors. It’s very dangerous when we assume our bias is the only one that counts. It’s bad for knowledge, it’s bad for business.

124

Well said.

125

Libertarianism requires tolerance.

126

Prove gay people are not human, until you can, there is no reason that gays cannot attain the same association rights as heterosexuals…

That is

  1. They can allow their “partner” access to their medical records and conditions
  2. They can will their possessions to their “partner” exclusively and not have the concern that estranged family will have the state seize the property for them
  3. They can cover their “partner” with insurance
  4. They can file taxes jointly

The list goes on…

I fail to see the difference, either way, by removing the state from marriage or by legislating the right of association between to concenting humans what is the difference?

The perfect answer is to take marriage, as it is a wholly religious ceremony, out of the Law, replace all instances with Civil Union Contract, this would cover the heterosexual and homosexual couples rights to association with whomever they choose, as well as the (in a particular prevalence in Florida {AKA God’s Waiting Room}) case of elderly couples that do not marry because they are old and opt not to. This leaves (oh so precious) marriage as a religious ceremony, and if your particular church offers marriage to gay couples, well then change your church if you are uncomfortable with it.

When the recognition that all people are created with equal rights is a progressive attitude, one is NOT libertarian in the least…

This argument is not about gay people wanting “affirmative action” it is about HUMAN BEINGS wanting the same rights to contracted voluntary association as others, being gay is irrelevant…

If YOU do not like gays, do not associate with them, that is your personal choice, but when your opinions, or even the majority’s opinion tramples the rights of individuals, it is not only unAmerican, but wholly Unconstitutional…

127

What exactly are you saying is the financial cost of allowing all humans the same rights and protections under the law, as opposed to the condition now…

This is not even an “apples and oranges” comparisson, lobbying to recieve money stolen by the government from the individuals if this country is a financial burden on the people, allowing the law to apply equally to all humans has no financial cost, you are comparing apples to automobiles…

128

His argument was clearly that given the current state of affairs we should attempt to get rid of the state or use its powers to enforce various PC measures.

I just said it, once the state is involved you can force people to recognise it, the same does not occur in a stateless society. Are you going to ask me to repeat it for a third time?

Asking (lobbying) the state to recognise something is a positive right, it’s also been Laughing Man’s position. As for costs, that was never my original position, it was tangential, the fact of the matter is that the state is not a tool to be used to to protect whatever lifestyle people feel won’t flourish in a free market.

The state has done it’s very best to destroy the family, but once we abolish the state the family is likely to once again fill its proper place in the division of labour and society as a whole. Now, that’s somewhat unfortunate for homosexuals who aren’t able to fit into this.

So the state can give money to whoever? These “libertarian principles” of yours are getting you into quite a muddle.

Well that’s not my problem.

I don’t see why many people would want to work for money, best get the state to pander to them.

You’re assuming people will be the Randian rational economic man, they won’t be.

Without the state telling us that we’re all equal and not interfering with our ability to exclude others solely for the reason of race, people will be somewhat more likely to discriminate.

So you can abstract from people’s preferences, but I think it’s quite likely people will favour a racially homogenous workforce, in which case your argument fails. Even then, you’ve missed the point since you can’t show that there are any benefits derived from living with people you dislike and distrust.

You use the word bigot just like every leftist does, as a word to through around at people who don’t share your love of “tolerance” and your personal views on justice.

This whole notion of tolerance is the result of the “what’s mine is yours” mindset that comes from statist erosion of property rights. In other words, it’s not a part of the free market.

129

Nice strawman, who said they are not human? Homosexuals have all the same rights that heterosexuals do per the state thus “equality”.

These are private property law issues not marriage ones. The solution here is to repeal the state laws causing these problems. Why do you wish to have the state interfere with who private insurance companies can issue insurance to? Not very free market of you. Since when do libertarians support preferential tax treatment?

You fail to see the difference? Are you serious? So libertarianism is now about state sanctioned progressive “equality” laws?

They have equal rights no one is stopping them from living together, saying they are married or any other “rights” all human beings enjoy. Making this a civil rights issues is nonsense. No one is stopping homosexuals from heterosexually marrying. State sanctioned marriage as currently defined is decided based on democratic voted legislation as are all state recognized contracts. You want to force state sanctioned contracts on people who do not want to accept them. How is this a free market position? Progressives use the state to force others to accept contracts they would not wish to if they had a choice.

130

what!? are you implying that the state will start to forceably marry people off? homosexual people?

131

This must be the best statement on the entire Mises boards ever.

132

LOL, no. I am saying you are using the state to force people to accept contracts they may not accept if left up to the free market. Example: It is currently up to Private insurance companies to decide if they will offer insurance to someone you are living with but is not paying for this service. The whole goal of the homosexual marriage lobby is to use the state to force acceptance of a contract that many people do not wish to accept. How is this libertarian? Progressives use the state like this.

133

They cannot go to the hospital and see their “partner”, do you have the right to have access to your wife if she is hospitalized?

Apparently reading down to the optimal solution of not defining marriage by the state did not happen…

No I want people to have equal protection under the law

How are you not using the state to force gay people to accept heterosexual union contracts…

134

Except the state sancions that they cannot deny your wife coverage if you are covered, so it is not a free market answer, as a claim insurance companies make is that without a contract between the individuals, there is no reasonable interest in the insurance payer to insure the other…

Basically the insurance companies are saying that one is more eligible to cover a business partner that is contractually bound to the insurance payer than the same sex “partner” he or she sleeps with, owns a home with, shares a lease with, etc.

135

That’s not a cost. I am asking you to explain the cost. How does the state recognizing a marriage confer a higher cost than people recognizing marriage outside the state. Be specific. Your entire thesis hinges on this assertion, you should be able to provide more definition.

You’re making an unbacked assertion.

Projecting

That’s based on your flawed notion that the market will not favour diversity, and will seek to be homogenous, OH WAIT THAT IS THE STATE!

Check your premises.

No, I am talking about libertarian economic theory on labour. You seem to be confused. On the one hand, you rationalize the merits of the family, then on the other hand claim that people will not act rationally.

When you engage in commerce, come back and tell me how you gave up profits and market share because you shun gays, I’ll want to know so I can enter your market and smash your business not because it is my preference bias, but because you are operating an inefficient firm irrationally, and that’s bad for free markets.

Projection.

Projection.

Sure I have. More trading partners. Basic economic theory that a larger economic pool leads to more economic production.

Btw, I distrust dishonest people, not people who are a different skin colour or have a different sexual preference. You do that, but it’s because you succumb to irrational insecurity and fear instead of exercising reason and observation to make your selections. Your approach is inaccurate, and so you will be prone to make errors by trusting white thieves and distrusting (other race) honest trade partners.

Selection for the sake of selection is just chaos. The criteria matter. Sexual preference is completely irrelevant to who I rent to, or who I rent from. Who drives my taxi, or who I cook a meal for.

No. I use the word bigot for you, because you are a bigot.

“A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own”

That sounds like you. You proudly claim to be intolerant, and you clearly take offense to alternative opinions and lifestyles etc. Seems pretty cut and dried. Don’t run from the image and mentality you have so diligently cultivated!

Jesus preached tolerance, did he not?

Here it is in a nutshell.

Tolerance is good, because tolerance isn’t the same as ambivalence. The tolerant can use low time preference to see the long view, and understand that certain relationships can yield productive gains beyond the short horizon. People like you, with high time preferences in relationships, are incapable of developing complex relationships (confining yourself to theism, family as exclusive structures for organization) and thus will suffer in a free and open market, if you stay true to your stated beliefs.

I’m not against theism and family, and I think Christianity in particular favours integration instead of regression.

You’re really no different than the LLs. You have your set of preferences you expect to dominate, your own pet set of outcomes you assume are necessary for everyone, just as they do. I figured this out last week debating with Byzantine. I had hoped that you guys had a clearer idea of what market competitions means, but you don’t. You’re all sucked up in tribalism the same way that the lefties are sucked up into egalitarianism. It’s the same false paradigm predicated on the same flawed premise.

And just a note. You’ll never be able to ad hom me in a way that cuts, because I know where the comment is coming from. You’re much better off sticking to reason, than implying I am a leftist. Certainly with my lower time preference, I have a higher claim to conservatism than you do.

Btw, I really want an answer on Jesus and tolerance.

136

From the Gospel of John 8:3-11

Indeed, Our Lord asks that we show forgiveness and love toward sinners. However, He does not ask us to ‘tolerate’ thier sin or excuse it, which is what you seem to be implying Giles should do.

137

I don’t think we are going to be able to convince Giles to love homosexuals.

(I don’t think homosexuality is a sin.)

This is a flimsy point. He doesn’t explicitly ask you to tolerate or excuse it, but he does ask you to show forgiveness and love. It would seem that the latter would necessarily lead to tolerance, if not acceptance. I don’t see how one can be forgiving and loving without being tolerant.

The message of that passage is judge not lest ye be judged. Seems to me there is a lot of judging and casting of first stones going on.

Thanks for replying. I respect that. It’s one thing to talk faith, it’s another thing to walk (represent) it.

138

Oh but it is. The end purpose of sex and marriage is child bearing. Homosexuals cannot marry under the eyes of God, and they obviously cannot have children between one another. Thus they are living in mortal sin.

But you yourself say you’re not a Christian of any stripe. Indeed, an athiest.

On a side note, I think this post has gone way off topic..

139

Again the solution is to remove current laws preventing this not create more.

They have equal protection.

I agree any laws forcing homosexuals to accept heterosexual marriage should be repealed. This is the libertarian solution not more laws. The free market can sort this out on it’s own.

This should be left up to the discretion of the insurance company. Since when are libertarians for forcing businesses via state law to do anything?

I find it very interesting how certain people’s libertarianism becomes confused when dealing with homosexual marriage.

140

That is a Christian value statement, it has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism or AE. I’m fine with people holding that opinion (tolerant) even if I disagree. But to use value statements as Giles has to construct economic arguments is very poor form.

I was, but no longer.