Obviously the goal of sex is subjective to the individual. Sex can just be easily for pleasure as to bear children.
We were speaking of it under terms of Christian morality. If you forego that, then yes it is subjective.
I think you should live by the advice of Matthew:
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”
Love the homosexual community and do good onto them, pray for them. And do not take upon yourself the powers of God and judge them.
Yes, it’s a coercively imposed cost.
No, I’m not. Do you really think high time preference lifestyles are a viable option without the huge number of laws protecting their employment opportunities, socialized healthcare and restrictions on discrimination?
Likewise, homosexuality isn’t so attractive when people can kick you out of their restaurants, homes and communities.
Yeah, and you’re going to have to show I’m “projecting” (I think that’s the wrong word to use) when I say the family has been emasculated by the state. The way I see it the family fills the following roles in the division of labour: child raising, support for the elderly, dispute resolution and charity. Now, it’s painfully obvious to see how the state, backed with taxpayers money, has managed to force the family out of those roles (public schooling, the welfare state, socialized “justice”, legislating governing how parents are to raise their children and social security). It works just like it does with any other business.
As Hoppe and Mises have pointed out, the sheer strength of familial bonds is testimony to the efficiency of the family.
No, it’s based on the “notion” that the market favours efficiency - and i’m sorry to tell you, short sighted lifestyles like those lived by junkies and gay, are not efficient.
Gays are a minority, and they will be even more so once the pseudo intellectuals telling them that homosexuality is a virtue and the state has stopped subsidizing them.
I think I can afford to discriminate in this case. As for “rational” once again, you’re talking about the lifeless, Randian homo economicus. There’s nothing irrational about discrimating in a society that looks favourably upon such discrimination. In a free society, you bear all your own risks, for an employer this means that they’re going to want to minimize the possibility of conflict between employees. The best way to do so is to make sure there are as few differences between them as possible.
Now keep in mind, I don’t think people will travel too far without state externalizing the costs of doing so through provision of roads and securities. If you want to travel far from home in a stateless society, you’d best watch your behaviour and hope you don’t irritate anybody.
Sure it does, if you want to abstract from people’s preferences and larger social issues.
You’re abstracting from the larger social issues. Getting rid of the state won’t result in a society exactly the same but without the state, society will undergo a fundamental restructuring. Society will be organized along familial, and by extension, racial lines. Multiculturalism and homosexuality have no place in such a society, they will exist at the fringes.
In much of Europe the family is the single most important institution, get rid of the laws governing the way parents can raise their children, allow a free market in land, abolish the welfare state and scrap social security. See how prominent the family is then.
Whether or not I’m bigot is besides the point. You use the word like the rest of the PC crowd, a way to discredit anybody who doesn’t agree with the multiculturalism and egalitarianism you do.
How does exclusivity mean “high time preference in regard to relationship” (whatever that even means)? Equating the two is nonsensical.
The difference is my view is based on the market system, the left libertarians want to circumvent the market with their views of “justice”. Once more, I suggest you give Democracy: The Gold that Failed a read.
What claim to conservatism do you have exactly? You feel the need to label yourself a right libertarian, but as far as I can tell your social preferences aren’t much different to Juan’s - a self described LL.
Good thing you’ve got it.
I’m done with this debate.
I would like to hear the Hoppe justification for why
A.) Homosexuals are like ‘junkies’
B.) Homosexuals cannot have a low-time preference
Read his book, you’ll see why A is a strawman. Common sense can answer B.
You seem to have no qualm lumping them together in the same sentence.
Let us hypothesize, that I don’t want to hear the same conservative non-sense on social values that you propose but I would like to know how time preference is a one sided aspect for the gay community
I don’t think so. You already bailed on being called out once yesterday.
Which social preferences do I and Juan have in common? Name them.
As do you. You are not willing to let the market decide, you are already claiming to know market outcomes before competition has started. It’s the exact same thing.
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Hoppe, but only zealots replace their own rational argumentation for that of someone else. You’ve made assertions. Back them up, don’t ask Dr. Hoppe to do it for you. If you didn’t understand his arguments well enough to explain them, then you really have no business using them.
We understand high time preference to be associated with low emotional control. Tolerance requires a high degree of emotional control. Being bigoted does not.
Not when you are being a bigot.
No, I used it because you are a bigot. You have gone out of your way to cultivate and revel in a reputation for bigotry. Where there was no natural opportunity to make statements about sexual preference or race, numerous times on this forum you have thought yourself quite clever by dropping a stinkbomb in a thread, then smugly defending it as some larger truth.
I don’t think you’re wrong for being a bigot (it’s a preference), but it has it’s costs. Costs you are choosing to incur voluntarily.
The rest later.
How does one measure time preference ? Units ? Is it measured in meters ? Seconds ? Kilograms ? Amperes maybe ?
How do conservatives manage to make interpersonal comparisons of time preference ? I take it they use the same technique that socialists use to gauge interpersonal utility ?
Maybe the conservative babbling about time preference is just pseudo-scientific rubbish ?
Being called a bigot over and over is great fun and all, but I could just tell people I changed my middle name to Adolf if I wanted that.
If you want to know what I think read Hoppe’s D:TGTF or the article on Ludwig von Mises’ cultural thought by Mr Rockwell and Mr Tucker, or some works by Robert Nisbet, or I can suggest others if you’d wish. I don’t think you do though.
Boy are you clueless. What I explicitly said in previous threads is that I DON’T consider myself a left libertarian.
This is the cost of making provocative statements without thinking about the big picture. Lemme guess. You didn’t consider that when you make those statements. High time preference FTW!
It’s absolutely pointless for you to indicate I should read massive amounts of source, if you cannot specifically defend your assertions based on those sources you claim authority to.
As I asked you yesterday, back up your statements. Of course yesterday you promptly fled when confronted directly on dubious assertions.
No it doesn’t, which is why the State has to pass hundreds of laws telling people they can’t discriminate in matters of housing, trade, public access, etc.
That’s a false dichotomy. The state creates discrimination.
Libertarianism requires toleration in order to advance the construction of free markets. That doesn’t mean we don’t select, it means we stop selecting based on factors that have nothing to do with the nature of the interaction. Such as Giles assertion that he can sense danger by the colour of someone’s skin.
That sort of animal brain protectionism is precisely why the state reacts and overreacts in matters of race, religion and personal social preferences.
This gets said a lot around here and I really don’t think it would hold up to rigorous analysis.. Again, it depends on how much water you draw. If you’re a scant minority of the population, it’s no skin off anybody’s teeth not to bother capturing that market share.
Gated communities, for example, could enlarge their market share if they built multi-story buildings and scaled prices to capture all socio-economic strata, from low to high. But they’ve determined it’s equally or more profitable to cater to folks who will pay for exclusivity. Also, the costs to cater to certain customers are higher. That’s why you don’t see large national grocery chains in poor neighborhoods. Only Oriental shopkeepers who employ shareholder/family members, keep a shotgun under the counter, and are willing to put up lots of burglar bars and plexiglass (and face periodic protests of “price gouging”) are willing to cater to that demographic.
In the US, 50% of all violent crimes are committed by a certain group that makes up around 6% of the population. Since you live near Detroit, I’m sure you can fill in the blank from there.
That “animal brain protectionism” evolved for a reason, and pre-dates the State by millenia. It’s why sodomy and incest provoke repulsion among the majority of the population. Again, this is why the State and its enablers have instituted public schooling and government-funded post-secondary education. It takes a lot of propaganda to overcome basic biology.
I would like to see your stats concerning this statement. And who is this ‘6% of the population’ you speak of? The only ethnic group close to 6% is asian which is 4%
Well, we already talked about this in another thread recently, and while you may not agree, I think I made a pretty compelling case why your argument that small markets would go unserved wasn’t very strong. As long as you view the small minority as being an exclusive market, it will be limited. If that small minority market is compatible with any other industries, then it has enormous potential for service.
My example of a clinic in contrast to your example of a stand alone abortion center.
Right. Exclusivity is it’s own niche, and very expensive. It also dictates direct incompatabilities with other markets. Not all minority markets demand exclusivity. They may just have low demand, not an insistence that they cannot be bundled with other services, industries or goods.
While this is true, the costs in a lot of cases, for a lot of industries are not significant enough to validate discriminatory pricing. In many cases, the cost variance will be priced into the good. It’s really a scenario that needs market testing to be able to claim that it’s better to only serve blacks than to serve blacks and whites and make the blacks over pay by 2% to subsidize the cost of serving white customers as well, or some other cost averaging scheme.
While 2% or 5% of the sales price may sound like a lot that’s not difficult to make up on volume if the vendor chooses to eat the difference in return for a larger share of the market, and the reduced competition he will face due to that larger share.
Needless to say, every scenario will be different.
Indians and Pakistanis too. Don’t forget where Asians rank on those IQ tests you are so fond of. [;)]
Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean that rate holds constant for that race or ethnic group in all territories.
Giles is after all, a Brit. If I was in the UK walking home from the pub, I would be a lot more terrified by 4 skinheads coming towards me, than 4 rastafarians.
So did body hair. When that animal brain protectionism was evolving, we couldn’t imagine a world where we could fly, where we could journey to space. That was a world where people died of plagues, and worshipped stones and clouds as supreme mystical beings.
That is why I say the right can be so anachronistic. They keep assuming we need to go back to what was. And the progressives assume we should move to address problems we have already advanced beyond.
I would argue you can’t overcome biology with propaganda. Biological responses adapt to changed environments. If we still lived in a pre-industrial society, then people would still live largely as you guys romanticize. There would be clans, townships, church would be a big deal, and racially everyone would stay on their own side of the street.
There is no need to have large families to work the farm. There is no need to community organize when most community services are either available publicly or privately (for better or worse). The church? That’s another story altogether. Faith and morality don’t change, but the way that people practice them does. It has throughout time.
this thread is a troll feeding frenzy…