Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Ankha wrote:So Jeb is gone. What do we think?

For what it's worth, I kinda feel bad for old Jeb. He seemed like an honest, decent man who has the experience and skill to be a good president. Plus, in comparison to candidates like Trump (bombastic morons that are all rhetoric and no experience), being led by a blue-blooded aristocrat that was raised in politics seemed slightly more comforting.

The New United States, Rateria, Las-Vegas

New Jaslandia wrote:For what it's worth, I kinda feel bad for old Jeb. He seemed like an honest, decent man who has the experience and skill to be a good president. Plus, in comparison to candidates like Trump (bombastic morons that are all rhetoric and no experience), being led by a blue-blooded aristocrat that was raised in politics seemed slightly more comforting.

"my elderly white slaveowner is better than yours!"

Las-Vegas

Now that there are no darned obstructionists standing in the way of progress, will we finally pass the ROADS Amendment and anoint Lord Muh as our Eternal Overlord?

The Aradites, The United States Of Patriots

Anybody read anything good recently?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:No, unfortunately I am not wealthy enough to go to Europe, much less Prague.

Are you from Europe? If so, where?

Kraków, Poland. ESFL got someone to sponsor free train ride to the conference from my city, so I consider going there.

The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

The New United States wrote:Anybody read anything good recently?

I read an article on the Washington Post's website that keeps track of the spending of the presidential candidates. I found that interesting.

I read articles in my spare time, sometimes.

The New United States, New Jaslandia

The New United States wrote:Anybody read anything good recently?

Any of the Warriors books are always good. In the process of reading Bluestar's Prophecy. It's no exception.

The New United States

So if you were a delegate to the LNC Conference in May, who would you vote for Presidential Candiate and VP.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:"my elderly white slaveowner is better than yours!"

A sane elderly slaveowner is better than a completely deranged and unstable elderly white slaveowner, if you want to use that analogy.

The New United States wrote:Anybody read anything good recently?

If you're into history, I would recommend I, Claudius and it's sequel, Claudius the God. A bit old, and some might find it a bit hard to follow, but it's one of my favorites.

The New United States, Rateria

The Aradites wrote:MHOMEN SAVE US, THIS YOUR TIME!

The prophecy is still going?

I thought that it was guaranteed to be over.

On a side note, we should put the region's history in a Roadist Bible type of thing, and organize it into individual books.

Example: Book of Mhomen.

You get the idea.

New Jaslandia

The New United States wrote:Anybody read anything good recently?

I've just started reading Atlas Shrugged.

The New United States, San Andrias, Republic Of Minerva, The United States Of Patriots

Ancapville wrote:Kraków, Poland. ESFL got someone to sponsor free train ride to the conference from my city, so I consider going there.

Nice.

Yeah I think we had a few European libertarians on here before...from France and Iceland iirc. I think you are our first Slav though.

Talk to Pevvania. He's not natively European, but lives in Britain.

New Jaslandia wrote:A sane elderly slaveowner is better than a completely deranged and unstable elderly white slaveowner, if you want to use that analogy.

If you're into history, I would recommend I, Claudius and it's sequel, Claudius the God. A bit old, and some might find it a bit hard to follow, but it's one of my favorites.

The idea is not to vote for the lesser evil, doing so only gives them consent to keep you in chains.

I don't always agree with Konkin, being a Nozickian, but I think he has a pretty good analogy here:

"Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the “underground railway?” Surely they would choose the counter-economic alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters’ Party is elected."

The point being that voting is useless and a waste of time, particularly between two evils, and your resources could be better put to use in freeing yourself and others. This can work for both left and right goals.

Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The idea is not to vote for the lesser evil, doing so only gives them consent to keep you in chains.

I don't always agree with Konkin, being a Nozickian, but I think he has a pretty good analogy here:

"Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the “underground railway?” Surely they would choose the counter-economic alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters’ Party is elected."

The point being that voting is useless and a waste of time, particularly between two evils, and your resources could be better put to use in freeing yourself and others. This can work for both left and right goals.

Practically speaking, doing nothing and focusing on some pie-in-the-sky vision of changing society through other means probably won't accomplish much. It means your voice won't be heard, and if like-minded people also refuse to vote, it just seems more likely that government will be dominated by people who have the exact opposite point of view as you, and change will be even farther away. At least if you vote for the lesser to two evils, politicians will see a reason to recognize you and your group's desires, and those desires may be slowly implemented into policy by people who are supportive of some of your ideas (even if they don't agree with all of them). Doing nothing just reduces your sway in government, and unless you plan on all of that being rendered moot through a sudden revolution, you don't want to lose sway in government.

Rateria

New Jaslandia wrote:Practically speaking, doing nothing and focusing on some pie-in-the-sky vision of changing society through other means probably won't accomplish much. It means your voice won't be heard, and if like-minded people also refuse to vote, it just seems more likely that government will be dominated by people who have the exact opposite point of view as you, and change will be even farther away. At least if you vote for the lesser to two evils, politicians will see a reason to recognize you and your group's desires, and those desires may be slowly implemented into policy by people who are supportive of some of your ideas (even if they don't agree with all of them). Doing nothing just reduces your sway in government, and unless you plan on all of that being rendered moot through a sudden revolution, you don't want to lose sway in government.

Civil disobedience has worked better than voting, I'd say. At the very least, it makes those in power consider it more than hoping that your pet issues would ever be debated in government.

Government is already dominated by people with the exact opposite point of me; e.g. authoritarians. And it usually is.

Would the libertarians that voted for Bush as the "lesser" evil, or perhaps far leftists with (Bill) Clinton, actually achieve any of their goals when these two crackpots in government? Absolutely not, Bush turned out to be a war-Keynesian and Clinton turned out to be a socially conservative neoliberal, basically the opposite of what both groups wanted from them. Until a president is in government, we have no idea of what they are going to be like beyond the vague, often contradictory promises they try to sell us. If I vote, I'd vote with extreme caution, as you can't really trust most politicians, particularly the inconsistent ones.

Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Civil disobedience has worked better than voting, I'd say. At the very least, it makes those in power consider it more than hoping that your pet issues would ever be debated in government.

Government is already dominated by people with the exact opposite point of me; e.g. authoritarians. And it usually is.

Would the libertarians that voted for Bush as the "lesser" evil, or perhaps far leftists with (Bill) Clinton, actually achieve any of their goals when these two crackpots in government? Absolutely not, Bush turned out to be a war-Keynesian and Clinton turned out to be a socially conservative neoliberal, basically the opposite of what both groups wanted from them. Until a president is in government, we have no idea of what they are going to be like beyond the vague, often contradictory promises they try to sell us. If I vote, I'd vote with extreme caution, as you can't really trust most politicians, particularly the inconsistent ones.

Except this isn't really civil disobedience like we normally think of it; unless you live in a country with mandatory voting like Australia, you're not breaking any laws, and I don't think anyone is going to consider you a courageous hero or a martyr for not voting.

I understand your point about having two people and neither representing your viewpoint; right now, America's FPTP voting system basically punishes you for voting for a third party. Thus, I think the issue you describe could better be solved by electoral reform such as Alternative Vote or Mixed-Member Proportional, which are fairer systems that allow for greater opportunities for smaller parties such as the Libertarian Party. It may not allow you to achieve all of your desires, but that's democracy, and at least you'll have representatives that can properly speak for you and many others like you.

It's true politicians don't have a stellar reputation for honesty and fulfilling their campaign promise, but we can't see into the future, so we only have their past record and their rhetoric to go off of. An unreliable method, yes, but once in a while there may be a candidates that sticks to their principles, and even if that candidate doesn't arise, it's better to vote for the guy that might make things better, than to support the other guy by not voting or voting for a third party. Of course, as I said before, none of this would be necessary if we had electoral reform, but until enough people make noise for it to become a serious issue, we have to work within the confines of the current system.

Rateria

New Jaslandia wrote:country with mandatory voting

Mandatory voting rarely works very well... when people are forced to do something, they naturally resent doing it. A rhinoceros named Cacareco won the city council elections for São Paolo in 1958. Sadly, he was not allowed to take office :(

This page is hilarious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_electoral_candidates

New Jaslandia, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Las-Vegas wrote:I've just started reading Atlas Shrugged.

My deepest condolences.

New Jaslandia

Plusiocratic Federation Of Monetia wrote:My deepest condolences.

You not a fan? I don't really have an opinion on it yet, I'm not very far in.

The New United States wrote:Anybody read anything good recently?

Unfortunately, I've had to quit reading for pleasure since the semester began.

Before it began, I was reading Human Action by Mises and I had just started reading The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God by the Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Nice.

Yeah I think we had a few European libertarians on here before...from France and Iceland iirc. I think you are our first Slav though.

Talk to Pevvania. He's not natively European, but lives in Britain.

I'm half Slavic, but it was my mother's great-grandparents that immigrated to the U.S.

Las-Vegas wrote:Mandatory voting rarely works very well... when people are forced to do something, they naturally resent doing it. A rhinoceros named Cacareco won the city council elections for São Paolo in 1958. Sadly, he was not allowed to take office :(

This page is hilarious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_electoral_candidates

Yeah, I was never really a fan of mandatory voting, mainly because I worry it'll lead to more people voting without doing proper research.

Rateria, Las-Vegas

New Jaslandia wrote:Yeah, I was never really a fan of mandatory voting, mainly because I worry it'll lead to more people voting without doing proper research.

It's such a big problem already, people vote for candidates without really knowing much about the policies that candidate supports. And so many people get such a one-sided story of policies, they don't realise the cons of whatever ideology they support.

Sure, Socialism may sound great in theory... but "free" stuff isn't "free" at all, equal pay causes a lack of motivation, etc.

Most people don't realise this: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/uncategorized/boom-another-liberal-meme-promoting-socialism-ripped-to-shreds

San Andrias, Rateria

Las-Vegas wrote:It's such a big problem already, people vote for candidates without really knowing much about the policies that candidate supports. And so many people get such a one-sided story of policies, they don't realise the cons of whatever ideology they support.

Sure, Socialism may sound great in theory... but "free" stuff isn't "free" at all, equal pay causes a lack of motivation, etc.

Most people don't realise this: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/uncategorized/boom-another-liberal-meme-promoting-socialism-ripped-to-shreds

Socialism isn't the only ideology people can be misled into believing in. It could be fascism, racism, anarchism, communism, etc. Likewise, some people may have done actual research on socialism, and still like it. Voters who don't do their research isn't confined to just one ideology, and if the false rumors and spurious quotes that are always going viral are an indicator, it's fairly prevalent.

Miencraft, San Andrias, Rateria

The New United States wrote:Anybody read anything good recently?

I've read "The People vs Barack Obama" by Ben Shapiro *AMAZING* book I highly recommend it.

The New United States

So apparently the GOP is going to have a debate in SLC. Which is both awesome and really crappy me. Awesome because Im glad to see my state get some national primary attention. And crappy because of the exact same reason.

The New United States, Rateria

New Jaslandia wrote:Except this isn't really civil disobedience like we normally think of it; unless you live in a country with mandatory voting like Australia, you're not breaking any laws, and I don't think anyone is going to consider you a courageous hero or a martyr for not voting.

I understand your point about having two people and neither representing your viewpoint; right now, America's FPTP voting system basically punishes you for voting for a third party. Thus, I think the issue you describe could better be solved by electoral reform such as Alternative Vote or Mixed-Member Proportional, which are fairer systems that allow for greater opportunities for smaller parties such as the Libertarian Party. It may not allow you to achieve all of your desires, but that's democracy, and at least you'll have representatives that can properly speak for you and many others like you.

It's true politicians don't have a stellar reputation for honesty and fulfilling their campaign promise, but we can't see into the future, so we only have their past record and their rhetoric to go off of. An unreliable method, yes, but once in a while there may be a candidates that sticks to their principles, and even if that candidate doesn't arise, it's better to vote for the guy that might make things better, than to support the other guy by not voting or voting for a third party. Of course, as I said before, none of this would be necessary if we had electoral reform, but until enough people make noise for it to become a serious issue, we have to work within the confines of the current system.

I didn't mean non-voting as an act of civil disobedience, although non-voting can be seen as an act of civil disobedience, particularly when it is thought of as a national duty. What I meant was using civil disobedience as means to an end rather then voting and hoping that it will do anything. In my opinion, the political class tends to listen to active and large scale protests, active civil disobedience, et. cetera, then voting. Think how much longer it would of taken for the Civil Rights Act to be passed if there was no large protests!

If I had two glasses of poisoned wine, and I had the option of not drinking either one, OR, I had the option of drinking the one that is "less poisoned" then the other, which do you think would be the better option for my health? The entire premise of voting between a lesser evil is based on a false dilemma fallacy, and your vote is worth no more voting for one of the two establishment characters than it is voting for a third guy, and the amount that it might effect the outcome of any vote is still trivial regardless. Furthermore, I'd wage that any amount of difference is negated by any real differences between the two parties, that voting for one over the other is really not worth it since the results aren't too different. We still saw Obama continue Bush era policies, to the chagrin of some Obama voting libertarians and paleoconservatives. So why bother?

http://fee.org/articles/the-lesser-of-two-evils/

Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:So apparently the GOP is going to have a debate in SLC. Which is both awesome and really crappy me. Awesome because Im glad to see my state get some national primary attention. And crappy because of the exact same reason.

I'm more interested in the Libertarian national debate that will be held on Fox during March, personally. It'll be real interesting to see how some of the personalities (Johnson, Peterson, Perry) duke it out between each other.

Rateria, Las-Vegas

Can I contest Ronald Reagan and Rick Grimes' seat on the Board?

Whats up squad, Anyone going to be at ISFLC this weekend in real life?

Lack There Of wrote:Whats up squad, Anyone going to be at ISFLC this weekend in real life?

ISFLC?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:ISFLC?

International Students for Liberty Conference I assume.

New Jaslandia wrote:Socialism isn't the only ideology people can be misled into believing in. It could be fascism, racism, anarchism, communism, etc. Likewise, some people may have done actual research on socialism, and still like it. Voters who don't do their research isn't confined to just one ideology, and if the false rumors and spurious quotes that are always going viral are an indicator, it's fairly prevalent.

I respect those who support Socialism and know all about it. And yes, it can happen with any ideology.

New Jaslandia

Las-Vegas wrote:It's such a big problem already, people vote for candidates without really knowing much about the policies that candidate supports. And so many people get such a one-sided story of policies, they don't realise the cons of whatever ideology they support.

Sure, Socialism may sound great in theory... but "free" stuff isn't "free" at all, equal pay causes a lack of motivation, etc.

Most people don't realise this: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/uncategorized/boom-another-liberal-meme-promoting-socialism-ripped-to-shreds

I read the article and a relevant one on the same site. I liked them both. Thank you for posting the link.

Las-Vegas

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I didn't mean non-voting as an act of civil disobedience, although non-voting can be seen as an act of civil disobedience, particularly when it is thought of as a national duty. What I meant was using civil disobedience as means to an end rather then voting and hoping that it will do anything. In my opinion, the political class tends to listen to active and large scale protests, active civil disobedience, et. cetera, then voting. Think how much longer it would of taken for the Civil Rights Act to be passed if there was no large protests!

If I had two glasses of poisoned wine, and I had the option of not drinking either one, OR, I had the option of drinking the one that is "less poisoned" then the other, which do you think would be the better option for my health? The entire premise of voting between a lesser evil is based on a false dilemma fallacy, and your vote is worth no more voting for one of the two establishment characters than it is voting for a third guy, and the amount that it might effect the outcome of any vote is still trivial regardless. Furthermore, I'd wage that any amount of difference is negated by any real differences between the two parties, that voting for one over the other is really not worth it since the results aren't too different. We still saw Obama continue Bush era policies, to the chagrin of some Obama voting libertarians and paleoconservatives. So why bother?

http://fee.org/articles/the-lesser-of-two-evils/

I have no problem with protests and such, and civil disobedience is respectable as long as you know going into it that you'll be punished and you're prepared for that. Civil disobedience is certainly a way to draw attention to your issue and get supporters on your side, but then you would need voting to sustain the changes brought about by civil disobedience.

I get what you're saying about having to choose the lesser of two evils, and I've never been a fan of the two-party system either. I think there should be a push to change to a fairer electoral system like AV or MMP. Even if you feel there's no one you can get behind, you could just vote against a person by voting for his/her opponent. Still a pretty bad situation, but you're still getting your voice heard, and with some time and luck, some stuff may be done in order to change the way things work in Washington, including how elections are conducted. However, until that happens, we're stuck with our current system, and the best we can do is just vote for someone and hope for the best. Even if it doesn't put great people in power, at least it might keep the even worse people out of power.

San Andrias wrote:Can I contest Ronald Reagan and Rick Grimes' seat on the Board?

yes, please

The Aradites wrote:yes, please

So how do I do that? Do I just announce it?

I am new here

The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Emperea

Youkraneana wrote:I am new here

Welcome

The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

San Andrias wrote:So how do I do that? Do I just announce it?

All you need to do now is announce what party you are running for (or independent) and wait for board elections to be started whenever that may be.

The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Anyone interested in creating a new, libertarian-conservative political party with me? It seems like the Reaganist party dominates the government and the other parties are turning defunct. Once we have, say, three others on board, I'll begin to draft up a platform.

I assume most of you are familiar with libertarian conservatism, but it's basically libertarianism except that it holds conservative moral views. Here's more info for those still unclear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

The United States Of Patriots

Hey, can I switch my citizenship from [nation=short]Suravtap[/nation] to this one? I'll leave the region with Suravtap and instead use this one.

Their was this [paraphrased] snippet in the debate.

Moderator: "Mr. Trump, Mexico has said it will not f'ing pay for the wall. How will we get Mexico to pay for it?"

Trump: "We're gonna build it sooooooo high maaaaan, and make it even taller!"

*cheering from the audience*

The New United States, New Jaslandia, Rateria, Las-Vegas, Emperea

Youkraneana wrote:I am new here

Welcome to Libertatem, YouKraneana!

The New United States, Rateria

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) has endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz for President.

http://opinion.injo.com/2016/02/253437-trust-ted-cruz/

Suravtap wrote:Anyone interested in creating a new, libertarian-conservative political party with me? It seems like the Reaganist party dominates the government and the other parties are turning defunct. Once we have, say, three others on board, I'll begin to draft up a platform.

I assume most of you are familiar with libertarian conservatism, but it's basically libertarianism except that it holds conservative moral views. Here's more info for those still unclear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

I'm more of a conservative libertarian... socially more libertarian. How about a conservative libertarian party? Because "conservative libertarianism" isn't an official thing, it would be libertarians who are conservative. Maybe something like that?

Teuberland wrote:Their was this [paraphrased] snippet in the debate.

Moderator: "Mr. Trump, Mexico has said it will not f'ing pay for the wall. How will we get Mexico to pay for it?"

Trump: "We're gonna build it sooooooo high maaaaan, and make it even taller!"

*cheering from the audience*

I just loved it when Trump said "well no one listens to your show... which is probably a good thing." That was great. While I am not a major Trump supporter, I appreciate the bluntness.

Youkraneana wrote:I am new here

Welcome!

Las-Vegas

Do you ever get an issue where there's an option to simply abolish the government altogether?

Las-Vegas wrote:Do you ever get an issue where there's an option to simply abolish the government altogether?

Nah, but there are many opportunities to get as close as possible to it.

Las-Vegas

Patvarus Ii wrote:Nah, but there are many opportunities to get as close as possible to it.

Dang, I wanted to abolish government for fun :(

I'm a liberal libertarian. And I doth protest all these fake conservative-libertarians who are really trump sucking moralists!

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I'm a liberal libertarian. And I doth protest all these fake conservative-libertarians who are really trump sucking moralists!

K

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I'm a liberal libertarian. And I doth protest all these fake conservative-libertarians who are really trump sucking moralists!

*libertarian conservative :p

My basis is in conservatism, but I have an increasing number of libertarian policies. I've kinda reached the point where I switched over everything I'm willing to switch to libertarianism and I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm like, 90% libertarian, except for some of the moral issues like gay marriage and abortion, as well as the foreign policy. I'm not a non-interventionst and I feel like we should actively combat hostile countries and organizations.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I'm a liberal libertarian. And I doth protest all these fake conservative-libertarians who are really trump sucking moralists!

Any libertarian who seriously supports Trump for his policies is not a real libertarian.

The New United States, New Jaslandia, Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I'm a liberal libertarian. And I doth protest all these fake conservative-libertarians who are really trump sucking moralists!
"Doth"? Are you Shakespeare or something?

San Andrias, New Jaslandia, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Parvimperia wrote:"Doth"? Are you Shakespeare or something?

Doth thee question the speech of minerva? Thy should hold ye tongue.

New Jaslandia, Rateria, Parvimperia, Las-Vegas

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/12742146_1072841906092954_5989539999223013458_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=09b673f5577998e708272eec27da4f30&oe=575A6B88

New Jaslandia, Parvimperia

Patvarus Ii wrote:*libertarian conservative :p

My basis is in conservatism, but I have an increasing number of libertarian policies. I've kinda reached the point where I switched over everything I'm willing to switch to libertarianism and I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm like, 90% libertarian, except for some of the moral issues like gay marriage and abortion, as well as the foreign policy. I'm not a non-interventionst and I feel like we should actively combat hostile countries and organizations.

Your views sound similar to mine.

I wouldn't characterize the issues of abortion and marriage as issues of morality, though. Abortion is the terminating of a human-life, and should be illegal just as any other form of murder. Preserving the institution of civil marriage as a union of one man and one woman is about protecting the rights of the child, not about imposing morality.

The New United States wrote:Your views sound similar to mine.

Preserving the institution of civil marriage as a union of one man and one woman is about protecting the rights of the child, not about imposing morality.

Here's my argument for state regulation of marriage:

Ransomed Individuals wrote:It's not at all an intrusion into one's love life. As far as I'm concerned, individuals should be able to (and have a natural right to) freely and voluntarily associate with whomever they please, so long as it is mutually voluntary. The state should not have the right to tell individuals who they are to love, nor the right to dictate what two consenting individuals do with their God-given free agency.

The family unit, and therefore the lawful marital union from which it is born, however, does not constitute a free and voluntary association of individuals. The family unit is innately involuntary; the child has no say in who his parents are, nor the manner in which his parents/guardians treat him (so long as that manner does not constitute neglect or physical/mental abuse). The child-parent relationship is involuntary, at the most fundamental level. The parent (unless you subscribe to the Marxist religion) has a natural right to act as sovereign over the life of the child, while also being held to account for that child's well-being.

This relationship is unique from all others; the parent-child relationship very clearly goes against the NAP, in that the individual that is the parent/guardian is recognized as that child's natural authority, a sovereign exercising the ability to restrict the rights to liberty and property of another individual, the child. The parental authority is one that is sacred, and it is indeed on that is coercive, yet it is one that is undeniable, and one that is of the most fundamental importance to human development.

Recognizing the sacred station of the parent, and the rights that accompany that station, we should also seek to identify those rights unique to the persons who occupy that lower station in this irrefutably involuntary relationship, the child. What rights do children innately possess? Do they have a right to life? Of course. To liberty and property? Those rights are exchanged for other rights that must be provided for by the child's parents, such as sustenance and shelter. It is difficult, however, to clearly define those rights unique to children, due to the fact that children's rights are unique from those of the individual. Where do the rights of the child end? I've been having a hard time grappling with this question in recent weeks.

Marriage is the institution by which children are reared, by which the family unit is born. Demolishing this institution and removing all state recognition for it simply disregards the natural rights of the child, the individual that is at the mercy of his caregivers. The state has a responsibility to protect the rights of the child, to regulate this involuntary association of individuals.

The family does not constitute a voluntary association of individuals, and there are specific responsibilities that should come with entering a marital union from which a family is supposed to be born.

(May have ended up rattling and not presenting thoughts well or actually rebutting what was said; it's 1000pm and a work day! Sorry!)

Ransomed Individuals wrote:But the removal of the state from marriage will adversely affect other people, in that it completely disregards the rights of the child. State protection of the marital institution, and the regulation of that institution, is the only method by which the rights of children, individuals subject to being party to an involuntary association of persons, may be protected; and the protection of every individual's rights is the utmost priority of the state.

The New United States wrote:Preserving the institution of civil marriage as a union of one man and one woman is about protecting the rights of the child.

What right is violated by having non-traditional parents?

Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Rateria

The New United States wrote:Your views sound similar to mine.

I wouldn't characterize the issues of abortion and marriage as issues of morality, though. Abortion is the terminating of a human-life, and should be illegal just as any other form of murder. Preserving the institution of civil marriage as a union of one man and one woman is about protecting the rights of the child, not about imposing morality.

Why of course it's a question of morality. And a damn important question, too. What is to be considered immoral and moral has to be discussed instead of dismissing every opinion different than your own and saying "it should just be like this". Morals is a pretty important part of social coexistence and one of the main elements of conservatism.

It has always been a bit puzzling for me when I hear arguments about gay marriage (let's face it, they are mainly about morality and how the governent should implement morals in their laws) that one of the most common points was "protection of the family and the children". If I should every marry (I'm straight) and have children these children aren't more or less safer depending on whether the words of some document of a gay couple somewhere in the world spell "civil union" or "marriage". Whether I approve of it or not, it certainly wouldn't pose my family under any substantial threat. Nor would it hurt the bond between me and my children.

I do think the family is of upmost importance for the raising of a child. It determines the course the child's life will take. I do think the state should protect the family because of this importance.

But I don't understand what this has to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't equal abandoning all state support for the family. In fact the pro-gay marriage site has never advocated that. You argue that state support is imprtant and I agree but you don't argue at all about the actual topic of gay marriage.

New Jaslandia, Rateria, Las-Vegas

Parvimperia wrote:What right is violated by having non-traditional parents?

It is unhealthy for a child to grow up with two female influences or two male influences. They need a male and a female guardian in their life to teach them different skills and behaviors. Notice how many criminals come from broken homes or non-traditional families? I'm not saying someone raised by something other than a mom and a dad will be a criminal, but it helps. Also, if a gay couple adopts a child, the child will want to know who their real parents are and they wouldn't even be able to imagine their mother because they haven't had any maternal influence at all.

Patvarus Ii wrote:if a gay couple adopts a child, the child will want to know who their real parents are

This happens with all adoptions

Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Rateria, Parvimperia

[B]Regional Community News: Issue #17 The Long Awaited Issue![/B]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=578372

Archive: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=505134

Patvarus Ii wrote:It is unhealthy for a child to grow up with two female influences or two male influences. They need a male and a female guardian in their life to teach them different skills and behaviors. Notice how many criminals come from broken homes or non-traditional families? I'm not saying someone raised by something other than a mom and a dad will be a criminal, but it helps. Also, if a gay couple adopts a child, the child will want to know who their real parents are and they wouldn't even be able to imagine their mother because they haven't had any maternal influence at all.

The research doesn't support that. At all. Children raised by gay parents do just as well as children raised by straight parents.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01679.x/abstract

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-study-idUSKBN0P32AM20150623

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus

Miencraft, Rateria

New Jaslandia wrote:The research doesn't support that. At all. Children raised by gay parents do just as well as children raised by straight parents.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01679.x/abstract

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-study-idUSKBN0P32AM20150623

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus

I do think it would be kinda weird having to moms, I mean (as a guy) who would ever teach me how to shave, shoot, or order steak properly?

Parvimperia, The United States Of Patriots

Well it is certain that growing up with 2 moms or 2 dads will influence you in a different way. I'm just going to leave it at the fact that I do not support gays and I do not think they should be as accepted as they are in today's society.

Patvarus Ii wrote:Well it is certain that growing up with 2 moms or 2 dads will influence you in a different way. I'm just going to leave it at the fact that I do not support gays and I do not think they should be as accepted as they are in today's society.

You do not think they should be accepted? That's terrible.

New Jaslandia, Rateria, Parvimperia

Patvarus Ii wrote:Well it is certain that growing up with 2 moms or 2 dads will influence you in a different way. I'm just going to leave it at the fact that I do not support gays and I do not think they should be as accepted as they are in today's society.

If anyone shouldn't be accepted, it's intolerant idiots like you who use religion to hide behind their outdated ignorant hatred.

Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Las-Vegas

Las-Vegas wrote:You do not think they should be accepted? That's terrible.

I'm entitled to my opinion, correct? Also, I never said they shouldn't be accepted, I just think they shouldn't be as widely accepted as they are today. People need to realize that this is unnatural, immoral, and wrong. Gays should not be imprisoned or purged or anything, but they should not be allowed to marry, either. Marriage is holy union between a man and a woman for the purpose of romance and/or procreation.

Parvimperia wrote:If anyone shouldn't be accepted, it's intolerant idiots like you who use religion to hide behind their outdated ignorant hatred.

I'm not using religion to hide anything, I'm not intolerant, and it's not outdated ignorant hatred. I do not believe homosexuality is genetic or a sexuality at all, but a mental condition. That's my opinion and I will not change it. I simply think homosexuality is wrong. I do not hate gay people, I just think they are misguided.

Parvimperia wrote:If anyone shouldn't be accepted, it's intolerant idiots like you who use religion to hide behind their outdated ignorant hatred.

Also, you're saying people with certain beliefs shouldn't be accepted because they don't support your agenda, which is pretty much the same thing I said.

Patvarus Ii wrote:I'm entitled to my opinion, correct?

Correct.

Patvarus Ii wrote:People need to realize that this is unnatural, immoral, and wrong.

Aren't they entitled to their own opinions as well?

Patvarus Ii wrote:I simply think homosexuality is wrong. I do not hate gay people, I just think they are misguided.

Because they totally chose to be gay. Think about it: If people can choose to be gay, that means they were once straight. So can you, as a straight person, choose to be gay? Try it. You can't. So explain how that makes sense at all.

You can't choose who you attracted to, just like you can't choose what tastes good to you.

What you said simply doesn't make practical sense.

Patvarus Ii wrote:I do not believe homosexuality is genetic or a sexuality at all, but a mental condition.

But you have no idea, because you do not know what it's like to be gay. So let the gays answer that, don't assume for them. Only they know what it's like.

Homosexuality isn't an opnion it's a scientific classification. It's not something up for opinion.

Patvarus Ii wrote:Marriage is holy union between a man and a woman

Says who? The Church? Marriage existed far before the church, and in many situations it was actually a political movement.

Patvarus Ii wrote:I'm not intolerant

*Sighs*

New Jaslandia, Rateria, Plusiocratic Federation Of Monetia, Parvimperia, Reformed Venice

Las-Vegas wrote:Aren't they entitled to their own opinions as well?

Yes, they are.

Las-Vegas wrote:Because they totally chose to be gay. Think about it: If people can choose to be gay, that means they were once straight. So can you, as a straight person, choose to be gay? Try it. You can't. So explain how that makes sense at all.

Being gay isn't a choice per se, but it's more of upbringing + mental state. If I wanted to, I could date a man. I wouldn't, but I could. I actively make the choice to be straight.

Las-Vegas wrote:You can't choose who you attracted to, just like you can't choose what tastes good to you.

What you said simply doesn't make practical sense.

You can choose. I choose not to be attracted to certain girls because of their personality, even if my body's trying to tell me they're attractive.

Las-Vegas wrote:But you have no idea, because you do not know what it's like to be gay. So let the gays answer that, don't assume for them. Only they know what it's like.

I do not have any idea what it's like to be gay, but I'm assuming you don't either judging by how you refer to them, so your opinion on homosexuality is just as valid as mine.

Las-Vegas wrote:Homosexuality isn't an opnion it's a scientific classification. It's not something up for opinion.

But it is. There is no "gay gene." It's not a scientific classification. The purpose of being attracted to someone is the body's way of saying, "Let's make babies and continue the human race." Gays cannot continue the human race, so, scientifically, it doesn't make sense. Love only scientifically exists as a method of keeping the species alive.

Las-Vegas wrote:Says who? The Church? Marriage existed far before the church, and in many situations it was actually a political movement.

True, but then why are most couples married in churches by priests?

Patvarus Ii wrote:If I wanted to, I could date a man. I wouldn't, but I could. I actively make the choice to be straight.

Straight is a sexual orientation. Could you be sexually attracted to that man? No.

Patvarus Ii wrote:You can choose. I choose not to be attracted to certain girls because of their personality, even if my body's trying to tell me they're attractive.

That's differet than choosing to be sexually attracted to an entirely different gender.

Patvarus Ii wrote:I do not have any idea what it's like to be gay, but I'm assuming you don't either judging by how you refer to them, so your opinion on homosexuality is just as valid as mine.

It's not an opinion. I know a fair amount of gay people, and I have asked them some questions about this stuff. One of them was raised by strict, anti-gay, conservative Christian parents. So it's not an upbringing.

Patvarus Ii wrote:But it is. There is no "gay gene." It's not a scientific classification. The purpose of being attracted to someone is the body's way of saying, "Let's make babies and continue the human race." Gays cannot continue the human race, so, scientifically, it doesn't make sense. Love only scientifically exists as a method of keeping the species alive.

Yes, it is scientifically unnatural, but it still happens. So what?

Patvarus Ii wrote:True, but then why are most couples married in churches by priests?

Because it is a largely religious thing, especially here in the religious USA.

Rateria, Plusiocratic Federation Of Monetia, Parvimperia

Las-Vegas wrote:I do think it would be kinda weird having to moms, I mean (as a guy) who would ever teach me how to shave, shoot, or order steak properly?

Women could do that too. And you probably wouldn't be completely lacking in male figures, as you might have uncles, cousins, family friends, neighbors, etc.

Patvarus Ii wrote:I do not believe homosexuality is genetic or a sexuality at all, but a mental condition. That's my opinion and I will not change it.

Alright then, but don't expect American Psychiatric Association to follow you; they declassified homosexuality as a mental illness in 1973, with the American Psychological Association doing the same in 1975, and the World Health Organization declassifying it in 1990.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

Rateria

Regardless of whether homosexuality is a mental condition, biological, or specifically genetic, gay marriage ought to be legalized.

We ought to take a look at marriage as the government defines it as opposed to religious institutions. I cannot personally think of government uses of marriage except for taxes. If there are other uses I'd ask for y'all to shoot them at me. If the government uses it solely for secular reasons such as taxes, then it is NOT a marriage in the eyes of the church, yes?

Let me reiterate: if there is no religious role of state-approved marriages, then state-approved marriage =/= religious marriage.

Rateria, Parvimperia, Las-Vegas

New Jaslandia wrote:Alright then, but don't expect American Psychiatric Association to follow you; they declassified homosexuality as a mental illness in 1973, with the American Psychological Association doing the same in 1975, and the World Health Organization declassifying it in 1990.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

So some big organization gets to decide what I believe? I'm not saying it's an illness, but more of a condition or misguided state of mind. It's the person believing for some reason that they are attracted to the same sex.

Teuberland wrote:I cannot personally think of government uses of marriage except for taxes

-Custody rights

-Hospital visitation rights

-Inheritance

-Social Security

I can think of a few.

Patvarus Ii wrote:So some big organization gets to decide what I believe? I'm not saying it's an illness, but more of a condition or misguided state of mind. It's the person believing for some reason that they are attracted to the same sex.

They aren't just "big organizations"; they're respected medial institutions that have done far more research on this issue than both both of us combined. You can disagree with them if you want, but considering the kind of authority and scientific backing these groups and their findings have, their opinions are definitely worth serious consideration.

Rateria, Parvimperia, Las-Vegas

Hello! ;D

Las-Vegas

Teuberland wrote:Regardless of whether homosexuality is a mental condition, biological, or specifically genetic, gay marriage ought to be legalized.

We ought to take a look at marriage as the government defines it as opposed to religious institutions. I cannot personally think of government uses of marriage except for taxes. If there are other uses I'd ask for y'all to shoot them at me. If the government uses it solely for secular reasons such as taxes, then it is NOT a marriage in the eyes of the church, yes?

Let me reiterate: if there is no religious role of state-approved marriages, then state-approved marriage =/= religious marriage.

It's also used for citizenship and stuff.

New Jaslandia, Rateria, Parvimperia

Quarantinia wrote:Hello! ;D

Hello!

Quarantinia

Quarantinia wrote:Hello! ;D

*Trying to figure out why all the previous regions you were in were anarcho-communists and you are now in a conservative-ish region*

Quarantinia

New Jaslandia wrote:-Custody rights

-Hospital visitation rights

-Inheritance

-Social Security

I can think of a few.

And as I said none of these are religious. Government marriage isn't sacred. The government that allows abortion, porn, blasphemy, and etc. has no legitimacy in calling its own marriage sacred, so the faithful need not bother with the ruling.

Parvimperia, Las-Vegas

Teuberland wrote:And as I said none of these are religious. Government marriage isn't sacred. The government that allows abortion, porn, blasphemy, and etc. has no legitimacy in calling its own marriage sacred, so the faithful need not bother with the ruling.

I never said marriage was a solely religious thing, and I don't think government/civil marriages need to be 'sacred'. I believe religious and civil marriages should be separate; one for spiritual and religious purposes, the other for government/tax purposes.

Rateria, Plusiocratic Federation Of Monetia, Teuberland, Las-Vegas

New Jaslandia wrote:I never said marriage was a solely religious thing, and I don't think government/civil marriages need to be 'sacred'. I believe religious and civil marriages should be separate; one for spiritual and religious purposes, the other for government/tax purposes.

I was agreeing with ya. Sorry that I wasn't clear.

New Jaslandia, Rateria, Las-Vegas

Teuberland wrote:I was agreeing with ya. Sorry that I wasn't clear.

No worries. I was a bit unclear on what you were trying to say, but I'm glad we can agree.

Rateria, Teuberland

Post self-deleted by The United States Of Patriots.

Post self-deleted by The United States Of Patriots.

Plusiocratic Federation Of Monetia wrote:Why of course it's a question of morality. And a damn important question, too. What is to be considered immoral and moral has to be discussed instead of dismissing every opinion different than your own and saying "it should just be like this". Morals is a pretty important part of social coexistence and one of the main elements of conservatism.

It has always been a bit puzzling for me when I hear arguments about gay marriage (let's face it, they are mainly about morality and how the governent should implement morals in their laws) that one of the most common points was "protection of the family and the children". If I should every marry (I'm straight) and have children these children aren't more or less safer depending on whether the words of some document of a gay couple somewhere in the world spell "civil union" or "marriage". Whether I approve of it or not, it certainly wouldn't pose my family under any substantial threat. Nor would it hurt the bond between me and my children.

I do think the family is of upmost importance for the raising of a child. It determines the course the child's life will take. I do think the state should protect the family because of this importance.

But I don't understand what this has to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't equal abandoning all state support for the family. In fact the pro-gay marriage site has never advocated that. You argue that state support is important and I agree but you don't argue at all about the actual topic of gay marriage.

The solution to this is easy just get the government out of marriage entirely! Than churches can marry anyone gay, or straight, they like and no one gets to tell the other what they can or cant do. This way the First Amendment and the individuals personal liberties aren't violated. And as an added bonus we can abolish a government agency!

Miencraft, Republic Of Minerva

Las-Vegas wrote:This happens with all adoptions

Not always. My brothers have no interest in who their birth parents are.

Rateria, Las-Vegas

Post self-deleted by The United States Of Patriots.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Not always. My brothers have no interest in who their birth parents are.

Point was more that adopted kids are generally going to wonder who their biological parents are, regardless of whether or not the adoptive parents are gay.

Generally.

New Jaslandia, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Las-Vegas

Nice to see an activity boost around here. I don't think I'll be able to make the time commitment to NationStates that I used to be able to, so it's good to see that the region is still conversing.

Also, the Republican Primaries prove that we are all doomed. Additionally, I really really hope that the Libertarian Party doesn't nominate Austin Petersen as its nominee. Guy's a joke.

New Jaslandia, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Las-Vegas

When's the FMT going to happen?

New Jaslandia

As has been pointed out, the argument that I made was not specifically one against homosexual marriage, but one that was made in favor of the state being involved in marriage.

However, I would argue that the institution of marriage should not be redefined at the whims of of those taken by the sudden wave of anti-tradional, "progressive" social thought. I would note that even Hayek was cautious of usurping traditional morality and the role in society of the traditional family.

"I sometimes like to say - and I think this is more significant than a mere simile usually is - that our learning a traditional morality, which largely involved restraining our inherited instincts, is a step in evolution as important as the addition of the sense of vision to the sense of touch." - F.A. Hayek, Our Moral Heritage

That is not to say that Hayek would have discounted homosexual marriage outright, but I feel confident in saying that he would be cautious of any group that near spontaneously determines it necessary to completely redefine an institution fundamental to societal success (as he identifies marriage to be in the aforementioned lecture).

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/1983/pdf/hl24.pdf

In the words of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online:

"In short, the Hayekian opponent of same-sex marriage says that he doesn’t necessarily need to give a good reason against changing marriage, because it’s impossible to know all the functions and roles that marriage plays in a society. Tinkering with marriage is like reaching into your car’s engine and monkeying around with the big round thingamajig without really knowing what it does."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/211928/misusing-hayek-jonah-goldberg

And to those arguing that non-traditional parenting is no worse than traditional parenting: A) It requires a complete rejection of simple, biological reality and of the evolutionary-role of male and female to make such an argument, and B) the jury is still out.

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/IB4393.pdf

Las-Vegas

Parvimperia wrote:Any widely held Libertarian positions any of you guys aren't sure about or don't agree with?

Weed

Parvimperia wrote:Any widely held Libertarian positions any of you guys aren't sure about or don't agree with?

Abortion.

The New United States, Teuberland, Parvimperia

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.