We May Be Too Stupid for Democracy

[Conley]

The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.

The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.

As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.

http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

Insert obligatory 'we are not a democracy we are a constitutional republic' comment here. :grin:

[MMC]

Okay.....so now how is those on the left going to answer this. :laugh: :wink: J/K.....I will re-round on this in a bit CL.

[Dagny]

The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.

The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.

As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.

http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

Insert obligatory 'we are not a democracy we are a constitutional republic' comment here. :grin:
We are neither. We are a capitalist form of govt. Democracy/Republic left the scene decades ago.

[Conley]

You don't believe there is democracy left?

[Mister D]

We are neither. We are a capitalist form of govt. Democracy/Republic left the scene decades ago.

There is no such thing as a "capitalist form of government".

[dadakarma]

There is no such thing as a "capitalist form of government".

Yes there is. It's called a Plutocracy.

[wingrider]

Pluto has a democracy? hell i didn't even know Pluto had life on it/ now lets see you insult me again

[wingrider]

A plutocracy is a government that is ruled by the wealthy or controlled by wealthy individuals. The term usually is used pejoratively, because it implies a lack of democratic freedom and social mobility (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-social-mobility.htm). Many historical governments were plutocracies, controlled by an elite class of wealthy people, and some modern governments have been accused of being plutocracies, including the government of the United States.
The term "plutocracy" comes from the Greek words ploutos, or “wealth,” and kratia, or “ruler.” Many nations have experienced a state of plutocracy at some point, because wealth often comes with immense power, especially during the formative stages of a new country. Some countries that have valuable natural resources, such as oil and precious metals, have also experienced this type of government because the entities that control these resources generally want to maintain conditions that are favorable to them.

just so every one here has a handle on what a plutocracy is..

[dadakarma]

:rofl:

[Mister D]

Yes there is. It's called a Plutocracy.

No. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. There is no such thing as a "capitalist form of government".

[Mister D]

A plutocracy is a government that is ruled by the wealthy or controlled by wealthy individuals. The term usually is used pejoratively, because it implies a lack of democratic freedom and social mobility (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-social-mobility.htm). Many historical governments were plutocracies, controlled by an elite class of wealthy people, and some modern governments have been accused of being plutocracies, including the government of the United States.
The term "plutocracy" comes from the Greek words ploutos, or “wealth,” and kratia, or “ruler.” Many nations have experienced a state of plutocracy at some point, because wealth often comes with immense power, especially during the formative stages of a new country. Some countries that have valuable natural resources, such as oil and precious metals, have also experienced this type of government because the entities that control these resources generally want to maintain conditions that are favorable to them.

just so every one here has a handle on what a plutocracy is..

Exactly.

[Dagny]

You don't believe there is democracy left?No. There is an illusion of Democracy. Although, if you consider choosing between a turd, and a shit sandwich 'choosing'.....


Citizens United clearly put the cherry atop the sundae.

When legislation is for sale, it's Capitalism. Plain and simple.

[Mister D]

No. There is an illusion of Democracy. Although, if you consider choosing between a turd, and a shit sandwich 'choosing'.....


Citizens United clearly put the cherry atop the sundae.

When legislation is for sale, it's Capitalism. Plain and simple.

No. Capitalism is not defined as "legislation for sale". Are you confused even by some basic terms?

[dadakarma]

No. There is an illusion of Democracy. Although, if you consider choosing between a turd, and a shit sandwich 'choosing'.....


Citizens United clearly put the cherry atop the sundae.

When legislation is for sale, it's Capitalism. Plain and simple.

Absolutely. There are, on average, 600 lobbyists for every elected senator and congressperson. Health care "reform" was written by the insurance industry that bought its seat at the negotiating table by purchasing congressional whores.

[Dagny]

You don't believe there is democracy left?Back to your OP....Is there really a candidate who truly represents the masses?

And we've recently seen that it matters not who sits in the White House. Congress is capable of assuring that nothing ever gets done.

Which ties in nicely with your comment about nothing on Wall St. changing under Obama. It took 1 1/2 years for him to ram through a recess appointment in order to begin WS oversight.

[Mister D]

Absolutely. There are, on average, 600 lobbyists for every elected senator and congressperson. Health care "reform" was written by the insurance industry that bought its seat at the negotiating table by purchasing congressional whores.

That isn't capitalism.

[dadakarma]

Back to your OP....Is there really a candidate who truly represents the masses?

And we've recently seen that it matters not who sits in the White House. Congress is capable of assuring that nothing ever gets done.

Which ties in nicely with your comment about nothing on Wall St. changing under Obama. It took 1 1/2 years for him to ram through a recess appointment in order to begin WS oversight.

Yep. I'm in agreement here. The real power in Washington is corporate. And with a 600-strong lobby for corporate interests influencing lawmakers, there is no real hope for any change no matter what party the president subscribes to.

[wingrider]

No. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. There is no such thing as a "capitalist form of government". you of course are correct.. capitalism is an economic system . not a government system. as much as I don't want to agree with dada. she is correct america has become a plutocracy.

[Peter1469]

Try corporatism, crony capitalism.

[wingrider]

but pete .. by its very definition a plutocracy takes in both the corporatism and the, crony capitalism aspects,, it is the rich and powerful that control both corporations and they use crony capitalism to buy legislation that favors their corporations, thats why companies like Gm can make a 500M dollar profit and pay no taxes, because of lobbying for special tax breaks, and moving the company overseas for cheap labor.

[dadakarma]

but pete .. by its very definition a plutocracy takes in both the corporatism and the, crony capitalism aspects,, it is the rich and powerful that control both corporations and they use crony capitalism to buy legislation that favors their corporations, thats why companies like Gm can make a 500M dollar profit and pay no taxes, because of lobbying for special tax breaks, and moving the company overseas for cheap labor.

Exactly right. To further your point, most all wealth in America came from capitalist ventures.

[Mainecoons]

Unfortunately, you don't know a logical fallacy when it bites you in the. . . . All capitalism is not crony capitalism. All corporations are not public, all corporations do not overpay executives.

Small business, which is actually the great majority of the U.S. economy, doesn't play the corporate crony game. They can't afford to, they just try to survive day to day with governments all all levels doing the arbitrary and capricious thing every day.

[Dagny]

Unfortunately, you don't know a logical fallacy when it bites you in the. . . . All capitalism is not crony capitalism. All corporations are not public, all corporations do not overpay executives.

Small business, which is actually the great majority of the U.S. economy, doesn't play the corporate crony game. They can't afford to, they just try to survive day to day with governments all all levels doing the arbitrary and capricious thing every day.
Small business?

Like Blackwater?

[Mister D]

Red herring much?

[dadakarma]

Small business?

Like Blackwater?

Uh-oh! :)

[Peter1469]

A plutocracy would remove all pretenses of democracy- ie the right to vote for representatives.

Crony Capitalism and corporatism would just manipulate behind the scenes.

[Dagny]

A plutocracy would remove all pretenses of democracy- ie the right to vote for representatives.

Crony Capitalism and corporatism would just manipulate behind the scenes. Semantics.

What's the end result?

We get to choose from a list of representatives. All of them will sell their votes to the highest bidder. Yes...behind closed doors, but certainly not invisible.

Legislation for sale.

Capitalism.

[Mister D]

Semantics.

What's the end result?

We get to choose from a list of representatives. All of them will sell their votes to the highest bidder. Yes...behind closed doors, but certainly not invisible.

Legislation for sale.

Capitalism.

Peter is probably going to wonder how you go from this:


We get to choose from a list of representatives. All of them will sell their votes to the highest bidder. Yes...behind closed doors, but certainly not invisible.

Legislation for sale.

To this:


Capitalism.

[Chris]

Semantics.

What's the end result?

We get to choose from a list of representatives. All of them will sell their votes to the highest bidder. Yes...behind closed doors, but certainly not invisible.

Legislation for sale.

Capitalism.

And you call what others say semantics?

All you've done is point out the evils of democracy and slapped a label on it same as Marx did.

What we have is a form of dirigisme, that's French for liberal fascism. :tongue:

[Dagny]

And you call what others say semantics?

All you've done is point out the evils of democracy and slapped a label on it same as Marx did.

What we have is a form of dirigisme, that's French for liberal fascism. :tongue:But is isn't Democracy. I believe that's the point.

Getting the choice of two whores, is not a choice.

Unless you like whores.

[Mister D]

But is isn't Democracy. I believe that's the point.

Getting the choice of two whores, is not a choice.

Unless you like whores.

No, your point was that it's capitalism.

Ring dsolo. Time to remind us all to try to do better. :wink:

[Chris]

But is isn't Democracy. I believe that's the point.

Getting the choice of two whores, is not a choice.

Unless you like whores.

Agreed, but "Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadows about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. The worst off-sloughings of the planet are the ingredients of sovereignty. Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us." ~ PJ O'Rourke, Parliament of Whores

[Peter1469]

Semantics.

What's the end result?

We get to choose from a list of representatives. All of them will sell their votes to the highest bidder. Yes...behind closed doors, but certainly not invisible.

Legislation for sale.

Capitalism.

It is hardly semantics. In the latter most of the people don't understand that their republic has been hijacked. In the former that fact is clear to all. In the latter, people still show up to vote at the appropriate times. In the former, not so much.....

[wingrider]

Exactly right. To further your point, most all wealth in America came from capitalist ventures. but you cannot condemn the wealth that basic capitalism brings to those who invest work hard and srive for a better life under its auspices.. what you have to condemn is when people or organizations become so rich that they misuse that money to buy favoritism from members of government.
capitalism in itself is not a bad thing but misuse and power brokers have made it seem so..

[Dagny]

but you cannot condemn the wealth that basic capitalism brings to those who invest work hard and srive for a better life under its auspices.. what you have to condemn is when people or organizations become so rich that they misuse that money to buy favoritism from members of government.
capitalism in itself is not a bad thing but misuse and power brokers have made it seem so..

Agree. It isn't THAT one is wealthy.

It's HOW one became wealthy.

Wealthy people aren't villains because they're wealthy.

Wealthy villains are the issue.

[Chris]

Agree. It isn't THAT one is wealthy.

It's HOW one became wealthy.

Wealthy people aren't villains because they're wealthy.

Wealthy villains are the issue.

How would the wealthy be able to "buy favoritism from members of government" if government wasn't corrupt? Wealth may be a necessary cause, but government is a sufficient one.

[Dagny]

How would the wealthy be able to "buy favoritism from members of government" if government wasn't corrupt? Wealth may be a necessary cause, but government is a sufficient one.

No argument there. But, what recourse do those with no seat at the table have?

[Chris]

No argument there. But, what recourse do those with no seat at the table have?

Certainly not to give in to it. To resist I see two potential ways. One political or practical, the grassroots way of the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street, who together, once the TPM recognizes business as part of the problem and OWS government, could be a powerful even revolutionary force for America. The other is anarchy, anarchocapitalism or anarchosocialism, which opposing let us say philosophies could never unite, but opposing ideas tend to generate new ideas.

[keyser soze]

It is hardly semantics. In the latter most of the people don't understand that their republic has been hijacked. In the former that fact is clear to all. In the latter, people still show up to vote at the appropriate times. In the former, not so much.....
I think there has been a concerted effort made to prevent people from noticing until recently. People are waking up. We haven't had what could be called high voter turn out and that was in the 50% http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Now there are laws being past that suppress the vote not to mention Supreme Court intervention and Diebold machine hacking...irregularities in the voting system that make our results suspect.

A democracy requires the citizen to be informed and active in the process while we have 24/7 political propaganda parading as 'fair and balanced' news.

I'm not surprised we have problems...Citizens United was devastating to our election process and the lobbyists are rampant. The business of the people has been corrupted.

We are a plutocracy and no longer a democracy...(please spare me the 'democratic/republic' remark, I'm aware) :0)

[keyser soze]

but you cannot condemn the wealth that basic capitalism brings to those who invest work hard and srive for a better life under its auspices.. what you have to condemn is when people or organizations become so rich that they misuse that money to buy favoritism from members of government.
capitalism in itself is not a bad thing but misuse and power brokers have made it seem so..
Agreed. Capitolism without or with little and unenforced regulation is the problem.

[Chris]

Agreed. Capitolism without or with little and unenforced regulation is the problem.

Unregulated government is the problem. Regulate corruption and capitalists would have to abandon political means for economic (I refer to Oppenheimer's distinction between political and economic means in The State).

[keyser soze]

I have not read Oppenheimer but I will say that unnecessary government and laws are a problem. My contention is that religion (culture war) and big money (corporations, the wealthy etc, lobbyists) and the resultant deregulation of business (including banking) and the bought and payed for 'warriors' who control such things are the problem. We are the people, our system was set up as has been described by privileged people for commerce and power...but in the best sense of 'the enlightenment' we are to be governed by the people and the federal government is necessary rather than something to be subverted and 'drowned in a bathtub'.

[keyser soze]

Unregulated government is the problem. Regulate corruption and capitalists would have to abandon political means for economic (I refer to Oppenheimer's distinction between political and economic means in The State).
I disagree with the libertarian utopia...it isn't based on reality in my view.

[MMC]

Unregulated government is the problem. Regulate corruption and capitalists would have to abandon political means for economic (I refer to Oppenheimer's distinction between political and economic means in The State).

Thanks for the clarification Chris!

[Chris]

I disagree with the libertarian utopia...it isn't based on reality in my view.

Oxymoron. Libertarianism does not propose a Utopia, that's socialism.

[ramone]

Oxymoron. Libertarianism does not propose a Utopia, that's socialism.

Common misconception by the communists.

[keyser soze]

Oxymoron. Libertarianism does not propose a Utopia, that's socialism.
By definition the policies advanced by libertarians is utopia and not based in reality in any meaningful way.

ie
Utopia (/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)juː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)oʊ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)p (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ə (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)) is an ideal community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community) or society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society) possessing a perfect socio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_system)-politico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics)-legal system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_system).

Which means it isn't based in reality in my view.

[dadakarma]

By definition the policies advanced by libertarians is utopia and not based in reality in any meaningful way.

ie
Utopia (/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)juː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)oʊ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)p (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ə (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)) is an ideal community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community) or society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society) possessing a perfect socio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_system)-politico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics)-legal system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_system).

Which means it isn't based in reality in my view.

I knew what you meant and I agree.

[Dagny]

I knew what you meant and I agree.
We all knew what she meant

[ramone]

By definition the policies advanced by libertarians is utopia and not based in reality in any meaningful way.

ie
Utopia (/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)juː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)oʊ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)p (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ə (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)) is an ideal community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community) or society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society) possessing a perfect socio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_system)-politico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics)-legal system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_system).

Which means it isn't based in reality in my view.

You defined Utopia, not libertarian. Two completely separate things, one is a fairy tail and one is a constitutional movement meant to restore the republic to something sensible.

[dadakarma]

We all knew what she meant

Condom-Head is confused. He thinks Keyser was saying that libertarian and utopia mean the same thing. Poor kid!

[Mister D]

Condom-Head is confused. He thinks Keyser was saying that libertarian and utopia mean the same thing. Poor kid!

No, he thinks Keyser was trying to say that libertarianis is a Utopian political philosophy. That's nonsense. Libertraians do not promise an ideal or perfect system.

[Dagny]

Condom-Head is confused. He thinks Keyser was saying that libertarian and utopia mean the same thing. Poor kid!
Maybe if he took the condom off of his head? I thought Keyser was pretty accurate. In fact, the mother of all Libertarians used a utopian society as a big part of one of her best novels.

[Mister D]

Ah, so it's not just corporatism but Utopianism as well. I should get paid for this.

[dadakarma]

Maybe if he took the condom off of his head? I thought Keyser was pretty accurate. In fact, the mother of all Libertarians used a utopian society as a big part of one of her best novels.

Hmmmmmm....I am SHRUGGING. What novel might that be???

[Mister D]

Hmmmmmm....I am SHRUGGING. What novel might that be???

Not sure. Atlas Shrugged about a dystopian society. :laugh: You are some well read ladies, huh?

[ramone]

Maybe if he took the condom off of his head? I thought Keyser was pretty accurate. In fact, the mother of all Libertarians used a utopian society as a big part of one of her best novels.

Well I congratulate you numbskulls on pulling me in with your trolling. I rarely get involved in stupid shit but you did well, think I'll let you talk to each other now because there is nothing you can do to reason with a troll. Have fun getting yourselves shitcanned. I figure it is coming soon.

[Dagny]

Hmmmmmm....I am SHRUGGING. What novel might that be???
As great as this version of Vbulletin is...the smileys are a tad lacking.
http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n150/srb1157/dunno-1.gif

[dadakarma]

As great as this version of Vbulletin is...the smileys are a tad lacking.
http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n150/srb1157/dunno-1.gif

No, they're GREAT! There are tons of them, too. Press the 'more' button. Voila!

[Dagny]

No, they're GREAT! There are tons of them, too. Press the 'more' button. Voila!Holy crap Batman!

There's a virtual smiley Utopia!!!!!

[dadakarma]

Holy crap Batman!

There's a virtual smiley Utopia!!!!!

:rofl:

[dadakarma]

Well I congratulate you numbskulls on pulling me in with your trolling. I rarely get involved in stupid shit but you did well, think I'll let you talk to each other now because there is nothing you can do to reason with a troll. Have fun getting yourselves shitcanned. I figure it is coming soon.

Sez the guy wearing a rubber on his head.

[Chris]

By definition the policies advanced by libertarians is utopia and not based in reality in any meaningful way.

ie
Utopia (/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)juː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)oʊ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)p (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ə (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)) is an ideal community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community) or society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society) possessing a perfect socio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_system)-politico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics)-legal system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_system).

Which means it isn't based in reality in my view.

You define utopian, not libertarian. Libertarian doesn't propose perfection, not like socialism, ie, a classless society. A good argument for libertarianism is it recognizes man's inherent flawed nature.

Try again, but no straw men please.

[Chris]

We all knew what she meant

Does a straw man have meaning?

[Chris]

Not sure. Atlas Shrugged about a dystopian society. :laugh: You are some well read ladies, huh?

BINGO!


And, dagny, Ayn Rand rejected libertarianism: AYN RAND’S Q & A ON LIBERTARIANISM (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians) .

[keyser soze]

You define utopian, not libertarian. Libertarian doesn't propose perfection, not like socialism, ie, a classless society. A good argument for libertarianism is it recognizes man's inherent flawed nature.

Try again, but no straw men please.
You will more than likely view anything I say as a straw man and I promised I wouldn't swat anymore so I'll probably hear about it.....

Here is a wiki...I know wiki's are looked upon , rightly, with suspicion but I view it as a starting place.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_utopia

There have been many attempts and proposals to create a libertarian utopia. Anthony van Fossen writes that every tax haven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven) is a variation on the theme of the sovereign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign) libertarian utopia.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_utopia#cite_note-0) The Pacific Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Islands) has seen several attempts, such as the Republic of Minerva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva). Charter cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_cities)have been another proposal for breaking out of conventional political arrangements to create a system with much greater scope for innovation in rules.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_utopia#cite_note-1) The book Anarchy, State and Utopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State_and_Utopia) contains a final chapter that describes a pluralistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(political_philosophy)) libertarian utopia.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_utopia#cite_note-2) Proposals for an anarcho-capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist) society are sometimes regarded as inherently utopian.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_utopia#cite_note-3) David Boaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boaz) has argued that the consumer choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_choice) facilitated by a free market system would create a framework that could offer thousands of versions of utopia to suit the desires of different people.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_utopia#cite_note-4)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarian_utopia&action=edit&section=1)]

.

There are utopian forms in abundance of all thought including libertarian.

We disagree

[Dagny]

Does a straw man have meaning?
I really had at least 'some' hope for you.

Typically, the Libertarians have good core ideas, but they don't apply in today's society.

As such, it is nothing but a dream...albeit a nice one. Utopia, as it were.

As well, I once saw a question posed as to the ability to have a truly Libertarian society in this nation...especially during the founding...if we had slaves?

If we had adapted the Lib mindset from day one....who would've spent the money on our infrastructure?

As well, what I find most amusing, is that now that we have all of the infrastructure in place, you guys are just ready to take the reins. As if your plan will now work.


Please comment on the slavery issue. Would Libertarians support slavery?

[Conley]

Ten lessons from Dagny Taggart:


Taggart is a beautiful, powerful female executive who Rand holds up as an example of her objectivism philosophy. Some call the book propaganda masquerading as art. Critics are panning the movie, saying it fails to live up “even to the level of ‘eh’ suggested by its title” (see the trailer below and let me know what you think) and the libertarians have already staked their claim on it. But as a girl who’s read Atlas Shrugged an embarrassing number of times for someone who believes herself both intelligent and assertive, I can say one thing: Dagny Taggart is a kick-ass role model for women in business. She knows what she wants, how she wants it, and most importantly, what she’s willing to do to get it.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2011/04/15/atlas-shrugged-ten-lessons-from-dagny-taggart/

#1: Ignore the Haters. :grin:

[Dagny]

BINGO!


And, dagny, Ayn Rand rejected libertarianism: AYN RAND’S Q & A ON LIBERTARIANISM (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians) .

She rejected what she perceived to be the bastardization of her core ideals, and naming it Libertarianism. And only those who never finished the book would make a comment about 'dystopia'.


Don't feel bad. Most can't wade through it til the end.

[Dagny]

Ten lessons from Dagny Taggart:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2011/04/15/atlas-shrugged-ten-lessons-from-dagny-taggart/

#1: Ignore the Haters. :grin:
See? The gnats have no way in!

[Mister D]

She rejected what she perceived to be the bastardization of her core ideals, and naming it Libertarianism. And only those who never finished the book would make a comment about 'dystopia'.


Don't feel bad. Most can't wade through it til the end.

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

You are obviously unfamiliar with her work. You've been exposed. Do you often talk about books you've never read? How about you, dada?

[keyser soze]

Ten lessons from Dagny Taggart:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2011/04/15/atlas-shrugged-ten-lessons-from-dagny-taggart/

#1: Ignore the Haters. :grin:
I'll help...

Don’t Argue, Just Do.

Don’t Let A Man Boss You Around—Unless, Of Course, You Like It.

Praise Good Work.

Go With Your Gut.

Don’t Let Your Ego Get The Best Of You.

Beauty Is A Weapon—Especially When Battling Other Women.
Don’t Walk Around When You Can Cut Straight Across.

Don’t Threaten To Do Something Unless You Can Follow Through.

Just Do You.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2011/04/15/atlas-shrugged-ten-lessons-from-dagny-taggart/

(I couldn't get the bold to turn off for the the link...)

We could have some rousing discussions if each of these were made a topic...LMAO

[Mister D]

I really had at least 'some' hope for you.

Typically, the Libertarians have good core ideas, but they don't apply in today's society.

As such, it is nothing but a dream...albeit a nice one. Utopia, as it were.

As well, I once saw a question posed as to the ability to have a truly Libertarian society in this nation...especially during the founding...if we had slaves?

If we had adapted the Lib mindset from day one....who would've spent the money on our infrastructure?

As well, what I find most amusing, is that now that we have all of the infrastructure in place, you guys are just ready to take the reins. As if your plan will now work.


Please comment on the slavery issue. Would Libertarians support slavery?

You really are confused about what Utopia means.

[dadakarma]

Ten lessons from Dagny Taggart:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2011/04/15/atlas-shrugged-ten-lessons-from-dagny-taggart/

#1: Ignore the Haters. :grin:

You know it, bud!

About the movie: did you see it? I haven't - it got mixed reviews. I think it was a straight-to-DVD movie.

[Chris]

You will more than likely view anything I say as a straw man and I promised I wouldn't swat anymore so I'll probably hear about it.....

Here is a wiki...I know wiki's are looked upon , rightly, with suspicion but I view it as a starting place.

There are utopian forms in abundance of all thought including libertarian.

We disagree



You've posted a wiki collection of opinions, most of which counter the very notion of a utopia. Creating something that is libertarian in principle simply doesn't imply utopia, perfection, the like. How, for example, would consumer choice leading to thousands of versions of utopia be utopian? Makes little sense.

Thus libertarian utopia is an oxymoron. To say it only distracts pointlessly from discussion.

[Dagny]

You know it, bud!

About the movie: did you see it? I haven't - it got mixed reviews. I think it was a straight-to-DVD movie.Never saw the movie. Read the book before some of these boneheads were born.

I'll look for it when both episodes come out on disc.

[Conley]

You know it, bud!

About the movie: did you see it? I haven't - it got mixed reviews. I think it was a straight-to-DVD movie.

I haven't either - I do remember it getting poor ratings. I'd give it a shot if it were on Netflix Streaming just out of curiosity, but I'm probably not going to go to great lengths (like leaving my house :laugh:) to see it. We hardly ever see movies in the cinema any more, there just doesn't seem to be much that interests me. For a long time I found movies more entertaining than television series but now I'm just the opposite.

[Chris]

I really had at least 'some' hope for you.

Typically, the Libertarians have good core ideas, but they don't apply in today's society.

As such, it is nothing but a dream...albeit a nice one. Utopia, as it were.

As well, I once saw a question posed as to the ability to have a truly Libertarian society in this nation...especially during the founding...if we had slaves?

If we had adapted the Lib mindset from day one....who would've spent the money on our infrastructure?

As well, what I find most amusing, is that now that we have all of the infrastructure in place, you guys are just ready to take the reins. As if your plan will now work.


Please comment on the slavery issue. Would Libertarians support slavery?

"I really had at least 'some' hope for you."

Not really interested in what you think of me. Let's discuss opinions and ideas.

"the Libertarians"

I'm talking about libertarian, not Libertarian. I am libertarian but I do not belong to the Libertarian Party.

"it is nothing but a dream"

You've said nothing about what it is. Do you know what libertarianism is? It's a set of principles.

"you guys are just ready to take the reins"

The would be antithetical to libertarianism.

"Would Libertarians support slavery?"

I can't speak for Libertarians. As a libertarian I am opposed to slavery of any form, including dependence on government.

[dadakarma]

I haven't either - I do remember it getting poor ratings. I'd give it a shot if it were on Netflix Streaming just out of curiosity, but I'm probably not going to go to great lengths (like leaving my house :laugh:) to see it. We hardly ever see movies in the cinema any more, there just doesn't seem to be much that interests me. For a long time I found movies more entertaining than television series but now I'm just the opposite.

I'm not much on going out to the movies anymore, either - however, I may make an exception for the 3D 'Titanic'. That looks outstanding!

[Chris]

She rejected what she perceived to be the bastardization of her core ideals, and naming it Libertarianism. And only those who never finished the book would make a comment about 'dystopia'.


Don't feel bad. Most can't wade through it til the end.

Then she rejected libertarianism.


It's a novel about a dystopia world.

[Chris]

Dagny, you think libertarians accepted here read Rothbard's The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html).

[Dagny]

Then she rejected libertarianism.


It's a novel about a dystopia world.
Which is exactly why they created their own Utopia.

[dadakarma]

Which is exactly why they created their own Utopia.

It's never a good idea to challenge you on Rand. I learned that a long time ago. :)

[Mister D]

It's never a good idea to challenge you on Rand. I learned that a long time ago. :)

Neither one of you have read any of her work.

[Chris]

Which is exactly why they created their own Utopia.

In a work of fiction?

So far all you've presented is a number of opinions, half of which run counter to your opinion.

[keyser soze]

You've posted a wiki collection of opinions, most of which counter the very notion of a utopia. Creating something that is libertarian in principle simply doesn't imply utopia, perfection, the like. How, for example, would consumer choice leading to thousands of versions of utopia be utopian? Makes little sense.

Thus libertarian utopia is an oxymoron. To say it only distracts pointlessly from discussion.

Then post something that supports you.

[Chris]

Then post something that supports you.

Go back and read what I've posted. Questions? Counters? What?

[Peter1469]

I think there has been a concerted effort made to prevent people from noticing until recently. People are waking up. We haven't had what could be called high voter turn out and that was in the 50% http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Now there are laws being past that suppress the vote not to mention Supreme Court intervention and Diebold machine hacking...irregularities in the voting system that make our results suspect.

A democracy requires the citizen to be informed and active in the process while we have 24/7 political propaganda parading as 'fair and balanced' news.

I'm not surprised we have problems...Citizens United was devastating to our election process and the lobbyists are rampant. The business of the people has been corrupted.

We are a plutocracy and no longer a democracy...(please spare me the 'democratic/republic' remark, I'm aware) :0)

I certainly agree with your Citizens United comment.

[wingrider]

what is funny here is I got a thank you from both dadakarma and keyser soze,, and dada karma said I was a drive bu poster with no class.. HMMMMMMMMM.. don't know what to think about that.

[keyser soze]

what is funny here is I got a thank you from both dadakarma and keyser soze,, and dada karma said I was a drive bu poster with no class.. HMMMMMMMMM.. don't know what to think about that.
You're easily confused :0)

[wingrider]

You're easily confused :0)


I hope that isn't being sent as an implied insult>

[keyser soze]

Of course not!!! LMAO But you know if the Foo Shits and all that....

[wingrider]

Of course not!!! LMAO But you know if the Foo Shits and all that....


hmmmmm... we will see where the shoe fits,,, very soon...

[dadakarma]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. ;)

[keyser soze]

hmmmmm... we will see where the shoe fits,,, very soon...
HA! (in a Chris Mathews way)

[MMC]

Not if the clock has no arms.....it's not :evil:

[Chris]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. ;)

Eerie. I was arguing with a self-proclaimed liberal who coached debate in highschool about ad hominem arguments. His position was if the messenger is suspect it's legitimate to attack him and ignore the messeng. I said, no, it's still a logical fallacy for even a liar can say "2 + 2 = 4" and thus say something true. The liberal logic teacher said "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

Déjà vu.

Not a comment about you.

[dadakarma]

Eerie. I was arguing with a self-proclaimed liberal who coached debate in highschool about ad hominem arguments. His position was if the messenger is suspect it's legitimate to attack him and ignore the messeng. I said, no, it's still a logical fallacy for even a liar can say "2 + 2 = 4" and thus say something true. The liberal logic teacher said "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

Déjà vu.

Not a comment about you.

Trippy. I love deja vu. It's a mind rush.:wink:

[Dagny]

In a work of fiction?

Well....duh! Go back and read what I originally wrote about Rand.

Amazing...absolutely amazing.

[Dagny]

You define utopian, not libertarian. Libertarian doesn't propose perfection, not like socialism, ie, a classless society. A good argument for libertarianism is it recognizes man's inherent flawed nature.

Try again, but no straw men please.
And that's the best argument AGAINST libertarianism. It depends on man to ignore his inherent flawed nature.

For instance....I'm guessing your libertarian beliefs call for you to be able to blow your cigarette smoke all over everyone in a restaurant?

[Mainecoons]

No, restaurants are private businesses and libertarians believe that their owners should have the right to determine what they permit on the premises and take the consequences for those choices. I don't have a problem with government educating people about smoking or banning it in public facilities. However, as is the usual with the government control freaks, this has reach the level of total overkill and abridgement of individual freedom.

These people just don't seem to be able to determine when far is far enough. I recall seeing some papers that explain this as a function of the bureaucratic mentality. Exactly why people outside of government need to put firm fiscal and scope of activities limits on them.

It is interesting that where I live part time, the restaurants mostly banned smoking before there was any law requiring it, for the simple reason that most of the customers didn't smoke. The ones that didn't initially soon followed as they lost too much business. Today, there is one smoking place in town, a small bar that basically makes a living off of about 20 regular drunks.

[MMC]

Hmmmm.....here you worry about what a libertarian will do to you. Blow some smoke up on you. I wonder what you do when there is some street person standing there next to you in a hoodie and deliberately blows smoke in your face, and then tell yous. Do something about it, jump sheep. Besides trembling there on the street or in a restaurant. Or in a store. Before trying to reach for your cellphone to call the police to come. Right when the encounter is between you and that street person/banger. Just what is it you do to get yourself up out of that situation......safely???

We already know you wont be smarting off there in front of the gang-banger. Uhm, why is it you won't open your big mouth then?????

See we know the real answer despite your denial to the obvious.

[Dagny]

No, restaurants are private businesses and libertarians believe that their owners should have the right to determine what they permit on the premises and take the consequences for those choices. I don't have a problem with government educating people about smoking or banning it in public facilities. However, as is the usual with the government control freaks, this has reach the level of total overkill and abridgement of individual freedom.

These people just don't seem to be able to determine when far is far enough. I recall seeing some papers that explain this as a function of the bureaucratic mentality. Exactly why people outside of government need to put firm fiscal and scope of activities limits on them.

It is interesting that where I live part time, the restaurants mostly banned smoking before there was any law requiring it, for the simple reason that most of the customers didn't smoke. The ones that didn't initially soon followed as they lost too much business. Today, there is one smoking place in town, a small bar that basically makes a living off of about 20 regular drunks.We agree that these regulations can, and do get out of hand

For instance, many govt. bldgs. now won't allow employees/visitors to smoke outside. That makes no sense.

However, as I've stated previously, libertarianism relies on the trust of people to do the right thing.

You would give the business owner the right to allow smoking. As such, smokers would....smoke.

Your extended view is that in theory, the free market would allow for a polarization of smoker/non smokers, and each business would benefit from same.

Not so. People,(smokers) after a long training process, have learned that society doesn't want their filthy habit affecting others. Most have been trained to take their habit outdoors.

I don't understand why the govt. disallowed venues to build special ventilated indoor smoking rooms, so that smokers could go for a quick smoke, and return to the public area? The govt. rarely gets it all right at first.


How do you feel abour Rand Paul's assertion that public businesses should be allowed to turn away minorities?

[MMC]

We agree that these regulations can, and do get out of hand

For instance, many govt. bldgs. now won't allow employees/visitors to smoke outside. That makes no sense.

However, as I've stated previously, libertarianism relies on the trust of people to do the right thing.

You would give the business owner the right to allow smoking. As such, smokers would....smoke.

Your extended view is that in theory, the free market would allow for a polarization of smoker/non smokers, and each business would benefit from same.

No so. People,(smokers) after a long training process, have learned that society doesn't want their filthy habit affecting others. Most have been trained to take their habit outdoors.

I don't understand why the govt. disallowed venues to build special ventilated indoor smoking rooms, so that smokers could go for a quick smoke, and return to the public area? The govt. rarely gets it all right at first.


How do you feel abour Rand Paul's assertion that public businesses should be allowed to turn away minorities?

Rand Paul didnt say just minorities.....he said that public buisness should have the right to conduct buisness with WHOEVER they wanted to. There was no restriction to Minorities. As you are stating it.

Got A link where Rand Paul said this?

[Stoney]

"However, as I've stated previously, libertarianism relies on the trust of people to do the right thing."

I'll take issue with that. This libertarian understands that people, both in and out of government, will pursue their self interest. The "right thing" is very often the perception of the moment. Forty years ago the "right thing" was for restaurants and bars to allow smoking. If a place had too much smoke to be comfortable people would find some place that was more comfortable. Society has changed, for the good, and restaurants changed with it, some because of laws and some because people patronized them or not based on their smoking policy.

This libertarian believes that people will do the right thing for themselves, what pleases and brings in the most customers.

[Dagny]

"However, as I've stated previously, libertarianism relies on the trust of people to do the right thing."

I'll take issue with that. This libertarian understands that people, both in and out of government, will pursue their self interest. The "right thing" is very often the perception of the moment. Forty years ago the "right thing" was for restaurants and bars to allow smoking. If a place had too much smoke to be comfortable people would find some place that was more comfortable. Society has changed, for the good, and restaurants changed with it, some because of laws and some because people patronized them or not based on their smoking policy.

This libertarian believes that people will do the right thing for themselves, what pleases and brings in the most customers.I disagree. When the new smoking laws were enacted, these board were afire with complaints.

Had smokers not been forced to smoke outside, I'd still come home from bars stinking like cigs. The lib view of 'pursuing my self interests ' doesn't work across the board
Just because non smokers had no legal right to voice an opinion in the past, doesn't mean that enduring the filth from smokers was 'the right thing'. Quite the contrary.


What about Paul calling for the repeal of certain civil rights legislation?


Should public businesses be allowed to turn away customers that haven't broken any 'rules'?

[Mister D]

I disagree. When the new smoking laws were enacted, these board were afire with complaints.

Had smokers not been forced to smoke outside, I'd still come home from bars stinking like cigs. The lib view of 'pursuing my self interests ' doesn't work across the board
Just because non smokers had no legal right to voice an opinion in the past, doesn't mean that enduring the filth from smokers was 'the right thing'. Quite the contrary.


What about Paul calling for the repeal of certain civil rights legislation?


Should public businesses be allowed to turn away customers that haven't broken any 'rules'?

In short, yes. Why not?

[Stoney]

I disagree. When the new smoking laws were enacted, these board were afire with complaints.

Had smokers not been forced to smoke outside, I'd still come home from bars stinking like cigs. The lib view of 'pursuing my self interests ' doesn't work across the board
Just because non smokers had no legal right to voice an opinion in the past, doesn't mean that enduring the filth from smokers was 'the right thing'. Quite the contrary.


What about Paul calling for the repeal of certain civil rights legislation?


Should public businesses be allowed to turn away customers that haven't broken any 'rules'?

I lived in a state that was slow to adopt smoking laws and saw that some restaurants saw trends and adopted them before the laws were in place. I will give you that they also probably saw the laws coming. But the point is that they acted in their self interest to keep and grow their customer base before it became law.

And let's look at the laws themselves. Politicians enacted laws that were in their self interest. They passed the laws or not because their constituents would vote according to their stand, not because it was the right thing to do, at least in most cases. Their are some who seek their conscience. But what actually serves the public more, the conscience of a politician who may or may not agree with most of his constituents or one who seeks self interest in being re-elected?

[Stoney]

"Should public businesses be allowed to turn away customers that haven't broken any 'rules'?"

A business should be able to pursue the best interests of that business, as seen by the owner(s) as long those policies do not cause harm. If a customer is turned away because that customer makes other customers uncomfortable then the business is enhanced. If a customer is turned away for no good reason, as perceived by other customers, then that action will hurt business.

[Dagny]

I lived in a state that was slow to adopt smoking laws and saw that some restaurants saw trends and adopted them before the laws were in place. I will give you that they also probably saw the laws coming. But the point is that they acted in their self interest to keep and grow their customer base before it became law.


More than likely, they were starting early, to begin the training process. Many places lost business in the short term. Some were ignoring the laws due to complaints, and eventually they got fined for allowing patrons to smoke. Now, said patrons know the rules, and accept them.

Again...I like the fact that I can go out in public, and not have to suffer the smoke from cigarettes. To that end, I believe the laws missed the mark by a mile. Customer dissatisfaction was definitely a big issue, and in my region, the masses of smokers swore that they'd stay home, instead of going out.

Of course, that was a kneejerk reaction. They do indeed come out, and now they've been trained to take their filth elsewhere. As well, I knew a lot of smokers who were already conscious of their smoke, and took steps to avoid making someone suffer....long before the laws were enacted.

If the law was aimed at the smoke being a nuisance, they should've allowed bars/restaurants the ability to create indoor smoking areas. I think we'd see no disruption in business that way.


And let's look at the laws themselves. Politicians enacted laws that were in their self interest. They passed the laws or not because their constituents would vote according to their stand, not because it was the right thing to do, at least in most cases. Their are some who seek their conscience. But what actually serves the public more, the conscience of a politician who may or may not agree with most of his constituents or one who seeks self interest in being re-elected?

Generally speaking, this statement is accurate, save for a few monied interests that skew the process even further.

To the topic of smoking, there's nothing wrong with a law that affords me the right to breathe clean air. I should have that right no matter which venue I frequent. That's where the lib philosophy can get fuzzy.

You claim you have the right to smoke, and I claim I have the right to breathe clean air. Whereas the owner of the establishment should...in your opinion...have the right to choose for himself, the free market philosophy doesn't always work in places where there's only 1 diner, restaurant, gas station, etc..

You can simply go outside to smoke. I can't sit on the sidewalk and eat my dinner.


"Should public businesses be allowed to turn away customers that haven't broken any 'rules'?"

A business should be able to pursue the best interests of that business, as seen by the owner(s) as long those policies do not cause harm. If a customer is turned away because that customer makes other customers uncomfortable then the business is enhanced. If a customer is turned away for no good reason, as perceived by other customers, then that action will hurt business.
I guess you'd have to define 'harm'.

If I'm white/black/yellow/red/etc, it causes me harm when I am kept out of a place solely on the whim of the owner,or the customers.

"No Blacks" was a common rule for many businesses not so long ago.

We have standard rules regarding dress code, pets, etc. Those are reasonable.

In society, you cannot always base your code of ethics on 'what's good for business'. IMO, that's the inherent flaw with libertarian philosophy.

[MMC]

Rand Paul didnt say just minorities.....he said that public buisness should have the right to conduct buisness with WHOEVER they wanted to. There was no restriction to Minorities. As you are stating it.

Got A link where Rand Paul said this?


http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/New_Smilies/2bump.gif


Find that link yet where Rand Paul stated that buisnesses should not conduct buisness with Minorities. Or were you just making that up at the time?

[Chris]

That's much what Rand Paul said, that regarding private business, private property, you should be free to choose to discriminate. And we should and do, we all discriminate, we choose friends, wives/husbands, so on so forth. What he also said is that he found discriminating on something like race, whatever that is, is abhorrent.

These are matters for society to decide, not government.

[Dagny]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/New_Smilies/2bump.gif


Find that link yet where Rand Paul stated that buisnesses should not conduct buisness with Minorities. Or were you just making that up at the time?

If you were interested, you would've disputed my claim....wouldn't you?

And you complain about what potential members might see when they peruse this site?

Why not act like an adult....for once?



Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II (http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/title2.php)), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:


In the video, he dances on his tongue for over 6 minutes before he admits that he thinks that private business should be able to discriminate. After that, he flat out refuses to admit that his Libertarian philosophy allows for institutional racism...opting to speak about everything but the questions posed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.html

[Chris]

Rand is not libertarian, more what he calls a constitutional conservative.

He is against institutionalized racism, that is, governmental discrimination because we're all equal before the law.

His argument was against government intrusion into private matters.

[MMC]

If you were interested, you would've disputed my claim....wouldn't you?

And you complain about what potential members might see when they peruse this site?

Why not act like an adult....for once?




In the video, he dances on his tongue for over 6 minutes before he admits that he thinks that private business should be able to discriminate. After that, he flat out refuses to admit that his Libertarian philosophy allows for institutional racism...opting to speak about everything but the questions posed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.html

Yes, but the specific statement you ignored and forgot about and did not want to admit to. Was that he never stated such specifically about minorties. Which obviously you have no link to produce. So another false fact knocked down. Thanks for showing that acknowledgement.

[Dagny]

Rand is not libertarian, more what he calls a constitutional conservative.

He is against institutionalized racism, that is, governmental discrimination because we're all equal before the law.

His argument was against government intrusion into private matters.I get that. He denounces racism, as he should. He just would've voted against civil rights legislation, that essentially forces businesses to avoid discrimination.

Which goes to my point about libertarianism depending on humans to do the right thing.

Paul feels that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on skin color, sexual preference, etc..

[MMC]

Rand is not libertarian, more what he calls a constitutional conservative.

He is against institutionalized racism, that is, governmental discrimination because we're all equal before the law.

His argument was against government intrusion into private matters.


Correct Chris.....which is no link was provided. They can talk semantics all day. Doesn't change the facts. :wink:

[Dagny]

Yes, but the specific statement you ignored and forgot about and did not want to admit to. Was that he never stated such specifically about minorties. Which obviously you have no link to produce. So another false fact knocked down. Thanks for showing that acknowledgement.
I suppose you missed the part where he would've voted against the civil rights legislation?

[Chris]

I get that. He denounces racism, as he should. He just would've voted against civil rights legislation, that essentially forces businesses to avoid discrimination.

Which goes to my point about libertarianism depending on humans to do the right thing.

Paul feels that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on skin color, sexual preference, etc..

How is coerced man virtuous and moral?

[Dagny]

How is coerced man virtuous and moral?En ingles, por favor?

[Chris]

En ingles, por favor?

One is moral or not by the choices made in interacting with others. Take those choices away, coerce actions, one cannot be mora.

Except, as we saw in the garden, through disobedience.

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."
~Henry David Thoreau

[Dagny]

One is moral or not by the choices made in interacting with others. Take those choices away, coerce actions, one cannot be mora.

Except, as we saw in the garden, through disobedience.

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."
~Henry David ThoreauIn the grand scheme of things, we don't care if a member of society is 'truly' moral.

They simply have to abide by a code of ethics, when in public.

Leave 'morals' up to the individual, and society simply doesn't treat all members fairly.

We founded this country, with humans living in shacks, and being treated like animals.

[Peter1469]

Donde est angles.

[Chris]

In the grand scheme of things, we don't care if a member of society is 'truly' moral.

They simply have to abide by a code of ethics, when in public.

Leave 'morals' up to the individual, and society simply doesn't treat all members fairly.

We founded this country, with humans living in shacks, and being treated like animals.

"Leave 'morals' up to the individual, and society simply doesn't treat all members fairly."

Then you're talking moral relativism, and that's self-defeating. Not a good moral foundation.

[Chris]

Donde est angles.

Are none.

" If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
~Madison, Federalist 51

Or did you mean angles, lol.

[Stoney]

Dagney, (and/or anyone wanting to respond)


I was away most of yesterday.



More than likely, they were starting early, to begin the training process. Many places lost business in the short term. Some were ignoring the laws due to complaints, and eventually they got fined for allowing patrons to smoke. Now, said patrons know the rules, and accept them.



I find it hard to believe that businesses thought they were losing customers while ignoring smoking laws. I suspect it was at least their perception that they were losing business because of the laws.




“Generally speaking, this statement is accurate, save for a few monied interests that skew the process even further.”


Another point that proves the force of self interest.


You claim you have the right to smoke, and I claim I have the right to breathe clean air. Whereas the owner of the establishment should...in your opinion...have the right to choose for himself, the free market philosophy doesn't always work in places where there's only 1 diner, restaurant, gas station, etc.


I don't know what claims I've made about my right to smoke since I don't smoke. I would support the right of a business owner to manage his/her business in a way that pleases that owner as long as he/she causes no harm. Someone who enters that business knowing that smoking is allowed is harmed (if there is harm) by their own actions, not by the actions of the owner. I don't see private property as subject to the whims of the public unless there is harm.


I define harm pretty much the way Thomas Jefferson defined it as that which breaks my leg or picks my pocket. As its applied to law it must be universally accepted as harm. A private business should only be restricted by that definition of harm. If what that private owner(s) does in the operation of that business doesn’t meet the general needs and desires of the public the business will fail. And that's the capitalism way.


I don't see the right of individuals to determine what is ethical or moral or right for other individuals. I don't see the right of government to make those determinations, short of harm. If they have that right then there is no limit to the ability of government to curtail our liberties.

[Dagny]

"Leave 'morals' up to the individual, and society simply doesn't treat all members fairly."

Then you're talking moral relativism, and that's self-defeating. Not a good moral foundation.

One aspect of moral relativism deals with how we 'ought' to think/act towards others.

Society cares not what we actually think, rather, how we actually act.

You can despise a person for their skin color, but you still have to serve them at the lunch counter.

[Dagny]

I find it hard to believe that businesses thought they were losing customers while ignoring smoking laws. I suspect it was at least their perception that they were losing business because of the laws.
You misunderstood my post. Many bars WERE losing business. Likely, because there were a handful who ignored the smoking ban, and smokers flocked to those places...until the state cracked down due to reports of smoking.





Another point that proves the force of self interest.

Self interest is the driving force in any society. Especially one that promotes 'freedom'. Human nature, is human nature. Actually....animal nature, is animal nature.


I don't know what claims I've made about my right to smoke since I don't smoke. I would support the right of a business owner to manage his/her business in a way that pleases that owner as long as he/she causes no harm. Someone who enters that business knowing that smoking is allowed is harmed (if there is harm) by their own actions, not by the actions of the owner. I don't see private property as subject to the whims of the public unless there is harm. Private property is not the same as privately owned business. Not 'your' right to smoke. 'The' right of anyone to smoke.



I define harm pretty much the way Thomas Jefferson defined it as that which breaks my leg or picks my pocket. As its applied to law it must be universally accepted as harm. A private business should only be restricted by that definition of harm. If what that private owner(s) does in the operation of that business doesn’t meet the general needs and desires of the public the business will fail. And that's the capitalism way.

Pretty sure Jefferson wasn't aware that smoking kills. We have laws that prohibit one from entering a privately owned business without wearing any clothing. Who is harmed by nudity? How many people have to die from cancer, before capitalism works? And don't forget that the employees are the ones most affected by smoking inside the establishment.




I don't see the right of individuals to determine what is ethical or moral or right for other individuals. I don't see the right of government to make those determinations, short of harm. If they have that right then there is no limit to the ability of government to curtail our liberties.It would be neither ethical, nor moral to smoke up an entire room, just because you are too lazy to step outside for 3 minutes. When we leave ethics up to the individual, it simply doesn't work for all.

Again...I think the laws are flawed. They should've allowed indoor smoking rooms. You leave the table to piss/fart (hopefully)...you can leave the table to smoke.

[Mainecoons]

Many bars WERE losing business. Likely, because there were a handful who ignored the smoking ban, and smokers flocked to those places...until the state cracked down due to reports of smoking.

Bars may be somewhat of a special case as they definitely tended to attract smokers and other substance addicts including alcoholics. So a profile of their customers could very well have a much higher proportion of smokers than the general population. Based purely on empirical observation, I would agree this is likely, supporting the above statement.

Restaurants, however, and the general run of business should have a customer profile that is much more similar to the general population, wherein only about one in four smokes. Hence, offending your customer base in these businesses by allowing smoking would be a very dumb business move.

Even with bars, it could be a bit dicey. The one place in town here that still permits smoking, a bar, is nearly defunct. The only reason I suspect it is still open is that the owner is a very stubborn smoker who just can't seem to read the handwriting on the wall. It is too bad as it could be a very decent watering hole and only a couple blocks from my house. But I don't go there because of the smoke and everyone I know feels the same.

Not exactly a large sampling of data but it seems to fit with how most feel about smoking in bars and restaurants these days.

[Dagny]

Bars may be somewhat of a special case as they definitely tended to attract smokers and other substance addicts including alcoholics. So a profile of their customers could very well have a much higher proportion of smokers than the general population. Based purely on empirical observation, I would agree this is likely, supporting the above statement.

Restaurants, however, and the general run of business should have a customer profile that is much more similar to the general population, wherein only about one in four smokes. Hence, offending your customer base in these businesses by allowing smoking would be a very dumb business move.

Even with bars, it could be a bit dicey. The one place in town here that still permits smoking, a bar, is nearly defunct. The only reason I suspect it is still open is that the owner is a very stubborn smoker who just can't seem to read the handwriting on the wall. It is too bad as it could be a very decent watering hole and only a couple blocks from my house. But I don't go there because of the smoke and everyone I know feels the same.

Not exactly a large sampling of data but it seems to fit with how most feel about smoking in bars and restaurants these days.

Good point about the bar demographic. As well, the bar in your post that suffers, is an interesting example of the free market system at work.

Are you saying that there is no smoking ban, and every bar in your area just decided to make smokers go outside?

Tough to deal with ratios of smokers/non smokers. 1 in 4 can change on any given day, and the argument can be made that if 25% of the patrons are smoking, it still gets pretty smokey in the facility.

I understand that you were referencing the potential for loss of clients, and favoring the majority over the minority.

Before the smoking laws were enacted though, non smokers had no real 'right' to complain. It was understood that the guy next to you at the diner, had the right to gag you with his smoke while you were trying to eat your breakfast.

We would've been laughed out of the place, had we dared to ask him to smoke outside.

[Mainecoons]

True, but you had the option not to patronize the place.

As to the bar in my example, I think he gets away with it because he has only 4 tables, which is the limit of the new law. There's an interesting loophole in that the law doesn't specify how many chairs a table can have or how big. So the tables are, shall we say, generous with plenty of seating. :grin:

However, every time I walk by the place I see a handful sitting at the bar and smoking and otherwise the place is empty. When we first started coming here, it would often be a problem to get a seat in the place. BTW, like virtually all restaurants and bars here, it is pretty much open air. The entire backside is open. You can do that when the temperature is near perfect year round and no heating or cooling is required.

Before the smoking laws in the U.S., we simply avoided places where the ventilation was inadequate. Remember, too, that was back when a much larger percentage of the population smoked.

[Chris]

One aspect of moral relativism deals with how we 'ought' to think/act towards others.

Society cares not what we actually think, rather, how we actually act.

You can despise a person for their skin color, but you still have to serve them at the lunch counter.

"One aspect of moral relativism deals with how we 'ought' to think/act towards others."

How we ought to act is morality, not moral relativism, moral relativism is self-defeating. FOr action to be moral we must be free to choose.

"Society cares not what we actually think, rather, how we actually act."

Where do you come up with these things? How do you decide what society cares about? Aren't you just saying you think action is all that matters?

"You can despise a person for their skin color, but you still have to serve them at the lunch counter."

Why?

[Mister D]

"One aspect of moral relativism deals with how we 'ought' to think/act towards others."

How we ought to act is morality, not moral relativism, moral relativism is self-defeating. FOr action to be moral we must be free to choose.

"Society cares not what we actually think, rather, how we actually act."

Where do you come up with these things? How do you decide what society cares about? Aren't you just saying you think action is all that matters?

"You can despise a person for their skin color, but you still have to serve them at the lunch counter."

Why?

Indeed, why?

[keyser soze]

You misunderstood my post. Many bars WERE losing business. Likely, because there were a handful who ignored the smoking ban, and smokers flocked to those places...until the state cracked down due to reports of smoking.

Self interest is the driving force in any society. Especially one that promotes 'freedom'. Human nature, is human nature. Actually....animal nature, is animal nature.

Private property is not the same as privately owned business. Not 'your' right to smoke. 'The' right of anyone to smoke.

Pretty sure Jefferson wasn't aware that smoking kills. We have laws that prohibit one from entering a privately owned business without wearing any clothing. Who is harmed by nudity? How many people have to die from cancer, before capitalism works? And don't forget that the employees are the ones most affected by smoking inside the establishment.

It would be neither ethical, nor moral to smoke up an entire room, just because you are too lazy to step outside for 3 minutes. When we leave ethics up to the individual, it simply doesn't work for all.

Again...I think the laws are flawed. They should've allowed indoor smoking rooms. You leave the table to piss/fart (hopefully)...you can leave the table to smoke.

I agree about having a smoking room with proper ventilation...there are ventilation systems that could keep the room free of lingering air, smokers were given a clear message. For their own good and as you once mentioned 'training' they had to learn how to be in society without their fags and stinking the place up. They didn't like it. I smoked at the time but never smoked in a restaurant, always stepped outdoors etc. People are lazy and feel entitled. Smoking is a prime example of insisting on rights that are dubious...seatbelt laws are another, helmet laws are another...the same for corporations polluting and the resultant pollution that degrades the environment. I see little difference. There is no lack of freedom. We as a species have developed 'rules' of behavior to avoid conflict...they're called 'manners'...

[Dagny]

"One aspect of moral relativism deals with how we 'ought' to think/act towards others."

How we ought to act is morality, not moral relativism, moral relativism is self-defeating. FOr action to be moral we must be free to choose.
Now you're getting back to definitions of very subjective issues, instead of focusing on the actual issue. Kinda silly, especially when discussing philosophy. There are supposedly 3 aspects of moral relativism. I referenced one.


"Society cares not what we actually think, rather, how we actually act."

Where do you come up with these things? How do you decide what society cares about? Aren't you just saying you think action is all that matters?


Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying. Religion may train you to believe that God hears your every thought, but the majority of people don't care what you 'think'. Just how you act.

Are you saying that you shouldn't have the right to think as you wish? Or are you attempting to show that a person may be considered immoral for his thoughts, despite his acts of overt tolerance?






"You can despise a person for their skin color, but you still have to serve them at the lunch counter."


Why?Rand Paul notwithstanding....because it's the law. And it's moral.

[Dagny]

I agree about having a smoking room with proper ventilation...there are ventilation systems that could keep the room free of lingering air, smokers were given a clear message. For their own good and as you once mentioned 'training' they had to learn how to be in society without their fags and stinking the place up. They didn't like it. I smoked at the time but never smoked in a restaurant, always stepped outdoors etc. People are lazy and feel entitled. Smoking is a prime example of insisting on rights that are dubious...seatbelt laws are another, helmet laws are another...the same for corporations polluting and the resultant pollution that degrades the environment. I see little difference. There is no lack of freedom. We as a species have developed 'rules' of behavior to avoid conflict...they're called 'manners'...

You highlight something I mentioned before, w/respect to the libertarian philosophy. It demands that humans do what's 'right'. You are like many I know. They were very conscious of their smoke.

Many more, were not. In fact, they never gave it a second thought. And that's the problem.

I was going to mention seatbelt/helmet laws. What harm does anyone do by not wearing a seatbelt? The insurance companies were probably a big reason for those laws, even though the law probably makes sense.

[keyser soze]

You highlight something I mentioned before, w/respect to the libertarian philosophy. It demands that humans do what's 'right'. You are like many I know. They were very conscious of their smoke.

Many more, were not. In fact, they never gave it a second thought. And that's the problem.

I was going to mention seatbelt/helmet laws. What harm does anyone do by not wearing a seatbelt? The insurance companies were probably a big reason for those laws, even though the law probably makes sense.
I'm happy to say I'm a nonsmoker now :0) Yes, I was the minority in my consideration of others. The insurance companies had a lot to do with those laws and they make sense...but the whining and complaining... :rollseyes:

[Chris]

Now you're getting back to definitions of very subjective issues, instead of focusing on the actual issue. Kinda silly, especially when discussing philosophy. There are supposedly 3 aspects of moral relativism. I referenced one.


Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying. Religion may train you to believe that God hears your every thought, but the majority of people don't care what you 'think'. Just how you act.

Are you saying that you shouldn't have the right to think as you wish? Or are you attempting to show that a person may be considered immoral for his thoughts, despite his acts of overt tolerance?






Rand Paul notwithstanding....because it's the law. And it's moral.

"Now you're getting back to definitions of very subjective issues, instead of focusing on the actual issue. Kinda silly, especially when discussing philosophy."

Well, if you find this discussion silly, then we should stop. But to me the moral question is the essential question.



"There are supposedly 3 aspects of moral relativism."

Moral relativism however you might define it is self-defeating. Socrates showed this so centuries ago. Under moral relativism each defines moral relativism subjectively, what we each say is true.. As such, for any definition you subjectively define, all I need do is define it is not that. This violates the logical law of noncontradiction. Moral relativism is therefore false.


"Religion"

Not talking religion, talking what actions are moral and how they are moral, which can be so only if we are free to choose our actions, not if we are coerced. Free men are moral, slaves amoral. --Remember, this is where we started.



"because it's the law. And it's moral"

How so? Why? What is the basis for this morality you claim? It can't be just because you say so.



Here is a means to a solution to these questions, a simple principle: How Property Rights Solve Problems (http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2012/Hendersonpropertyrights.html#)
Should restaurants allow smoking or not? Should schools teach evolution or intelligent design or both? Should insurance companies cover contraception? Should I be able to take off my shoes in your living room?

You might think that that last question doesn't belong with the first three. After all, the first three questions are momentous ones about "public policy." The last one is only about the rules you have for my behavior in your living room—a "private-policy" question. And your answer to that question will depend on how you want to use your property.

...property rights solve the problem. It's your living room and so you get to choose. How your living room gets used is not a public-policy problem.

And here's the kicker. If property rights are respected, none of the other three questions is a public-policy problem either....
If it's public property, in order to maintain equality before the law, law should restrict government from discriminating. If it's private property, it's none of government's business, it's society's.

[Dagny]

If it's public property, in order to maintain equality before the law, law should restrict government from discriminating. If it's private property, it's none of government's business, it's society's.You've managed to avoid every point I made, opting for some sort of philosophy discussion instead. Maybe if you start a thread, I'll have that discussion.


The point I was challenged on, was Rand Pauls assertion that no business should be stopped from discriminating based on race.

You somehow injected morals into the discussion, and I humored you.

Law should restrict govt. from discriminating? I don't know what that means?

[Chris]

You've managed to avoid every point I made, opting for some sort of philosophy discussion instead. Maybe if you start a thread, I'll have that discussion.


The point I was challenged on, was Rand Pauls assertion that no business should be stopped from discriminating based on race.

You somehow injected morals into the discussion, and I humored you.

Law should restrict govt. from discriminating? I don't know what that means?

"You've managed to avoid every point I made"

I've addressed every point. Problem is you premise most your points on moral relativism. Because that's self-defeating, any point resting on it falls as well. Simple logic.



"The point I was challenged on, was Rand Pauls assertion that no business should be stopped from discriminating based on race."

And my last point was right on target: "If it's public property, in order to maintain equality before the law, law should restrict government from discriminating. If it's private property, it's none of government's business, it's society's."

Where have you responded to that? Are you projecting?


"Law should restrict govt. from discriminating? I don't know what that means?"

Well, starting with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, law restricts government powers. Equality before the law means government is, or should be restricted from any discrimination by race (whatever that is) religion, gender, etc.

[Dagny]

"You've managed to avoid every point I made"

I've addressed every point. Problem is you premise most your points on moral relativism. Because that's self-defeating, any point resting on it falls as well. Simple logic.



"The point I was challenged on, was Rand Pauls assertion that no business should be stopped from discriminating based on race."

And my last point was right on target: "If it's public property, in order to maintain equality before the law, law should restrict government from discriminating. If it's private property, it's none of government's business, it's society's."

Where have you responded to that? Are you projecting?


"Law should restrict govt. from discriminating? I don't know what that means?"

Well, starting with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, law restricts government powers. Equality before the law means government is, or should be restricted from any discrimination by race (whatever that is) religion, gender, etc.Great. We've come full circle.

You agree with the libertarian view that businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

It was a yes or no question last night.

[dadakarma]

Great. We've come full circle.

You agree with the libertarian view that businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

It was a yes or no question last night.

Damn. Your patience and perseverance is admirable. I should buy you a drink.

[Chris]

Great. We've come full circle.

You agree with the libertarian view that businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

It was a yes or no question last night.

Think I said private persons regarding their private property should be free to choose to be moral or not.

I don't see where the Constitution empowers government to coerce anything but itself.

Nothing is a yes/no question.

[Chris]

Damn. Your patience and perseverance is admirable. I should buy you a drink.

Nothing to contribute to the discussion?

[keyser soze]

Think I said private persons regarding their private property should be free to choose to be moral or not.

I don't see where the Constitution empowers government to coerce anything but itself.

Nothing is a yes/no question.
While I'm not clear about your intent here regarding this discussion...where does the government get off telling women what they can and can't do with their body? Santorum has even declared he'd make birth control illegal. Why do we have people all over the country concerning themselves with womens' bodies as state or federal business and at the same time shouting for 'smaller government'? It doesn't make sense to me.

[Alias]

While I'm not clear about your intent here regarding this discussion...where does the government get off telling women what they can and can't do with their body? Santorum has even declared he'd make birth control illegal. Why do we have people all over the country concerning themselves with womens' bodies as state or federal business and at the same time shouting for 'smaller government'? It doesn't make sense to me.

Santorum said he would make BC illegal? Do you have a link?

[Dagny]

Think I said private persons regarding their private property should be free to choose to be moral or not.

I don't see where the Constitution empowers government to coerce anything but itself.

Nothing is a yes/no question.

Discriminating in your home is your right. A privately owned business, conducting business in public, is another story. For the record, I don't agree with smoking bans in cars. I don't know how that can even be considered.

It was considered 'moral' to own slaves.

Human morality is extremely subjective, which is the reason we need the govt. to step in from time to time.

It also goes toward proving that libertarianism cannot be taken seriously. Some aspects have merit, however.

[Alias]

Discriminating in your home is your right. A privately owned business, conducting business in public, is another story. For the record, I don't agree with smoking bans in cars. I don't know how that can even be considered.

It was considered 'moral' to own slaves.

Human morality is extremely subjective, which is the reason we need the govt. to step in from time to time.

It also goes toward proving that libertarianism cannot be taken seriously. Some aspects have merit, however.

Where does the US Constitution speak to Govt directing morality? Are you sure you're not confusing morality with civil rights?

[Dagny]

Where does the US Constitution speak to Govt directing morality? Are you sure you're not confusing morality with civil rights?

If you aren't capable of following this discussion, why not just spew obscenities in the forum that was created especially for you?

[Chris]

Discriminating in your home is your right. A privately owned business, conducting business in public, is another story. For the record, I don't agree with smoking bans in cars. I don't know how that can even be considered.

It was considered 'moral' to own slaves.

Human morality is extremely subjective, which is the reason we need the govt. to step in from time to time.

It also goes toward proving that libertarianism cannot be taken seriously. Some aspects have merit, however.

"Discriminating in your home is your right."

Because it is your private property.

"A privately owned business, conducting business in public, is another story."

Same story. Because it is private.

Public (government), yes, different story.


"It was considered 'moral' to own slaves."

By some, but morality, as a principle inscribed in the Declaration of Independence, won out eventually.

Is government dependency, a form of slavery, moral?


"Human morality is extremely subjective, which is the reason we need the govt. to step in from time to time."

No, morality is not subjective, as I showed above. Subjective morality is self-defeating.

Earlier you insisted morality is found in action. How can that be? Take an action, A kills B. Was that action immoral, moral, amoral? How do you know? By intent, motive, choice: In cold blood, moral, in self-defense, moral, by accident, amoral.

Morality is not the action, not the rule, not the command, but the innate sense of it, intuited by empathy, discovered through reason, communicated in our justifications and condemnations. Slavery is immoral because it is unjustifiable. We were all created equal before the law.

Government becomes useful only when society has decided what is moral, otherwise government is intruding artificially in a natural process.



"It also goes toward proving that libertarianism cannot be taken seriously. Some aspects have merit, however."

We have not discussed this issue re libertarianism. Rand Paul is not a libertarian. You're straying from topic.

[Mister D]

While I'm not clear about your intent here regarding this discussion...where does the government get off telling women what they can and can't do with their body? Santorum has even declared he'd make birth control illegal. Why do we have people all over the country concerning themselves with womens' bodies as state or federal business and at the same time shouting for 'smaller government'? It doesn't make sense to me.

Santorum said he would make birth control illegal?

[keyser soze]

definitions....



Definition of PUBLIC

1
a : exposed to general view : open (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open)b : well-known (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/well-known), prominent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prominent)c : perceptible (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perceptible), material (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/material)

2
a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law>b : of or relating to a governmentc : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation

3
a : of or relating to people in general : universal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal)b : general (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/general), popular (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/popular)

4
: of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social)

5
: devoted to the general or national welfare : humanitarian (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanitarian)

6
a : accessible to or shared by all members of the communityb : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market —often used with go

7
: supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials <public radio> <publictelevision>

— pub·lic·ness noun

Origin of PUBLIC

Middle English publique, from Anglo-French, from Latinpublicus; akin to Latin populus peopleFirst Known Use: 14th century









Definition of PRIVATE

1
a : intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class <a private park>b : belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest <a private house>c (1) : restricted to the individual or arising independently of others <private opinion> (2) : carried on by the individual independently of the usual institutions <a doctor in privatepractice>; also : being educated by independent study or a tutor or in a private school <private students>d : not general in effect <a private statute>e : of, relating to, or receiving hospital service in which the patient has more privileges (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privileges) than a semiprivate or ward patient

2
a (1) : not holding public office or employment <a privatecitizen> (2) : not related to one's official position : personal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal)<private correspondence>b : being a private

3
a : withdrawn from company or observation <a privateretreat>b : not known or intended to be known publicly : secret (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secret)c : preferring to keep personal affairs to oneself : valuingprivacy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privacy) highlyd : unsuitable for public use or display

4
: not having shares that can be freely traded on the open market <a private company>


And of course a definition of libertarianism (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/libertarianism_defined.php) not meant for the easily excited :0) Not intended as anything other than an interesting definition by someone I enjoy reading....

[Chris]

I see the usual suspect pulls out the usual definitions. And I like PZ well enough when it comes to biology and evolution, but his sentiments about libertarianism are unimpressive.




Dagny, enjoyed the exchange, let's take it up another day, another thread.

[keyser soze]

I enjoyed reading the various information and thoughts in the comments the most.

[ramone]

Human morality is extremely subjective, which is the reason we need the govt. to step in from time to time.

It also goes toward proving that libertarianism cannot be taken seriously. Some aspects have merit, however.

Really? So you think that the government should define morality? Now which branch of government should do that, should it be an independent government, possibly a republican gov., or what we have now a Democratic gov? How well have these three worked out?
Seems to me that libertarism is the only party that has yet to run the US. Wait a minute, Damn, the founding fathers were libertarian, must have been since they wrote the constitution which libertarians cling tightly to.

Now lets compare that to Obama's policys, Lets see, welfare state, government controlled private business, taxing us to give to foreign countries.........hmmm, ( like giving China millions of dollars a year while borrowing billions, MMM, yeah ) Makes perfect sense to a liberal I guess. Maybe being so narcissistic that you think you can admonish the highest court in the land, even after he has appointed two of the judges, LOL. The list goes on, and on. Anybody care to add to this fiasco? We could fill page after page of his crap.

In the end, I guess you need to define morality Dagny, when you do bring it before the high court. Morality cannot defined by any branch of the government and it should not ever be.

[Dagny]

.

"A privately owned business, conducting business in public, is another story."







Same story. Because it is private. Not according to law.


Public (government), yes, different story.

We've already determined that private businesses conduct business in public.

"It was considered 'moral' to own slaves."


By some, but morality, as a principle inscribed in the Declaration of Independence, won out eventually.After 100 years?


Is government dependency, a form of slavery, moral?

Really? You're going to make that comparison? Are you saying Big Oil is a slave to the govt.?

"Human morality is extremely subjective, which is the reason we need the govt. to step in from time to time."





No, morality is not subjective, as I showed above. Subjective morality is self-defeating.Who decides what's 'moral'? I already told you that the founders believed slavery was moral. Did it take 100 years for morality to finally change?


Earlier you insisted morality is found in action. How can that be?

What I said, after you (for some reason) introduced morality into the discussion, was that we don't care what you 'think'. We just care how you 'act'. I don't remember ascribing morality to actions. I asked you if a person could be considered immoral for thoughts, despite overt acts to the contrary.

Morality is not the action, not the rule, not the command, but the innate sense of it, intuited by empathy, discovered through reason, communicated in our justifications and condemnations. Slavery is immoral because it is unjustifiable. We were all created equal before the law.
You just bolstered my point. And you're describing something that's very subjective. The majority of the founders found slavery to be moral. Some didn't. Everyone was created 'equal', as long as you were white/male/wealthy.

See early voting requirements if you don't believe me.

Government becomes useful only when society has decided what is moral, otherwise government is intruding artificially in a natural process. This is why we need govt. to make laws. They aren't based on any one group's definition of morality, rather, the common definition of morality (your term, not mine). When there is a question, govt. is supposed to err on the side of balance.
It was considered immoral to conduct business on Sunday, for decades. That's just plain silly.






"It also goes toward proving that libertarianism cannot be taken seriously. Some aspects have merit, however."


We have not discussed this issue re libertarianism. Rand Paul is not a libertarian. You're straying from topic.So far, nobody is a libertarian. Rand Paul's views are very similar, or the same as libertarian views. I don't care what he calls himself.

Nobody here is a communist, but we've been labled as such.





Dagny, enjoyed the exchange, let's take it up another day, another thread.We kind of lost it near the end, but it was a great exchange, all in all.

[Dagny]

Really? So you think that the government should define morality? I never said that.

[Dagny]

The United States is not a true democracy. U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4. It is a federal constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government, albeit there is now provision for initiatives to be enacted into law directly by public referendum (e.g., the recent initiative in California for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the State constitution). As for the law, it is not based on morals - yours, mine or any other.Nor should it be. Who defines morality?

[Dagny]

That’s precisely to point. If morality is the basis of the law, then the question is: Whose morals should be applied (your morals, my morals, Justice Antonin Scalia’s morals - the so-called "moral majority")? It’s impracticable - it doesn’t work. To put it simply, you can’t legislate morality. Our own history under Prohibition is illustrative. The problem is that people don’t understand this, and insist that it be otherwise.

Welcome aboard.

[Mainecoons]

Absolutely true. You can't legislate morality. You can share it, you can teach it, but you can't mandate it.

As prohibition AND the "war" on drugs has proven in spades.

[Conley]

The United States is not a true democracy. U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4. It is a federal constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government, albeit there is now provision for initiatives to be enacted into law directly by public referendum (e.g., the recent initiative in California for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the State constitution). As for the law, it is not based on morals - yours, mine or any other.

Welcome to the forum Nemo.

[Mainecoons]

Well at least it is supposed to be a federal constitutional republic, Nemo.

welcome!

[Peter1469]

I understand the argument against morality being the basis of the law. But what about our Founders, natural law, and the idea that some rights are inalienable and not given to us by the government?

[Stoney]

Private property is not the same as privately owned business. Not 'your' right to smoke. 'The' right of anyone to smoke.

To me private property is private property. I disagree that government should have the ability to enforce law on any basis other than the basis of harm to others. But I won't argue that they don't have that ability.


Pretty sure Jefferson wasn't aware that smoking kills. We have laws that prohibit one from entering a privately owned business without wearing any clothing. Who is harmed by nudity? How many people have to die from cancer, before capitalism works? And don't forget that the employees are the ones most affected by smoking inside the establishment.

The fact is that smoking kills some people and all should have a right to pursue whatever they consider "happiness" to the extent that it cause no harm. I think you might see that as Jefferson's point.

People walk into businesses everyday unclothed. I see no harm with that, not harm in smoking as long as I can avoid them. I don't need people protecting me from myself. Just give me the information about the risks and let me jump out of a perfectly flying airplane in my seeking happiness if that's what does it.

[Dagny]

.



The fact is that smoking kills some people and all should have a right to pursue whatever they consider "happiness" to the extent that it cause no harm. I think you might see that as Jefferson's point.Nobody said you can't smoke. You just can't do it around me.


People walk into businesses everyday unclothed. I see no harm with that, not harm in smoking as long as I can avoid them. I don't need people protecting me from myself. Just give me the information about the risks and let me jump out of a perfectly flying airplane in my seeking happiness if that's what does it.We don't get many naked shoppers in my area. We have signs that read 'no shoes/no shirt/no service'.

You have the right to jump out of the plane. You don't have the right to land on my head.

[dadakarma]

Nobody said you can't smoke. You just can't do it around me.

We don't get many naked shoppers in my area. We have signs that read 'no shoes/no shirt/no service'.

You have the right to jump out of the plane. You don't have the right to land on my head.

Is there a nude mall somewhere that I don't know about??? :)

[Dagny]

Is there a nude mall somewhere that I don't know about??? :)

I was thinking it was a Cal. thing?

[dadakarma]

I was thinking it was a Cal. thing?

It would have to be. Or a Florida thing, but they're a little too uptight in Florida.

[Dagny]

It would have to be. Or a Florida thing, but they're a little too uptight in Florida.

Hard to conceal a weapon, when yur nekked

[dadakarma]

Hard to conceal a weapon, when yur nekked

Indeed.

[Alias]

Hard to conceal a weapon, when yur nekked

Do you believe you have the right to not be offended?

[Dagny]

Do you believe you have the right to not be offended?
I have the right to not be shot for returning home one night.

[Mister D]

I have the right to not be shot for returning home one night.

Then don't assault an armed man on your way home. It's not smart.

[Chris]

Not according to law.

We've already determined that private businesses conduct business in public.
.After 100 years?

Really? You're going to make that comparison? Are you saying Big Oil is a slave to the govt.?



.Who decides what's 'moral'? I already told you that the founders believed slavery was moral. Did it take 100 years for morality to finally change?



What I said, after you (for some reason) introduced morality into the discussion, was that we don't care what you 'think'. We just care how you 'act'. I don't remember ascribing morality to actions. I asked you if a person could be considered immoral for thoughts, despite overt acts to the contrary.
You just bolstered my point. And you're describing something that's very subjective. The majority of the founders found slavery to be moral. Some didn't. Everyone was created 'equal', as long as you were white/male/wealthy.

See early voting requirements if you don't believe me.
. This is why we need govt. to make laws. They aren't based on any one group's definition of morality, rather, the common definition of morality (your term, not mine). When there is a question, govt. is supposed to err on the side of balance.
It was considered immoral to conduct business on Sunday, for decades. That's just plain silly.






.So far, nobody is a libertarian. Rand Paul's views are very similar, or the same as libertarian views. I don't care what he calls himself.

Nobody here is a communist, but we've been labled as such.

We kind of lost it near the end, but it was a great exchange, all in all.

"Not according to law."

Private business is not private according to law? What law is that?

"We've already determined that private businesses conduct business in public."

Makes no difference.

"After 100 years?"

Takes time for man to discover what's moral. Man's not perfect.




You did not answer a simple question: "Is government dependency, a form of slavery, moral?" Waiting....


"Who decides what's 'moral'?"

No one.



"I already told you that the founders believed slavery was moral."

Well, no you didn't and no they didn't. Some did, most did not.



"We just care how you 'act'. I don't remember ascribing morality to actions."

You're just using other words for morality. So let me rephrase, how can "caring about" an act be? Again, A kills B. We "care about" the act depending on whether it was in cold blood, self-defense, or accident. How do you account for that? You can't if all you "care about" is the act.



"This is why we need govt. to make laws. They aren't based on any one group's definition of morality, rather, the common definition of morality (your term, not mine). When there is a question, govt. is supposed to err on the side of balance."

How does govt decide this? You're just kicking the can of explanation of your "caring about" down the road.



"We kind of lost it near the end, but it was a great exchange, all in all."

Well, tie it together and account for our "caring about".

[Alias]

I have the right to not be shot for returning home one night.

You have the right to govt protecting you. That's all you have. You do not have the right to not being shot. You also do not have the right to not having a meteorite shooting through your roof and ceiling to hit you in the head as you lie in bed.

[Chris]

ramone "Really? So you think that the government should define morality?"

dagny "I never said that."

Oh but you did, post #156: "This is why we need govt. to make laws. They aren't based on any one group's definition of morality, rather, the common definition of morality (your term, not mine)." Feel free to substitute "caring about" for morality.

[Chris]

That’s precisely to point. If morality is the basis of the law, then the question is: Whose morals should be applied (your morals, my morals, Justice Antonin Scalia’s morals - the so-called "moral majority")? It’s impracticable - it doesn’t work. To put it simply, you can’t legislate morality. Our own history under Prohibition is illustrative. The problem is that people don’t understand this, and insist that it be otherwise.

That is exactly why government should not decide moral issues.

Leave moral issues to society.


Still, it could be said the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, is based on the moral principles found in the Declaration.

[Mister D]

You have the right to govt protecting you. That's all you have. You do not have the right to not being shot. You also do not have the right to not having a meteorite shooting through your roof and ceiling to hit you in the head as you lie in bed.

Do you have a right per se to protection? For example, you can't sue the police for failing to protect you. Interesting question.

[Alias]

Do you have a right per se to protection? For example, you can't sue the police for failing to protect you. Interesting question.

You have a right to protection by the govt because the Constitution says so. That doesn't mean that right "guarantees" you protection. No one can guarantee you protection from events of nature or crime.

[Conley]

Do you have a right per se to protection? For example, you can't sue the police for failing to protect you. Interesting question.

I think people have tried to sue on those grounds in the past. Not sure if they've ever been successful but probably not.

[Mister D]

You have a right to protection by the govt because the Constitution says so. That doesn't mean that right "guarantees" you protection. No one can guarantee you protection from events of nature or crime.

I see. Thanks.

[Mister D]

I think people have tried to sue on those grounds in the past. Not sure if they've ever been successful but probably not.

They've lost as I recall.

[Chris]

I wouldn't put it that way. We have rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and have created a social contract, the Constitution, which created a government to protect those rights. Government is bound by that contract. And "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

[Dagny]

"Not according to law."

Private business is not private according to law? What law is that?

"We've already determined that private businesses conduct business in public."

Makes no difference.

"After 100 years?"

Takes time for man to discover what's moral. Man's not perfect.




You did not answer a simple question: "Is government dependency, a form of slavery, moral?" Waiting....


"Who decides what's 'moral'?"

No one.



"I already told you that the founders believed slavery was moral."

Well, no you didn't and no they didn't. Some did, most did not.



"We just care how you 'act'. I don't remember ascribing morality to actions."

You're just using other words for morality. So let me rephrase, how can "caring about" an act be? Again, A kills B. We "care about" the act depending on whether it was in cold blood, self-defense, or accident. How do you account for that? You can't if all you "care about" is the act.



"This is why we need govt. to make laws. They aren't based on any one group's definition of morality, rather, the common definition of morality (your term, not mine). When there is a question, govt. is supposed to err on the side of balance."

How does govt decide this? You're just kicking the can of explanation of your "caring about" down the road.



"We kind of lost it near the end, but it was a great exchange, all in all."

Well, tie it together and account for our "caring about".I can't decipher your posts anymore. When you choose to reply, opt for 'go advanced'.

There is a button at the top for 'wrap quote tags'.

You can highlight the text from my response, and then click the 'quote tags button'.




like thisYou can continue through my post, selecting, and wrapping, so you can separate my comments, and reply with yours.

[Conley]

Thanks. I was wondering how that was done.

[Chris]

I can't decipher your posts anymore. When you choose to reply, opt for 'go advanced'.

There is a button at the top for 'wrap quote tags'.

You can highlight the text from my response, and then click the 'quote tags button'.



You can continue through my post, selecting, and wrapping, so you can separate my comments, and reply with yours.

What you said's in quotation marks. I'd think you'd recognize what you said, though in response to ramone you obviously didn't.

[Dagny]

What you said's in quotation marks. I'd think you'd recognize what you said, though in response to ramone you obviously didn't.

This is great software...you might as well learn how to use it. It's simple, and it's also easier when I respond to your response.

Otherwise, it turns into a mess.

Did you understand my tutorial? I can explain it better.

[Dagny]

Thanks. I was wondering how that was done.

did you find the button?

[dadakarma]

This is great software...you might as well learn how to use it. It's simple, and it's also easier when I respond to your response.

Otherwise, it turns into a mess.

Did you understand my tutorial? I can explain it better.

I hear that! Soooo much better than the Flintstone version over at the other place.

[Dagny]

ramone "Really? So you think that the government should define morality?"

dagny "I never said that."

Oh but you did, post #156: "This is why we need govt. to make laws. They aren't based on any one group's definition of morality, rather, the common definition of morality (your term, not mine)." Feel free to substitute "caring about" for morality.

So you think when I specify that it was your term, and not mine, that means I said it?

Really? I've never said any such thing.

Further, you are the one who insists upon injecting morality into a discussion about smoking in public, or discrimination based on skin color.

[Conley]

did
you
find
the
button?

Yep, and in fact I didn't have to go to the 'advanced' screen.

[Dagny]

Yep, and in fact I didn't have to go to the 'advanced' screen.I know...but the advanced gives you much more options....and a shitload of smileys!

I think you can only preview your post in advanced as well

[Dagny]

What you said's in quotation marks. I'd think you'd recognize what you said, though in response to ramone you obviously didn't.

to be clear....it really makes it much easier for me to respond back to you, if I don't have to sift through all of my original stuff from your post....delete it, and then bracket you in quotes.

[Conley]

I know...but the advanced gives you much more options....and a shitload of smileys!

I think you can only preview your post in advanced as well

Yeah, I should be better about previewing my post before putting it up. For smilies, I usually remember the name and just put it in between :

[Dagny]

Yeah, I should be better about previewing my post before putting it up. For smilies, I usually remember the name and just put it in between :
Most of the time, I'm typing with a kitten in my freekin lap. She tends to lay her chin on the keypad, so I'm amazed at some of the words I find when I preview!

[Chris]

The problem with doing that is it leaves off what I said that your were responding to.

[Chris]

So you think when I specify that it was your term, and not mine, that means I said it?

Really? I've never said any such thing.

Further, you are the one who insists upon injecting morality into a discussion about smoking in public, or discrimination based on skin color.

There's an example. What are you responding to? It's gone.

"So you think when I specify that it was your term, and not mine, that means I said it?"

That alone makes it sound like I'm putting words in your mouth when I clearly did not. Here is the fuller context:

ramone "Really? So you think that the government should define morality?"

dagny "I never said that."

Oh but you did, post #156: "This is why we need govt. to make laws. They aren't based on any one group's definition of morality, rather, the common definition of morality (your term, not mine)." Feel free to substitute "caring about" for morality.

As I said you may freely substitute the words you did say, "caring about".

Let me do that for you: "This is why we need govt. to make laws. They aren't based on any one group's definition of caring about, rather, the common definition of caring about".

So now could you answer the question, how does government determine what is cared about/moral?



"Further, you are the one who insists upon injecting morality into a discussion about smoking in public, or discrimination based on skin color."

How do you propose to judge whether those choices of action are right or wrong, good or bad, etc? And whether there should be laws regarding them?

[keyser soze]

Science?

[Chris]

Science?

Explain.

[Dagny]

There's an example. What are you responding to? It's gone.

"So you think when I specify that it was your term, and not mine, that means I said it?"

That alone makes it sound like I'm putting words in your mouth when I clearly did not. Here is the fuller context:

When you and I have a discussion, and you choose to quote me, I have to understand that you are responding to my comments. You and I should understand that. If you are worried about others following along, they should follow the thread.

Plus, you press the 'reply with quote' button first. That brings up my entire post. You can then type inside that box, separating each point I made, and adding your response.

I agree that sometimes I would have to go back and peruse the thread, because some of my comments will be deleted when I reply to you. It just makes it easier this way. Actually...it makes it much less work for you.


ramone "Really? So you think that the government should define morality?"

dagny "I never said that."


Oh but you did, post #156: "This is why we need govt. to make laws. They aren't based on any one group's definition of morality, rather, the common definition of morality (your term, not mine)." Feel free to substitute "caring about" for morality.
I've already told you that...because you INSIST upon injecting the word 'moral' into the discussion, I'm using your term. Otherwise, we go back and forth discussing idiotic definitions, terminology, old English terminology, etc...and the original point gets lost forever.

Said point, was that you agree w/Rand Paul that discrimination is something that we ought to bring back to the workplace.

As I said you may freely substitute the words you did say, "caring about".

Let me do that for you: "This is why we need govt. to make laws. They aren't based on any one group's definition of caring about, rather, the common definition of caring about".

So now could you answer the question, how does government determine what is cared about/moral?

In theory, we elect representatives. We won't go into exactly WHO they represent these days....

Those representatives argue day and night to determine what will be law. In essence, laws are SUPPOSED to support the majority. See current idiotic fights over gay rights. Often, the laws don't get it right.

They tend to err on the side of inclusion, as opposed to exclusion...gay rights notwithstanding.




"Further, you are the one who insists upon injecting morality into a discussion about smoking in public, or discrimination based on skin color."

How do you propose to judge whether those choices of action are right or wrong, good or bad, etc? And whether there should be laws regarding them?

After hundreds of years of oppression, it was time to allow black people to eat at white lunch counters.

Someone's going to have to give Rand Paul a hug...cuz it ain't gonna change until the republicans regain control fo the govt.

Are you saying that abolishing slavery wasn't the right call?

[Alias]

When you and I have a discussion, and you choose to quote me, I have to understand that you are responding to my comments. You and I should understand that. If you are worried about others following along, they should follow the thread.

Plus, you press the 'reply with quote' button first. That brings up my entire post. You can then type inside that box, separating each point I made, and adding your response.

I agree that sometimes I would have to go back and peruse the thread, because some of my comments will be deleted when I reply to you. It just makes it easier this way. Actually...it makes it much less work for you.


I've already told you that...because you INSIST upon injecting the word 'moral' into the discussion, I'm using your term. Otherwise, we go back and forth discussing idiotic definitions, terminology, old English terminology, etc...and the original point gets lost forever.

Said point, was that you agree w/Rand Paul that discrimination is something that we ought to bring back to the workplace.


In theory, we elect representatives. We won't go into exactly WHO they represent these days....

Those representatives argue day and night to determine what will be law. In essence, laws are SUPPOSED to support the majority. See current idiotic fights over gay rights. Often, the laws don't get it right.

They tend to err on the side of inclusion, as opposed to exclusion...gay rights notwithstanding.





After hundreds of years of oppression, it was time to allow black people to eat at white lunch counters.

Someone's going to have to give Rand Paul a hug...cuz it ain't gonna change until the republicans regain control fo the govt.

Are you saying that abolishing slavery wasn't the right call?

What do you mean by "gay rights"? When did gays ever have less rights than anyone else?

Democrats founded the KKK to keep Blacks from voting republican. Obviously, Dems felt abolishing slavery wasn't the right call.

[keyser soze]

Chris said


So now could you answer the question, how does government determine what is cared about/moral?

"Further, you are the one who insists upon injecting morality into a discussion about smoking in public, or discrimination based on skin color."

How do you propose to judge whether those choices of action are right or wrong, good or bad, etc? And whether there should be laws regarding them?

Science, fact finding etc.....the smoking industry knew their product killed, maimed and made sick millions and fought it with paid 'experts' much like the oil and coal companies do now concerning global warming and climate change. Once they were shown to be clearly guilty and the information was 'discovered' it was easy to regulate smoking. I call that finding of pertinent information science. Instead we have 30+ years of calling science into question so that the manipulations of those that want to close the DEA (for example) can use bogus reasoning to sell it (using millions of dollars) to the public. You make decisions based on accurate information.

[Mainecoons]

Do you think that all of the questioners of global warming are paid for by the oil and gas industry? Can you back that belief up?

Otherwise, lousy example. The connection between smoking and cancer was a demonstrated fact. It wasn't based on two dimensional attempts to model a three dimensional system.

BTW, have you gotten rid of your car yet? Do you avoid heating your home and using electricity? Are you off the grid and getting all your energy from solar and wind?

Or are you like Buffett who thinks taxes should be raised but somehow never manages to write that check?

Just curious. Share with us if you will what you are personally doing to cut down on CO2 emissions. If anything. At least, I hope you're not like algore with his 10,000 square foot manse that guzzles as much energy as a small village, and who flies around on jet fuel gulping planes showing everyone his hockey stick.

:grin:

[Alias]

Chris said



Science, fact finding etc.....the smoking industry knew their product killed, maimed and made sick millions and fought it with paid 'experts' much like the oil and coal companies do now concerning global warming and climate change. Once they were shown to be clearly guilty and the information was 'discovered' it was easy to regulate smoking. I call that finding of pertinent information science. Instead we have 30+ years of calling science into question so that the manipulations of those that want to close the DEA (for example) can use bogus reasoning to sell it (using millions of dollars) to the public. You make decisions based on accurate information.

The "global climate warming change whatever" crowd has been shown to be corrupt in their dealings. This is not accepted by everyone in the science community. Why should we spend billions on something we don't know for sure?

[keyser soze]

Mainecoons;
Do you think that all of the questioners of global warming are paid for by the oil and gas industry? Yes I do.


Can you back that belief up?
International....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10


yes, being a global warming denier does pay

it turns out that the very same denialists who blast grants for all sorts of climate studies that find conclusions their patrons don’t like make a good chunk of change. In fact, an entire little industry has sprung up around its donations to denialists and they admit right out that their goal is specifically to stop science teachers from talking about climate change and get climatologists out of print in a publication once considered friendly, goals outlined in the Heartland Institute’s confidential documents (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/leaked-docs-heartland-institute-think-tank-pays-climate-contrarians-very-well.ars)…
After complaining that “Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the [ warming ] alarmist perspective,” the document indicates that the $100,000 will go to David Wojick, an engineer with a PhD in the philosophy of science. Wojick will be funded to address “the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn’t alarmist or overtly political.” To that end, he’ll produce a set of modules that explicitly borrows the “teach the controversy” strategy, with each module dedicated to terming different aspects of climate change controversial — humanity’s involvement, the accuracy of climate models, the role of CO2 as a pollutant, etc. "Efforts will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain, two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."

In other words, there’s science the Heartland Institute likes and the science it doesn’t like, and it doesn’t want teachers to talk about the science it doesn’t like so much so, it’s going to give someone a six figure salary for the express goal of making sure they’ll stop teaching it. Really, it’s one thing to ask someone prophesying the watery end of the world through human-charged global warming how he or she can be so sure that we are all doomed to a chaotic hothouse world if we don’t adopt their vision right this second. But to shell out cash for a campaign to fudge the facts without the slightest thought as to the education of the kids? That is simply not a legitimate way to conduct oneself. Now I’m sure there are going to be plenty of denialists who’ll cry and whine about their papers being ignored despite being told for the thousandth time that their talking points have been shown as either mistakes, ignorance, or an outright lie, demanding that we allow them to present something that sounds soothing in their minds as fact. But we can’t. We’re supposed to deal with facts and one’s desire to disprove global warming because he hates Al Gore and think environmentalism is a communist plot does not yield good, actionable, qualified data on the subject in question.

Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked

List of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks



Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101#ixzz1rIV4pnh2

Who's Who on Inhofe's List of 400 Global Warming Deniers

Inhofe's "scientists" include economists, the retired, TV weathermen, mathematicians, amateurs and industry spokespeople



Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008#ixzz1rIVGYcXy



Otherwise, lousy example. The connection between smoking and cancer was a demonstrated fact. It wasn't based on two dimensional attempts to model a three dimensional system.

You don't know your history.


BTW, have you gotten rid of your car yet? Do you avoid heating your home and using electricity? Are you off the grid and getting all your energy from solar and wind?

I drive very little and if I could I'd have an electric vehicle but that doesn't make any difference to this discussion...


Or are you like Buffett who thinks taxes should be raised but somehow never manages to write that check?

Hardly pertinent to the discussion...


Just curious. Share with us if you will what you are personally doing to cut down on CO2 emissions. If anything. At least, I hope you're not like algore with his 10,000 square foot manse that guzzles as much energy as a small village, and who flies around on jet fuel gulping planes showing everyone his hockey stick.

Oh yes the big Al Gore dig which has nothing to do with the discussion....yawn.

[Chris]

Said point, was that you agree w/Rand Paul that discrimination is something that we ought to bring back to the workplace.
Nope. What I said in essence is we should be free to discriminate regarding private property, which includes anything from our opinions to our homes and businesses, but that government cannot discriminate with regard to its public property. Stick to what I actually say, please.




So now could you answer the question, how does government determine what is cared about/moral?

In theory, we elect representatives.... Those representatives argue day and night to determine what will be law....
How do they determine what laws are right and wring?


In essence, laws are SUPPOSED to support the majority.
When did this change? We don't have that kind of government.

Laws ought to be what society, to use your words, cares about, my word, determines is moral, but not by popularity or vote or majority.




Often, the laws don't get it right.
Interesting. How do you determine that?




How do you propose to judge whether those choices of action are right or wrong, good or bad, etc? And whether there should be laws regarding them?

After hundreds of years of oppression, it was time to allow black people to eat at white lunch counters.
Agree, but you're not answering the question. Mind you, you needn't answer all my questions of course.


Are you saying that abolishing slavery wasn't the right call?
No, but to my question, how did you determine what was right, what was wring?

[Chris]

Chris said



Science, fact finding etc.....the smoking industry knew their product killed, maimed and made sick millions and fought it with paid 'experts' much like the oil and coal companies do now concerning global warming and climate change. Once they were shown to be clearly guilty and the information was 'discovered' it was easy to regulate smoking. I call that finding of pertinent information science. Instead we have 30+ years of calling science into question so that the manipulations of those that want to close the DEA (for example) can use bogus reasoning to sell it (using millions of dollars) to the public. You make decisions based on accurate information.

Yes, but science is amoral. How did you decide those things are wrong, or to use dagny's words, things to "care about"?

[wingrider]

Chris said



Science, fact finding etc.....the smoking industry knew their product killed, maimed and made sick millions and fought it with paid 'experts' much like the oil and coal companies do now concerning global warming and climate change. Once they were shown to be clearly guilty and the information was 'discovered' it was easy to regulate smoking. I call that finding of pertinent information science. Instead we have 30+ years of calling science into question so that the manipulations of those that want to close the DEA (for example) can use bogus reasoning to sell it (using millions of dollars) to the public. You make decisions based on accurate information.
well see there education does work..you have educated yourself to the dangers with smoking tobacco, and now you can make a PERSONAL decision not to smoke, now would you allow those who do smoke the right to make up their own minds about it? or do you think it is right to inflict your values on everyone else simply because you want to? I hate fascism in whatever form it takes.

[Alias]

well see there education does work..you have educated yourself to the dangers with smoking tobacco, and now you can make a PERSONAL decision not to smoke, now would you allow those who do smoke the right to make up their own minds about it? or do you think it is right to inflict your values on everyone else simply because you want to? I hate fascism in whatever form it takes.

Nothing worse than a dry alcoholic. They want everyone to quit because watching others drink drives them crazy.

[Dagny]

well see there education does work..you have educated yourself to the dangers with smoking tobacco, and now you can make a PERSONAL decision not to smoke, now would you allow those who do smoke the right to make up their own minds about it? or do you think it is right to inflict your values on everyone else simply because you want to? I hate fascism in whatever form it takes.Who is calling for the govt. to stop people from smoking?

[keyser soze]

Good question.

[Alias]

Who is calling for the govt. to stop people from smoking?

Can't smoke in bars and restaurants because the govt said so.

[Captain Obvious]

I'm late to the discussion and it's probably devolved into something else, but I partly agree - we are too stupid collectively for democracy.

I also believe that we have a bastardized form of democracy driven by money, power through special and corporate interests so it's really IMO an invalid topic.

Saying it another way, we're perfectly suited for the form of democracy that's present.

[Chris]

well see there education does work..you have educated yourself to the dangers with smoking tobacco, and now you can make a PERSONAL decision not to smoke, now would you allow those who do smoke the right to make up their own minds about it? or do you think it is right to inflict your values on everyone else simply because you want to? I hate fascism in whatever form it takes.

That would or should be up to the owner of the establishment (restaurant, whatever). It is his property, no one else's.

[Chris]

Who is calling for the govt. to stop people from smoking?

Come on, that was not his question.

[wingrider]

Can't smoke in bars and restaurants because the govt said so.
guess they never heard of the smoking bans that are now predominate throughout the country.. I was at the health clinic the other day and was waiting for my wife, I said I was going to go have a smoke and the Nurse said you can't smoke here , I said I am going to my car and she said you can't smoke anywhere on the property including your car if it is on the property.. I looked her right in the eye and said .. You have no control over my personal property so STFU . and walked out the door , got in my car lit a smoke and enjoyed it.. guess what ? nothing was said or done about it... now this clinic is on about 12 acres of ground and they have a sing saying no smoking on the entire campus.. that is rediculous.. I can see it if they said no smoking withing certain feet of the doors or whatever , but the full 12 acres of ground, ? unbelievable what these smoking nazis will do

[wingrider]

Come on, that was not his question. no it wasn't.. but that is the kind of remark I expect form them.. and then they gt backed up with things like

translator we need a translator.. es muy mucho estupido

[Dagny]

Nope. What I said in essence is we should be free to discriminate regarding private property, which includes anything from our opinions to our homes and businesses, but that government cannot discriminate with regard to its public property. Stick to what I actually say, please.
Agree 100% about private property. However, privately owned businesses that do business with the public, or in public, cannot discriminate. If a diner owner rents the building, is it up to the owner of the property to decide what the business owner can/cannot do? We differ as to what is public. You consider a diner to be private, and therefore believe that the owner of said diner should have the right to discriminate.


How do they determine what laws are right and wring?
Again...in theory, majority rules. See prop. 8 in California. The system doesn't always get it right. Each state elects representatives based on majority rule. Said reps are supposed to vote based on the desires of those who elected them. It hasn't worked that way since campaigns started to cost millions of dollars to fund, but in theory, majority rules.


When did this change? We don't have that kind of government.
see above.

Laws ought to be what society, to use your words, cares about, my word, determines is moral, but not by popularity or vote or majorityOnce again...'moral' is subjective. How many times do I have to reference slavery? Even so...how else does 'society' decide anything...including supposed morality? You can't possibly represent everyone (see discrimination discussion), so majority rule is the only way...in theory. Today, money talks, so the majority is often not represented. Again...see prop 8 in California. Or Koch funded Tea Party.
How would you propose to determine what is, and isn't moral? Especially when you believe discrimination is a right?




Interesting. How do you determine that?
Typically, when a law is wrong, it's glaringly evident. Gay rights issues come to mind. Look how many hoops Obama had to jump through, and how many billions in tax cuts he had to give away, in order to repeal DADT. Same for bogus gay marriage laws. Perfect example of the flaws in your 'morality' being a qualifier for a law.




Agree, but you're not answering the question. Mind you, you needn't answer all my questions of course.You asked how we know if laws are right or wrong, good or bad. That too, is subjective. Some laws are easier to pass than others. In the end, in theory, what works for 'everyone' equally, is the target....no?

I don't believe you want to see segregated diners, but you believe it should be up to the business owner. If you did that, 50% of the diners in this country might be segregated.


If the populace truly feels that something is wrong, then they work hard to change the law. It's virtually impossible in this day and age, but the intent when they set up this system, was to give the people a say.

[Dagny]

no it wasn't.. but that is the kind of remark I expect form them.. and then they gt backed up with things like

translator we need a translator.. es muy mucho estupido
That's exactly what you said. You referenced the ability to learn about the dangers of smoking, and then you claimed the govt. was telling you not to smoke.

[Dagny]

guess they never heard of the smoking bans that are now predominate throughout the country.. I was at the health clinic the other day and was waiting for my wife, I said I was going to go have a smoke and the Nurse said you can't smoke here , I said I am going to my car and she said you can't smoke anywhere on the property including your car if it is on the property.. I looked her right in the eye and said .. You have no control over my personal property so STFU . and walked out the door , got in my car lit a smoke and enjoyed it.. guess what ? nothing was said or done about it... now this clinic is on about 12 acres of ground and they have a sing saying no smoking on the entire campus.. that is rediculous.. I can see it if they said no smoking withing certain feet of the doors or whatever , but the full 12 acres of ground, ? unbelievable what these smoking nazis will doMany govt. buildings won't allow smoking anywhere on the grounds.

I believe that's idiotic. If this were a private business, you deny them the right to tell you where to smoke?

[wingrider]

That's exactly what you said. You referenced the ability to learn about the dangers of smoking, and then you claimed the govt. was telling you not to smoke. that is a lie.. I never said one word about the government in that post. I said people should be allowed to make a decision on their own without others forcing their prefference on them.

[Dagny]

that is a lie.. I never said one word about the government in that post. I said people should be allowed to make a decision on their own without others forcing their prefference on them.Fine...then who exactly is telling you not to smoke, if you know the facts, and don't care if you get cancer?

[Chris]

...What I said in essence is we should be free to discriminate regarding private property, which includes anything from our opinions to our homes and businesses, but that government cannot discriminate with regard to its public property. ...

Agree 100% about private property. However, privately owned businesses that do business with the public, or in public, cannot discriminate.
You're begging the question. Since a privately owned business--and all do business with the public--is privately owned, what business it is of government's to dictate what it values, i.e., "cares about"?

Why not let society decide instead?




Once again...'moral' is subjective.
Self-defeating. Illogical.




Typically, when a law is wrong, it's glaringly evident.
How so? Who determines? Why? You're begging the question I keep asking. I'm ok with you not answering, but repeating yourself is not an answer.




Perfect example of the flaws in your 'morality' being a qualifier for a law.
How so? Let's not just make claims, let's back them up, explain, give an argument.




You asked how we know if laws are right or wrong, good or bad. That too, is subjective.
You keep repeating that after I have demonstrated it is illogical.

But, let's assume morality is subjective. Then lawmakers, lawkeepers are being subjective, laws are subjective, abiding by them or breaking them is subjective. "Caring about" is subjective, everything is in the eye of the beholder. There is no order, just chaos...

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
~Yeats, "The Second Coming"





If the populace truly feels that something is wrong, then they work hard to change the law. It's virtually impossible in this day and age, but the intent when they set up this system, was to give the people a say.
Ah, so, let society decide after all. That's the way it should be.

[Mainecoons]

Agree 100% about private property. However, privately owned businesses that do business with the public, or in public, cannot discriminate. Privately owned businesses are private property. They have value, often they have real estate. The clothes on your back are private property too. Looks like you need to do some homework on what private property is.

[keyser soze]

We needed the civil rights laws then and we still need them. Discrimination for any reason is wrong.

[Mister D]

We needed the civil rights laws then and we still need them. Discrimination for any reason is wrong.

I discriminate all the time. So do you. The "civil rights laws" are not the issue. One aspect of the Civil Rights Act is the issue. Can you defend it without arguments from authority (e.g. "it's the law")?

[Mister D]

Privately owned businesses are private property. They have value, often they have real estate. The clothes on your back are private property too. Looks like you need to do some homework on what private property is.

Angry denunciations of supposedly racist intent and arguments from authority are all they seem to have.

[wingrider]

Fine...then who exactly is telling you not to smoke, if you know the facts, and don't care if you get cancer? bleeding heart, non smoking fascists, that think they can inflict their values and desires on everyone else. it was these people that started all the bullshit , lobbying their bleeding heart representatives that brought this bullshit to be voted on. see I don't blame the government, I blame the assholes that bought their votes.

[Dagny]

Ah, so, let society decide after all. That's the way it should be.Rather than repeat for the 5th time, I'll say it once more.

Society HAS decided, within the framework of our system. We, by majority decision, have elected those who made the laws.

Why didn't you comment on the morality of the gay rights issue?

It doesn't support your case?

[Dagny]

Privately owned businesses are private property. They have value, often they have real estate. The clothes on your back are private property too. Looks like you need to do some homework on what private property is.
More often than not, the property is owned by a landlord. Should the landlord tell the business owner who to discriminate against?

[Dagny]

bleeding heart, non smoking fascists, that think they can inflict their values and desires on everyone else. it was these people that started all the bullshit , lobbying their bleeding heart representatives that brought this bullshit to be voted on. see I don't blame the government, I blame the assholes that bought their votes.But...nobody told you, after you did all that scientific research, that you can't smoke.

So, what's your problem? Smoke if you want to.

And what is your problem with a private business telling you what you can, and can't do?

[Mainecoons]

More often than not, the property is owned by a landlord. Should the landlord tell the business owner who to discriminate against?

Your proof for that statement, please? Or just more of your opinion?

[Dagny]

Your proof for that statement, please? Or just more of your opinion?
Well, yes...just avoid the issue. Do you honestly believe that every store in ANY mall across America, is owned by the business owner?

Strip malls? Main street storefronts?

[Mainecoons]

In other words, you don't have a reference for this either.

BTW, I would agree that the property owner has the right to set policies and the leasing business gets to decide whether they find the lease conditions acceptable, in which case they enter into the lease.

[Dagny]

In other words, you don't have a reference for this either.

BTW, I would agree that the property owner has the right to set policies and the leasing business gets to decide whether they find the lease conditions acceptable, in which case they enter into the lease.
So you would give the landlord the right to tell the owner to discriminate against minorities?

[Mainecoons]

That is what we refer to as a "When did you stop beating your wife?" question.

:grin:

[Dagny]

That is what we refer to as a "When did you stop beating your wife?" question.

:grin:

You made me laugh out loud!

[Chris]

We needed the civil rights laws then and we still need them. Discrimination for any reason is wrong.

You too are begging the question. Why do we need such laws to regulate private businesses? Whether discrimination is wrong or not is not a reason. And why do you "care about" discrimination, why do you find it wrong?

[Chris]

Rather than repeat for the 5th time, I'll say it once more.

Society HAS decided, within the framework of our system. We, by majority decision, have elected those who made the laws.

Why didn't you comment on the morality of the gay rights issue?

It doesn't support your case?

When government decides it takes the decision away from society, thus you contradict yourself.

[Chris]

Your proof for that statement, please? Or just more of your opinion?

While the landlord cannot do that, he could discriminate to whom he rents space. That's an example of leaving it in the hands of society.

Oops, I see you said same, mainecoons: "I would agree that the property owner has the right to set policies and the leasing business gets to decide whether they find the lease conditions acceptable, in which case they enter into the lease."

Exactly.

[Chris]

It is a common complaint, whenever someone gets their nose bloodied by some life experience, that: "There aught to be a law!" Well, the truth is that there is. There is nothing that we do in this life that is not subject to law.

Common argument, to respond with what is to a discussion of what ought to be.

[dadakarma]

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, . . . "the law is a ass - a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience - by experience."

- Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Chapter 51 (1838)
. . .

To argue what ought to be is only to oppose the existing order of things; which is not made to our personal ends. The law, which defines our rights, does not exist in a vacuum; but only within the framework of established social order. Certainly, it is not a perfect world. Society is a dynamic (not a static) structure; but at the same time it represents man’s resistence to change. In this, one must be mindful that the progress of every civilization has been a constant struggle to bring stability to an uncertain world. The invention of banking and credit brought standards of reliance and accountability in trade and commerce; while government and laws based on precedent provided some predictability in applying the rules of social intercourse; and established religion perpetuated the myth of the triumph of good over evil. The law is but one form of social expression that exists as an integrated system; one cannot abstract it from the whole. It is self-reflective; i.e., it is a reflection of societal values. Is the law fair, or just? No. Is the law, as Mr. Bumble says in Oliver Twist, "a ass - a idiot" (is it blind to experience that men use it to their own perverse ends)? Yes. But that merely begs the question; for to say that the law is bad is to say that the society it serves is bad, and, ultimately, that man is bad. As with any man-made institution, the law comes cap-a-pie with all the faults and failings of human nature. Would you change things, you must change man; and human nature being what it is, that is not likely to happen any time soon.

You need to post more. :thumbsup:

[keyser soze]

You too are begging the question. Why do we need such laws to regulate private businesses? Whether discrimination is wrong or not is not a reason. And why do you "care about" discrimination, why do you find it wrong?
I'm not begging the question you're attempting to brow beat me. Why? Because we needed to protect a minority from the majority and still need to protect them...all of them...even the ones we might not particularly like.

Pick a group.

[Chris]

I'm not begging the question you're attempting to brow beat me. Why? Because we needed to protect a minority from the majority and still need to protect them...all of them...even the ones we might not particularly like.

Pick a group.
"I'm not begging the question you're attempting to brow beat me. Why?"

No one's picking on you. When the question is why we needed the civil rights laws, if you answer we need them that's begging the question.

"Because we needed to protect a minority from the majority and still need to protect them...all of them...even the ones we might not particularly like."

The question is why and who gets to decide and how?

[Dagny]

You need to post more. :thumbsup:

And I spent 3 days, and 5000 keystrokes, and still haven't accomplished anything in this thread.

Shoulda quoted Dickens

[dadakarma]

And I spent 3 days, and 5000 keystrokes, and still haven't accomplished anything in this thread.

Shoulda quoted Dickens

Your posts made me think and laugh. In only 5000 keystrokes, Dag! :)

[keyser soze]

When government decides it takes the decision away from society, thus you contradict yourself.
Do you or do you not believe in democracy? We are the government yet you speak as though it's some alien entity. You are aware of how our country was set up are you not? You prefer anarchy?

[Dagny]

Your posts made me think and laugh. In only 5000 keystrokes, Dag! :)
Sun's out, and the garden is calling...see you later.

[dadakarma]

Sun's out, and the garden is calling...see you later.

Happy Hoe-ing!

[keyser soze]

"I'm not begging the question you're attempting to brow beat me. Why?"

No one's picking on you. When the question is why we needed the civil rights laws, if you answer we need them that's begging the question.

"Because we needed to protect a minority from the majority and still need to protect them...all of them...even the ones we might not particularly like."

The question is why and who gets to decide and how?
IN your opinion....Do you live in this country?