Maybe women can behave like this because the men in their lives no longer have a role beyond that of “sperm donor.” After all, the government will provide just as well as that sorry man, so why keep him around? Maybe giving women more power than most would naturally have was not a good thing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ll spin this tune for ya, TB, in honor of your arguments on this thread:
BELLAMY BROTHERS - My Drug Problem - YouTube [/quote]
If only that were his argument, I may agree with him. Of course, his argument is much closer to, “I wasn’t drug to Grandpa’s farm, so both of us should be in jail…”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I agree.
The Sexual Revolution certainly spawned its share of negative consequences but Johnson’s Great Society had already played the first quarter of the game before the SR came on the field.
Leviathan cannot be blamed on that particular societal wave. It was planted by TR, Wilson and Taft. It was heavily irrigated by FDR. The harvest began about the time the Sexual Revolution was occurring.
[/quote]
I mean it’s not that I disagree with some of TB’s points at times, but I’m more interested in the potential solutions of which I don’t always see. Liberty isn’t going to create a utopia but neither will anything else. And the government’s “solutions” to problems often create new problems or exacerbate current ones. And every time they come up with something new we lose freedom. Freedom that I believe is a precious commodity.
If the government could wave a wand and fix things I’d have no issue with it. Doesn’t seem as if it has a lot of luck though. In fact I often see the opposite happening.
[quote]H factor wrote:
If the government could wave a wand and fix things I’d have no issue with it. Doesn’t seem as if it has a lot of luck though. In fact I often see the opposite happening. [/quote]
“You don’t have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.”-MLK Jr.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Why are libertarians frothing at the mouth over tax rates and regulation but ignore and don’t publicly call for the removal of two heavy regulations and impositions of the free market. LLC’s and Child labour.
[/quote]
Why should libertarians have a problem with LLCs? Other than to point out that government should not play a role in their recognition, libertarianism is not concerned with such matters.
I have a problem with child labor laws. I actually tried to point that out in either this thread or another, earlier today.[/quote]
Well if you look back in history free market advocates were furious about LLC’s and labeled them socialist. They are at complete odds with the free market. They allow people to remove the responsibility of their actions, avoid debtors jail etc. This was one of the main things the free market fundamentalists (early libertarians before that was a word) despised.
They also protested both immigration policy and child labour laws. If capital could travel across human border, so must the labour force to stop wages and prices from being artificially manipulated by government policy. As for child labour this was seen as a disgusting breach of freedom for the government to close a huge pool of resources from which the entrepreneur was now losing his vast profits from and forced to pay more for the same work. Thus regulating and manipulating the market.
This is my problem, if you are going to claim Libertarianism be open enough and understand it enough to have a libertarian stance on these things.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Social libertinism? Sure.
Think about how life looked before what is called the Sexual Revolution, especially in terms of family and the social structure it fit into. Monogamy. Needs of the children put before the needs of the parents. Stability. Moral training. Economic security. Independence from the state.
Then the Sexual Revolution, a libertarian argument that freedom needed to be first among all those antiquated notions and prudish social strictures. People need to be liberated from such conservative restraints.
Eschew monogamy. Wanna cat around? Your needs are more important than keeping it in your pants and staying loyal to the family and the needs of the kids. Wanna swing? Sure, feel free - ignore important social norms that keep families whole and less inclined to disruption. Out of wedlock children? Sure - martiage is outdated and suffocating anyway. Why reinforce such suffocation to the kids?
And so on. Now look - what is left of the family as the safe institution for kids to be raised, especially in places like inner cities or rural areas? Fractured. Kids are lucky to have two parents. Dad can’t keep it in his pants, can’t be tied down to one woman. He is free - but at what expense to his kids?
The family disintegrated, the state steps in the power vacuum to help feed and take care of the kids left behind by dad’s joyous exercise of liberty.
It wasn’t always so, as we all know. Other pressures have hurt, too, but the end result of the norm changing of the Sexual Revolution has doomed more children to suffer because of “liberty’s” erosion of important social institutions that people needed to be “liberated” from.[/quote]
I don’t think women, gays, blacks etc would share your rose tinted nostalgia for a time where women were relegated to being a domestic servant, gays were imprisoned and criminalised and blacks were repressed and murdered.
The past was not as free as it currently is.[/quote]
As absurd a non-sequitur as I have seen in PWI. Traditional family structures have no correlation to Jim CrowÃ? or female political and economic equality. Just because all existed in the past doesn’t mean a return to one means a return to all.
Just awful.
[/quote]
So you are saying the entire culture and gender roles etc of the day had no bearing on the sexist, racist, homophobic policies of the day?
So the Churches that preached about the horrors of the dissolution of the nuclear family were not also often preaching the wickedness of homosexuality and the righteousness of segregation?
As someone who is interested in history and reading but not political at all, I can see through all sides as being what they are. Telling me culture has no effect on policy which mirrors it is absurd.
Now I am a white guy so for all I care roll back the clocks, it wouldn’t affect me.
But seriously this is why I hate talking about politics, people get all offended and angry over someone disagreeing.
Humans throughout history have been controlled and subjugated by religion. The “nuclear family” model was pretty much enforced by the “fact” that if you had sex before marriage, it was a “sin”. The population was much more ignorant. Despite the guarantees of the Constitution, women couldn’t vote until 1920 and black males couldn’t vote until 1870. Even today, despite the ruling of Lawrence vs. Texas, homosexuality remains “officially” illegal in many states and homosexuals are still being arrested for “crimes against nature”. Gay people are still being arrested for having consensual sex in some red states, like Louisiana.
That’s why we have a problem with the breakdown of the nuclear family. You religious folks went too far. If you had left gay people alone and not persecuted them by arresting them for pursuing their own happiness, they NEVER would have gained the power and influence that they have. The problem is this: persecuting two consenting adults for having sex violates their civil rights. It always has. ANYONE with a brain can figure that out. Seriously, take a moment and think about it. But religion twisted the common sense of the “authorities” and they unjustly persecuted them. So guess what happens when a minority is unjustly persecuted? THEY FIGHT BACK. And you stupid religious people, in your arrogance, CREATED a powerful “gay movement” that is now swaying the politics, civil rights and personal liberty for ALL of us.
If they had simply been left alone, they NEVER would have been motivated to unite and fight for “equality” the way they have. Now they have equality AND THEN SOME. Way to think it through. By denying gay people the right to marry and all of the entitlements that go along with that, you’ve motivated them to tear down the whole damn institution of marriage! Who do you think controls Hollywood? GAYS. Who do you think controls the fashion industry? GAYS Who do you think has MAJOR influence in the music industry and popular culture? GAYS Who sets the tone for what is “cool” and “hip”? GAYS
By trying to protect that which you hold so dear (traditional family values/culture) with ZERO tolerance for rights and freedoms of others, you have created and enemy who has set out to destroy you.
And honestly, can you blame them? What if the tables were turned? What if YOU could be arrested for having sex with the person YOU loved? What if YOU had to keep your sexuality a secret or you would be publicly shunned and possibly assaulted, or even murdered? Wouldn’t YOU fight to eradicate the forces that led to YOUR persecution? It’s common fucking sense…
Traditional values were doomed the day you used FORCE and INTOLERANCE to attack a small minority with a different opinion. America was built with checks and balances to PROTECT the minority from such abuse. It was only a matter of time before they gained enough power and precedent to protect themselves. And once they felt “safe”, they went for the jugular of the institutions that attacked them for so long.
How is this not obvious?
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Social libertinism? Sure.
Think about how life looked before what is called the Sexual Revolution, especially in terms of family and the social structure it fit into. Monogamy. Needs of the children put before the needs of the parents. Stability. Moral training. Economic security. Independence from the state.
Then the Sexual Revolution, a libertarian argument that freedom needed to be first among all those antiquated notions and prudish social strictures. People need to be liberated from such conservative restraints.
Eschew monogamy. Wanna cat around? Your needs are more important than keeping it in your pants and staying loyal to the family and the needs of the kids. Wanna swing? Sure, feel free - ignore important social norms that keep families whole and less inclined to disruption. Out of wedlock children? Sure - martiage is outdated and suffocating anyway. Why reinforce such suffocation to the kids?
And so on. Now look - what is left of the family as the safe institution for kids to be raised, especially in places like inner cities or rural areas? Fractured. Kids are lucky to have two parents. Dad can’t keep it in his pants, can’t be tied down to one woman. He is free - but at what expense to his kids?
The family disintegrated, the state steps in the power vacuum to help feed and take care of the kids left behind by dad’s joyous exercise of liberty.
It wasn’t always so, as we all know. Other pressures have hurt, too, but the end result of the norm changing of the Sexual Revolution has doomed more children to suffer because of “liberty’s” erosion of important social institutions that people needed to be “liberated” from.[/quote]
I don’t think women, gays, blacks etc would share your rose tinted nostalgia for a time where women were relegated to being a domestic servant, gays were imprisoned and criminalised and blacks were repressed and murdered.
The past was not as free as it currently is.[/quote]
As absurd a non-sequitur as I have seen in PWI. Traditional family structures have no correlation to Jim CrowÃ??Ã? or female political and economic equality. Just because all existed in the past doesn’t mean a return to one means a return to all.
Just awful.
[/quote]
So you are saying the entire culture and gender roles etc of the day had no bearing on the sexist, racist, homophobic policies of the day?
So the Churches that preached about the horrors of the dissolution of the nuclear family were not also often preaching the wickedness of homosexuality and the righteousness of segregation?
As someone who is interested in history and reading but not political at all, I can see through all sides as being what they are. Telling me culture has no effect on policy which mirrors it is absurd.
Now I am a white guy so for all I care roll back the clocks, it wouldn’t affect me.
But seriously this is why I hate talking about politics, people get all offended and angry over someone disagreeing.
[/quote]
Honestly I didn’t think it was a horrible point. If you’re going to point out the bad of today it isn’t out of bounds to point out the bads of yesterday. I mean sure we had more “nuclear families” back then, but we kept women in their place, abused our children, abused our wives, (and they stood by their man like proud slaves!) etc.
It wasn’t a horrible point.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans throughout history have been controlled and subjugated by religion. The “nuclear family” model was pretty much enforced by the “fact” that if you had sex before marriage, it was a “sin”. The population was much more ignorant. Despite the guarantees of the Constitution, women couldn’t vote until 1920 and black males couldn’t vote until 1870. Even today, despite the ruling of Lawrence vs. Texas, homosexuality remains “officially” illegal in many states and homosexuals are still being arrested for “crimes against nature”. Gay people are still being arrested for having consensual sex in some red states, like Louisiana.
That’s why we have a problem with the breakdown of the nuclear family. You religious folks went too far. If you had left gay people alone and not persecuted them by arresting them for pursuing their own happiness, they NEVER would have gained the power and influence that they have. The problem is this: persecuting two consenting adults for having sex violates their civil rights. It always has. ANYONE with a brain can figure that out. Seriously, take a moment and think about it. But religion twisted the common sense of the “authorities” and they unjustly persecuted them. So guess what happens when a minority is unjustly persecuted? THEY FIGHT BACK. And you stupid religious people, in your arrogance, CREATED a powerful “gay movement” that is now swaying the politics, civil rights and personal liberty for ALL of us.
If they had simply been left alone, they NEVER would have been motivated to unite and fight for “equality” the way they have. Now they have equality AND THEN SOME. Way to think it through. By denying gay people the right to marry and all of the entitlements that go along with that, you’ve motivated them to tear down the whole damn institution of marriage! Who do you think controls Hollywood? GAYS. Who do you think controls the fashion industry? GAYS Who do you think has MAJOR influence in the music industry and popular culture? GAYS Who sets the tone for what is “cool” and “hip”? GAYS
By trying to protect that which you hold so dear (traditional family values/culture) with ZERO tolerance for rights and freedoms of others, you have created and enemy who has set out to destroy you.
And honestly, can you blame them? What if the tables were turned? What if YOU could be arrested for having sex with the person YOU loved? What if YOU had to keep your sexuality a secret or you would be publicly shunned and possibly assaulted, or even murdered? Wouldn’t YOU fight to eradicate the forces that led to YOUR persecution? It’s common fucking sense…
Traditional values were doomed the day you used FORCE and INTOLERANCE to attack a small minority with a different opinion. America was built with checks and balances to PROTECT the minority from such abuse. It was only a matter of time before they gained enough power and precedent to protect themselves. And once they felt “safe”, they went for the jugular of the institutions that attacked them for so long.
How is this not obvious?
[/quote]
Great post, angry chicken.
I will try to address multiple posts here.
First, don’t misunderstand my recognition of the state stepping in to play social roles as a good thing or something to be happy about - to the contrary, it’s tragic and awful. The state is terrible at it, and in some cases, unintentionally makes things worse. The point is that the state has to do it because no one else is left to do it. Having to rely on the state to play family is terrible, but there is no other choice. As I have said before, there is an institutional power vacuum. There has to be order in this place. The state is the last option.
I also noted that the so-called welfare state didn’t begin with the social libertinism push of the 1960s. It began as a response to the increasingly radical impact industrialist was having on society, another area where libertarians (and many conservatives) fail to understand and appreciate it. That’s another good topic, but you wanted to focus on examples of social libertarianism leading to big(ger) government.
And this version of the welfare state didnt destroy traditional family structures. Far from it, look at the state of those structures well up until the 60s. The welfare state helped with traditional economic dislocation, but wasn’t having to step in as a substitute for broken families.
[quote] H Factor wrote:
Honestly I didn’t think it was a horrible point. If you’re going to point out the bad of today it isn’t out of bounds to point out the bads of yesterday. I mean sure we had more “nuclear families” back then, but we kept women in their place, abused our children, abused our wives, (and they stood by their man like proud slaves!) etc.
It wasn’t a horrible point. [/quote]
It was terrible point because it’s based on a logical fallacy. The importance of monogamy has nothing to do with segregation or prejudice against homosexuality. They are not related and examining the merits of one historical thing and concluding that it is good and should be brought back isn’t tantamount to thinking we need to bring back all things from history. Ludicrous.
That makes as much as sense as saying that thinking professional golfers should be forced to use traditional hickory clubs (instead of metal, etc.) to make the game more competitive and interesting is tantamount to endorsing segregation because, you know, back when they played with hickory clubs, blacks weren’t allowed in golf clubs.
So, no, not a good point.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans throughout history have been controlled and subjugated by religion. The “nuclear family” model was pretty much enforced by the “fact” that if you had sex before marriage, it was a “sin”. The population was much more ignorant. Despite the guarantees of the Constitution, women couldn’t vote until 1920 and black males couldn’t vote until 1870. Even today, despite the ruling of Lawrence vs. Texas, homosexuality remains “officially” illegal in many states and homosexuals are still being arrested for “crimes against nature”. Gay people are still being arrested for having consensual sex in some red states, like Louisiana.
That’s why we have a problem with the breakdown of the nuclear family. You religious folks went too far. If you had left gay people alone and not persecuted them by arresting them for pursuing their own happiness, they NEVER would have gained the power and influence that they have. The problem is this: persecuting two consenting adults for having sex violates their civil rights. It always has. ANYONE with a brain can figure that out. Seriously, take a moment and think about it. But religion twisted the common sense of the “authorities” and they unjustly persecuted them. So guess what happens when a minority is unjustly persecuted? THEY FIGHT BACK. And you stupid religious people, in your arrogance, CREATED a powerful “gay movement” that is now swaying the politics, civil rights and personal liberty for ALL of us.
If they had simply been left alone, they NEVER would have been motivated to unite and fight for “equality” the way they have. Now they have equality AND THEN SOME. Way to think it through. By denying gay people the right to marry and all of the entitlements that go along with that, you’ve motivated them to tear down the whole damn institution of marriage! Who do you think controls Hollywood? GAYS. Who do you think controls the fashion industry? GAYS Who do you think has MAJOR influence in the music industry and popular culture? GAYS Who sets the tone for what is “cool” and “hip”? GAYS
By trying to protect that which you hold so dear (traditional family values/culture) with ZERO tolerance for rights and freedoms of others, you have created and enemy who has set out to destroy you.
And honestly, can you blame them? What if the tables were turned? What if YOU could be arrested for having sex with the person YOU loved? What if YOU had to keep your sexuality a secret or you would be publicly shunned and possibly assaulted, or even murdered? Wouldn’t YOU fight to eradicate the forces that led to YOUR persecution? It’s common fucking sense…
Traditional values were doomed the day you used FORCE and INTOLERANCE to attack a small minority with a different opinion. America was built with checks and balances to PROTECT the minority from such abuse. It was only a matter of time before they gained enough power and precedent to protect themselves. And once they felt “safe”, they went for the jugular of the institutions that attacked them for so long.
How is this not obvious?
[/quote]
I read through this, thought about a substantive reply, read it again, chuckled, and decided not to.
So, over 70% of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock, and the reason is the gays are exacting their vengeance on an intolerant, overbearing religious society. Because the gays control all the things.
Brilliant.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] H Factor wrote:
Honestly I didn’t think it was a horrible point. If you’re going to point out the bad of today it isn’t out of bounds to point out the bads of yesterday. I mean sure we had more “nuclear families” back then, but we kept women in their place, abused our children, abused our wives, (and they stood by their man like proud slaves!) etc.
It wasn’t a horrible point. [/quote]
It was terrible point because it’s based on a logical fallacy. The importance of monogamy has nothing to do with segregation or prejudice against homosexuality. They are not related and examining the merits of one historical thing and concluding that it is good and should be brought back isn’t tantamount to thinking we need to bring back all things from history. Ludicrous.
That makes as much as sense as saying that thinking professional golfers should be forced to use traditional hickory clubs (instead of metal, etc.) to make the game more competitive and interesting is tantamount to endorsing segregation because, you know, back when they played with hickory clubs, blacks weren’t allowed in golf clubs.
So, no, not a good point.[/quote]
Really? You literally in this thread have said X happened which caused Y which is a logical fallacy as well. If you’re going to be mad my friend when someone uses a logical fallacy don’t use them yourself!
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] H Factor wrote:
Honestly I didn’t think it was a horrible point. If you’re going to point out the bad of today it isn’t out of bounds to point out the bads of yesterday. I mean sure we had more “nuclear families” back then, but we kept women in their place, abused our children, abused our wives, (and they stood by their man like proud slaves!) etc.
It wasn’t a horrible point. [/quote]
It was terrible point because it’s based on a logical fallacy. The importance of monogamy has nothing to do with segregation or prejudice against homosexuality. They are not related and examining the merits of one historical thing and concluding that it is good and should be brought back isn’t tantamount to thinking we need to bring back all things from history. Ludicrous.
That makes as much as sense as saying that thinking professional golfers should be forced to use traditional hickory clubs (instead of metal, etc.) to make the game more competitive and interesting is tantamount to endorsing segregation because, you know, back when they played with hickory clubs, blacks weren’t allowed in golf clubs.
So, no, not a good point.[/quote]
Really? You literally in this thread have said X happened which caused Y which is a logical fallacy as well. If you’re going to be mad my friend when someone uses a logical fallacy don’t use them yourself!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc[/quote]
Uh, nope. Under this fallacy, a person claims that “since event Y followed event X, event Y must have beencaused by event X.” I didn’t make that claim. I explained the causality and did not claim that the chronological sequence justified causation without additional argument.
Thanks anyway.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans throughout history have been controlled and subjugated by religion. The “nuclear family” model was pretty much enforced by the “fact” that if you had sex before marriage, it was a “sin”. The population was much more ignorant. Despite the guarantees of the Constitution, women couldn’t vote until 1920 and black males couldn’t vote until 1870. Even today, despite the ruling of Lawrence vs. Texas, homosexuality remains “officially” illegal in many states and homosexuals are still being arrested for “crimes against nature”. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/05/gay_people_are_still_being_arrested_for_having_consensual_sex_in_some_red.html
That’s why we have a problem with the breakdown of the nuclear family. You religious folks went too far. If you had left gay people alone and not persecuted them by arresting them for pursuing their own happiness, they NEVER would have gained the power and influence that they have. The problem is this: persecuting two consenting adults for having sex violates their civil rights. It always has. ANYONE with a brain can figure that out. Seriously, take a moment and think about it. But religion twisted the common sense of the “authorities” and they unjustly persecuted them. So guess what happens when a minority is unjustly persecuted? THEY FIGHT BACK. And you stupid religious people, in your arrogance, CREATED a powerful “gay movement” that is now swaying the politics, civil rights and personal liberty for ALL of us.
If they had simply been left alone, they NEVER would have been motivated to unite and fight for “equality” the way they have. Now they have equality AND THEN SOME. Way to think it through. By denying gay people the right to marry and all of the entitlements that go along with that, you’ve motivated them to tear down the whole damn institution of marriage! Who do you think controls Hollywood? GAYS. Who do you think controls the fashion industry? GAYS Who do you think has MAJOR influence in the music industry and popular culture? GAYS Who sets the tone for what is “cool” and “hip”? GAYS
By trying to protect that which you hold so dear (traditional family values/culture) with ZERO tolerance for rights and freedoms of others, you have created and enemy who has set out to destroy you.
And honestly, can you blame them? What if the tables were turned? What if YOU could be arrested for having sex with the person YOU loved? What if YOU had to keep your sexuality a secret or you would be publicly shunned and possibly assaulted, or even murdered? Wouldn’t YOU fight to eradicate the forces that led to YOUR persecution? It’s common fucking sense…
Traditional values were doomed the day you used FORCE and INTOLERANCE to attack a small minority with a different opinion. America was built with checks and balances to PROTECT the minority from such abuse. It was only a matter of time before they gained enough power and precedent to protect themselves. And once they felt “safe”, they went for the jugular of the institutions that attacked them for so long.
How is this not obvious?
[/quote]
I read through this, thought about a substantive reply, read it again, chuckled, and decided not to.
So, over 70% of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock, and the reason is the gays are exacting their vengeance on an intolerant, overbearing religious society. Because the gays control all the things.
Brilliant.
[/quote]
The cultural rebellions like the sexual revolution, gay pride movement etc were about overthrowing the social relations that were forced upon people, by state force, for thousands of years. Women didn’t want to be domestic servants, they wanted the freedom to fuck like men do, party like men do, be autonomous like men are.
Gay people wanted to say fuck the notion of what a family has to be or what love constitutes,we can be a family, we can raise children, we are not criminals. Blacks had open and armed rebellions against the racist laws and culture that was backed by the ideological narrative of western racial and religious authority.
The repression that women faced as part of the nuclear family, the discrimination gays faced from a theocratic minded culture and institutions and the systemic racism blacks and minorities faced from the ideologically white supremacist culture, which was backed and parroted by religious figures, politicians and the state all caused the rejection of the values you talk about and wish we still had.
You talk about the good old days when people stayed married and kids had two parents. How many of those wives were beaten and lived a miserable life? Staying married and abused or just unhappy was not better for them.
As for the welfare issue. I think that has far more to do with industry being shipped to the third world than it does the dissolution of family life. Back in the day both my grandad, uncle and dad had jobs at factories earning very decent wages, straight from high school.
Today they would of been minimum wage workers or unemployed.
It is not as simple as you are making out.
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans throughout history have been controlled and subjugated by religion. The “nuclear family” model was pretty much enforced by the “fact” that if you had sex before marriage, it was a “sin”. The population was much more ignorant. Despite the guarantees of the Constitution, women couldn’t vote until 1920 and black males couldn’t vote until 1870. Even today, despite the ruling of Lawrence vs. Texas, homosexuality remains “officially” illegal in many states and homosexuals are still being arrested for “crimes against nature”. Gay people are still being arrested for having consensual sex in some red states, like Louisiana.
That’s why we have a problem with the breakdown of the nuclear family. You religious folks went too far. If you had left gay people alone and not persecuted them by arresting them for pursuing their own happiness, they NEVER would have gained the power and influence that they have. The problem is this: persecuting two consenting adults for having sex violates their civil rights. It always has. ANYONE with a brain can figure that out. Seriously, take a moment and think about it. But religion twisted the common sense of the “authorities” and they unjustly persecuted them. So guess what happens when a minority is unjustly persecuted? THEY FIGHT BACK. And you stupid religious people, in your arrogance, CREATED a powerful “gay movement” that is now swaying the politics, civil rights and personal liberty for ALL of us.
If they had simply been left alone, they NEVER would have been motivated to unite and fight for “equality” the way they have. Now they have equality AND THEN SOME. Way to think it through. By denying gay people the right to marry and all of the entitlements that go along with that, you’ve motivated them to tear down the whole damn institution of marriage! Who do you think controls Hollywood? GAYS. Who do you think controls the fashion industry? GAYS Who do you think has MAJOR influence in the music industry and popular culture? GAYS Who sets the tone for what is “cool” and “hip”? GAYS
By trying to protect that which you hold so dear (traditional family values/culture) with ZERO tolerance for rights and freedoms of others, you have created and enemy who has set out to destroy you.
And honestly, can you blame them? What if the tables were turned? What if YOU could be arrested for having sex with the person YOU loved? What if YOU had to keep your sexuality a secret or you would be publicly shunned and possibly assaulted, or even murdered? Wouldn’t YOU fight to eradicate the forces that led to YOUR persecution? It’s common fucking sense…
Traditional values were doomed the day you used FORCE and INTOLERANCE to attack a small minority with a different opinion. America was built with checks and balances to PROTECT the minority from such abuse. It was only a matter of time before they gained enough power and precedent to protect themselves. And once they felt “safe”, they went for the jugular of the institutions that attacked them for so long.
How is this not obvious?
[/quote]
I read through this, thought about a substantive reply, read it again, chuckled, and decided not to.
So, over 70% of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock, and the reason is the gays are exacting their vengeance on an intolerant, overbearing religious society. Because the gays control all the things.
Brilliant.
[/quote]
The cultural rebellions like the sexual revolution, gay pride movement etc were about overthrowing the social relations that were forced upon people, by state force, for thousands of years. Women didn’t want to be domestic servants, they wanted the freedom to fuck like men do, party like men do, be autonomous like men are.
Gay people wanted to say fuck the notion of what a family has to be or what love constitutes,we can be a family, we can raise children, we are not criminals. Blacks had open and armed rebellions against the racist laws and culture that was backed by the ideological narrative of western racial and religious authority.
The repression that women faced as part of the nuclear family, the discrimination gays faced from a theocratic minded culture and institutions and the systemic racism blacks and minorities faced from the ideologically white supremacist culture, which was backed and parroted by religious figures, politicians and the state all caused the rejection of the values you talk about and wish we still had.
You talk about the good old days when people stayed married and kids had two parents. How many of those wives were beaten and lived a miserable life? Staying married and abused or just unhappy was not better for them.
As for the welfare issue. I think that has far more to do with industry being shipped to the third world than it does the dissolution of family life. Back in the day both my grandad, uncle and dad had jobs at factories earning very decent wages, straight from high school.
Today they would of been minimum wage workers or unemployed.
It is not as simple as you are making out.[/quote]
This is precisely the point, and you are making my argument for me. There absolutely was an assault on, really, all social institutions. The presumption was they were all constricting, social constructs depriving people of their individual liberty. Yes, yes, yes. Exactly. Even the nuclear family, which you even radically profess as inherently subjugatory to women. Yes, yes, yes.
But not every social institution was bad or conceived in bad faith. No matter - the social libertarians wanted to cut with a scythe, not a scalpel - remove them all from our society, none of them are good, they are presumed repressive.
A huge mistake. Jim Crow was bad, for example, but nuclear families are not. But the damage was done, and people began to buy into the message being preached about “liberation”.
Yep, exactly. You’ve crystallized the problem perfectly. And now that we are having to clean up the wreck made by such careless social choices, what do we do to fix it?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But not every social institution was bad or conceived in bad faith. No matter - the social libertarians wanted to cut with a scythe, not a scalpel - remove them all from our society, none of them are good, they are presumed repressive.
[/quote]
This is 100% conjecture. I have a hard time moving forward with the discussion when you seem convinced no other issues could have lead towards the current issues SOME families have.
Most notably the increased level of government involvement in the lives of Americans. The real big daddy who can make everything better and doesn’t let people be responsible for their own poor decisions economically.
No, the answer MUST be we let gay people come out of the closet? Or women have sex with more than one man? Come on T.
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Why are libertarians frothing at the mouth over tax rates and regulation but ignore and don’t publicly call for the removal of two heavy regulations and impositions of the free market. LLC’s and Child labour.
[/quote]
Why should libertarians have a problem with LLCs? Other than to point out that government should not play a role in their recognition, libertarianism is not concerned with such matters.
I have a problem with child labor laws. I actually tried to point that out in either this thread or another, earlier today.[/quote]
Well if you look back in history free market advocates were furious about LLC’s and labeled them socialist. They are at complete odds with the free market. They allow people to remove the responsibility of their actions, avoid debtors jail etc. This was one of the main things the free market fundamentalists (early libertarians before that was a word) despised.
They also protested both immigration policy and child labour laws. If capital could travel across human border, so must the labour force to stop wages and prices from being artificially manipulated by government policy. As for child labour this was seen as a disgusting breach of freedom for the government to close a huge pool of resources from which the entrepreneur was now losing his vast profits from and forced to pay more for the same work. Thus regulating and manipulating the market.
This is my problem, if you are going to claim Libertarianism be open enough and understand it enough to have a libertarian stance on these things.[/quote]
LLCs can be established by private contract; therefore, to prohibit them is to violate the rights of individuals to enter into contracts(and to do that would be an admission that the state owns individuals).
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]
Nor with laws prohibiting child rape, correct?