American History Is Not Libertarian History?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Sloth:

When in your opinion is divorce acceptable?
[/quote]

When the vows made by each to the other are broken. Abuse and adultery. That’s it.[/quote]

Patently unfair. What if someone gets bored and wants to, you know, dip their stinger in different honey, despite the three kids that are relying on the home being provided? What do you hate freedom? :slight_smile:

(Btw, wondering when you would drop by - this topic is right in your wheelhouse.)
[/quote]

The idea that someone who is for liberty is for someone not raising their kids is simply untrue.

You think people were faithful back when divorce wasn’t socially allowed? Ha, women just put up with it. You really think the 60’s invented infidelity?

Again T what is your solution? I agree that Dad’s not raising kids is bad. How do we fix it when the government will solve the issue by using your tax dollars to provide for the kid anyways. [/quote]

Back then, the culture didn’t tolerate it. Through the power of shame, such norms were enforced. It didntt work perfectly - nothing will - but the culture brought its wrath down on the person and the person most often responded. Legal solutions weren’t as necessary because the private world handled the matter.

Fast forward to now. As I noted in the other thread, we can’t extract the state from the role of family provider until we reinstall the true members (like fathers). That starts with changing the culture and being willing to speak publicly and condemn bad behavior - and loud.

The law can only go so far - although I am not a huge fan of no-fault divorce - the solution is bigger than the law.

It starts with getting away from this mushy-minded non-judgmentalism (that libertarians are so famous for, but they aren’t the only ones), dropping the moral relativism, and shaming, which means stop socially rewarding stupid behavior with attention, reality shows, and the like, and start hurting people’s feelings who are not doing right by their children.

This sounds harsh, but at a basic level, it’s not. I am no curmudgeon and I am not interested in lecturing every stranger I see. But it’s gone too far.

162

[quote]Question.

Which will contribute the most in consuming the entire budget (besides paying interest) of the US.

Feeding and providing healthcare to children with absent fathers?

Or,

Feeding and providing healthcare to the elderly and adult affirm?[/quote]

Once you’ve answered that, you’ll know why the sterilizing/contracepting/aborting of america isn’t the solution to our buget/entitlement obligation woes.

That is, beside it being a completely Darwinistic dead-end for one culture that practically begged for itself, and even invited, to be replaced.

163

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

It starts with getting away from this mushy-minded non-judgmentalism (that libertarians are so famous for, but they aren’t the only ones), dropping the moral relativism, and shaming, which means stop socially rewarding stupid behavior with attention, reality shows, and the like, and start hurting people’s feelings who are not doing right by their children.

This sounds harsh, but at a basic level, it’s not. I am no curmudgeon and I am not interested in lecturing every stranger I see. But it’s gone too far.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree though I reject the notion that libertarians are non judgmental. I can’t think of any libertarian board I’ve posted on before where people said thank god we have dad’s who won’t raise their children. I don’t know where your libertarian hate comes from, but I think you are getting a lot mixed up my friend. A difference exists between thinking people should be free and thinking people shouldn’t meet the obligations of their decisions.

Completely agree with the narcissistic reality show and social media culture. I’m not against public shaming the people who won’t support their own children, but reject the premise that freedom from the government is the reason why that happens.

164

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Question.

Which will contribute the most in consuming the entire budget (besides paying interest) of the US.

Feeding and providing healthcare to children with absent fathers?

Or,

Feeding and providing healthcare to the elderly and adult affirm?[/quote]

Once you’ve answered that, you’ll know why the sterilizing/contracepting/aborting of america isn’t the solution to our buget/entitlement obligation woes.

That is, beside it being a completely Darwinistic dead-end for one culture that practically begged for itself, and even invited, to be replaced.[/quote]

I don’t follow. The answer to providing healthcare for the elderly is in making sure we only have unprotected sex?

165

I’m for throwing that trash off the air! And that is the difference between conservatism and libertarianism.

166

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Question.

Which will contribute the most in consuming the entire budget (besides paying interest) of the US.

Feeding and providing healthcare to children with absent fathers?

Or,

Feeding and providing healthcare to the elderly and adult affirm?[/quote]

Once you’ve answered that, you’ll know why the sterilizing/contracepting/aborting of america isn’t the solution to our buget/entitlement obligation woes.

That is, beside it being a completely Darwinistic dead-end for one culture that practically begged for itself, and even invited, to be replaced.[/quote]

I don’t follow. The answer to providing healthcare for the elderly is in making sure we only have unprotected sex?

[/quote]

Yep. It’s called reproduction.

167

I assume you know the answer, by the way?

Could you state it here?

Is it those single parent children not having been contracepted from existence, or aborted during a moment of freedom, that will swamp the entire budget.

Or, the increasingly childless/grand-childless elderly who no longer have the extended family to care for them so that they’d even consider supporting the libertarian end-game. I.e. the dismantling of entitlement obligations.

168

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

It starts with getting away from this mushy-minded non-judgmentalism (that libertarians are so famous for, but they aren’t the only ones), dropping the moral relativism, and shaming, which means stop socially rewarding stupid behavior with attention, reality shows, and the like, and start hurting people’s feelings who are not doing right by their children.

This sounds harsh, but at a basic level, it’s not. I am no curmudgeon and I am not interested in lecturing every stranger I see. But it’s gone too far.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree though I reject the notion that libertarians are non judgmental. I can’t think of any libertarian board I’ve posted on before where people said thank god we have dad’s who won’t raise their children. I don’t know where your libertarian hate comes from, but I think you are getting a lot mixed up my friend. A difference exists between thinking people should be free and thinking people shouldn’t meet the obligations of their decisions.

Completely agree with the narcissistic reality show and social media culture. I’m not against public shaming the people who won’t support their own children, but reject the premise that freedom from the government is the reason why that happens.
[/quote]

Libertarians are non-judgmental. Oh, they may have opinions, but their ideology prevents them from actually condemning other people in any kind of meaningful way. Because if they did, the would violate the working precept of libertarianism.

And I don’t hate libertarians. I just think their ideology is (largely) naive and kind of stuck in adolescence, though some of that depends on the libertarian. I also firmly believe that libertarianism is not an American ideology - or doesn’t findb its roots here - but is much more continental in nature (and that is why the link at the beginning of the thread is so interesting).

169

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Question.

Which will contribute the most in consuming the entire budget (besides paying interest) of the US.

Feeding and providing healthcare to children with absent fathers?

Or,

Feeding and providing healthcare to the elderly and adult affirm?[/quote]

Once you’ve answered that, you’ll know why the sterilizing/contracepting/aborting of america isn’t the solution to our buget/entitlement obligation woes.

That is, beside it being a completely Darwinistic dead-end for one culture that practically begged for itself, and even invited, to be replaced.[/quote]

I don’t follow. The answer to providing healthcare for the elderly is in making sure we only have unprotected sex?

[/quote]

Yep. It’s called reproduction. [/quote]

I have good news. My sisters who were on birth control while in college have had two kids and three kids. Meaning it is possible to take something that keeps someone from being pregnant when they don’t want children and still allows them to have children when they are financially and emotionally prepared.

170

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Question.

Which will contribute the most in consuming the entire budget (besides paying interest) of the US.

Feeding and providing healthcare to children with absent fathers?

Or,

Feeding and providing healthcare to the elderly and adult affirm?[/quote]

Once you’ve answered that, you’ll know why the sterilizing/contracepting/aborting of america isn’t the solution to our buget/entitlement obligation woes.

That is, beside it being a completely Darwinistic dead-end for one culture that practically begged for itself, and even invited, to be replaced.[/quote]

I don’t follow. The answer to providing healthcare for the elderly is in making sure we only have unprotected sex?

[/quote]

Yep. It’s called reproduction. [/quote]

I have good news. My sisters who were on birth control while in college have had two kids and three kids. Meaning it is possible to take something that keeps someone from being pregnant when they don’t want children and still allows them to have children when they are financially and emotionally prepared. [/quote]

You’re too smart to use anecdotal evidence.

171

The fact is that isn’t the true story of what has-been/is/will-be happening.

172

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The fact is that isn’t the true story of what has-been/is/will-be happening.
[/quote]

You are right my friend. Educated and higher earning people are having less kids because they are the ones who are using contraceptives (they are still having sex) and we are being flooded by dumbasses who have large families and can’t afford it. The state makes the problem worse by giving people incentives to have these large families/not punishing them fiscally when they make mistakes (like fuck things up by not using birth control).

I’m far less worried about us “running out of kids” than I am about the idiocracy we are slowly becoming.

FWIW I think it is those same toothless hillbilly morons who love watching stupid shit like Duck Dynasty, Jersey Shore, Bachelor, and that one with the fat little girl who for the life of me I can’t remember right now. So maybe if those morons weren’t breeding at insane rates (say 19 kids and counting or something) you wouldn’t feel the need to have the government ban reality TV.

173

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m for throwing that trash off the air! And that is the difference between conservatism and libertarianism. [/quote]

And this surprises me. Who decides what is right to be shown and what is not right to be shown?

I’m 31 years old and the government should say I can’t watch Breaking Bad? I can’t watch South Park? I can’t watch Daredevil on Netlix because it is too violent?

If that is the conservative argument then they will never win a Presidential election until the end of time. I just don’t think it is.

Believe it or not I missed these conversations even though sometimes I feel like we are from different planets :wink:

174

[quote]NickViar wrote:

I 110% agree. That’s the scenario I was asked about. The idea that allowing people freedom is going to make child molestation acceptable is fucking absurd.[/quote]

It isn’t about what’s “acceptable.” The adolescent notion of freedom you’ve been pushing for a long time – it makes child molestation not illegal. Which, to borrow from you, is fucking absurd.

[quote]
The suggestion that permitting children to work is the same as permitting child molestation is equally absurd.[/quote]

I can only speak for myself, so I will. I connected the two only to make the point that it isn’t surprising, or even worth discussing, that you are against anti-child-labor laws, given that you are [or, I guess, were] also against anti-child-rape laws. I really don’t care that you stepped on my toe if you also stabbed me in the testicle with a letter-opener, you know what I mean?

175

[quote]H factor wrote:

And this surprises me. Who decides what is right to be shown and what is not right to be shown? [/quote]

The government. I’m going to assume you’re not that concerned with the government saying “hey, you can’t run hardcore closeup penetrative sex (with various orifices and implements) between Saturday morning cartoons.” So, the same entity.

Daawwww! Me too, man. This makes us BFF’s. And, who says I’m typing this from an Earth based location?

176

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m for throwing that trash off the air! And that is the difference between conservatism and libertarianism. [/quote]

In honesty, the idea of government reaching into TV schedules in order to kill unwholesome programming (as opposed to blanket-regulating what can and cannot be depicted, such as nudity/gore) is a lot more than conservatism. In fact, it has a lot in common with the most extreme forms of left authoritarianism, and is somewhere uncomfortably positioned along a continuum that ends in this:

Edited.

177

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m for throwing that trash off the air! And that is the difference between conservatism and libertarianism. [/quote]

In honesty, the idea of government reaching into TV schedules in order to kill unwholesome programming (as opposed to blanket-regulating what can and cannot be depicted, such as nudity/gore) is a lot more than conservatism. In fact, it has a lot in common with the most extreme forms of left authoritarianism, and is somewhere uncomfortably positioned along a continuum that ends in this:

Edited.[/quote]

Not concerned. Sometimes even a homicidal maniac likes to go to the movies. Doesn’t make me a maniac for liking to do the same (going to the movies, not the whole killing people thing…).

178

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

And this surprises me. Who decides what is right to be shown and what is not right to be shown? [/quote]

The government. I’m going to assume you’re not that concerned with the government saying “hey, you can’t run hardcore closeup penetrative sex (with various orifices and implements) between Saturday morning cartoons.” So, the same entity.

Daawwww! Me too, man. This makes us BFF’s. And, who says I’m typing this from an Earth based location?
[/quote]

So would you be for the government banning shows like Breaking Bad, South Park, and Daredevil? I mean where does your unacceptable line start and how do we decide?

A lot of ground in between porn on Saturday morning kid channels and breaking bad on at night.

This is an aside, but why I’ve got you…what do you think of Pope Francis? Genuinely curious. I know some have worried that he may be “modernizing” the church too much or some such. Just curious what you thought.

179

I mean, just arming the police and military could lead to a great many of us dead and deposited into mass graves one day. Doesn’t mean I don’t want them armed.

180

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Religion is the problem because it will not agree to the gentle and friendly sterilization and contracepting away of the lower and lower-middle income folk. Today’s secretly desired remedy.[/quote]

It’s a secretly desired remedy that people wait until they want kids to have them?

People are not going to just not have sex. That is a pipe dream. Condoms and birth controls can limit the amounts of unwanted pregnancies and decrease the need for the welfare state. People can wait to have children when they are financially and emotionally ready. Instead of forcing them to be financially and emotionally ready because they had bad luck doing something every human has a drive to do which is sex.

And yet the religious are against these things.

I know we have danced this dance many times Sloth! [/quote]

You can argue this until you are blue in the face, and no matter HOW much logic, reason, or evidence you present, they will stick their head in the sand, talk around but never acknowledge your points and ultimately claim a higher “morality” than you (everyone knows they have a monopoly on the highest morality). Because some 2000 year old goatherds did some good drugs and wrote down that a jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree… They are all insane, you are wasting your time.