Who says someone is entitled to basic respectful speech? Do you really need a law to tell you to be respectful? It seems you are operating in a vacuum where no one is exercising their moral imperatives. There will be a few jerks but most people will gravitate the social norms of the period. Enough free speech can compel the harassers to stop.
The minorities who are clearly being oppressed by the majority.
Social norms are not necessarily good. Racism was a social norm in the 19th century. Homophobia was a social norm throughout the 20th century.
I firmly believe that morality doesn't exist in the manner that most people seem to think it does. I believe that it is a social construct and thus essentially meaningless outside of the laws and the moral codes that a certain society develops for its own particular country/culture/w.e.
So, yes, I do believe that we need laws to tell people to be respectful. Because I believe that people are respectful ONLY because they were raised to be respectful by their parent and community.
When the government intervenes you get jim crow laws. I'm not opposed to government or laws but I do believe its gotten to the point where government is way out of control and its largely due to people attempting to push their moral imperatives onto us. The government needs to operate at a basic level.
And when the government intervenes you also get rid of Jim Crow laws and homophobia and so on and so forth. Sometimes government intervention leads to the forcible banning of slavery in a region where it would have been impossible to squash it without complete and utter reliance on force and rule of law.
Government is not some alien entity that intrudes upon us. Our government exists as a mirror of society. The issue is that people do not like what the mirror reflects, largely because it reflects the majority (or the people with the most money/influence), and no one really likes it when people they consider the enemy wins.
I still do not understand why we still regulate marriage. I do not understand why we need the government to direct an entity to pay for another entities contraceptives. If the government wants make contraceptives an entitlement raise taxes and provide it, why encroach on a specific group to pay for it? Why does the government need to be involved in whether or not a person has an abortion? medical procedure?
You, as with a lot of other people apparently, need to learn to divorce the details from the greater picture. Yes, some of these things are needless interventions by the government. But to claim that since government needlessly intervenes sometimes and that is wrong, we should stop government from intervening at all, is silly.
You, as with a lot of other people apparently, need to learn to divorce the details from the greater picture. Yes, some of these things are needless interventions by the government. But to claim that since government needlessly intervenes sometimes and that is wrong, we should stop government from intervening at all, is silly.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I think you are under the assumption that do not believe the government should intervene. This is not at all true. I do believe the scope of government intervention and and how it operates is too focused on moral impearatives and I rather it focus on matters of practicallity and protection of rights.
Then tell me what you mean by "The government needs to operate at a basic level."
Because that is a really broad spectrum. It can run the gamut of hardcore Libertarian ideals that literally say "Government should just let people do whatever they want and they'll be able to figure things out on their own" up to... God knows where. You never defined what "basic level" means and so I substituted what I thought you meant.
Then tell me what you mean by "The government needs to operate at a basic level."
Because that is a really broad spectrum. It can run the gamut of hardcore Libertarian ideals that literally say "Government should just let people do whatever they want and they'll be able to figure things out on their own" up to... God knows where. You never defined what "basic level" means and so I substituted what I thought you meant.
Protecting peoples liberty for one. Protecting people from taking liberty from others. Solving problems society can not solve such as addiction. Find ways to stimulate innovation. Build roads. Staying away from moral impeartives other than the basic foundation the princiapls and laws were built upon in the first place.
Then tell me what you mean by "The government needs to operate at a basic level."
Because that is a really broad spectrum. It can run the gamut of hardcore Libertarian ideals that literally say "Government should just let people do whatever they want and they'll be able to figure things out on their own" up to... God knows where. You never defined what "basic level" means and so I substituted what I thought you meant.
Protecting peoples liberty for one. Protecting people from taking liberty from others. Solving problems society can not solve such as addiction. Find ways to stimulate innovation. Build roads. Staying away from moral impeartives other than the basic foundation the princiapls and laws were built upon in the first place.
All of those can run into the problem of protecting people's liberties or protecting people from taking liberties from others. How on earth would government solve addiction? What if a person feels like its their right to be addicted to cocaine? Then what?
The problem is that everything the government does (laws, rights, liberties, etc) is grounded in some form of morality. They don't do it for *****s and giggles.
I just gave you one for the addiction. If you'd like another, who is going to pay for the bridge?
Taxes. Somehow I think you think I'm a purely ideological libertarian believer. I'm not. I'm way more for pragmatism and comprise than idealism.
Right, and we aren't going to be touching the guy that sells the cocaine because he believes its his God given right to sell coke
Why should we? Although you raise an interesting point as I support decriminalization but not legality. I have to think about this, he is impacting other people.
Taxes. Somehow I think you think I'm a purely ideological libertarian believer. I'm not. I'm way more for pragmatism and comprise than idealism.
You haven't exactly told us what kind of liberties we should be guaranteed so I just went ahead and assumed every possible liberty.
Look, I'm not trying to invent the wheel here. I guess I'm having trouble articulating my premise. Ultimately I believe people try too hard to impose their moral imperatives. People are so confident in their righteousness it sometimes defies all common sense and pragmatism.
Protecting peoples liberty for one. Protecting people from taking liberty from others. Solving problems society can not solve such as addiction. Find ways to stimulate innovation. Build roads. Staying away from moral impeartives other than the basic foundation the princiapls and laws were built upon in the first place.
You still haven't looked up social contract theory, have you?
Look, I'm not trying to invent the wheel here. I guess I'm having trouble articulating my premise. Ultimately I believe people try too hard to impose their moral imperatives. People are so confident in their righteousness it sometimes defies all common sense and pragmatism.
You fall under the category of people. Keep that in mind.
Look, I'm not trying to invent the wheel here. I guess I'm having trouble articulating my premise. Ultimately I believe people try too hard to impose their moral imperatives. People are so confident in their righteousness it sometimes defies all common sense and pragmatism.
You fall under the category of people. Keep that in mind.
I understand that. All I'm asking is people do not impose upon me and I wont impose upon them.
I understand that. All I'm asking is people do not impose upon me and I wont impose upon them.
That is an idealistic point of view. Just saying.
Just letting you know, Government's job is to impose upon us. Government is also comprised of people. This is like one of the big points of social contract.
The way you're heading, from what I and the rest of those participating in this thread have seen, you're basically advocating for anarchy but acknowledging that the government does somethings correct but still not worth having government.
I understand that. All I'm asking is people do not impose upon me and I wont impose upon them.
That is an idealistic point of view. Just saying.
Just letting you know, Government's job is to impose upon us. Government is also comprised of people. This is like one of the big points of social contract.
The way you're heading, from what I and the rest of those participating in this thread have seen, you're basically advocating for anarchy but acknowledging that the government does somethings correct but still not worth having government.
I'm not an AC nor an anarchist.
EDIT: As pointed out I favor pragmatism and compromise more than idealism. I operate very few idealistic notions and most of my opinions are determined by pragmatism.
For instance, I personally do not believe people should have abortions but I also respect a woman's liberty, I do not believe I have any right to impose my moral imperatives upon the woman.
So then there are cases where government (body of people) is within its right to impose on you.
Yes, taxes or when I impose upon another persons liberty. I'm more concerned with the body of people who vote who think their moral imperatives should impose on me than government imposing on me not to kill someone.
Yes, taxes or when I impose upon another persons liberty. I'm more concerned with the body of people who vote who think their moral imperatives should impose on me than government imposing on me not to kill someone.
See now that is an example of you being not vague.
Why should the representatives not be scrutinized equally as those who voted him/her in. The representative (should) embody the ideals that the voters stand for, he/she is a person and is the one directly imposing on your rights.
edit: Though you'd probably should explain why we should be subjected to taxes.
Yes, taxes or when I impose upon another persons liberty. I'm more concerned with the body of people who vote who think their moral imperatives should impose on me than government imposing on me not to kill someone.
See now that is an example of you being not vague.
Why should the representatives not be scrutinized equally as those who voted him in. The representative (should) embody the ideals that the voters stand for, he is a person and is the one directly imposing on your rights.
The responsibility is on the voters. That's kind of the purpose of the thread. Society as individuals seems focused on imposing their moral imperative absent pragmatism. The religious right do not respect homosexuals ability to be free. My question is, why do they care? On other side, homosexuals getting pissed because someone will not sell them a cupcake, why the hell do they care? It seems majority of voters are more concerned with imposing their idealism rather than any sort of compromise that lets government help people live their own lives their own way.
The responsibility is on the voters. That's kind of the purpose of the thread. Society as individuals seems focused on imposing their moral imperative absent pragmatism.
On other side, homosexuals getting pissed because someone will not sell them a cupcake, why the hell do they care?
Because that is discrimination and that sets a precedent for others to discriminate. You're telling me if all of a sudden someone denies you a simple service based off a completely irrelevant fact about you, that you wouldn't be pissed?
It seems majority of voters are more concerned with imposing their idealism rather than any sort of compromise that lets government help people live their own lives their own way.
So given this, why on earth would you want government to intervene minimally? Shouldn't you want them to intervene more?
Yes i'm well aware of Tyranny of the majority. Just want to see if you'd acknowledge it.
I'm well aware of advanced(?) concepts I don't know the name of. Product of not having an advanced education.
Because that is discrimination and that sets a precedent for others to discriminate. You're telling me if all of a sudden someone denies you a simple service based off a completely irrelevant fact about you, that you wouldn't be pissed?
First, if they do not want to sell something to me, I'd be exasperated (this word did not mean what I thought it did) shocked. The whole goal to sell something is to make money. You are not making money by not selling to me. Second, I'll move on, I may or may not get pissed, my anger is my problem. I'm not entitled to buy their cupcake. I've left plenty of businesses exercising discrimination against poor service.
About discrimination. It's okay to discriminate. We discriminate every day in perfectly socially acceptable situations. I do not think you want to argue that all discrimination is bad.
So given this, why on earth would you want government to intervene minimally? Shouldn't you want them to intervene more?
Not when its filled up with a bunch of idealist. I'm not edmucated but I'm not stupid either.
About discrimination. It's okay to discriminate. We discriminate every day in perfectly socially acceptable situations. I do not think you want to argue that all discrimination is bad.
I don't think discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation would fall under the good kind of discrimination. Not even remotely close to it from what my intuition tells me.
Not when its filled up with a bunch of idealist.
Learn to assume the worst in people. Never assume the best. Your expectations of government and people are just too damn high. Coincidentally, I'm going to once again reiterate my initial idea of reading Hobbes. Hell, a quote that he is most famous for embodies exactly what i've just said.
edit: and with that, i'm think i'm going to bow out. Until you understand even at the most basic level of social contract, you're just going to be going around in circles about how government should be minimalist and not be minimalist at the same time.
After which you post four definitions, and then proceed to highlight the third most commonly used one. But yes, continue acting smug.
Do you see the problem? Liberty can mean almost anything. Indeed, one can have liberty by one definition and not have liberty by another.
Even if we agree upon the third definition: WHICH controls? By WHOM? WHY?
I need you to define all the words you've used so far, otherwsie what you are saying here is meaingless.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The minorities who are clearly being oppressed by the majority.
Social norms are not necessarily good. Racism was a social norm in the 19th century. Homophobia was a social norm throughout the 20th century.
I firmly believe that morality doesn't exist in the manner that most people seem to think it does. I believe that it is a social construct and thus essentially meaningless outside of the laws and the moral codes that a certain society develops for its own particular country/culture/w.e.
So, yes, I do believe that we need laws to tell people to be respectful. Because I believe that people are respectful ONLY because they were raised to be respectful by their parent and community.
And when the government intervenes you also get rid of Jim Crow laws and homophobia and so on and so forth. Sometimes government intervention leads to the forcible banning of slavery in a region where it would have been impossible to squash it without complete and utter reliance on force and rule of law.
Government is not some alien entity that intrudes upon us. Our government exists as a mirror of society. The issue is that people do not like what the mirror reflects, largely because it reflects the majority (or the people with the most money/influence), and no one really likes it when people they consider the enemy wins.
You, as with a lot of other people apparently, need to learn to divorce the details from the greater picture. Yes, some of these things are needless interventions by the government. But to claim that since government needlessly intervenes sometimes and that is wrong, we should stop government from intervening at all, is silly.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I think you are under the assumption that do not believe the government should intervene. This is not at all true. I do believe the scope of government intervention and and how it operates is too focused on moral impearatives and I rather it focus on matters of practicallity and protection of rights.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Because that is a really broad spectrum. It can run the gamut of hardcore Libertarian ideals that literally say "Government should just let people do whatever they want and they'll be able to figure things out on their own" up to... God knows where. You never defined what "basic level" means and so I substituted what I thought you meant.
Protecting peoples liberty for one. Protecting people from taking liberty from others. Solving problems society can not solve such as addiction. Find ways to stimulate innovation. Build roads. Staying away from moral impeartives other than the basic foundation the princiapls and laws were built upon in the first place.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
All of those can run into the problem of protecting people's liberties or protecting people from taking liberties from others. How on earth would government solve addiction? What if a person feels like its their right to be addicted to cocaine? Then what?
The problem is that everything the government does (laws, rights, liberties, etc) is grounded in some form of morality. They don't do it for *****s and giggles.
Like what?
Provide treatment and education. You can't really "solve" addiction, of course but you can help people who want to kick it.
They die?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I just gave you one for the addiction. If you'd like another, who is going to pay for the bridge?
Right, and we aren't going to be touching the guy that sells the cocaine because he believes its his God given right to sell coke
Taxes. Somehow I think you think I'm a purely ideological libertarian believer. I'm not. I'm way more for pragmatism and comprise than idealism.
Why should we? Although you raise an interesting point as I support decriminalization but not legality. I have to think about this, he is impacting other people.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You haven't exactly told us what kind of liberties we should be guaranteed so I just went ahead and assumed every possible liberty.
Look, I'm not trying to invent the wheel here. I guess I'm having trouble articulating my premise. Ultimately I believe people try too hard to impose their moral imperatives. People are so confident in their righteousness it sometimes defies all common sense and pragmatism.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Yes. Yes you are.
You still haven't looked up social contract theory, have you?
You fall under the category of people. Keep that in mind.
Can you define your words, otherwise this is meaningless.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I understand that. All I'm asking is people do not impose upon me and I wont impose upon them.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
That is an idealistic point of view. Just saying.
Just letting you know, Government's job is to impose upon us. Government is also comprised of people. This is like one of the big points of social contract.
The way you're heading, from what I and the rest of those participating in this thread have seen, you're basically advocating for anarchy but acknowledging that the government does somethings correct but still not worth having government.
I'm not an AC nor an anarchist.
EDIT: As pointed out I favor pragmatism and compromise more than idealism. I operate very few idealistic notions and most of my opinions are determined by pragmatism.
For instance, I personally do not believe people should have abortions but I also respect a woman's liberty, I do not believe I have any right to impose my moral imperatives upon the woman.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
So then there are cases where government (body of people) is within its right to impose on you.
Yes, taxes or when I impose upon another persons liberty. I'm more concerned with the body of people who vote who think their moral imperatives should impose on me than government imposing on me not to kill someone.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
See now that is an example of you being not vague.
Why should the representatives not be scrutinized equally as those who voted him/her in. The representative (should) embody the ideals that the voters stand for, he/she is a person and is the one directly imposing on your rights.
edit: Though you'd probably should explain why we should be subjected to taxes.
The responsibility is on the voters. That's kind of the purpose of the thread. Society as individuals seems focused on imposing their moral imperative absent pragmatism. The religious right do not respect homosexuals ability to be free. My question is, why do they care? On other side, homosexuals getting pissed because someone will not sell them a cupcake, why the hell do they care? It seems majority of voters are more concerned with imposing their idealism rather than any sort of compromise that lets government help people live their own lives their own way.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Yes i'm well aware of Tyranny of the majority. Just want to see if you'd acknowledge it.
Because that is discrimination and that sets a precedent for others to discriminate. You're telling me if all of a sudden someone denies you a simple service based off a completely irrelevant fact about you, that you wouldn't be pissed?
So given this, why on earth would you want government to intervene minimally? Shouldn't you want them to intervene more?
I'm well aware of advanced(?) concepts I don't know the name of. Product of not having an advanced education.
First, if they do not want to sell something to me, I'd be
exasperated(this word did not mean what I thought it did) shocked. The whole goal to sell something is to make money. You are not making money by not selling to me. Second, I'll move on, I may or may not get pissed, my anger is my problem. I'm not entitled to buy their cupcake. I've left plenty of businesses exercising discrimination against poor service.About discrimination. It's okay to discriminate. We discriminate every day in perfectly socially acceptable situations. I do not think you want to argue that all discrimination is bad.
Not when its filled up with a bunch of idealist. I'm not edmucated but I'm not stupid either.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I don't think discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation would fall under the good kind of discrimination. Not even remotely close to it from what my intuition tells me.
Learn to assume the worst in people. Never assume the best. Your expectations of government and people are just too damn high. Coincidentally, I'm going to once again reiterate my initial idea of reading Hobbes. Hell, a quote that he is most famous for embodies exactly what i've just said.
edit: and with that, i'm think i'm going to bow out. Until you understand even at the most basic level of social contract, you're just going to be going around in circles about how government should be minimalist and not be minimalist at the same time.