Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Contagious Gay Saliva (Read 9629 times)
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
That is not a "debt" owed to any person. Your argument fails. |
Your faith-based understanding of Natural Rights fails. People don't have Rights just because it makes you feel good! Rights are economic phenomena that can only be understood through scientific method, not wishful thinking. Back to epistemology school for you. Even Ayn Rand came to the same conclusions on this issue as I have, though she wasn't quite as articulate. Notwithstanding this isn't an ethical argument, people's brains seem to
motivate them to reproduce. Seems to have worked pretty well for the
last 100,000+ years. Why, even government policies limiting the number
of children a person have shown to be powerless. |
Not only are you driving by looking in the rear view mirror, but your rear view mirror seems to be a few decades behind, while civilization is moving forward with its foot stuck on the accelerator. By most measures this acceleration is a very good thing, but you have to keep your eyes on the road ahead. Bows and arrows worked pretty well for thousands of years, until things changed and they didn't. Things are changing - you only have to look at the numbers (including more detailed urban/rural and religion breakdowns). I know it's more fun for you to argue from emotion, and plenty of people here share your biases so they'll agree with you, but truth can only be found in facts and logic. Fertility rates tend to correlate with affluence and modernity. Communist China made a very stupid decision to accelerate their decline, which has short-term benefits but serious long-term drawbacks. China's fertility rate of ~1.54 (CIA's numbers) is higher than EU or any of China's better-developed East Asian neighbors. As countries will become more urbanized, more affluent, and more secular, they'll fall below 1.0 average children per woman, while ~2.2 are needed just to keep population stable. The average fertility world-wide is still positive only because of extremely backward countries, but once the light of civilization shines in fertility rates can drop into the negative territory in just one or two decades. In every geographic and cultural region of the world there is an example of such a country: Puerto Rico / Cuba (~1.6), Thailand (1.65), Algeria / Tunisia / Lebanon (~1.7), Mauritius (1.8 ), Iran (1.89), Sri Lanka (1.96), etc. And those countries still have plenty of religious nuts having kids by the dozen. The socialist governments of Europe are spending huge amounts of money to try to raise their fertility rates up again, with very little result. I see no logic that established the rights to life, liberty, and property that also
presumes that some unknown noun should encourage people to have babies.
Why does there need to be that? You've gone from stating an is to an ought.
Trying to state what is practical as what is preferable. |
In ethics, the "unknown noun" is the person considering what decision is ethical. The entirety of rational philosophy is based only on the axioms that you exist ( cogito ergo sum) and that existence is desirable (or else feel free to stop living), thus bringing thinkers out of total impossibility of reason and into a framework where people can act in their individual self-interest. From there, on the basis of reason, we establish an ethical framework that must govern pursuit of individual self-interest in order to make civilization possible: the Non-Aggression Principle, Property Rights, Parents' Rights, etc. With all due respect to Hume, all those things come from "ought". We all benefit from the labor of others.
That's how capitalism works and free markets work. |
Of course. But people have a Right to discourage free riders through non-violent means, and the exact same thing applies to homosexuals as well. Fatally flawed. There's nothing about being gay doesn't mean you can't reproduce.
That was the norm just 40-years ago: homosexual individuals would often have a
heterosexual spouse--and children. Still today, I know plenty of homosexual couples
who have either had children or now care for children. |
This isn't a problem of "can't", but of "won't". You keep missing the point. Evolution doesn't care about intentions or possibilities, it only cares about results. Show me statistics that homosexuality has no tendency to get in the way of family, fertility, and health, and I will no longer consider it an undesirable trait that needs to be repressed within oneself and avoided in others. Do you really presume to tell other people what they have to do? |
Yes. On the basis of pure reason, I presume that I have the Right to use violence in defense of Life, Liberty, Property, Parents' Rights, and enforcement of Contracts. I also presume that I have a Right to act in my self-interest and choose my own behaviors, attitudes, and associations with other people. And I also presume that I have a Right to free speech, no matter what emotional reactions it provokes in others. You have the Right to be gay, or an alcoholic, a scientologist, etc. And I have the Right not to like it, to stay away from you, and to discourage this behavior in myself and others, particularly my children / dependents. I don't recall you suggesting any libertarian solution above. |
The libertarian solution is non-violent cultural discrimination against homosexuality / homosexuals, as well as other unhealthy lifestyles / their followers. But the simple "free market" solution is to make it less expensive to raise a child
(e.g. don't tax what it costs to raise them), and make it more expensive not to raise a child
(e.g. abolish comprehensive, government-based retirement). |
I also hope that getting rid of government-based retirement and government intrusion in family life will be enough to raise the fertility rates, but I am not very optimistic. I think it would take much stronger recognition of Parents' Rights, like the Parents Tax, along with some continued social pressure that encourages heterosexuality and focus on the family. The fact is that government gives people financial incentives to have children. Lately I've been spending a lot of time doing business with Hasidic Jews (their black market / agorism efforts dwarf FSP by many orders of magnitude). They seem to have it all figured out - after eight or so children they don't even have to work anymore (except, of course, in bed).  These kinds of people (along with FLDS, the Amish, etc) help keep USA's fertility rate among the highest in the developed world, but it has already slid down below replacement fertility at ~2.06. "First world" countries will be able to solve this problem in the short term by importing immigrants and exporting labor, but ultimately the whole world is in the same boat. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
That is not a "debt" owed to any person. Your argument fails. |
Your faith-based understanding of Natural Rights fails. People don't have Rights just because it makes you feel good! Eh? I don't believe in Natural Rights Theory (which is distinct from those rights labeled as natural). You have not addressed how every human is born into debt, one satisfied when the person produces offspring. Things are changing - you only have to look at the numbers (including more detailed urban/rural and religion breakdowns). Yet, you have not contradicted what I said in the slightest. Fertility rate still above replacement. Fertility rates tend to correlate with affluence and modernity.
I'm going to ignore the rest of this nonsense. It'll suffice to say that drops below replacement are not necessarily caused by affluence. Correlation is not causation. In ethics, the "unknown noun" is the person considering what decision is ethical.
No. It sounds like you're proposing state intervention. And you just won't admit it. The entirety of rational philosophy is based only on the axioms that you exist (cogito ergo sum) and that existence is desirable
That is neither a consequence of nor contained in Descartes' philosophy. You've once again made the jump. From there, on the basis of reason, we establish an ethical framework that must govern pursuit of individual self-interest in order to make civilization possible: the Non-Aggression Principle, Property Rights, Parents' Rights, etc. With all due respect to Hume, all those things come from "ought".
Indeed, those are oughts. Yet, you haven't shown how what you assert, ought to be. We all benefit from the labor of others.
That's how capitalism works and free markets work. |
Of course. But people have a Right to discourage free riders through non-violent means, and the exact same thing applies to homosexuals as well. [/quote] But you have not established they are free-riding at all. Fatally flawed. There's nothing about being gay doesn't mean you can't reproduce.
That was the norm just 40-years ago: homosexual individuals would often have a
heterosexual spouse--and children. Still today, I know plenty of homosexual couples
who have either had children or now care for children. |
This isn't a problem of "can't", but of "won't". You keep missing the point. Evolution doesn't care about intentions or possibilities, it only cares about results. No, you're missing the point. Yet again, you're stating what IS and concluding that which IS somehow undesirable. Show me statistics that homosexuality has no tendency to get in the way of family, fertility, and health, and I will no longer consider it an undesirable trait that needs to be repressed within oneself and avoided in others.
Don't think so. Accept the burden you have to bear. If you want to oppress other people, how about you demonstrate in a cogent manner why it's so necessary that you justify infringing on other people's rights. I also hope that getting rid of government-based retirement and government intrusion in family life will be enough to raise the fertility rates, but I am not very optimistic.
Before you even devote another brain-cycle to the topic, you really need to ask yourself why you should care to increase fertility rates at all. Then--if we're all really lucky--you'll see the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
Eh? I don't believe in Natural Rights Theory
(which is distinct from those rights labeled as natural). |
Objective reality exists independently of your beliefs. You have not addressed how every human is born into debt,
one satisfied when the person produces offspring. |
It's not a "debt" in a legal sense, but in an ethical one. You cannot use violence to force people to reproduce. (Whether you can use violence for something like the Parents' Tax is a separate question.) However you definitely can use non-violent cultural influence like ostracism against the behaviors and people that encourage freeloading, which is what we are talking about here. Every human being that has ever existed only existed as the result of heterosexual reproduction, which has recently become very easy to avoid, with tragic consequences. It may be an unpleasant issue for libertarians to think about, but sticking your head in the sand will not make it go away. Out first duty must be to the Truth - both personal truth, which acknowledges the power of temptation, but its objectively-evident harms as well. Population / demographic issues are deeply integrated into every economic equation, from cost of labor to size of the market to rate of innovation. Just look at what's happening in Japan - in spite of the fact that they export most of their labor needs abroad! People might be willing to work into their 80s, but after a certain point they won't be quite as sharp. A shrinking / older population means higher cost of labor, and technological advancement can only compensate so much. Someone has to give birth to a plumber and raise him through childhood, at no compensation to them, before he can come to your house to fix your sink! Someone has to give birth to and raise a billion babies before you can buy an iPad! The demographic freeloader problem can become as serious as the economic freeloader problem, except that we've managed to solve the latter by recognizing the necessity to use violence in defense of Property Rights. Yet, you have not contradicted what I said in the slightest.
Fertility rate still above replacement. |
Actually you don't know that for sure. Population growth will continue for some decades after fertility falls below replacement, due to momentum and increasing life expectancy. The global fertility in year 2010 (although some indicators might be lagging further) was ~2.5, mostly due to places like Niger, but it's dropping fast. That ~2.5 may or may not be above the break-even point, because the "third world" places that have the most children need fertility rate of 3-4 children per women to overcome high rates of mortality. But, I ask you again - is the windshield of your car located on the floor or in the front? Do you hope to still be alive in the year 2020, 2040, 2060, and beyond? (Trans-humanists who hope to live hundreds of years should take this issue even more seriously.) Do you hope for the human civilization, if it follows your philosophy, to be able to grow and prosper in the long term? And then there's the dysgenic effect to consider. Fertility rate is below replacement (~2.05) in the USA, 1.714 in Hew Hampshire, and among libertarians it is lower still. There is strong cultural momentum that encourages children to inherit their parents' beliefs (and a libertarian system logically must strengthen Parents' Rights even more). Without sufficient incentive to reproduce, an ever-growing majority of children will be raised by collectivist idiots. I'm going to ignore the rest of this nonsense.
It'll suffice to say that drops below replacement
are not necessarily caused by affluence.
Correlation is not causation. |
You don't see how secularization, urbanization, access to contraception, and a service sector economy replacing subsistence agriculture has a causal effect on fertility rate drop? How else do you explain those predictable and consistent drops, fairies and pixie dust?! (Reminder for people with short attention spans: I am not advocating subsistence agriculture or outlawing contraception, just pointing out that this is a serious problem as fertility rates will continue to drop.) What happened in Iran will eventually happen in Afghanistan. What happened in Lebanon will happen in Saudi Arabia. What happened in Trinidad and Tobago, Maldives, and Mauritius will eventually happen in Africa and India as well. Etc. And then the rates in those countries will resemble those of South Korea and Italy (even though both currently still have religious people that have families). No. It sounds like you're proposing state intervention.
And you just won't admit it. |
I don't get all religious about non-violence. If I ever come across a scenario where additional violence is logically justified (ex. like a real environmental crisis, a rational basis for intellectual monopolies, an attack by the Cylons, etc), then I will indeed advocate violence. Morality must be based on absolute ruthless, heartless, logical pursuit of Truth, whether it confirms your instincts and emotions or not! Although, fortunately, most human instincts and emotions are not entirely without a functional / rational basis. I have thought about the demographic issue, which I've called "the one fatal flaw of libertarianism", for quite some time. I've proposed something resembling state intervention (more in the spirit of flexible and decentralized Zakāt rather than a state) in one thought exercise I've called the " Childless Tax". I then proposed an even less state-like alternative I called the " Parents' Tax - driven by cultural pressure rather than force. And the cultural encouragement of heterosexuality goes along with it. That is neither a consequence of nor contained in Descartes' philosophy.
You've once again made the jump. |
Read Aristotle - possibly the thinker with whom this idea originates. And, more crucially, Ayn Rand - possibly the thinker with whom this idea reaches full fruition. And Libman - if he ever gets his Evolutionary Pragmatism crap organized and published.  (To be continued.) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 01:11:26 am by Alex Libman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Eh? I don't believe in Natural Rights Theory
(which is distinct from those rights labeled as natural). |
Objective reality exists independently of your beliefs. Are you actually trying to address what's written? You seem to be going off on these fantastical tangents that have almost nothing to do with the thread. I fear it's a great waste of both of our time. You have not addressed how every human is born into debt,
one satisfied when the person produces offspring. |
It's not a "debt" in a legal sense, but in an ethical one. And to whom is this obligation owed? Every human being that has ever existed only existed as the result of heterosexual reproduction, which has recently become very easy to avoid, with tragic consequences.
Sorry, no. In vitro fertilization is quite common-place these days. While the gametes are indeed male and female cells, that's not even remotely the same sense of the word you've been using. And, absent you demonstration how, the fact of sexual reproduction has little bearing on the source of any ethical obligation. The demographic freeloader problem can become as serious as the economic freeloader problem
You've thrice now failed to offer even a scintilla of an argument that there is some sort of free-rider problem. Repeating it ad nauseum will not make it true. And now, without demonstrating a thing's existence, you tell us how serious this figment of the imagination is... Yet, you have not contradicted what I said in the slightest.
Fertility rate still above replacement. |
Actually you don't know that for sure. Despite what recent population surveys show, even if we were to accept that, then we must accept you don't know either. Yet you proclaim otherwise. You don't see how secularization, urbanization, access to contraception, and a service sector economy replacing subsistence agriculture has a causal effect on fertility rate drop? How else do you explain those predictable and consistent drops, fairies and pixie dust?!
You need to read carefully. I did not say that fertility per se wouldn't drop. (Reminder for people with short attention spans: I am not advocating subsistence agriculture or outlawing contraception, just pointing out that this is a serious problem as fertility rates will continue to drop.)
Once again, you imagine a problem without any apparent reason as to why it's a problem. Morality must be based on absolute ruthless, heartless, logical pursuit of Truth, whether it confirms your instincts and emotions or not!
Ignoring the irony of your many invocations of almighty logic, why must morality be based upon this? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 01:30:25 pm by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
On second look, it seems that I have nothing further to add in reply to above. I've laid out my arguments sufficiently, so that any literate person with a fully functional brain will be able to understand them. Reiterating everything over and over and over and over and over and over again for lazy minds isn't something I am being paid for. If you fail to understand, then you will live with the consequences of your ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
On second look, it seems that I have nothing further to add in reply to above. I've laid out my arguments sufficiently, so that any literate person with a fully functional brain will be able to understand them. Reiterating everything over and over and over and over and over and over again for lazy minds isn't something I am being paid for. If you fail to understand, then you will live with the consequences of your ignorance.
I think you are fooling yourself with your own assumptions and conclusions that your arguments are "sufficient"--in this and other threads--by characterizing people who do not understand what you are saying or disagree with you are illiterate, lack functional brains, are ignorant, ad nauseum. Poor form, sir. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
There's some time, effort, and money involved.
I've yet to experience "emotional drama."
And none of it qualifies as "horrendous."
For a rationalist, raising children is quite easy. Congratulations. But every family is different - some situations are easier and more rewarding than others. Obviously enough people find it difficult enough to avoid having children, or to have just one child. The bottom line is that first-world fertility rates are what they are, and they are continuing to fall as liberal family values continue to spread. Apparently, you lack an understanding as to causality. With the wonders of modern technology, homosexuals are
perfectly capable of having their own biological children. You have to fill a swimming pool with water BEFORE you jump in. Once rational people see homosexuals in aggregate achieve a positive fertility rate and good parenting outcomes, the cultural pressure toward heterosexuality would phase out. And once they see heroin junkies become exemplary people, then they will stop ostracizing them too. However, in the meantime, the facts remain - homosexuality greatly reduces one's chances of having children (not to mention one's life expectancy, psychological health, and all the other rational reasons for a parent to want straight children). I guess Black folks should stop having children, too, then? I mean, compare the "life expectancy, psychological health," etc. between Black folks and White folks, and the difference is pretty significant. Black folks also average more liberal. Clearly, Black folks should have a lower reproductive rate, right? Based upon a method that doesn't require any modern technology at all -
adoption - homosexuals have been able to raise children for many, many years. Yes, there will always be need for foster parents, and it's great that some fraction of the homosexual population are helping out with that, but it's just a tiny minority so far. Does that even offset the number of homosexuals who abandon their children when they decide they are gay? You can hardly point at the government's refusal to allow homosexual couples to adopt or foster children as an example of something inherent in homosexuality. I've not heard of any significant number of homosexuals abandoning their children. And adoption has little to do with the demographic crisis. Why not? Those capable of producing offspring could produce more than they could take care of, and allow them to be adopted. We'll just need a group of healthy women who can bear all these babies (preference for those who have twins in their family history) and a small number of ultra-fertile men. Crisis solved.  Um, what would having other sexual partners have to do with homosexuality? If someone is engaged in a homosexual relationship, then it's obviously not with the child's other biological parent. And cheating with someone of the same sex is more damaging than cheating with someone of the opposite sex, because it predisposes one for more homosexuality, and thus reduces the bond with child's other biological parent. You need to stop looking at the world through idealistic TV-sitcom glasses where all homosexuals manage to work things out, and scientifically observe how people actually behave in the real world. Who said anything about cheating? [...] one of the difficulties with having children is that it can negatively impact the sex lives
of the parents, so they may delay reproduction in favor of keeping their own sex lives intact.
As long as they are behaving ethically, avoiding drama which might negatively impact their lives,
having other sexual partners can avoid that problem and let them more easily decide to reproduce. Yes, that's what every pregnant woman wants to hear - "sorry, honey, I can't stay with you and do the breathing exercises tonight, I hear there's a new glory hole at a truck stop across town". That makes no sense whatsoever. You're starting to have less logic in your post than I typically hear from those wearing Che shirts... Actually, the more adults who are part of a single family
(up to a point, anyway), the less work and expense are involved in reproduction,
on a per-child basis, so it's easier to have larger numbers of children. [...] I agree completely, and I'm a big fan of polygamy / "plural marriage" - in theory. One man having multiple wives tends to work out sometimes, in highly religious societies at least. Marriages involving more than one man haven't been attempted very often. Of all the poly groups I'm personally aware of, where there's an imbalance in the number of partners, the overwhelming majority have more men. Being statistically more able to earn a larger salary, more men offer greater security to the group. But there is a huge difference between being able to find a few ideal scenarios and having it work in practice. This is exactly like socialism - some small fraction of the population loves it and works hard and contributes their very best without caring what they get back, but most people aren't like that. You cannot judge a culture by its best examples, you have to look at it as a whole. The fact remains - liberal family values cause population collapse. Yeah, 'cause monogamy works so well. Monogamy is like socialism: there are a few examples where individuals work extremely hard and make it work. When highschool sweethearts get married and stay together for decade after decade, until death separates them, they are rare enough to be worth note. The majority of monogamous relationships do not last long enough to raise a child. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
First and foremost, what's always getting in the way of this discussion is that people keep losing context and revert to their "liberal" brainwashing... You cannot cast me as some kind of an Archie Bunker or Ted Haggard! Yes, part of this is my fault for being unable to resist the temptation for over-the-top satire for its irreplaceable expressive value, which unfortunately some people cannot handle. I am neither a bigot nor a prude! (Heck, if sexual openmindedness was an Olympic sport, then some of my old FTL BBS threads should be enough to make me a world champion!) I most obviously do support equal Rights for all self-owning Rational Economic Actors (i.e. not children, prisoners, mentally ill), including people of every sexual "orientation" imaginable, but only when talking about negative Rights. You should ask yourselves two (package deal) questions: (1) Do you want Mommy Government to punish parents for trying to raise their children straight, as is in their self-interest to do so, to crack down on ex-gay movements, enforce non-discrimination laws, censor someone for citing medical evidence that for example masturbation techniques influence sexual orientation, etc? (2) Do you want to base your vision of a free society on your wishful thinking, expecting human nature and economic reality to change to fit your plans, the way commies do? If you answer "No" to both questions, then we should be in agreement. A free society is one where roads still have traffic signs (if the owners find them useful), the " war on drugs" is fought non-universally but more effectively on the basis of reputation and Contract Rights, and, in absence of government brainwashing in their favor, homosexuals are non-violently discriminated against more pervasively than today. I don't go around making this an issue, but some "libertarians" make pushing their homosexual culture on others their #1 priority, including flashy sig spam. Freedom doesn't belong only to drug users and homosexuals! A free culture is exactly that - a free market where individuals choose for themselves! And, at least until we reach an era of rapid human cloning, the evolutionary forces of the marketplace will stoically favor traditional family values, while the illogical cultures that reject them prematurely will shrink and collapse. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 09:22:41 am by Alex Libman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
|
We discussed the subject of gay people and reproduction on yesterday's episode for anyone who cares to hear my thoughts on it. |
More lies... That was my first time listening to Dale's podcast. I had that episode, and a couple that followed, sitting on my MP3 player for a while... This morning, during one of my marathon walks, I finally forced myself to listen to them. I knew I needed to check out the episode he linked to, in the infinitesimally small chance that he might finally form a coherent rational argument. But, alas, no. The 3-4 hours of socializationist brainwashtainment and "if it feels good do it" ear-rape were not pleasant, but I've suffered through it, in hope that they will eventually say something substantive to address my economic libertarian arguments for a culture of non-violent heteronormativity. They've come nowhere close. I know that by your cultural standards I'm blowing this out of proportion. After all, Dale and I agree at least 90% on political ideals, and I certainly could have been a lot friendlier on that basis. But our disagreements on epistemology (he seems to accept NAP as an axiom rather than a measurable economic phenomenon), tactics, and ultimately ethics are more significant than most people realize. What I value in FSP is firstly a philosophical movement, not a collective where people compromise on Truth for the sake of getting along! It's very easy to be nearsighted and ignore the issue of the demographic paradox, but ignoring it will not make it go away. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MS Libertarian
|
So you want me to hate dale because he likes guys?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Only Jedis should use the force!
The Second Amendment is my gun permit.
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
|
Wow... Maybe that's what your average 5-year-old would say if you read him/her my comments on this thread, because s\he wouldn't understand most of it... I don't want anybody to hate anybody. I like Dale, and I appreciate many things he has done for liberty. Everybody is bisexual to some degree, and I've made sure to explore gay sex myself on a couple of occasions. That said, I do have certain philosophical dialectics about ethics and aesthetics that are related to homosexuality as a long-term "lifestyle choice". I actually have to push myself to be more judgmental than I actually am, because Truth is my highest value. Dale doesn't like me very much, which is understandable, but I am not his enemy. He consistently makes promoting homosexuality his #1 issue, which is fine, but he presents it from a very one-sided point of view and I have never seen / read / heard him address the primary issues that make homosexuality controversial in the first place. He consistently refuses to discuss this issue at any substantive depth (though one can occasionally lure him into it through crude humor). This is like someone talking about how great it is to burn down your house for the insurance money, and even have a weekly podcast about it, but refuse to address the issue of the insurance company losing money, raising the rates for everybody else, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MS Libertarian
|
first of all didn't need to know you tried being gay.
second, I still missed how it is that we each "owe" society a child. I believe that was your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Only Jedis should use the force!
The Second Amendment is my gun permit.
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
|
No one "'owes' society a child" (or the 2-3 children per woman that would be needed to keep population stable) in any legal sense, but, nonetheless, this is a very serious free rider problem. It is unfortunate that you are unable to grasp such simple concepts. You need to spend more time studying rational philosophy, beyond the core legalism of the Non-Aggression Principle, which teaches you nothing of how people would interact with each-others in matters that don't involve outright aggression. One of the first things a libertarian needs to know is to differentiate between different levels of undesirable behavior: those that justify defensive violence vs those that ethically justify varying degree of ostracism and other social pressure. One parable for homosexuality is ten people being shipwrecked on a small uninhabited island, all of them equally able-bodied, and they happen to know that there is an underground spring on that island but no other sources of drinkable water, so they have to dig a well before all of them die of thirst. Nine people, representing heterosexuals, embark on the arduous process of digging with their bare hands, recognizing the necessity of this work. One person, representing homosexuals, says, "ew, you know, I was born with a preference for not digging in the dirt all day, so you go ahead, and I will play on the beach and wait for you to finish". The other nine should not be able to initiate aggression against the slacker with impunity, but it would be rational and ethically justifiable of them to utilize social pressure against him. A rational society is able to make "free rider problems" manageable in most situations thanks to Property Rights, but the demographic paradox is a problem that remains to be solved. Gay people are born, and they live in a civilization because other people are born - all as the result of other people pulling their demographic weight, which, as the world secularizes, ever-fewer people are willing to do! There are different categories of people who get to "drink from the well without digging for it", some of whom are morally justifiable, but the "gay pride" movement is trying to turn parasitism into a virtue! People have a Right to discriminate in who they associate with and what opinions they hold of other people. Dalebert is pushing a position that homosexuality is great, and that people who disagree are all religious nut-jobs akin to the KKK. The reality is that heteronormality / heteronormativity is completely different from racism and other irrational bigotry! All people are potentially bisexual, and their sexual preferences are a result of years of cognitive development and mental feedback cycle - much more so than any genetic or physiological factors. Even actively homosexual people are very much capable of having reproductive unions and pulling their demographic weight, which has been the norm in places like China for thousands of years. Dalebert wants to deny free will in order to justify the immorality of his lifestyle, which is about as rational as saying that insurance cheats and serial killers are "simply born that way" too. Those examples are easier to explain to libertarians, because they involve specific victims, but in this one case all of humanity really is in the same boat. Human beings have to come from somewhere. If there is no social pressure for people to reproduce, the economy will inevitably collapse. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 12:49:23 pm by Alex Libman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MS Libertarian
|
No one "'owes' society a child" (or the 2-3 children per woman that would be needed to keep population stable) in any legal sense, but, nonetheless, this is a very serious free rider problem. It is unfortunate that you are unable to grasp such simple concepts. You need to spend more time studying rational philosophy, beyond the core legalism of the Non-Aggression Principle, which teaches you nothing of how people would interact with each-others in matters that don't involve outright aggression. One of the first things a libertarian needs to know is to differentiate between different levels of undesirable behavior: those that justify defensive violence vs those that ethically justify varying degree of ostracism and other social pressure. One parable for homosexuality is ten people being shipwrecked on a small uninhabited island, all of them equally able-bodied, and they happen to know that there is an underground spring on that island but no other sources of drinkable water, so they have to dig a well before all of them die of thirst. Nine people, representing heterosexuals, embark on the arduous process of digging with their bare hands, recognizing the necessity of this work. One person, representing homosexuals, says, "ew, you know, I was born with a preference for not digging in the dirt all day, so you go ahead, and I will play on the beach and wait for you to finish". The other nine should not be able to initiate aggression against the slacker with impunity, but it would be rational and ethically justifiable of them to utilize social pressure against him. A rational society is able to make "free rider problems" manageable in most situations thanks to Property Rights, but the demographic paradox is a problem that remains to be solved. Gay people are born, and they live in a civilization because other people are born - all as the result of other people pulling their demographic weight, which, as the world secularizes, ever-fewer people are willing to do! There are different categories of people who get to "drink from the well without digging for it", some of whom are morally justifiable, but the "gay pride" movement is trying to turn parasitism into a virtue! People have a Right to discriminate in who they associate with and what opinions they hold of other people. Dalebert is pushing a position that homosexuality is great, and that people who disagree are all religious nut-jobs akin to the KKK. The reality is that heteronormality / heteronormativity is completely different from racism and other irrational bigotry! All people are potentially bisexual, and their sexual preferences are a result of years of cognitive development and mental feedback cycle - much more so than any genetic or physiological factors. Even actively homosexual people are very much capable of having reproductive unions and pulling their demographic weight, which has been the norm in places like China for thousands of years. Dalebert wants to deny free will in order to justify the immorality of his lifestyle, which is about as rational as saying that insurance cheats and serial killers are "simply born that way" too. Those examples are easier to explain to libertarians, because they involve specific victims, but in this one case all of humanity really is in the same boat. Human beings have to come from somewhere. If there is no social pressure for people to reproduce, the economy will inevitably collapse. so you see some impending disaster if gay people arnt discriminated against by society? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Only Jedis should use the force!
The Second Amendment is my gun permit.
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
|
Yes. And I'm in the process of talking about the specific mathematics of societal collapse that results from the "tragedy of the [demographic] commons" on an Islam-related thread. (More posts later in that thread, and more to come.) Like I say on that thread, "scoreless [childless] heterosexuals are at least playing the right sport". Is it really that difficult to understand where babies come from, and what happens to a culture that stops producing enough babies?! I say: "A very low fertility rate does create an up-side-down population pyramid. That's not a delusion, that's a mathematical fact. It is an economic fact that you cannot produce more than you consume, and someone needs to be doing the producing. It is a biological fact that human beings age." The only answer I seem to be getting is "who cares". Well, rational people do care if a particular philosophy is mathematically destined to whither away while Theocrats get to inherit control of all humanity! Until libertarianism fixes this one fatal flaw, it will continue to mainly attract short-sighted fools! Sure, demographic consequences seem many decades away, but those decades will come, and rational people do hope to stick around through transhumanism, or at least to leave a better world to their descendants! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 09:17:33 pm by Alex Libman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
