Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: Amazing Alfredo on July 22, 2003, 09:10:33 am

Title: A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 22, 2003, 09:10:33 am
What if the whole thing turns into a fiasco? It could come up 500 (or 100 or less) members short of 20,000 after getting a lot of attention and becoming high-profile. We could go there and accomplish nothing. We could start a boom, and then everything will go bust (especially if it's Wyoming, which has a history of that), and then they'd blame liberty.

There are two things I don't ever want to support, even indirectly: legal abortion and gay marriage. If the Supreme Court finally overturns Roe vs. Wade, I want abortion illegal immediately, and I don't want my participation encouraging a bunch of pro-abortion types to move into a state that might otherwise do the right thing. As for gay marriage, I'd like to see the government out of the marriage business altogether, and it certainly has no business giving gays a marriage license to wave in Chistian's faces.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: lloydbob1 on July 22, 2003, 09:23:46 am
Amazing,
I don't think 100, 200 or even a couple of thousand people short of 20,000 people in the Freestate will make a difference in the effectiveness of our mission.  Besides, there are millions of libertarians in the US.  I'm sure in time we will realize many more than the proposed 20,000.
You will not have to have anything to do with any abortion or Gay marriages because in a Freestate( or any state for that matter) somebody elses abortion or marriage will be none of your business.
Lloyd
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: MajesticLeo on July 22, 2003, 09:40:42 am
I don't want my participation encouraging a bunch of pro-abortion types to move into a state that might otherwise do the right thing. As for gay marriage, I'd like to see the government out of the marriage business altogether, and it certainly has no business giving gays a marriage license to wave in Chistian's faces.

Lloydbob is right.  What other people choose to do is not your concern unless it directly affects your rights as an individual.  

I think you may be missing the point of this whole exercise; Personal freedom and personal responsibility.  This does not mean forcing anyone's ideas of "the right thing" on everyone else, because there are a multitude of ideas on what is "the right thing".  

Personal freedom implies personal choice and on the abortion issue EVERYONE is Pro-Choice, just some people want everyone else to conform to their choice as to what is "the right thing".  In a free state, everyone has the freedom to make their own choices and the duty to take responsibility for that choice whatever it is, in whatever field the choice may be.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 22, 2003, 09:49:32 am
If we're just a few hundred short of 20,000 as of Sept. 2006, we'll keep recruiting until we get there.  The deadline isn't set in stone.  However, indications are that we will get to 20,000 quite easily, probably by the end of 2005.

What if we don't achieve political success?  Well, there are no guarantees in life.  We might not achieve significant political success, but I'd say the FSP is our best chance.

Regarding abortion, we have different views in the group.  Some want most abortions banned, some want most abortions legal.  Everyone (that I've seen) agrees that the issue should be a state one, and that Roe v Wade was bad law, but since it isn't a state issue, we won't be dealing with it in the interim.  If you're totally against cooperating with freedom-loving pro-choicers on the 99% of issues not having to do with abortion, then you're not likely to get much accomplished, and the FSP may not be for you.  The same goes for pro-choicers who won't work with freedom-friendly pro-lifers.

Everyone here wants to get government out of marriage rather than redefining marriage according to the latest standard of political correctness.  You can find some discussions in the "General Libertarian Discussion" forum about how this can be done.

Welcome to the forum!  And I hope you decide to join forces with us.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 22, 2003, 10:25:06 am
MajesticLeo;

Lloydbob is right.  What other people choose to do is not your concern unless it directly affects your rights as an individual.

So if A chooses to rape and murder B, it's none of my concern, nor is it any concern of the police or courts, since it didn't directly affect my own personal rights as an individual, nor their's, just B's rights. But now she'd dead, so I guess A goes free. Unless you think her defense agency should ride in, which is possible since anarchism is the only political philosophy consistent with your statement. But I'm not an anarchist, so I disagree.

I think you may be missing the point of this whole exercise; Personal freedom and personal responsibility.  This does not mean forcing anyone's ideas of "the right thing" on everyone else, because there are a multitude of ideas on what is "the right thing".

The non-initiation of force principle, or the right to life, liberty, and property, is someone's idea of "the right thing". Would you force it on everyone else? I would. And it is force that we're talking about. A will not respect B's rights voluntarily. Even if she herself is armed and provides her own defense, A is coerced into leaving her alone. As he should be.

Relativism is inconsistent with libertarianism. And itself, for that matter.

Personal freedom implies personal choice and on the abortion issue EVERYONE is Pro-Choice, just some people want everyone else to conform to their choice as to what is "the right thing".

Personal freedom implies personal choice and on the murder issue EVERYONE is Pro-Choice, just some people want everyone else to conform to their choice as to what is "the right thing". And I'm one of them.

You'll probably object to my substitution of "murder" for "abortion". But I think abortion is a form of murder, so it really is the murder issue. And if the unborn baby is a separate human life, clearly I'm right. So it comes back down to when life begins, which has always been the fundamental issue.

In a free state, everyone has the freedom to make their own choices and the duty to take responsibility for that choice whatever it is, in whatever field the choice may be.

If you choose to murder someone, what should that responsibility look like?
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 22, 2003, 10:34:50 am
If we're just a few hundred short of 20,000 as of Sept. 2006, we'll keep recruiting until we get there.  The deadline isn't set in stone.  However, indications are that we will get to 20,000 quite easily, probably by the end of 2005.

What if we don't achieve political success?  Well, there are no guarantees in life.  We might not achieve significant political success, but I'd say the FSP is our best chance.

Regarding abortion, we have different views in the group.  Some want most abortions banned, some want most abortions legal.  Everyone (that I've seen) agrees that the issue should be a state one, and that Roe v Wade was bad law, but since it isn't a state issue, we won't be dealing with it in the interim.  If you're totally against cooperating with freedom-loving pro-choicers on the 99% of issues not having to do with abortion, then you're not likely to get much accomplished, and the FSP may not be for you.  The same goes for pro-choicers who won't work with freedom-friendly pro-lifers.

Everyone here wants to get government out of marriage rather than redefining marriage according to the latest standard of political correctness.  You can find some discussions in the "General Libertarian Discussion" forum about how this can be done.

Welcome to the forum!  And I hope you decide to join forces with us.

It's not their being pro-choice I object to, it's the possibility they might win on the issue. Depending on the state, I suppose, the natives will keep that from happening.

I'm still not sure about the fiasco thing. I'll mull it over.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: LeopardPM on July 22, 2003, 11:24:48 am
interesting...

well, re: abortion - take a look at the abortion threads under family etc - you will see both sides presented, this issue is just as hotly debated within the FSP as it is in the general public....

You said that you would not support the FSP in any way if it supported Abortion (by legalizing it) or gay marriage.  Abortion is currently legal in your own state, so are you worse off if that were to continue in the free state - I believe this is a federal issue anyways, isn't it?  Gay marriage - it is agreed that it will be legal, AND, that hopefully we can get the government out of the marriage business totally.  BTW: why do you care if a gay person waves his/her license in your face?  they are just advertising or excercising free speech - ignore them - as you might do if you saw a billboard encouraging you to vote for someone you didn't like.  I think you have deeper reasons than just the 'face waving' that you are against... what aree these?
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 22, 2003, 12:07:26 pm
LeopardPM;

Abortion is currently legal in your own state, so are you worse off if that were to continue in the free state - I believe this is a federal issue anyways, isn't it?

Under the Constitution, it's very much a state issue. If the FSP ends up keeping it legal in a state where it would have been banned, the babies who get killed will be a lot worse off.

Gay marriage - it is agreed that it will be legal, AND, that hopefully we can get the government out of the marriage business totally.

I see. If you can't get the government out altogether, you'll settle for having the state officially endorse an abomination. Feh.

BTW: why do you care if a gay person waves his/her license in your face?  they are just advertising or excercising free speech - ignore them - as you might do if you saw a billboard encouraging you to vote for someone you didn't like.

In the first place, processing and awarding a marriage license is done with my money as a taxpayer. In the second place, it represents official sanction, presuming to speak on behalf of the people, for acts I regard as grossly immoral.

Would you call it nothing but free speech, and just ignore it, if the government used your money to pay for a billboard condemning homosexuality? Thought so.

I think you have deeper reasons than just the 'face waving' that you are against... what aree these?

I'm secretly a homosexual. I'm also secretly a cannibal, which is why I don't like cannibalism.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Zack Bass on July 22, 2003, 12:17:14 pm

Gay marriage - it is agreed that it will be legal, AND, that hopefully we can get the government out of the marriage business totally.

I see. If you can't get the government out altogether, you'll settle for having the state officially endorse an abomination. Feh.


I gotta go with Alf here.  Same goes for Medical Marijuana.

Quote

BTW: why do you care if a gay person waves his/her license in your face?  they are just advertising or excercising free speech - ignore them - as you might do if you saw a billboard encouraging you to vote for someone you didn't like.

In the first place, processing and awarding a marriage license is done with my money as a taxpayer. In the second place, it represents official sanction, presuming to speak on behalf of the people, for acts I regard as grossly immoral.


Again, Alf rules.  Just like those manger scenes, and the Boise Cross.

I have a strong feeling that I probably disagree with most of what you stand for, but you're doing great so far.

Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: onyx_goddess on July 22, 2003, 12:19:47 pm
Alfredo, I too am not eager to live in a state where the streets flow with abortion-blood, while homosexually married couples dance in it up to their ankles.

However, I'd propose an alternate reality to what might happen in the free state.

Abortion - because this is a hotly contested issue within the FSP, I would suspect that it won't become one of our flagship issues.  In other words, why waste our effort on an issue that we might be split 50/50 on.  So, I don't think you really need to worry about the FSP fostering additional abortions.

Homosexual Marriage - because libertarians are against the government regulation of marriage, it is a step BACKWARDS to promote the additional regulations for homosexual marriage.  For that reason, I think this too will not be a flagship issue, and so you won't have to worry about it getting pushed by libertarians in the free state.

So, imagine instead, all the free staters working towards all the things we agree on that are main-stream, solid libertarian issues.

Here are things I care about:

- Let me homeschool my 3 kids without ANY government interference
- Stop taxing me for unproven social programs
- Stop scaring me with nanny laws
- Stop wasting tax $ on prosecutions/imprisonment for victimless crimes
- Let us arm ourselves and shoot stray dogs that try and bite my children

I think if we focus on things we all agree on, and things that will immediately improve everyone's lives, we'll find we all have enough in common to make it worthwhile.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: MajesticLeo on July 22, 2003, 12:25:33 pm
Amazing,

Well, I never said I was a Libertarian........certainly not an anarchist, guess I must be a vile Republican or something like that. ;D  Anarchy cannot exist by virtue of the fact that people exist in the world who will take advantage of anyone they can; therefore the strong will form a dictatorship if nothing else.  

I view murder as a violation of my right to be secure in my neighborhood, whether I or my neighbor is the victim, and I will initiate force to prevent either.  

I don't object to you substituting murder for abortion in my statement.  Although they are two completely different issues, the formulation of the statement is still correct.

The "responsibility" for committing murder or any other capitol offense would take the form of accepting the consequences that it would result in my death too.

Aw the "immoral" argument again, against homosexuality this time. Sigh.  Well, there is a whole thread on that and it ends up every time being one's opinion as to what is "immoral" and what is not, and on what you choose to base that opinion.

Personally your religion and/or belief system is your own business and will govern how you choose to live, as whatever belief system each of us uses does.  However, that should not mean we cannot work together toward the goal of personal freedom.  This also implies freedom of non-association, so feel free not to associate with me or anyone else with whom you disagree.  But the overall goal is the important thing here.  IMHO

Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: LeopardPM on July 22, 2003, 03:32:25 pm
sorry - didn't make myself clear here -

First off, considering marriage "as a legal contract", it should be legal for all who are able to enter into ANY other contract.  The problem is that marriage allows the parties involved to be treated differently in the eyes of the government for taxation purposesm etc - this is what needs to be stopped.  While we still have taxes, tax everyone as individuals with no benefit or penalty to those who are in a variety of differing contracts - they are still individuals.  That status doesn't no matter what contracts they have entered into.

I never stated that I wanted the State to PAY for any licensing - this is a cost that should be borne by whomever needs whatever type of license - as long as we have licensing - so, no, I do not promote the government taking your money to promote whatever it may be that you are against.

If you think that you will ever be able to legislate morality, esp your own personal morality - I believe you will always be unhappy.  To give the governement that kind of power implies that others can do so as well, and others' morality could be quite different than your own. - best to get the government out of legislating in general... save the moral issues of actions to the individuals and their religious affiliations. (ie: whether or not gays prancing around in abortion blood is an abomination is up to God to decide, and he will, I am sure) - The big sticking point is whether abortion = murder... that is the crux of that issue and our country is split 50/50 which I would interpret as a reason that individual states could decide either way..

Re: Abortion -
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: lloydbob1 on July 22, 2003, 04:23:56 pm
Amazing,
If I can stop a murder or catch a murderer, I will, of course, do so.  The next victim might be me and it is generally bad to have a murderer around.
If I choose to have an abortion it will be the result of a contract between me and whoever performs the abortion. I might even do it myself and avoid the middleman, although as a 55 year old male, I don't forsee the likleyhood of this happening.
In any case it would be in a privite place, impossible for YOU to POLICE!  

Jason,
I disagree.  There are many forms of personal behavior that are not the business of the Feds OR any individual state.
Lloyd
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: pghpat26 on July 22, 2003, 05:07:31 pm
LeopardPM;


In the first place, processing and awarding a marriage license is done with my money as a taxpayer.
        I dont know what state you live in alfredo but my state you pay for your marriage license. If it were being paid by, as you say tax payer money, it would be free, correct? When i set up shop in the free state if someone like you comes onto my property, you're gonna wish you hadnt. I dont want this guy as my neighbor. Religious nuts not allowed on my property.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 23, 2003, 12:57:56 am
LeopardPM;

If you think that you will ever be able to legislate morality, esp your own personal morality - I believe you will always be unhappy.  To give the governement that kind of power implies that others can do so as well, and others' morality could be quite different than your own. - best to get the government out of legislating in general... save the moral issues of actions to the individuals and their religious affiliations.

Leaving aside the fact that if I wanted to legislate my personal view that smoking pot is wrong (which I don't think, BTW), I'd be happier with the status quo than I am, I never called for legislating morality. You've just retreated into comfortable old rhetoric.

Abortion? No more than the law on homicide is "legislating morality", and you say states can decide either way. Homosexuality? But I never said it should be banned, and don't think it. I just don't want it sanctioned. Even if the fees cover the whole cost, which probably varies from state to state, you, and everyone else who made the arguement from fees, left the second reason untouched. So suppose someone pays for a big bronze plaque of John 3:16 at a courthouse or town hall. Not forcing anyone to do or not do anything, not imposing any financial burdens on anyone but the donor, just sitting, a constant declaration of what the government approves of. I'm pretty sure what you'd think of that. But you like it when the government sanctions homosexual relationships. Legislating morality is exactly what you're doing, you're just getting the morality screwed up.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 23, 2003, 01:04:18 am
pghpat26;

When i set up shop in the free state if someone like you comes onto my property, you're gonna wish you hadnt. I dont want this guy as my neighbor. Religious nuts not allowed on my property.

And does that apply to the founder of your group?
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: LeopardPM on July 23, 2003, 02:10:48 am
pghpat26;

When i set up shop in the free state if someone like you comes onto my property, you're gonna wish you hadnt. I dont want this guy as my neighbor. Religious nuts not allowed on my property.

And does that apply to the founder of your group?

I would guess that would apply to anyone, including the founder of any group, who trespassed - BUT, that is a diferent thread that helps take into account the following (simplified) example:
 man lost in woods, dying from exposure, comes upon your summer cabin (currently empty) - breaks in to use the phone to save himself..
-- the dabate rages, but, it is generally agreed that the man owes for his trespass, but not so much as it is right to shoot him.  Generally referred to as 'proportional response'.

I am sorry if you believe that I am not moral for believing that gay people should be allowed to 'do their thing' whether this be some kind of martial contract or what have you.

Actually, in regard to abortion, most of my life I have been vehemently apposed to it for probably the same reasons you are.

The explaination for why I am at least open to discussing the 'legality' of abortion is because the arguments are very vague - they ALL have to boil down to 'Where does life begin?' - is it once the baby has exited the womb?  Is it once it is viable (can live without being completely dependent upon the mother for food/air/etc (ie: 7 month births where the child lives)?  What constitutes 'being human' - or is it enough to have the definite potential for being human? and where does that line end? an egg and sperm have that potential also...

Since God never clearly defined these things, and we are obviously unable to figure them out (as witnessed by the division of opinions we humans have on the subject) ourselves in any sort of unanimous fashion, or even a definite majority - this being the case, then I say let each State figure it out for themselves...

if legalized abortion is the one major problem you have with the libertarian philosophy and you are looking for a 'group' that only believes as you do, I would say the FSP is not the correct choice - we are as divided on this issue as the rest of society.  EXCEPT, the FSP is the only choice for you (you are saying, 'wth! you wacko leopard guy, can't even make up his own mind) - let my expand on this:

You desire to live in an area where abortions are not performed, and are openly discourged, ridiculed, 'illegal' - do you have this now?  If, lets suppose for a second, it came to pass that a state was actually able to determine its own destiny, a 'free' state, allowing the federal government only the power to maintain a military (for defensive purposes only, yet another debate).  Within this free state, everything was 'legal' EXCEPT the actions of commiting force or fraud upon another (this isn't the whole deal, but simplyfied) - people within this state are completely free to attach covenants (deed restrictions) to their own private property - these restrictions can range from a simple 'no dogs allowed', to the more inflammatory 'no gays/blacks/whites allowed', to 'no abortions allowed'.  If these were actually to come to pass, you (and all of us) are free to combine with other people that think/feel/believe as you do and would all agree on some basic restrictions in your community.  In this way, you would actually be able to have your ideal environment and live in an area which was 'abortion' free AND gay free or whatever else you and your friends believed was important.  The beauty of it is that a completely different group of people could form another community that was 'religion-free', 'Abortions for free', and just about any other 'abomination' we could come up with.  Sounds scarey?

Do you suppose that you will ever live in a world where abortions will be outlawed everywhere?  Do you really believe that in your lifetime, or even the lifetime of you children, China will abandon its policy of forced abortions?  Have you tried to debate with the chinese the immorality of these laws?  I say, "No", you haven't because you, like everyone else in the world, focuses in on their immediate suirroundings.  Heck, you currently live in an area where each and every one of your neighbors could be having abortions every 9 months - legally!  I would guess this fact does not please you.  It doesn't please me either... but for different reasons - it doesn't please me to know that YOU are being forced (by restricting your choice, biases, discrimminations, etc) to live near, deal with daily, people who are considered by you as being murderers, abominations, criminals, etc.  And this is being forced upon you, not by everyone else in the country, not by a super-majority of voters, but by very vocal special interests who have been able to sway the supreme court, the legislative branch, or whatever to create laws specifically against the very things you hold dear.

Does this sound better or worse than your current situation?

(BTW: please excuse my rambling, it is so hard for me to put together thoughts in a very cohesive manner - I hope you were able to discern my points tho...)
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 23, 2003, 11:43:10 am
LeopardPM;

I am sorry if you believe that I am not moral for believing that gay people should be allowed to 'do their thing' whether this be some kind of martial contract or what have you.

Would it be physically painful for you to address my actual position?

Again, where have I said they shouldn't be free to do their thing? I have no problem with them making contracts with each other. I don't even have a problem (at least not one I'd try to solve politically) with them pretending to be married. What I have a problem is the state granting them a marriage license, making it official state policy that they're normal and wholesome and good.

Argue with THAT. Don't keep pasting your image of a "fundy" over me.

Actually, in regard to abortion, most of my life I have been vehemently apposed to it for probably the same reasons you are.
The explaination for why I am at least open to discussing the 'legality' of abortion is because the arguments are very vague - they ALL have to boil down to 'Where does life begin?' - is it once the baby has exited the womb?  Is it once it is viable (can live without being completely dependent upon the mother for food/air/etc (ie: 7 month births where the child lives)?  What constitutes 'being human' - or is it enough to have the definite potential for being human? and where does that line end? an egg and sperm have that potential also...
Since God never clearly defined these things, and we are obviously unable to figure them out (as witnessed by the division of opinions we humans have on the subject) ourselves in any sort of unanimous fashion, or even a definite majority - this being the case, then I say let each State figure it out for themselves...


I submit that if there were no abortion debate, no one would doubt that a distinct human life begins at conception, and nowhere else. Was a baby any different a moment before birth? No. Being just like a newborn is necessary for birth, otherwise the baby couldn't survive (I'm generalizing somewhat, but you get the point; before modern medicine, premies almost always died). Being able to survive by himself? Well, which exact second does that happen at? That's what you need to make it a legal standard: a clear line, a discontinuity. But there is none other than conception. From that point forward it's all continuous development until death.

if legalized abortion is the one major problem you have with the libertarian philosophy

This assumes two thing that are both false, that I'm merely considering libertarianism -- I am a libertarian-- and that legal abortion is part of the libertarian philosophy -- it isn't.

Within this free state, everything was 'legal' EXCEPT the actions of commiting force or fraud upon another (this isn't the whole deal, but simplyfied) - people within this state are completely free to attach covenants (deed restrictions) to their own private property - these restrictions can range from a simple 'no dogs allowed', to the more inflammatory 'no gays/blacks/whites allowed', to 'no abortions allowed'.

 ::)

And then we can all write deed restrictions against murder and rape and robbery.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: onyx_goddess on July 23, 2003, 12:02:10 pm
Let me clear up what the LP position on abortion is.

Here's the link to the official platform:
Abortion Platform (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/womerigh.html)

Which in part says "we believe the government should be kept out of the question".

Which very very clearly would make it legal.  If the government isn't IN the question, how can it prevent abortion?

Next, I want to point out that there is another very long very boring thread that goes back and forth on many fine points about abortion.  It is found here:
Abortion Forum (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=1953)

Finally I want to reiterate that for someone investigating the FSP, I don't think you should base your evaluation on individual FSP member's opinions on abortion as that is not likely to be a plank in the free state movement in my opinion.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: LeopardPM on July 23, 2003, 01:39:42 pm
In addition to Onyx's comments -
the Free State Movement is not even 'political' or have any other agenda than to provide a coordinated effort to help 20,000 freedom thinking individuals to move to the same state.  What happens then, will be up to the people that moved and the FSP will officially 'dissolve' - so, really, any discussions re: lib philosophies etc should be done so with the knowledge that the FSP is NOT political nor does it endorse any specific party - it is made up of libertarians, constitutionalists, anarchists, republicans, and democrats (prolly a few others too) - the common thread between these people is that they believe less government is generally good - my views are not necessarily the same as anyone elses involved, in fact, I am currenlt in the process of 'fleshing out' my moral/ethical/philosophical stances and tho I 'lean' toward the lib (small 'l') view, I am by no means someone who represents them in any way.

just a young 'un,
michael
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: LeopardPM on July 23, 2003, 02:17:48 pm
somehow I feel as tho I am not communicating clearly on these matters with you... let me try to define my position better...

Quote
Again, where have I said they shouldn't be free to do their thing? I have no problem with them making contracts with each other. I don't even have a problem (at least not one I'd try to solve politically) with them pretending to be married. What I have a problem is the state granting them a marriage license, making it official state policy that they're normal and wholesome and good.

Argue with THAT. Don't keep pasting your image of a "fundy" over me.

Re: 'fundy' - the only reason I might be doing this is that you are using terms like "normal and wholesome and good" which is purely opinion - your opinion, your ethics/morality (agreed, there is a large segment of the population that happens to agree with you also).

re: what you want me to address - ok, I might get this wrong so please correct any non-factual statements... my progression goes like this: Marriage has (in the past) been a construct of and authorized by religions.  It was both a 'contract' and a affirmation of both parties love, devotion, and blending with their God.  This religious marriage contract had three parties involved: man, wife, God.  Control over voiding the contract was in the hands of the Church (whether or not divorce was allowed, persecution of adultery, etc).  Government got involved (or perhaps was used or affected by religious organizations (I do not know the history in regards to why government got involved) to help enforce the contract.  Nowadays, government has taken over the marriage contract and has replaced 'God' with the State.  Religion does not have to play any part in a marriage contract - a simple justice of the peace can by used to effect the contract and all matters in regard to the contract are relegated to the courts.  This being the case, then a marriage contract is just like any other contract and it would be illegal for the state to discriminate against (preventing them from entering a contract) because of sexual orientation.  ANY person is allowed to enter into ANY contract without regard to sex, race, blah , blah, blah..

In regards to your views, I believe that (corrrect me please) that you view marraige through the eyes of your religion.  I don't have a problem with that, and I can see that that view has alot of benefits in helping to enforce the contract.  This is our point of disagreement tho.  I think that the current marriage contract has nothing to do with religion and so should not be considered to have to abide by any particuliar religous views regarding divorce, the contractees (either gay/lesbian/hetero/etc even polygamy and other forms of marital contract), or anything having to do with the said contract.  If your religion (or any other religion) wants to have its own special 'church ratified' form of contract which restricts the entrants (hetero male/female), defines the conditions for violation, etc - this is fine by me!  Just don't try to force your own personnal religous contract down everyone elses throat is all I am saying.

The other problem that we are dealing with is that the State treats people within a 'marriage' differently then it treats single people - this is a big problem and is the main sources for our (yours and mine) contentions, i think.  The state should not be in the business of granting licenses for marriage at all, and in this way, it will not single out one particuliar type of contract as being ' normal and wholesome and good' as you state.

Quote
I submit that if there were no abortion debate, no one would doubt that a distinct human life begins at conception, and nowhere else.

what the heck?! you say if there was no debate then everyone would agree? is this some form of logic or just a misreprestation of what you were attepmting to say?  I can't reply to this until you make your statemen clearer

Quote
And then we can all write deed restrictions against murder and rape and robbery.


I gather this is sarcasm, I believe I pointed out the difference between murder, rape, robbery, fraud etc and items like abortion, discrimination, etc.  This difference is this: we have a virtual universal agreement on the first set of items as being 'wrong' and so we have a basic kind of 'Common Law' - the other items which are in contention by various parties should be reserved to be up to the property owner, or at least as small a government body (the State vs the Fed) as possible.  All people agree that murder is wrong, Not all people agree that Abortion is murder or that abortion is wrong.  All people agree that robbery is wrong, not all people agree that discrimination is wrong.  etc etc

Did this help to clarify my thinking?

yours in discovery,
michael
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 24, 2003, 12:22:09 am
LeopardPM;

Re: 'fundy' - the only reason I might be doing this is that you are using terms like "normal and wholesome and good" which is purely opinion - your opinion, your ethics/morality (agreed, there is a large segment of the population that happens to agree with you also).

First, it's not my opinion. Whether something is good or bad is objective fact.

Second, I used the term to describe what the state would say about homosexual relationships by granting them marriage licenses. That statement, clearly, is as much the point of gay marriage as granting gays the different treatment that goes along with marriage, which we both agree shouldn't exist because the government shouldn't be big enough to be involved in most of those things.

Marriage has (in the past) been a construct of and authorized by religions.

Marriage is in the nature of humans, just as harems controlled by alpha males is in the nature of gorillas.

Government got involved (or perhaps was used or affected by religious organizations (I do not know the history in regards to why government got involved) to help enforce the contract.  Nowadays, government has taken over the marriage contract and has replaced 'God' with the State.  Religion does not have to play any part in a marriage contract - a simple justice of the peace can by used to effect the contract and all matters in regard to the contract are relegated to the courts.  This being the case, then a marriage contract is just like any other contract and it would be illegal for the state to discriminate against (preventing them from entering a contract) because of sexual orientation.  ANY person is allowed to enter into ANY contract without regard to sex, race, blah , blah, blah..

So, having gottem control, the state should now use that control to alter the original understanding of marriage because of political concerns extraneous to marriage.

Which sounds an awful lot like how the government starts paying for health care, and then to cut costs regulates/taxes/bans alcohol/tobacco/drugs/fat, and then to enforce that expands police powers. Each assertion of power makes the next "necessary".

I think that the current marriage contract has nothing to do with religion and so should not be considered to have to abide by any particuliar religous views regarding divorce, the contractees (either gay/lesbian/hetero/etc even polygamy and other forms of marital contract), or anything having to do with the said contract.

I don't know your position on divorce, so this may be beside the point.

A large number of couples alive today, and all of them when no-fault divorce was introduced, entered into a contract forbidding divorce except in a few circumstances, but have had their contract unilaterally changed by the state into one allowing divorce on one spouse's say-so. If you accept that, you have no real reason to complain if the state unilaterally decides to make the terms such that my religion would agree with.

But I'm not asking for that.

If your religion (or any other religion) wants to have its own special 'church ratified' form of contract which restricts the entrants (hetero male/female), defines the conditions for violation, etc - this is fine by me!

We already do.

"Do you, [groom], take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold, to love, honor, and cherish, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, till death do you part?"

Regardless of what the law says, anyone who took the traditional vows is morally bound to do just that.

Just don't try to force your own personnal religous contract down everyone elses throat is all I am saying.

YET AGAIN, where have I ever asked for anything of the sort?

what the heck?! you say if there was no debate then everyone would agree? is this some form of logic or just a misreprestation of what you were attepmting to say?  I can't reply to this until you make your statemen clearer

If the begining of life were only a scientific or academic question, rather than one connected to a political issue like abortion, there would be no debate. Just about everyone would accept that it begins at conception.

I gather this is sarcasm, I believe I pointed out the difference between murder, rape, robbery, fraud etc and items like abortion, discrimination, etc.  This difference is this: we have a virtual universal agreement on the first set of items as being 'wrong' and so we have a basic kind of 'Common Law' - the other items which are in contention by various parties should be reserved to be up to the property owner, or at least as small a government body (the State vs the Fed) as possible.  All people agree that murder is wrong, Not all people agree that Abortion is murder or that abortion is wrong.  All people agree that robbery is wrong, not all people agree that discrimination is wrong.  etc etc

At one point not everyone agreed that lynching black people is wrong. Should there have been lynching and no-lynching zones, based on deed covenants?
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Zack Bass on July 24, 2003, 12:34:57 am
LeopardPM;

Re: 'fundy' - the only reason I might be doing this is that you are using terms like "normal and wholesome and good" which is purely opinion - your opinion, your ethics/morality (agreed, there is a large segment of the population that happens to agree with you also).

First, it's not my opinion. Whether something is good or bad is objective fact.


I knew we'd get to the part where I disagree with you.
Long ago, Hume proved that this is not so.  As Adler states it, "A prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly drawn from premises that are entirely descriptive."

We might agree on some Prescriptive Premise(s), and draw Conclusions therefrom as to what is Good or Bad under that assumption.  But that's the best you can do.

Quote

Marriage has (in the past) been a construct of and authorized by religions.

Marriage is in the nature of humans, just as harems controlled by alpha males is in the nature of gorillas.


Uh, helloooo, as a recovering polygamist I am required to inform you that harems controlled by alpha males is in the nature of humans.
http://pendarvis.org/rants/monogamy-vs-sexual_fidelity.html

Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Zack Bass on July 24, 2003, 12:41:34 am

When i set up shop in the free state if someone like you comes onto my property, you're gonna wish you hadnt. I dont want this guy as my neighbor. Religious nuts not allowed on my property.


You are overreacting.  I understand why, given what you've seen religious nuts do and advocate, but religious nuts like Jason and RedBeard are libertarians and are willing to let us go to hell in our own way even though they despise us.  And so far The Amazing Alf has advocated a libertarian approach, although it may appear that he's itching to get his nose under the tent.

Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 24, 2003, 02:24:33 am
Zack Bass;

Long ago, Hume proved that this is not so.  As Adler states it, "A prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly drawn from premises that are entirely descriptive."

And Hume's proof is?

Uh, helloooo, as a recovering polygamist I am required to inform you that harems controlled by alpha males is in the nature of humans.

You are mistaken. With only one exception I know of (a band of dissident Mormons in Utah) every polygamist society ever has polygamy only for those at the top; most men are neither polygamists nor unmarried, but monagamous, and most women are married to a man whose only wife is her. Men may want to be polygamous, but generally they aren't, which is what matters.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: MajesticLeo on July 24, 2003, 07:35:37 am
Men may want to be polygamous, but generally they aren't, which is what matters.

Uhhhh, if they want to be, doesn't that say it is in their nature?  Just because they aren't doesn't mean it isn't in their nature, "and that is what matters".

Whether something is good or bad is NOT objective fact.  While there is almost universal agreement that somethings are good and others are bad, it is still subjective agreement, not an uncontestable fact.  for instance, the phenomenon that objects will fall toward the center of the earth if dropped from some point above the earth within its gravitational field is a fact.  On the other hand, Buddhists agree that killing anything except plants is wrong while others disagree.  That is a matter of subjective agreement.  
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: LeopardPM on July 24, 2003, 09:57:27 am
Quote
First, it's not my opinion. Whether something is good or bad is objective fact.

I will let Zack argue this point because I do not have any historical evidence/theory to contradict you except that the concept of good and bad does not exist in 'nature', only within the minds of humans - being so, it cannot be universal fact.  Even if considered to be a universal 'human' fact, since humans will disagree over what is good/bad and to which degree of goodness/badness an action is seems to me to indicate that the concept is not a fact, but opinion.

Quote
Second, I used the term to describe what the state would say about homosexual relationships by granting them marriage licenses.

By allowing homosexual marriages, the state is not saying they are good or bad for people, but rather that people (all people including homosexuals) have the 'right' to enter into whatever contract they voluntarily desire.  The state allows the consumption of alcohol, whether or not that consumption is deemed 'good' or 'bad' - to continue to force the state to try to subjectify actions (by deeming them good or bad) is an effort to legislate morality.  By saying that the state should not allow gay marriages (as you state "because they are abominations" or evil etc) it is obvious you ARE trying to legislate morality, I fail to see how you deny this?

Quote
So, having gottem control, the state should now use that control to alter the original understanding of marriage because of political concerns extraneous to marriage.

no, you misunderstand me:
Current state of affaris: marriage is a contract between two parties (and govmt) - being so it should be illegal to exclude certain parties from entering said contract by the states own anti-discrimination laws

Previous State of Affairs: marriage was a religious contract (private) and the terms of said contract was totally up to the parties involved (the third party being religion)

Libertarian State of Affairs: 'Marriage' is just another form of legal contract between parties (any parties) - its terms and conditions should be up to the parties and whomever else they deem important.  Religious contracts are valid.  Alternative Gay contracts, Polygamous Contracts, etc.  The states only role is the provision of a court system (even this could be privatized thus getting the state out of the issue entirely) that will resolve disputes of the contract under the terms of THAT particular contract.


Quote
"Do you, [groom], take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold, to love, honor, and cherish, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, till death do you part?"

This particular statement or vow IS NOT REQUIRED for the state to legally marry two people.  You may specify to the justice of the peace to say 'Do you, Mr. man, take, Ms. Woman, to be your lawfully wedded wife until such time as you die or get a divorce?' - people married under your previous vow and my state are EQUALLY married under the eyes of the law.  Whatever additional restrictions or vows added to the basic is regulated to whichever entity (in your case, religous) to enforce, condone, or what have you.  Except that unfortunately, the church has NO POWER these days to enforce or Void a marraige contract under law... this is why I agree that marriage contracts should get the state out of the loop and let private individuals determine the rules they want to play by.

BTW: Just because I am for the granting the right to homosexuals to enter into marraige contracts, I do not condone homosexuality.  I am not homosexual and do not plan on attempting homosexual activities in the future.  I reserve the right to discriminate against homosexuals if I wished in regard to my private property and persons I wish to associate with.

Quote
If the begining of life were only a scientific or academic question, rather than one connected to a political issue like abortion, there would be no debate. Just about everyone would accept that it begins at conception.

but it is not only a scientific question, so whats your point?  In addition, I believe that 'the beginning of life' is not the point in dispute, its the beginning of human life, ie: when does a zygote become a human being with rights etc.

Quote
At one point not everyone agreed that lynching black people is wrong. Should there have been lynching and no-lynching zones, based on deed covenants?


valid point - just because everyone or most people agree on something doesn't make it correct.  As humanity has progressed over the centuries, there are certain activities that have been 'universally' agreed upon to be in mans' best interest - murder being 'wrong' is one of them, abortion being 'wrong' is not (I conceed that in the future 'abortion' could be determined to be 'wrong' or equal to murder, but that will take multiple generations to all basically agree).  Why am I defending murder being illegal or wrong to you?  you are attempting to an 'end run' around the basic disagreement that abortion = murder at all, lets stick to that.  it will save space and typing because we both already (i assume) agree that murder = wrong.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Zack Bass on July 24, 2003, 10:30:36 am

Long ago, Hume proved that this is not so.  As Adler states it, "A prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly drawn from premises that are entirely descriptive."

And Hume's proof is?


I'll have to get back to you on this, I don't have any reference materials at hand.
But I will say this:  Almost all philosophers, even the ones who go to great lengths to get around it in various ways, accept Hume's position and have done so since long before we were born.  It's really pretty obvious, if you know something about logic.
I hate people who say things like that and leave it, or just give you a link, so I will get back later if you still want proof.

Quote

Uh, helloooo, as a recovering polygamist I am required to inform you that harems controlled by alpha males is in the nature of humans.

  ... every polygamist society ever has polygamy only for those at the top; most men are neither polygamists nor unmarried, but monagamous


True, since there are only so many women to go around.  That is the basic flaw in Polygyny.  We can fix that in the Free State; the technology already exists to select only girl fetuses and cull the males.

Quote

  ... and most women are married to a man whose only wife is her.


Not always.  There are groups in which most of the women are married to a polygamist.
For example, suppose you have 100 women and 95 men (males tend to fight and kill one another - usually over females).  You can have 52 of the women married to 26 of the men, and 48 women married to 48 men, and 21 men unmarried.  Therefore 47 men (fewer than half) are not monogamous, so most of the men are monogamous; but fewer than half of the women are married to a monogamous man.

Quote

Men may want to be polygamous, but generally they aren't, which is what matters.


By that logic, you could say that men may want to be Free, or Untaxed,  but most of them are not, so it is not in the nature of humans to be so.
If men, when given the opportunity, choose to have more than one sexual partner, then that is in their nature, even though most may not have that opportunity.
http://pendarvis.org/rants/monogamy-vs-sexual_fidelity.html
Hogamous, higamous
Man is polygamous
Higamous, hogamous
Woman monogamous.

  --  Attributed to William James - Quoted in Oxford Book of Marriage


Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Reaper on July 24, 2003, 10:45:08 am
I'm not entirely sure I want to wade into this hip deep BS but here goes . . .

First, it's not my opinion. Whether something is good or bad is objective fact.

You claim not to be a "fundy" but you sure talk like one.

Please share with us your proof of your above statement and basis for these "objective facts"?
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: LeopardPM on July 24, 2003, 11:00:09 am
REaper!
Glad you waded in... I was wondering why everyone was willing to take the brunt of this on myself as I am still a neophyte at debate and philosophical matters... I need to understand and better my arguments against the blatant, obviously flawed counter-arguments presented by Mr. Alf. (just my opinion Alf, please don't take this personaly)

wishing more would jump in,
michael
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Zack Bass on July 24, 2003, 11:05:52 am

Long ago, Hume proved that this is not so.  As Adler states it, "A prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly drawn from premises that are entirely descriptive."

And Hume's proof is?


I don't have Hume's proof here (and you probably wouldn't want to wade through his style anyhow), but here is a description on the Web:
http://www.ncpa.org/debate2/fallacies.html

Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value. Once you have an axiomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions.

For example, someone might argue that the premise, "This medicine will prevent you from dying" immediately leads to the conclusion, "You should take this medicine." But this reasoning is invalid, because the former statement is a statement of fact, while the latter is a statement of value. To reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine, you would need at least one more premise: "You ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible."

The naturalistic fallacy appears in many forms. Two examples are argumentum ad antiquitatem (saying something's right because it's always been done that way) and the appeal to nature (saying something's right because it's natural). In both of these fallacies, the speaker is trying to reach a conclusion about what we ought to do or ought to value based solely on what is the case. David Hume called this trying to bridge the "is-ought gap," which is a nice phrase to use in debate rounds where your opponent is committing the naturalistic fallacy.

One unsettling implication of taking the naturalistic fallacy seriously is that, in order to reach any conclusions of value, one must be willing to posit some initial statement or statements of value that will be treated as axioms, and which cannot themselves be justified on purely logical grounds. Fortunately, debate does not restrict itself to purely logical grounds of argumentation.

For example, suppose your opponent has stated axiomatically that "whatever is natural is good." Inasmuch as this statement is an axiom rather than the conclusion of a logical proof, there can be no purely logical argument against it. But some nonetheless appropriate responses to such an absolute statement of value include: (a) questioning whether anyone -- you, your judge, or even your opponent himself -- really believes that "whatever is natural is good"; (b) stating a competing axiomatic value statement, like "whatever enhances human life is good," and forcing the judge to choose between them; and (c) pointing out logical implications of the statement "whatever is natural is good" that conflict with our most basic intuitions about right and wrong.


Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: LeopardPM on July 24, 2003, 11:18:47 am
thanks Zack! I appreciate the info!
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 24, 2003, 12:35:33 pm
MajesticLeo;

Uhhhh, if they want to be, doesn't that say it is in their nature?  Just because they aren't doesn't mean it isn't in their nature, "and that is what matters".

So the practice of virtually every human society we have the slightest knowledge of, including well over 90% of the human species, doesn't say anything about human nature.

Then most men's desires don't either, and you're blowing hot air.

Whether something is good or bad is NOT objective fact.  While there is almost universal agreement that somethings are good and others are bad, it is still subjective agreement, not an uncontestable fact.  for instance, the phenomenon that objects will fall toward the center of the earth if dropped from some point above the earth within its gravitational field is a fact.  On the other hand, Buddhists agree that killing anything except plants is wrong while others disagree.  That is a matter of subjective agreement.

You just rejected libertarianism. Not that you're quick enough to notice.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Zack Bass on July 24, 2003, 01:08:59 pm

Uhhhh, if they want to be, doesn't that say it is in their nature?  Just because they aren't doesn't mean it isn't in their nature, "and that is what matters".

So the practice of virtually every human society we have the slightest knowledge of, including well over 90% of the human species, doesn't say anything about human nature.

Then most men's desires don't either, and you're blowing hot air.


The practice of individuals when they are coerced says nothing about their nature, although it may say plenty about the nature of the coercers.

Do you have any idea of how many sexual partners the vast majority of men have, when they are afforded the opportunity?  The majority have multiple sexual partners even when they in a relationship that forbids such behavior!!!!  Ever hear of Cheating?

I acknowledge that Cheating is not the same thing as Polygamy.  Large harems are a fairly recent invention, possible only since the advent of Agriculture.  But humans were hunter-gatherers for over 90,000 years, and in those cultures small harems were and are extremely common among the men who are powerful enough to swing it (as you said about the gorilla Alpha Males) - and the monogamous ones cheat every chance they get.  If there were enough women in that hunter-gatherer society, all the men with the Heterosexual Gene would have three or four wives.  Each.
In an Agricultural society, where wealth can be accumulated, the availability of unlimited femininity, without coercion against Polygamy, would result in near-universal huge harems.
Read up on Anthropology sometime.  And the Turkish Seraglio.
http://pendarvis.org/rants/monogamy-vs-sexual_fidelity.html

Fourteen years ago I was capable of impregnating 2,000 women per year (Only half that now, alas).  That makes it evolutionarily advantageous for me to plow as many furrows as possible; the cost per hit is negligible.
A woman, on the other hand, must go for Quality rather than Quantity, since she will invest nine months in simply gestating the result of a successful liaison.  That's why they're so damn picky and I'm not.

Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 24, 2003, 01:13:10 pm
The claim that monogamy is natural for humans is supported by some evolutionary biology; see for example Robert Wright.  The problem with polygamy and cheating is not so much that men don't want to have multiple partners; of course, most of them do.  The problem is that under polygamy, many men lack partners at all, and this situation tends to make them VIOLENT.  The beta males can gang up on the alpha males.  So in human society, we don't really have alpha males like other species, because all the real alpha male humans got killed off by their jealous fellows long ago.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 24, 2003, 01:45:29 pm
LeopardPM;

By allowing homosexual marriages, the state is not saying they are good or bad for people, but rather that people (all people including homosexuals) have the 'right' to enter into whatever contract they voluntarily desire.

I get tied of explaining the simplest things to you people.

We aren't talking about "allowing" anything. That just pops up because you keep interposing the position you'd rather argue with in place of mine. We're talking about state marriage licenses.

Current state of affaris: marriage is a contract between two parties (and govmt) - being so it should be illegal to exclude certain parties from entering said contract by the states own anti-discrimination laws

Um, I hate to point this out, but as a follower of the fact/value distinction in morals, you have no business injecting a "should" into your description of the current state of affairs. The state of affairs is that marriage licenses are granted by the state only to couples consisting of a man or a woman. If you want to talk about should, answer a simple question: should the state grant marriage licenses to more people, or get out of the business altogether?

This particular statement or vow IS NOT REQUIRED for the state to legally marry two people.

You know, for a "libertarian" you sure seem to get the state involved in everything.

You said my religion could have it's own special contract. I said we already do and posted the terms. If you don't like it, write your own.

but it is not only a scientific question, so whats your point?  In addition, I believe that 'the beginning of life' is not the point in dispute, its the beginning of human life, ie: when does a zygote become a human being with rights etc.

I would think that you would want accurate science especially when politics are involved, but you're welcome to go over in the corner with Lysenko.

And the beginning a a human being is what I was talking about. Both the egg and sperm are obviously alive (and obviously human), but neither are distinct human beings.

Zack Bass;

True, since there are only so many women to go around.  That is the basic flaw in Polygyny.  We can fix that in the Free State; the technology already exists to select only girl fetuses and cull the males.

1) There are only so many females to go around in other species, too.

2) I can just see the arrival in Wyoming (or whereever): "Hey, Pokes, let's abort most of the boy babies so we can all have enough girls for a harem!"

By that logic, you could say that men may want to be Free, or Untaxed,  but most of them are not, so it is not in the nature of humans to be so.

You're expecting me to recoil from the conclusion, I suppose. But it's true.

Not really, but pretty close. Whether humans actually have freedom or not depends on whether they're the victims of violations of their rights -- in other words, on what others do. So it doesn't really have anything to do with their natures, but on the natures of other humans. Violating someone's rights involves sin. But the doctrine of Total Depravity is true; we should expect this sin, as with other sins, to be common or general. Christians have the duty to oppose it, as with the others, regardless of how common it is or how much our efforts seem to accomplish in our own eyes.

Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value.

I don't accept that moral precepts are values, like taste in food or music, rather than facts. Mind you, that one dish is better than another could be objective fact, but isn't.

What you say is impossible is easy. I'll do it now:

Everything God says is factually true.
God says murder is wrong.
Therefore, "murder is wrong" is factually true.

You don't have to believe either premise to see that the conclusion follows.

If there exists an omniscient Being who always tells the truth and speaks on moral matters, the problem vanishes. If you don't believe in such a Being, then there's no way out, and it follows that you can't say with certainty that anything is wrong, only that you don't like it.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 24, 2003, 02:03:13 pm
Zack Bass;

The practice of individuals when they are coerced says nothing about their nature, although it may say plenty about the nature of the coercers.

I made a similar point in reply to something you said.

So who does the coercion? Women? But men are stronger, and, in most of history, more numerous (women used to die in childbirth a lot). Other men? But I thought men wanted polygamy. Maybe the competition of would-be polygamists kept each one at a low number of wifes, and eventually this pattern, and weariness at the injury and death caused by the conflict, created a general compromise at monogamy. Which would seem to support my point. (But it doesn't fit the historical pattern, which is that most societies have allowed polygamy in theory, but in practice it's extremely rare. Unlike adultery, which is usually forbidden in theory. But then, where's the coercion?)
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Reaper on July 24, 2003, 03:04:25 pm
I don't accept that moral precepts are values, like taste in food or music, rather than facts. Mind you, that one dish is better than another could be objective fact, but isn't.

What you say is impossible is easy. I'll do it now:

Everything God says is factually true.
God says murder is wrong.
Therefore, "murder is wrong" is factually true.

You don't have to believe either premise to see that the conclusion follows.

If there exists an omniscient Being who always tells the truth and speaks on moral matters, the problem vanishes. If you don't believe in such a Being, then there's no way out, and it follows that you can't say with certainty that anything is wrong, only that you don't like it.

Yes, but unless you can prove the existance of your alleged omniscient being, and prove likewise that it always speaks the truth, and prove also that you have a correct and record of that speech your point is entirely moot.  You've got a lot of proving to do before you can claim to have anything objective.  You can claim you believe it's objective, but you cannot prove it is.  Your argument merely presumes what it claims to prove.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 24, 2003, 03:11:20 pm
Reaper;

As I said, "You don't have to believe either premise to see that the conclusion follows."

Your argument merely presumes what it claims to prove.

All I claimed to prove is that you can have objective moral precepts, given the right premises. Since your objection consists of demanding I prove the premises, I'll take it that you have nothing to say in defense of the fact/value distinction itself.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Zack Bass on July 24, 2003, 03:16:48 pm

So who does the coercion? Women? But men are stronger, and, in most of history, more numerous (women used to die in childbirth a lot). Other men? But I thought men wanted polygamy.


The Alpha Males, who sop up all the talent.

When women are plentiful, Polygamy flourishes.  Only when they are scarce do you see Monogamy.  That's because it is the nature of men to enjoy Polygamy.
Same thing happens with any scarce commodity.  It's natural for men to want to accumulate lots of wealth.  The fact that most men have little does not make that untrue.

Of course, as Hume shows, the fact that these things are Natural does not make them Good.

Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Zack Bass on July 24, 2003, 03:31:05 pm

Everything God says is factually true.
God says murder is wrong.
Therefore, "murder is wrong" is factually true.

You don't have to believe either premise to see that the conclusion follows.


"You're despicable."

The best I can do to you off the top of my head is to say that this is no better than saying:

(1)  Everything I tell you is factually true.
(2)  I tell you that arguing with me is wrong.
==>
Therefore the proposition "arguing with me is wrong" is factually true.


That doesn't pry out the fallacy, but it shows that one is in there.

Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Zack Bass on July 24, 2003, 03:46:01 pm

  ... in human society, we don't really have alpha males like other species, because all the real alpha male humans got killed off by their jealous fellows long ago.


That's true.  But we still have a sort of alpha male, and most men do practice Polygamy whenever they have the opportunity.

I read an article in Science a few months ago, about some monkeys where the alpha males had very high testosterone (of course), and had a fairly high mortality rate because they were expending so much effort being an large hungry alpha male and were exposed to so much danger.  The payoff was that they had a lot of offspring during their short lives.
This is pretty much standard stuff so far, but the zinger is that some males had another "strategy".  They had fairly low testosterone and remained small and did not evoke jealous fights like an alpha male.  By the same token, they were not very attractive to the females.  But they did have enough testosterone to be pretty horny, and they tended to RAPE the females!  They had a fair number of offspring thereby, so the strain continued.

Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: LeopardPM on July 24, 2003, 03:46:13 pm
wow - we both certainly aren't very good at clearly stating our positions... let me try to do this a bit better....
Quote
Current state of affaris: marriage is a contract between two parties (and govmt) - being so it should be illegal to exclude certain parties from entering said contract by the states own anti-discrimination laws

Um, I hate to point this out, but as a follower of the fact/value distinction in morals, you have no business injecting a "should" into your description of the current state of affairs. The state of affairs is that marriage licenses are granted by the state only to couples consisting of a man or a woman.
First off, the should in that sentence is not a moral equivalence, please read 'it should be illegal to exclude certain parties from entering said contract by[because] the states own anti-discrimination laws" - meaning - the state has anti-discrimination laws, BY the states own definition, it SHOULD not discriminate in allowing contracts to be made between ANY two people (minors excluded, duh, etc etc).

Quote
If you want to talk about should, answer a simple question: should the state grant marriage licenses to more people, or get out of the business altogether?
get out of the business altogether - we already (I think) agree on this point.  I thought we were discussing a partial step towards that end which I submit is 'allowing any adult persons to enter into any contract (martital or otherwise) that they desire' - If my choice were between three options: (1) Keep the way things are, (2) Increase the freedoms of gays etc so they can enjoy whatever benefits are available from hetero unions, or (3) Get the government totally out of legislating social activities or contracts between consenting adults - I would choose #3, if that choice is not available to me, then I would choose #2, I would not choose #1 as it expresses the least amount of overall freedom/liberty for the populace.

Quote
This particular statement or vow IS NOT REQUIRED for the state to legally marry two people.

You know, for a "libertarian" you sure seem to get the state involved in everything.

You said my religion could have it's own special contract. I said we already do and posted the terms. If you don't like it, write your own.

Ok, I understood us to be, once again, discussing the state of affairs right now and possible changes that could conceivably happen in the near future - these changes WILL NOT  BE the pinnacle of libertarian thought - but, I am arguing in favor of more liberties - If the state HAS TO BE involved to give out licenses, then I stand by what I am saying.

Ok, re: religous marital contract - you say you already have that, ok, fine by me - In YOUR religous marital contract you (your religion, whatever) are well within your rights to define the possible participants (male/female) and conditions of said contract.... so whats the problem with the state allowing gays to marry?  still isn't forcing Christians, uddists or whatever to enforce the marraige contract

Quote
We aren't talking about "allowing" anything. That just pops up because you keep interposing the position you'd rather argue with in place of mine. We're talking about state marriage licenses.
we will never get anywhere here, you are talking about the state not allowing the granting of Marriage licenses, I am talking about the state allowing the same.

more to come - have to go for now...
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: MajesticLeo on July 24, 2003, 03:50:16 pm
MajesticLeo;

Uhhhh, if they want to be, doesn't that say it is in their nature?  Just because they aren't doesn't mean it isn't in their nature, "and that is what matters".

So the practice of virtually every human society we have the slightest knowledge of, including well over 90% of the human species, doesn't say anything about human nature.

Then most men's desires don't either, and you're blowing hot air.

Whether something is good or bad is NOT objective fact.  While there is almost universal agreement that somethings are good and others are bad, it is still subjective agreement, not an uncontestable fact.  for instance, the phenomenon that objects will fall toward the center of the earth if dropped from some point above the earth within its gravitational field is a fact.  On the other hand, Buddhists agree that killing anything except plants is wrong while others disagree.  That is a matter of subjective agreement.

You just rejected libertarianism. Not that you're quick enough to notice.

Thank you for completely ignoring my first question with that strange statement, I guess I was creating too much dissonance in your mind about what is in man's nature.

You are absolutely correct in your second statement, I am certainly not quick enough to notice I "rejected libertarianism".  Then, again, I have never said anywhere that I embrace libertarinaism either, so that doesn't really bother me.

 In fact, I still don't see where that has anything to do with what I wrote.  Are you suggesting that agreements among people on what is right or wrong is a rejection of libertarianism?  You could be right, I am not really up on all the ramifications of all these "isms".

And you are incorrect about your attempt to show a conclusion if correct.  It is imperative you believe the first statement is true, else, while the rest may follow logically, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Reaper on July 24, 2003, 03:52:59 pm
Reaper;

As I said, "You don't have to believe either premise to see that the conclusion follows."

Your argument merely presumes what it claims to prove.

All I claimed to prove is that you can have objective moral precepts, given the right premises. Since your objection consists of demanding I prove the premises, I'll take it that you have nothing to say in defense of the fact/value distinction itself.

Circle talk.

If your premise is false you have no objective moral precepts.  

You cannot prove the premise, therefore you have only your opinion.

Your argument basically states "IF what I believe is right, than I am right."  It tells us nothing.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Amazing Alfredo on July 24, 2003, 05:27:26 pm
Zack Bass;

When women are plentiful, Polygamy flourishes.

Which is why you'd like to "cull" male babies, right?

Beyond, you know, killing babies, you'd have to coerce any man who decides to increase his descendants by culling the girls instead, so that his offspring can each have dozens of children by multiple wives instead of a relative handful with one husband (plus his Y will get spread around a lot more). Not very libertarian.

"You're despicable."

"And you're stupid."

The best I can do to you off the top of my head is to say that this is no better than saying:
(1)  Everything I tell you is factually true.
(2)  I tell you that arguing with me is wrong.
==>
Therefore the proposition "arguing with me is wrong" is factually true.
That doesn't pry out the fallacy, but it shows that one is in there.


No it doesn't.

If I had to guess, you think the gut reaction to the argument -- "That can't be right" -- proves it has to have a fallacy.

If you really believe that, I guess you think the following is also fallacious:

All Frenchmen are great statesmen.
Petain was a Frenchman.
Therefore Petain was a great statesman.

But it's OBVIOUSLY a perfectly valid syllogism.

You just find the premises of my syllogism absurd, as "Everything I tell you is factually true." clearly is. But a false premise is not a logical fallacy, it's a false premise. So my point still stands: it is possible to logically derive propositions about right and wrong from propositions dealing only with is.

Suppose, for the moment, both of your premises were actually true. Just how would you escape the conclusion? You can't. It's in the premises, in the manner of all valid syllogisms.

The fact that you happen not to believe in a Being whose every statement is true doesn't change the fact that if such a being exists and has chosen to speak about moral matters (which I believe to be the case), we would have a firm factual foundation for ethical reasoning.

LeopardPM;

First off, the should in that sentence is not a moral equivalence, please read 'it should be illegal to exclude certain parties from entering said contract by[because] the states own anti-discrimination laws" - meaning - the state has anti-discrimination laws, BY the states own definition, it SHOULD not discriminate in allowing contracts to be made between ANY two people (minors excluded, duh, etc etc).

The anti-discrimination laws don't apply to marriage licenses. Otherwise, there would already be gay marriage. Duh.

get out of the business altogether - we already (I think) agree on this point.  I thought we were discussing a partial step towards that end which I submit is 'allowing any adult persons to enter into any contract (martital or otherwise) that they desire'

How, exactly, is increasing the number of state marriage licenses and the number of persons who might get one a partial step toward abolishing them?

we will never get anywhere here, you are talking about the state not allowing the granting of Marriage licenses, I am talking about the state allowing the same.

Granted by whom? By the state. The state doesn't engage in "allowing the granting of Marriage licenses", it engages in granting them. I want it to stop. You say you want it to stop, but you also want it to grant more in the meantime.

Thank you for completely ignoring my first question with that strange statement, I guess I was creating too much dissonance in your mind about what is in man's nature.

Nope. I just deny that what men would do given, as Zack Bass says, "plentiful women", has as much to say about human nature as what men and women actually do in the world as it is.

Are you suggesting that agreements among people on what is right or wrong is a rejection of libertarianism?  You could be right, I am not really up on all the ramifications of all these "isms".

I'm suggesting that relativism is incompatible with any ism. In the case of libertarianism, the whole point is that the non-violation of rights is an ethical absolute.

If your premise is false you have no objective moral precepts.

And if it is, I do. Which takes us from the is/ought distinction, to the different question of what actually is.

You cannot prove the premise, therefore you have only your opinion.

Says you.

I suppose I can't prove my premise to you, but I don't care--

"Could you really persuade," he said, "if we don't listen?"
"There's no way," said Glaucon.

Your argument basically states "IF what I believe is right, than I am right."  It tells us nothing.

No more than any other valid syllogism.

If what I believe -- the premises -- are right, then I am right -- about the conclusion.
Title: Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
Post by: Reaper on July 24, 2003, 05:47:31 pm
HAHAHA ::)

As John Galt would say, "Check your premises".

So, other than being slightly amusing what's the point?

I mean in a hypothetical universe where your premises (say A and B are true) than A+B=C.

But absent proof of A and/or B what does this get you on a logical basis?

And by the way I would say that your first premise that an "omniscient being exists" is provably false.  

Omniscience is a logical impossibility. Because the the omniscient being would be part the universe of which it has all knowledge, meaning it would also have to have all knowledge not only of the universe but of its own self and mind, which gives rise to an infinite repeating pattern to be stored in something which is finite.