Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[Adam Weinberg]

Oh, and I agree with your point (via the privacy rights) that our liberties are based on our moral concepts.

That doesn't mean enforcing every type of morality is a good idea, though, and I think that is a key difference between a libertarian and some conservatives.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Untrue, laws should be enacted to protect the rights of the individual, not morality. Here 1 example:

1. Right to life... <- No murder. That the rule fits with most moral dogmas doesn't change that it isn't enacted because Jeebus said it was wrong, it is enacted to protect the right you have to life.

Pretty much my stance on it.

 

[Damocles]

Neither Marriage Licensing or Blue Laws could be construed as "radically changing" your lifestyle. Both were initiatives voted on by the people at some point, and codified into law after much deliberation. I don't recall ever seeing the Baptist Prayer Act, where we are all forced to recite a Baptist prayer each day... So, I have to assume you have something to show for all this religious activism, other than what you've presented so far.

As I said in the OP, there are "extremes" on both sides! Some social conservatives are indeed like you describe, but most are simply not. For the most part, the typical social conservative is willing to let these "moral" issues be determined at the ballot box, and they will live with the result of democracy. They do not seek to force their will on the rest of society, they have no tenable purpose or reason to do so. While they are bound by their faith to support and encourage certain things, it doesn't mean they advocate these things being forced on society through a judge in a ruling by fiat.

In the spirit of the proposed question of the thread, I would say your biggest flaw is a gross misunderstanding of where most social conservatives stand on the issues.

That would depend entirely on which lifestyle you were living. I'd say the Mormons may have disagreed just before the laws were enacted to try to get them to act like social "conservatives" wanted them to, without freedom.

And just because it is from a "ballot box" doesn't change that it is simply the force of government being misused to attempt to criminalize actions that have no victim to fit within specific dogma.

And "in the spirit of the thread" I will tell you, I fully comprehend where social conservatives stand. I live among them. I listed two that were not "that extreme"... Social conservatives gave us such awesome government failures as "Prohibition" the "War on Drugs", they waste our money causing the problems they say they seek to "cure" with stupid laws against activities with no victims...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That would depend entirely on which lifestyle you were living. I'd say the Mormons may have disagreed just before the laws were enacted to try to get them to act like social "conservatives" wanted them to, without freedom.

And just because it is from a "ballot box" doesn't change that it is simply the force of government being misused to attempt to criminalize actions that have no victim to fit within specific dogma.

And "in the spirit of the thread" I will tell you, I fully comprehend where social conservatives stand. I live among them. I listed two that were not "that extreme"... Social conservatives gave us such awesome government failures as "Prohibition" the "War on Drugs", they waste our money causing the problems they say they seek to "cure" with stupid laws against activities with no victims...

Okay, let's start the thread by each person listing what you believe to be your biggest flaw or fault, in finding acceptance with "social conservative" or "libertarian" values?

Try again, you are telling me what is wrong with Social Conservatives, you are NOT telling me what is wrong with YOU! Do you not comprehend how counseling works? I want to know what you believe is your problem in accepting Social Conservative values, and all you can manage to do is spew more nonsense and hyperbole that you can't back up. We live in a democratic society, where THE PEOPLE decide what laws they are going to live by, and what standards are set for society. I'm sorry... maybe one day we'll wake up and Damo will be King Damo, and we will all have to live to your personal standards and rules, but until then, you're kind of stuck with the system you have, whether you like it or not.

 

[Damocles]

Try again, you are telling me what is wrong with Social Conservatives, you are NOT telling me what is wrong with YOU! Do you not comprehend how counseling works? I want to know what you believe is your problem in accepting Social Conservative values, and all you can manage to do is spew more nonsense and hyperbole that you can't back up. We live in a democratic society, where THE PEOPLE decide what laws they are going to live by, and what standards are set for society. I'm sorry... maybe one day we'll wake up and Damo will be King Damo, and we will all have to live to your personal standards and rules, but until then, you're kind of stuck with the system you have, whether you like it or not.

Right, so your "What social conservatives do wrong" (mention of 'spirit of the thread' in your post) was a mention of a flaw of somebody else? Something about how somebody other than you supposedly "doesn't understand"....

Hypocrite.

What libertarian minds have done wrong is trust that at least the fiscal side of things will be handled even if somebody has social "conservative" leanings... Unfortunately that trust has been abused for at least the duration of the "war on drugs" and especially so since Kennedy began the long road to fiscal insolvency. The last fiscal conservative we had in the WH was Eisenhower...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, and I agree with your point (via the privacy rights) that our liberties are based on our moral concepts.

That doesn't mean enforcing every type of morality is a good idea, though, and I think that is a key difference between a libertarian and some conservatives.

Of course it's not, that was kind of my whole point. There are extremes on both sides in both camps. I was illustrating to Caboose, the 'extreme' version of his own viewpoint. If the logic is carried to the next level, that is what you have, a complete collapse of civilization because you have no more rules, boundaries, and limitations based on morals. At some level, ALL laws and constraints are made on the basis of some person's moral belief system.

You're right, it doesn't make sense to enforce every type of morality, just as it doesn't make sense to not impose morality of any kind. There is a happy medium, a place where we are comfortable that not too much or too little morality is written into law. How do we determine that point? I believe we do so at the ballot box, that's the only rational place to make that determination.

 

[/MSG/]

DAMO: The worlds first ass kicking Buddist.

 

[/MSG/]

How do we determine that point? I believe we do so at the ballot box, that's the only rational place to make that determination.

Is this the same ballot box that has elected genocidal tyrants? I'm pretty sure it is. Democracy is great for some things, but not everything.

 

[Damocles]

Is this the same ballot box that has elected genocidal tyrants? I'm pretty sure it is. Democracy is great for some things, but not everything.

Which is the very reason for the list of rights that the government is not supposed to cross...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Right, so your "What social conservatives do wrong" (mention of 'spirit of the thread' in your post) was a mention of a flaw of somebody else? Something about how somebody otehr than you supposedly "doesn't understand"....

Hypocrite.

What libertarian minds have done wrong is trust that at least the fiscal side of things will be handled even if somebody has social "conservative" leanings... Unfortunately that trust has been abused for at least the duration of the "war on drugs" and especially so since Kennedy began the long road to fiscal insolvency. The last fiscal conservative we had in the WH was Eisenhower...

This thread is open to Libertarians AND Social Conservatives, I am an equal opportunity counselor! As I said earlier, I am often split between social conservative values and libertarian sense of liberty and personal freedoms. I don't feel that I am "extreme" to either degree, I see the merits in both ideologies, and I believe there may be a way for us to reconcile our differences in an adult way, but first we must start acting like adults, and stop behaving like spoiled children. In order to discuss the problems, we must be willing to face our own faults and flaws, that is why I posed the opening question in that way, to get you to think about this from an independent perspective, look at yourself, try to find what it is that causes you to hold the views toward whichever ideology is opposite of your own. I would love to have some more Social Conservatives weigh in and tell us why they can't accept Libertarian ideas, that is healthy and productive in this venture.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Is this the same ballot box that has elected genocidal tyrants? I'm pretty sure it is. Democracy is great for some things, but not everything.

Okay, so what do you propose we replace democracy with... I mean, aside from a kingdom ruled by King Caboose? Any thoughts for an alternative?

 

[Damocles]

Okay, so what do you propose we replace democracy with... I mean, aside from a kingdom ruled by King Caboose? Any thoughts for an alternative?

I propose a constitutional republic that has a set list of things that the government shouldn't mess with. One of them should be about establishing religion through laws... that should be a "No can do, Big G!"

 

[Socrtease]

Social conservatives have been on the wrong side of too many issues. Social conservatives were against desegregation. Now get me here, I KNOW that most of those social conservatives were Democrats and they were that because the Republican party was the one that forced the Civil War amendments on them, they were the ones in charge of reconstruction etc. We are not talking about political labels, we are talking about social conservatives vs. libertarians (notice no caps). Nonetheless, social conservatives wanted to maintain the status quo of segregated america, whether they were Bostonians or Alabamans.

They were on the wrong side of the school prayer issue. You are correct Dixie, there was no Baptist Prayer Act, but there was the want that school children prayed to god, which in this country is a christian god. The prayer that was struck down in Engel v. Vitale was christian in nature though not denominational. Jewish groups opposed the prayer as did Atheists. Social conservatives said that god was taken out of school, which was untrue, only prayer organized and led by the state officials running the school.

Social conservatives took the wrong side when it came to consentual, adult on adult sex. It was social conservatives that applauded the Supreme Court's decision in Bowers v. Hardwick and bemoaned the decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Both of those cases involved police entering someones house and finding two men engaged in consentual sex. Social conservatives think the government has a right to criminalize what two adults do in their bedrooms.

Social conservatives were wrong on Prohibition and ARE wrong on the War on Drugs. If people want to get drunk or be high, the government has no business interfering UNLESS those actions impinge on the rights of others like Driving While Intoxicated, or not caring for your child while you are intoxicated just to name two. But a living room full of college kids smoking a joint should not be the concern of the government.

These are just few instances of where I think the social conservative and the libertarian are at odds.

 

[/MSG/]

Okay, so what do you propose we replace democracy with... I mean, aside from a kingdom ruled by King Caboose? Any thoughts for an alternative?

Or maybe, just MAYBE, it doesn't need replaced in everything.

Madness I know, that I would advocate different solutions to different problems.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I propose a constitutional republic that has a set list of things that the government shouldn't mess with. One of them should be about establishing religion through laws... that should be a "No can do, Big G!"

Well that's actually what we have now, but the problem is, certain people view everything "moral" as being an establishing of religion, when it's not. To some people, they can't get over the fact that religious people support morality, and it doesn't mean they are trying to force their religion on them. I mean, Damo... do you expect someone who is Southern Baptist to all of a sudden come out in support of Gay Marriage and Abortion? Really? You think that could actually happen? I know you are for gay marriage and opposed to abortion, but could anyone convince you to change your mind on those issues? So why do you think bastardization of the terms and condemnation of religious people, will make them less inclined to support what they support? Don't they have a right to their beliefs, and don't they have a right to express those beliefs in the public and political forums? And if a vast majority of Americans agree with their values and morals, shouldn't they be able to have the 'freedom' to pass laws based on those same values?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Or maybe, just MAYBE, it doesn't need replaced in everything.

Madness I know, that I would advocate different solutions to different problems.

Okay.... so who gets to decide what things we can morally determine as a society, and what things are off limits, regardless of our personal beliefs? I am trying to get a clear understanding of your views here, and you keep being vague about it. Please note, I am not here to criticize you for what you believe, I want to hear what you have to say, but we keep going around in circles because you won't really tell me what you believe. You continue to make these ridiculous statements that have no basis in rationality... no laws based on morals... can't tell you what to do... rights to privacy and other things you think are precious, but fuck everyone else's opinion... I mean, at some point, I would like for you to actually talk about what your problems are with accepting the message of the Social Conservatives. Or do you just want to hoot down everyone else and have the entire nation bow before you?

 

[Damocles]

Well that's actually what we have now, but the problem is, certain people view everything "moral" as being an establishing of religion, when it's not. To some people, they can't get over the fact that religious people support morality, and it doesn't mean they are trying to force their religion on them. I mean, Damo... do you expect someone who is Southern Baptist to all of a sudden come out in support of Gay Marriage and Abortion? Really? You think that could actually happen? I know you are for gay marriage and opposed to abortion, but could anyone convince you to change your mind on those issues? So why do you think bastardization of the terms and condemnation of religious people, will make them less inclined to support what they support? Don't they have a right to their beliefs, and don't they have a right to express those beliefs in the public and political forums? And if a vast majority of Americans agree with their values and morals, shouldn't they be able to have the 'freedom' to pass laws based on those same values?

I don't care if they don't support gay marriage, they can not support it all day long. In fact I think we should propose one of those rights to be they get to talk all day long about how they don't support gay marriage, and the government will have no right to stop them.

What should be clear, is if there is no direct victim there is no need for interference.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What should be clear, is if there is no direct victim there is no need for interference.

Well, now you are back in the illogical land of Caboose, where we can strike down peeping tom laws because they really aren't harming anyone... we can let perverts masturbate in the park... all kinds of stuff... because who are we to deny them that 'right' or to interfere based on OUR morals?

 

[Damocles]

Well, now you are back in the illogical land of Caboose, where we can strike down peeping tom laws because they really aren't harming anyone... we can let perverts masturbate in the park... all kinds of stuff... because who are we to deny them that 'right' or to interfere based on OUR morals?

Incorrect. There is a direct victim easy to find and illustrate, all without the silly "morality" lists from dogmatic religions.

The primary purpose of government should be solely to protect the rights of individuals (like the victim of the peeper, electronic or otherwise), to this purpose the government should have certain enumerated powers beyond which it is not to cross.

 

[/MSG/]

Dixie, from this point on refer to Damo. He and I are one on this.