Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

But wait, how is someone harmed by someone else looking at them? I don't understand that. Where do you get that "privacy" is not a moral right, determined by moral and decent people of a civilization, who thought that was something worth ensuring? Because from my perspective, that was exactly how such 'rights' came to be. Whether it has roots in a religious belief or not, is beside the point. You are taking exception to certain things you construe as "religious" that are simply "moral" and nothing else, they happen to be endorsed by religious people, but does that mean we must oppose them because of who supports them?
 
Dixie said:
But wait, how is someone harmed by someone else looking at them? I don't understand that. Where do you get that "privacy" is not a moral right, determined by moral and decent people of a civilization, who thought that was something worth ensuring? Because from my perspective, that was exactly how such 'rights' came to be. Whether it has roots in a religious belief or not, is beside the point. You are taking exception to certain things you construe as "religious" that are simply "moral" and nothing else, they happen to be endorsed by religious people, but does that mean we must oppose them because of who supports them?
Click to expand...
Privacy is a natural right we all share, nor is that violation the only way the victim is harmed. Ignoring psychological damage because you do not want to use empathy isn't one of the faults of libertarians.

And again, the specific places where social "conservatives" cross these lines is when they start getting into things with no direct victim. We do not need to make a law restricting "marriage" to government approved homogenized Judeo-Christian approved hetero's only clubs for instance. In fact there is this right to freedom of religion that says the government shouldn't be mucking around in that anyway.

When some idiot takes drugs in his own home, responsibly, doesn't drive and is careful not to teach such activity to those too young to have full understanding that there may be consequences for actions, there is no reason to make a law restricting their right to do that. Now if that same idiot gets in a car and endangers others (making direct victims through negligence by endangering others recklessly), there is the place for a law.
 
Dixie said:
You are taking exception to certain things you construe as "religious" that are simply "moral" and nothing else, they happen to be endorsed by religious people, but does that mean we must oppose them because of who supports them?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Anyone who can support individual rights is welcome to vote along side us. We take issue when they argue their morality is greater than others and use it to restrict others personal freedoms.
 
Caboose said:
Dixie, from this point on refer to Damo. He and I are one on this.
Click to expand...

Well neither one of you have really addressed the OP question. You are both still in denial that you have a problem. We know from marital counseling, whenever two parties are divided (as libertarians and social conservatives are), the problems lies in the inability for each to see their side of the problem, and acknowledge their own faults and flaws. I keep questioning both of you about this, but you continue to revert back to the tried and true method of lobbing criticism at the other side, without any introspection on your own flaws and faults. We can't ever resolve our differences unless we are all willing to do that, and our conversations are hopelessly going to end up being the same tired old hyperbole and blame, with nothing being resolved in the end.
 
Caboose said:
Not at all. Anyone who can support individual rights is welcome to vote along side us. We take issue when they argue their morality is greater than others and use it to restrict others personal freedoms.
Click to expand...

So only people who have the same worldview as you can decide what kind of society we live in? The rest of us are "proles" who must follow your guidance and wisdom? Is that how you see things?
 
Dixie said:
Well neither one of you have really addressed the OP question. You are both still in denial that you have a problem. We know from marital counseling, whenever two parties are divided (as libertarians and social conservatives are), the problems lies in the inability for each to see their side of the problem, and acknowledge their own faults and flaws. I keep questioning both of you about this, but you continue to revert back to the tried and true method of lobbing criticism at the other side, without any introspection on your own flaws and faults. We can't ever resolve our differences unless we are all willing to do that, and our conversations are hopelessly going to end up being the same tired old hyperbole and blame, with nothing being resolved in the end.
Click to expand...
So... in other words.... you want us to vote Republican instead of Libertarian. Ok, I can understand that. But, you see Dixie, I tend to vote on the ISSUES, rather than party lines.
 
Dixie said:
So only people who have the same worldview as you can decide what kind of society we live in? The rest of us are "proles" who must follow your guidance and wisdom? Is that how you see things?
Click to expand...
Nice way to fly off the handle Dix.
 
Damocles said:
Privacy is a natural right we all share, nor is that violation the only way the victim is harmed. Ignoring psychological damage because you do not want to use empathy isn't one of the faults of libertarians.

And again, the specific places where social "conservatives" cross these lines is when they start getting into things with no direct victim. We do not need to make a law restricting "marriage" to government approved homogenized Judeo-Christian approved hetero's only clubs for instance. In fact there is this right to freedom of religion that says the government shouldn't be mucking around in that anyway.
Click to expand...

Why is privacy a "natural right?" I look around nature, and I don't see that privacy is respected too very often among the rest of the animal kingdom. What basis did you use to determine this "natural right" you claim we have? It certainly isn't "nature!"
 
Dixie said:
Why is privacy a "natural right?" I look around nature, and I don't see that privacy is respected too very often among the rest of the animal kingdom. What basis did you use to determine this "natural right" you claim we have? It certainly isn't "nature!"
Click to expand...
It is one of the first rights practiced in nature and is shown through an aggressive protection of territory, it is what ownership is based on, and one of the most natural drives of all animals, including humans. Not wanting to observe nature is another "flaw" that is not often exhibited in libertarians. Another right that I would submit, directly relating to this right, is the right to protect oneself and family from attacks, by force or otherwise (psychological, such as peeping). To that effect I believe that we should have the right to own and bear weapons in order to give us the power to protect ourselves.
 
Caboose said:
Nice way to fly off the handle Dix.
Click to expand...

LOL...Oh you haven't seen me "fly off the handle" yet... I am being very reserved and level headed here. I am just trying to get a grasp on where your political ideology rests, it seems you are quite authoritarian, you just think the rest of the society should follow your ideals and everything would be lovely. Problem is, that ain't ever going to happen in the real world, not unless you have plans to become an iron-fisted dictator or something.
 
Damocles said:
It is one of the first rights practiced in nature and is shown through an aggressive protection of territory, it is what ownership is based on, and one of the most natural drives of all animals, including humans.
Click to expand...

Protecting territory is not a natural right to privacy, it is a natural inclination to protect territory.
 
Dixie said:
LOL...Oh you haven't seen me "fly off the handle" yet... I am being very reserved and level headed here. I am just trying to get a grasp on where your political ideology rests, it seems you are quite authoritarian, you just think the rest of the society should follow your ideals and everything would be lovely. Problem is, that ain't ever going to happen in the real world, not unless you have plans to become an iron-fisted dictator or something.
Click to expand...
No.... I think everyone should do whatever they want. You're more than welcome to vote too Dix, but when you try to vote someone elses rights away, then we have a problem. Hence my belief that democracy doesn't solve everything.
 
Dixie said:
Protecting territory is not a natural right to privacy, it is a natural inclination to protect territory.
Click to expand...
Failing to link reason behind action, to ask the question "Why do we want to protect our territory?" is another of the "flaws" that are not exhibited by the libertarian mind. There are many reasons that there is an urge to protect territory, the first of which is that a well defined territorial limit allows the animal a place where they can raise their young without prying eyes and danger to their young.

Territory is based in privacy, from it far more blossoms. It is the basic central right that is talked around by the first 10 Amendments of our Constitution. What I believe is my business, not yours. 1st Amendment. If I want to tell you about it, the government shouldn't be able to stop me. 1st Amendment. If I want to protect myself and family from intrusion (privacy again) I should be able to. 2nd Amendment. So on...

It is the natural right that is infused in all the rights that we list to protect ourselves from a government that will go too far, that will try to list activities that are none of their business that we can or cannot do, for instance marrying somebody that isn't Judeo-Christian approved.
 
Caboose said:
No.... I think everyone should do whatever they want. You're more than welcome to vote too Dix, but when you try to vote someone elses rights away, then we have a problem. Hence my belief that democracy doesn't solve everything.
Click to expand...

But again, what you see as "your rights" others see as a morality-based determination you have made. If we go by what you initially posted, we shouldn't make laws based on your morality, it's not fair to those who disagree with you.
 
Damocles said:
Failing to link reason behind action, to ask the question "Why do we want to protect our territory?" is another of the "flaws" that are not exhibited by the libertarian mind. There are many reasons that there is an urge to protect territory, the first of which is that a well defined territorial limit allows the animal a place where they can raise their young without prying eyes and danger to their young.

Territory is based in privacy, from it far more blossoms. It is the basic central right that is talked around by the first 10 Amendments of our Constitution. What I believe is my business, not yours. 1st Amendment. If I want to tell you about it, the government shouldn't be able to stop me. 1st Amendment. If I want to protect myself and family from intrusion (privacy again) I should be able to. 2nd Amendment. So on...

It is the natural right that is infused in all the rights that we list to protect ourselves from a government that will go too far, that will try to list activities that are none of their business that we can or cannot do, for instance marrying somebody that isn't Judeo-Christian approved.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing with what you stated, I merely asked you for a clarification. What you gave was an abstract explanation which seems to want to tie natural protective instincts into a "right of privacy" that we don't naturally have at all. I understand the Constitution and the Amendments, do you think I am arguing AGAINST us having Constitutional rights? Because that would be a convenient position for you to claim I've adopted, and demonstrate your debate prowess by 'refuting' the absurd position. I can't let you get away with that kind of cheap shot here. I asked you a question, I did not make a statement.

There is absolutely NO law on the books saying a marriage has to be "Judeo-Christian" approved, again, this is your overblown extremist libertarian hyperbole talking, and not your common sense. I have repeatedly asked you for examples of this rampant religious activism, which has destroyed your fundamental rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and all I keep getting is cheap shots and diversions. When are you going to answer the question, Damo?
 
Dixie said:
I am not arguing with what you stated, I merely asked you for a clarification. What you gave was an abstract explanation which seems to want to tie natural protective instincts into a "right of privacy" that we don't naturally have at all. I understand the Constitution and the Amendments, do you think I am arguing AGAINST us having Constitutional rights? Because that would be a convenient position for you to claim I've adopted, and demonstrate your debate prowess by 'refuting' the absurd position. I can't let you get away with that kind of cheap shot here. I asked you a question, I did not make a statement.

There is absolutely NO law on the books saying a marriage has to be "Judeo-Christian" approved, again, this is your overblown extremist libertarian hyperbole talking, and not your common sense. I have repeatedly asked you for examples of this rampant religious activism, which has destroyed your fundamental rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and all I keep getting is cheap shots and diversions. When are you going to answer the question, Damo?
Click to expand...
It is my goal to list why the social "conservative" is just another version of "radical" who refuses to recognize some of those pesky rights and limitations of government in order to legislate dogma (not morality, dogma) and to inform any social "conservative" why I would fight their urge to constantly confuse dogma with "morality" and thus legislate from their holy books. You wanted to know where the lines were drawn, therefore I create a map to lead you there. Saying I've not answered your question is inane, each was answered directly and with reasons behind them pointing to why I believe the social "conservative" is both not "conservative" nor concerned with the limitations long ago listed...

And you are wrong there are many laws like that, in many states constitutional amendments were passed specifically limiting marriage to the Judeo-Christian approved dogmatic definition, it is just such laws that are IMO crossing into legislating religion/s... In every case it is the social "conservative" that were drawn to vote for it, even in CA where the socially conservative minorities who usually vote Democratic Party voted for just such a law even as they voted for Obama.
 
Damocles said:
It is my goal to list why the social "conservative" is just another version of "radical" who refuses to recognize some of those pesky rights and limitations of government in order to legislate dogma (not morality, dogma) and to inform any social "conservative" why I would fight their urge to constantly confuse dogma with "morality" and thus legislate from their holy books. You wanted to know where the lines were drawn, therefore I create a map to lead you there. Saying I've not answered your question is inane, each was answered directly and with reasons behind them pointing to why I believe the social "conservative" is both not "conservative" nor concerned with the limitations long ago listed...

And there are many laws like that, in many states constitutional amendments were passed specifically limiting marriage to the Judeo-Christian approved dogmatic definition.
Click to expand...

As I said in my first response to you, it appears you are one of those libertarians who believe the myth, that ALL social conservatives want to force their personal religious ideology on the rest of society. Do you comprehend how you may be over-exaggerating a bit? Does it occur to you, maybe you're views are just a bit too biased and you might just be generalizing a little more than you should?

I am opposed to Gay Marriage, not because I hate gay people, not because of my religious dogma, not because "jeebus" said it was wrong, not because I think homosexuals are going to hell, not because I want to control someone's life. My viewpoint has nothing to do with any of that, but from your response, it appears you don't believe me, you assume that all people opposed to gay marriage are religious nuts who want to deprive others of a right. You can't see the harm to society in adopting laws based on people's sex lives, or which directly contradict other people's right to freedom of religious expression. Your blinders are on and you are in complete denial of anything that doesn't comport with your narrow-minded libertarian worldview, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "religious nut" who bases their views on religious dogma and nothing else.
 
Dixie said:
As I said in my first response to you, it appears you are one of those libertarians who believe the myth, that ALL social conservatives want to force their personal religious ideology on the rest of society. Do you comprehend how you may be over-exaggerating a bit? Does it occur to you, maybe you're views are just a bit too biased and you might just be generalizing a little more than you should?

I am opposed to Gay Marriage, not because I hate gay people, not because of my religious dogma, not because "jeebus" said it was wrong, not because I think homosexuals are going to hell, not because I want to control someone's life. My viewpoint has nothing to do with any of that, but from your response, it appears you don't believe me, you assume that all people opposed to gay marriage are religious nuts who want to deprive others of a right. You can't see the harm to society in adopting laws based on people's sex lives, or which directly contradict other people's right to freedom of religious expression. Your blinders are on and you are in complete denial of anything that doesn't comport with your narrow-minded libertarian worldview, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "religious nut" who bases their views on religious dogma and nothing else.
Click to expand...
The reality is most do want to do just that, it is evident in the laws they propose and those they vote for. Those that do not want to do that, are fiscally conservative, and wish to protect the constitution are exactly like me.

I can see the harm in creating laws based in people's sex lives, especially so when mixing it with "licensing" religious ceremonies "recognizing" those that only fall into one specific dogmatic definition...

If we want to protect the rights of individuals, some risks must be taken. Those who are willing to give up necessary liberties for security deserve neither.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top