Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[apple0154]

Yeah. And hitler was just making an innocent list of jews.

What wrong with making a list of jews. Maybe it's to send them challah at passuck.

We all know what contributed to the problem as Martin Niemoller accurately summed it up.

"In Germany, they first came for the gypsies, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a gypsy. Then they came for the Bolsheviks, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Bolshevik. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up then because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up."

Privacy. Nobody's business. That is how abuse flourishes.

 

[Damocles]

We all know what contributed to the problem as Martin Niemoller accurately summed it up.

"In Germany, they first came for the gypsies, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a gypsy. Then they came for the Bolsheviks, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Bolshevik. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up then because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up."

Privacy. Nobody's business. That is how abuse flourishes.

That's again a false premise. This is an example of where the government intruded on privacy to say you must think in a specific way, and used its force to ensure that you were compelled to do just that. That people feared the government and didn't stand up for what is right doesn't change that government force was used to violate rights.

 

[apple0154]

I did indulge you, in later posts I explained how many of those rights are directly "privacy" issues. Again, you are now deliberately incapable of any form of reading comprehension because you don't want to fit the idea into your head, not because the explanations were not clear.

1. A government list of people who own guns ensures a list of victims who are not on the list... They have privacy rights too.
2. The government has no right to a list of your property, especially that property you use to protect your rights. This form of privacy is ensured in both the 2nd and the 4th Amendment.
3. Where did I ever say that people knowing my salary has any effect on Jury Trials? That is a straw man, and it is stupid.
4. Having people know I am a Buddhist, etc. doesn't effect my right to free speech, but it does effect my right if the government is telling me how to believe. Hence we create a right where I can believe as I will without government interference, my thoughts are mine, this is a privacy issue

So are where you work and how much you earn and where you live privacy issues? What about how much income tax you pay?

And when is the government trying to tell you what to believe? Or more accurately how is the government forcing you to believe anything? Talk about a straw man.

How is the government knowing you own a gun infringe on your right to own a gun? You're not making sense. A person not owning a gun is not showing they are a victim because there are many people who do not own a gun.

As for the Fourth Amendment it's about "unreasonable searches and seizures".

As you previously stated you're speaking in "terms of philosophy" so the point is not about the 4th Amendment, per se, but why such an amendment would include information gathered without disruption to ones home/business. In other words if the government found out information about you through a third party it means the government did not conduct a "search and seizure". What problem is there with the government or anyone else knowing?

My point is less secrecy would mean fewer people would be discriminated against because there would be too many people to discriminate against. That's why a lot of the problems arose as I explained earlier.

When homosexuality was in the closet discrimination ran rampant. When rapes were stigmatized rapes went unreported. As more people come out of the closet, be it the sexual closet or religious closet or political closet, people become more accepting.

It is a benefit for the individual and for society on the whole, philosophically speaking.

 

[Damocles]

So are where you work and how much you earn and where you live privacy issues? What about how much income tax you pay?

And when is the government trying to tell you what to believe? Or more accurately how is the government forcing you to believe anything? Talk about a straw man.

How is the government knowing you own a gun infringe on your right to own a gun? You're not making sense. A person not owning a gun is not showing they are a victim because there are many people who do not own a gun.

As for the Fourth Amendment it's about "unreasonable searches and seizures".

As you previously stated you're speaking in "terms of philosophy" so the point is not about the 4th Amendment, per se, but why such an amendment would include information gathered without disruption to ones home/business. In other words if the government found out information about you through a third party it means the government did not conduct a "search and seizure". What problem is there with the government or anyone else knowing?

My point is less secrecy would mean fewer people would be discriminated against because there would be too many people to discriminate against. That's why a lot of the problems arose as I explained earlier.

When homosexuality was in the closet discrimination ran rampant. When rapes were stigmatized rapes went unreported. As more people come out of the closet, be it the sexual closet or religious closet or political closet, people become more accepting.

It is a benefit for the individual and for society on the whole, philosophically speaking.

Yes, unless you release your taxes to the public (some public officials do, and some are required due to their position that is a choice) that too is a privacy issue.

No it isn't a straw man, the 1st Amendment was created to prevent exactly that. Some governments do tell you what to believe, usually theocracies. Thoughts come to mind of "heretic" charges, torture, executions based on what you were supposed to believe... There is a reason that is the 1st of the rights listed, what you think is absolutely a privacy issue, and the government should have no power to tell you what to believe, to think, or what you choose to disclose.

We do have those rules with the 4th Amendment, reasonable is the cue there. Ever heard of the "fruit of the poisoned tree?" If you conduct a search on shaky grounds your evidence can, and often is, thrown out of court.

My point is, secrecy is a choice where we have a right to privacy. You can work to convince others to talk about things, but you cannot and should not use government to force people to do so. This goes with homosexuality, rape, etc. It is "nunya" until somebody makes it your business through their own choice.

 

[apple0154]

That's again a false premise. This is an example of where the government intruded on privacy to say you must think in a specific way, and used its force to ensure that you were compelled to do just that. That people feared the government and didn't stand up for what is right doesn't change that government force was used to violate rights.

Government force can be used to violate any right. If the government decides guns are illegal and people do not contest that then the government will search any home where they have reasonable belief there is a gun.

The point is the government knowing you own a gun has nothing to do with their right to seize it. They would be going against the 2nd Amendment whether they knew you had a gun and seized it or heard you had a gun, conducted a search, then seized the gun.

The first time one uses their gun, it will be seized. That is the problem. It's not the fact the government knows beforehand.

Again, it all comes down to secrecy. Privacy. Nobody's business. Martin Niemoller's point is valid.

 

[Damocles]

Government force can be used to violate any right. If the government decides guns are illegal and people do not contest that then the government will search any home where they have reasonable belief there is a gun.

The point is the government knowing you own a gun has nothing to do with their right to seize it. They would be going against the 2nd Amendment whether they knew you had a gun and seized it or heard you had a gun, conducted a search, then seized the gun.

The first time one uses their gun, it will be seized. That is the problem. It's not the fact the government knows beforehand.

Again, it all comes down to secrecy. Privacy. Nobody's business. Martin Niemoller's point is valid.

Martin Neimoller's point is valid, but it is not about government violations of a right nor does it say anything to "privacy"... He knew people were attacking "Jews" and chose to do nothing. It says everything to the fact that all evil needs to prevail is for good people to do nothing. Inaction is a choice, in this case it was the wrong one but it has little bearing on what powers the government can and should bear to violate your rights when you say, "I didn't do what I should have!"

Your argument isn't even a stretch to fit, it is outright a square peg you work to fit into a round hole.

In short, regret of your own individual inaction is not a "privacy" thing.

 

[apple0154]

Martin Neimoller's point is valid, but it is not about government violations of a right nor does it say anything to "privacy"... He knew people were attacking "Jews" and chose to do nothing. It says everything to the fact that all evil needs to prevail is for good people to do nothing. Inaction is a choice, in this case it was the wrong one but it has little bearing on what powers the government can and should bear to violate your rights when you say, "I didn't do what I should have!"

Your argument isn't even a stretch to fit, it is outright a square peg you work to fit into a round hole.

In short, regret of your own individual inaction is not a "privacy" thing.

Sure, the people knew the government was attacking Jews but the government was also targeting other people. Homosexuals. Gypsies. The mentally deficient. The people did nothing for any group and privacy plays a big part in that.

How well did they know their Orthodox Jewish neighbor? Their homosexual neighbor? Their trade unionist neighbor?

That's why we see people getting mugged while others just walk by. Privacy. Not our business.

 

[Timshel]

The biggest problem with social conservatism is it's insistence that morality is objective, and not subjective, and thus can be regulated by law.

Morality is objective. Social conservatives are, without any doubt, immoral.

 

[Minister of Truth]

We all know what contributed to the problem as Martin Niemoller accurately summed it up.

"In Germany, they first came for the gypsies, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a gypsy. Then they came for the Bolsheviks, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Bolshevik. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up then because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up."

Privacy. Nobody's business. That is how abuse flourishes.

Granted, the Bolsheviks did at least deserve the attention...

 

[/MSG/]

Morality is objective. Social conservatives are, without any doubt, immoral.

That's half true. Social conservatives are immoral.

 

[Damocles]

Sure, the people knew the government was attacking Jews but the government was also targeting other people. Homosexuals. Gypsies. The mentally deficient. The people did nothing for any group and privacy plays a big part in that.

How well did they know their Orthodox Jewish neighbor? Their homosexual neighbor? Their trade unionist neighbor?

That's why we see people getting mugged while others just walk by. Privacy. Not our business.

Again, personal inaction is not even minutely the same as government violations of people's rights.

It's inane to attempt to get Neimoller's quote about apathy used to cover fear to fit into that. It is my experience that when you get into the absurd you tend to render yourself into fits of nonsense like this and never let them go. Neimoller's quote doesn't even halfway fit into this argument, other than to point out, that is what government shouldn't be doing. But then we all know that anyway.

I'll say it more clearly. Apathy, no matter the reason, is not the same thing as privacy. That's a foolish assertion.

One thing we agree with, people should rise up against their government when they do this, we have this thing called the First Amendment that specifically mentions that we have that right. Governments that do not recognize your right to have private thoughts and assertions violate that right by controlling actions through force. In short they'll try to kill you or imprison you, as they did in Nazi Germany. This isn't right, and is a violation of several rights, all of which begin with the right we've been talking about, that of privacy.

 

[Timshel]

That's half true. Social conservatives are immoral.

It's all true. Morality is objective, at the very least to the extent that laws should reach. A moral choice can not be forced through violence or the threat of violence. Therefore, objectively moral laws should prevent initiations of force, whether the attacker is the government or a private citizen.

An objective moral code may prohibit actions that laws should not, but it can only prohibit it through the free choice of the practitioner. As soon as the moral code is forced onto another moral action/choice becomes impossible.

Social conservatives are immoral because they threaten freedom of choice, which is a necessary condition of morality. Regardless of what Dixie claims, most are religious nuts. Others are just idiots who believe their cultural biases should be forced on to others.

"I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone." – H.L. Mencken

 

[Bai Lan]

Sure, the people knew the government was attacking Jews but the government was also targeting other people. Homosexuals. Gypsies. The mentally deficient. The people did nothing for any group and privacy plays a big part in that.

How well did they know their Orthodox Jewish neighbor? Their homosexual neighbor? Their trade unionist neighbor?

That's why we see people getting mugged while others just walk by. Privacy. Not our business.

Hitler had a unity policy. No dissent allowed. And he hunted you down and murdered you. Like the left and their objection to free speech. Perhaps you should stand up for free speech, instead of your nazi shutting down of "hate speech". if you were nazi germany you would be for rounding up dissenters as terrorists. That;s how brainwashed you are. In your nazi system you simply substituted white male patriots for jews.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It's all true. Morality is objective, at the very least to the extent that laws should reach. A moral choice can not be forced through violence or the threat of violence. Therefore, objectively moral laws should prevent initiations of force, whether the attacker is the government or a private citizen.

An objective moral code may prohibit actions that laws should not, but it can only prohibit it through the free choice of the practitioner. As soon as the moral code is forced onto another moral action/choice becomes impossible.

Social conservatives are immoral because they threaten freedom of choice, which is a necessary condition of morality. Regardless of what Dixie claims, most are religious nuts. Others are just idiots who believe their cultural biases should be forced on to others.

"I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone." – H.L. Mencken

I am puzzled....do you object to laws against murder and theft?........

 

[apple0154]

Again, personal inaction is not even minutely the same as government violations of people's rights.

It's inane to attempt to get Neimoller's quote about apathy used to cover fear to fit into that. It is my experience that when you get into the absurd you tend to render yourself into fits of nonsense like this and never let them go. Neimoller's quote doesn't even halfway fit into this argument, other than to point out, that is what government shouldn't be doing. But then we all know that anyway.

I'll say it more clearly. Apathy, no matter the reason, is not the same thing as privacy. That's a foolish assertion.

One thing we agree with, people should rise up against their government when they do this, we have this thing called the First Amendment that specifically mentions that we have that right. Governments that do not recognize your right to have private thoughts and assertions violate that right by controlling actions through force. In short they'll try to kill you or imprison you, as they did in Nazi Germany. This isn't right, and is a violation of several rights, all of which begin with the right we've been talking about, that of privacy.

The government knowing your business is not the same as the government interfering in your business. It appears you equate the two.

Also, how can the government possibly know ones private thoughts?

When governments like Germany rounded up certain persons did their neighbors know the reason? When you see an arrest being made do you know the reason? Was the person speeding or is it because they are a member of a certain group? You don't know.

Privacy allows governments to get away with things because the average person knows little about their neighbor. By things being kept secret (private) anything that differs from what we're accustomed to seems weird or strange or even perverted or criminal.

My point is privacy, to the extent it is practiced, is not good for society, in general.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You know what my position is. If you want to put your manhood in a consenting adult colon, knock yourself out. Just don't tell me that its normal moral natural and healthy, because it ain't.

Morality is subjective. You don't have a right to dictate others morality.

Yes, it is abnormal. Abnormal does not equal evil.

It is most certainly natural, as it occurs in nature. Not only in our species, but in many others as well.

It is no more/less healthy than a man having sex with a woman. It all comes down to protection and preventative measures.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Then why bother so much with when I buy beer, for instance, or that I need Sundays off to go to Church and if car lots were open I might just lope on off for a bit of consumerism? Why do they so often wander into the laws extending into the "Nunya" category?

When I buy beer, it's Nunya Bidness... When I may want to go car shopping, Nunya. Whether I like guys or girls, or whom I am engaged to, Nunya... It's very much, in fact exactly like, bothering with how much salt I may consume in NYC, or whether we desperately need me to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle. I'm a big boy now, deserve to be treated like one, and can make my own decision on headgear and sodium intake, just like I can make decisions that effect my soul like whether or not to give church a miss on a Sunday afternoon and wander onto a car lot.

dude, are you pretending that anyone, social conservative or otherwise, wants to pass a law making you go to church on Sunday?.....I thought this was supposed to be a serious discussion.....

 

[Socrtease]

This is the opening paragraph to Warren and Brandeis "The Right to Privacy." It is attributed to Louis Brandeis:

That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the new demands of society. Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the "right to life" served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, -- the right to be let alone; the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession -- intangible, as well as tangible.

 

[Timshel]

The government knowing your business is not the same as the government interfering in your business. It appears you equate the two.

Also, how can the government possibly know ones private thoughts?

When governments like Germany rounded up certain persons did their neighbors know the reason? When you see an arrest being made do you know the reason? Was the person speeding or is it because they are a member of a certain group? You don't know.

Privacy allows governments to get away with things because the average person knows little about their neighbor. By things being kept secret (private) anything that differs from what we're accustomed to seems weird or strange or even perverted or criminal.

My point is privacy, to the extent it is practiced, is not good for society, in general.

Your whole argument is nothing but nonsense. You have argued that things like, closeted homosexuality is the cause of homophobia. Clearly, closeted homosexuality is a response to homophobia.

Then, here you confuse government secrecy with the privacy of the individual. A right to privacy is an important protection from abusive state action.

 

[Timshel]

I am puzzled....do you object to laws against murder and theft?........

Of course. That was clearly covered. Here it is again...


A moral choice can not be forced through violence or the threat of violence. Therefore, objectively moral laws should prevent initiations of force, whether the attacker is the government or a private citizen.


... Without such laws the necessary preconditions of morality are not possible. Murder and theft are both acts of violent force and not different than the government using force or the threat of force to prohibit some otherwise peaceful and consensual act.