Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

yet, when one speaks of "social conservative" in the US aren't we just talking about people who are opposed to abortion......I don't think there was a segment of the American right that bore the label until after Roe v Wade, and it was a firmly established concept long before the gay marriage issue.....all you have really said, above, is that one can be socially conservative even if they aren't religious.....
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

a "social conservative" is not concerned with what a libertarian does in private, they are concerned with what they do in society......that's why they are "social" conservatives....
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Then you'll have to take it up with some more extreme social conservatives, because there are certainly people I know in the movement who think the legality of same-sex sex acts (and perhaps even heterosexual acts) should be up to the government.
Click to expand...

do you think it's legitimate to define a movement by it's extremes?.....if in fact the extreme you mention even exists anywhere except in your imagination.....
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Then you'll have to take it up with some more extreme social conservatives, because there are certainly people I know in the movement who think the legality of same-sex sex acts (and perhaps even heterosexual acts) should be up to the government.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of conservatives and don't know any that think that way. I certainty don't and I'm about as conservative as one can be. Your friends are obviously mixed-up.
 
Dixie said:
And as I asked Damo (who failed to respond)... IF this is the case, what is wrong with that? Should people be forbidden to express their views because those views are based on their religious faith? Where does the Constitution make this clear? Where does it say that we can't establish laws which are based on what we believe as part of our religious faith? I understand we can't make laws establishing a religion, but we are talking about laws established based on teachings from our religion, and from my understanding, the Constitution certainly doesn't say we can't do that, or don't have the right to do that. You may not agree with it, you may not like it or approve of it, but religious people have every right that you do, in forming the laws and rules we live by as a society. ALL men are created equal... not just Libertarian Men!
Click to expand...

There is no secular reason for outlawing any sexual act between consenting adults.
 
Dixie said:
And there has been no proposal to outlaw any sexual act between consenting adults. So what does that have to do with ANYTHING?
Click to expand...
Social Conservatives bemoan the Texas v. Johnson decision which made sodomy laws unconstitutional. If they had their way sodomy would still be illegal in many states. There is no secular reason for sodomy laws and no secular reason to be upset they were overturned.
 
apple0154 said:
I'm not following your logic. You mentioned territory, resources and food following from privacy. If anything, it's the opposite of privacy. People and animals let others know what territory is theirs.
Click to expand...
It's not the "opposite" of privacy. I gather my food and place it where I do not want others to go or see, I set my territory, that line that marks that past here it is none of your business... At the heart of it survival is "privacy" just taken to larger extremes. Again, it is the penultimate right from which all the others flow. At a more brutal level of nature it is taken to further extremes than humans normally go. If you break this line beyond which I think nothing is your business, then you can find yourself in a fight for your life.

More obvious ones like the 3rd and 4th, 1st and 2nd I've already explained. Protecting what is yours is just a form of marking territory, which is from privacy. "You can come to here, but no further, nothing beyond this point is any of your business."

Territory, survival, all begin with that simple idea, they even extend to larger "families". When people start associating all Americans as "their territorial family" you get things like nationalism, protectionism, armies, and a strong urge to go and tell Felipe Calderon where he can take his opinion on Arizona law... It's 'none of his business'... An extension of Privacy. Religious belief, "Here we believe this way" and we made it a right for you to say to the government, "How we believe is none of your business."
 
PostmodernProphet said:
a "social conservative" is not concerned with what a libertarian does in private, they are concerned with what they do in society......that's why they are "social" conservatives....
Click to expand...
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.
 
Damocles said:
It's not the "opposite" of privacy. I gather my food and place it where I do not want others to go or see, I set my territory, that line that marks that past here it is none of your business... At the heart of it survival is "privacy" just taken to larger extremes. Again, it is the penultimate right from which all the others flow. At a more brutal level of nature it is taken to further extremes than humans normally go. If you break this line beyond which I think nothing is your business, then you can find yourself in a fight for your life.

More obvious ones like the 3rd and 4th, 1st and 2nd I've already explained. Protecting what is yours is just a form of marking territory, which is from privacy. "You can come to here, but no further, nothing beyond this point is any of your business."

Territory, survival, all begin with that simple idea, they even extend to larger "families". When people start associating all Americans as "their territorial family" you get things like nationalism, protectionism, armies, and a strong urge to go and tell Felipe Calderon where he can take his opinion on Arizona law... It's 'none of his business'... An extension of Privacy. Religious belief, "Here we believe this way" and we made it a right for you to say to the government, "How we believe is none of your business."
Click to expand...

I don't see what privacy has to do with possessions. One is not permitted to take another's possessions but what has knowing what someone else has got to do with taking?

For example, there are by-laws preventing people from building high fences around their home. Why doesn't privacy laws allow people to build those fences so the neighbors can not see? If the right to privacy prevents, say, a newspaper printing a story detailing a person's private life does that mean a family member or neighbor can not tell another if they find out a private matter concerning an individual?

I suppose my point is what harm is done? Why should one be prevented from talking about a private matter concerning another individual if the information is correct?
 
apple0154 said:
I don't see what privacy has to do with possessions. One is not permitted to take another's possessions but what has knowing what someone else has got to do with taking?

For example, there are by-laws preventing people from building high fences around their home. Why doesn't privacy laws allow people to build those fences so the neighbors can not see? If the right to privacy prevents, say, a newspaper printing a story detailing a person's private life does that mean a family member or neighbor can not tell another if they find out a private matter concerning an individual?

I suppose my point is what harm is done? Why should one be prevented from talking about a private matter concerning another individual if the information is correct?
Click to expand...
What I own is again, unless I make it so, "Nunya". It is why we set territories. The right to privacy is limited because your right fights with their right to define their territory, to set their boundaries. They purchased this "territory" because it has a nice view of the Green Acres Ranch, if your fence gets in their way, and with many neighbors' way, it is likely a zoning law can come about so that you can no longer devalue their property (privacy again) with your fence.

And people gossiping isn't against the law, but it is almost always a violation of personal privacy, if one can show harm from that violation one can sue (and many have won just such lawsuits).
 
Caboose said:
So, in the name of public health safety, we should ban/regulate activities that can transmit HIV? Is that your position?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Southern Man said:
HIV
Click to expand...
Silliness, structuring a relationship around specific partnerships would actually work to make this less of a danger.

People's reaction to things like "not allowed" generally makes for an environment that will work to spread the disease you say you are trying to limit. Why should they care about their impact to society if society doesn't care anything about them? Cares so little that it becomes an argument whether we'll allow their partners into hospital rooms... sick. It's none of our business so long as they are of consenting age and go in with full knowledge, attempting to have government define in the specific requirements of the dogma of your religion... well, I've already covered that above.
 
Damocles said:
Silliness, structuring a relationship around specific partnerships would actually work to make this less of a danger.

People's reaction to things like "not allowed" generally makes for an environment that will work to spread the disease you say you are trying to limit. Why should they care about their impact to society if society doesn't care anything about them? Cares so little that it becomes an argument whether we'll allow their partners into hospital rooms... sick. It's none of our business so long as they are of consenting age and go in with full knowledge, attempting to have government define in the specific requirements of the dogma of your religion... well, I've already covered that above.
Click to expand...

If they want their partners to visit them while dying of aids then sign some simple legal forms. You don't have to denigrate a 5000 year institution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top