Publicly tortured to death for being gay (in Africa)

Precisely! The question is, what's the function? What end do we have in mind? You seem to use government as a means to public health and prosperity - using it as a vehicle for force to change the world to a place you find more desirable. Fair enough - with this end in mind government becomes a very valid means.

I, on the other hand, do not share these ends. I value what I see as free and voluntary association as my ends. If roads cannot be provided through voluntary means, then I'll remain landlocked. If defense cannot be provided through voluntary association, then I will go without defense. If fires cannot be put out without government, then my house will burn. I do not share your values.

You might see my values as foreign, fair enough, I see the same in yours.

Those who think the initiation of force is acceptable are generally misguided, in my opinion. We can agree to disagree.

 

Well, the answer depends upon the solutions required, doesn't it. That is a massive question, that I cannot fully answer here.

What do human beings need? Then, what do they desire? More specifically, things good, positive and helpful to most human beings... is where a society's attention and emphasis should be focused.

People are more important money.

Not "prosperity", but bolstering the general welfare of all Americans. (Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of promoting that; so should we.)

Unless everyone decides to cooperate... yes, 'some' will be forced (or set-aside) for the benefit of all. But that is why maintaining concepts of EQUAL justice and rights is essential. Taxes? Fine, as long as reasonable contributions are required of ALL.

If one lives in a 'society', they are going to be subject to certain limitations on their individual autonomy. It's either that, or live as the character Tom Hanks played in "Castaway".

Go find yourself an isolated 'island' to live on then. If you are associated with a GROUP of people... there will be some demands placed upon you.

See ya' later.

Got it. Dig your moat a little deeper; it might help.

I got that. So, where are you going to go live?

They are no foreign... they are fantasy. As 'small' as this planet really is (considering all the people on it), you aren't being realistic in my view.

I'm pretty certain that what you suggest is not very reasonable. It is interesting and perhaps desirable... but hardly the situation that most human beings can or will find themselves in.

And yes, we must surely disagree here.

 

What do human beings need? Then, what do they desire? More specifically, things good, positive and helpful to most human beings... is where a society's attention and emphasis should be focused.[/quote]

Fair enough, I don't need to know your ends in full - those are some good starting points. I do not share them - I take a more individual view wherein obligations can only be placed on free persons by themselves. It seems to me that the single relevant characteristic of tyranny is that it operates involuntarily, without regard for the consent of its subjects.

A statement that could mean a multitude of things. Seems most likely that you mean that the wellbeing (healthcare, education, etc) should trump property rights. A fair assessment. Not one that I agree with, but to each their own. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by this.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. The welfare of the majority trumps the liberty of the minority.

This argument can apply to any level of government tyranny, from a minimal nightwatchman state all the way to the police state. The question we should be asking isn't so much "what should happen", but "who should get to decide?" - the above statement leads in favor of the majority, through monopoly of the use of force found in the state.

I'm not opposed to government, per se, but to coercion, of which government is a subset. Get rid of the state and coercion will surely still exist. Thieves and rapists won't magically disappear if the state does. I don't deny this.

However, I think that voluntary interaction is both a noble and achievable goal. It's not as black or white as you seem to view it, voluntary systems exist today, in the here and now. Encrypted data havens are a fine example. Encryption and P2P networking places sovereignty solely in the hands of the individual. If you don't have the encryption key, you're not getting in - and giving yourself the legal right to enter by scribbling on some parchment won't change that.

Grey and black markets are also good examples. The market for cannabis, for example, while not immune to coercion (largely due to state interference - cartels, gangs control the supply), is still a voluntary market. Both parties agree, and goods are exchanged, regardless of what the state legislates.

[hr][/hr]

Point is, individuals naturally form voluntary associations, you don't have to relegate yourself to a castaway island.

Is it realistic to desire all the people of the world to have free speech? Even in Western countries it's constantly under assault. The left is no stranger to deontological moral reasoning, it just applies it to certain issues, and keeps to utilitarian philosophy when it comes to other areas. Fair enough, I think the left's embrace of free speech is fantastic. I just wish they'd go a little further.

Whether or not liberty is practically achievable is irrelevant to whether or not it's desirable.

A most agreeable statement.

 

The often repeated lie. As opposed to the truth

 

I generally agree, but in some instances I feel like refusing service or employment on a certain group could potentially constitute aggression.

 

How so? Ownership = the right to exclude others. They can go somewhere else, they're not entitled to your property.

 

What are you even talking about? Who is taking who's property?

In any case, you are way off topic.

 

Sorry for the low video quality, but this is a fine example of what can happen after years and years of oppression and 'excluding' certain people from privately owned business establishments. [video=youtube;alt4cnea0mc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alt4cnea0mc[/video]

It may start out nice with a, "Sorry but we don't allow your kind in our establishment," which after years and years of accepted bigotry escalates to, "If you don't take your kind out of here I will blow a hole the size of a football in your head."

Do you really think human beings, of which we are all regardless of race, religion or sexuality, should be allowed to treat one another this way?

 

Of course he does. It's the typical libertarian cop-out: "Well, I personally would never do such a thing, but in the name of freedom...blah, blah, blah". And that's exactly how we arrive at things like what are happening in Uganda.

 

I'm all for Libertarianism but there is a point where I just have to draw the line myself because when you look at history, when you look at what this thread is about, constant long-standing, ongoing open bigotry directed towards a specific group of people based on some aspect they were born with which harms no one, I can honestly say I find it wrong. This sort of thing and allowing it only furthers the oppression and violence said people will face in society.

 

Yes it does. Unfortunately, we have people like Steady Pie who think that's all just fine and dandy. In the name of "freedom", ya know. People like Steady Pie don't seem to grasp that by doing what they do, they are in fact infringing on other people's freedoms. But that does not matter to them. All they care about is that they get to do whatever they want, screw everyone else.

 

If it does escalate to the point of initiating force, then of course it's wrong, but before that point, they're doing nothing wrong.

Using violence on innocent parties? Of course not. Refusing to exchange their property and labor as goods/services? Most emphatically yes.

 

These people dont want to allow "open bigotry". Wonder how they would define that? I know Ive been repeatedly labeled a bigot because I oppose "gay marriage", openly here on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

Has someone been forced to exchange their property and labor?

 

How do typed words on an internet discussion forum infringe ANYONES freedoms?

 

Why? And what are you even talking about?

 

What if they can't feasibly go somewhere else? Discriminatory business practices can cause serious harm. It would really depend on the case. Say a German restaurant only hires white blondes who look German, and thus refuses to hire black people. I don't see a problem with that--they may be trying to appear authentic. But say a grocery store refuses to hire black people. To me, that would be a problem. And if many people do the same, it would result in black people essentially being pushed outside of society. I just don't see how that doesn't constitute aggression in some form.

 

Imo you're looking too much at the consequences, and too little at the rights of those involved. To say that he must serve anyone is to say that he has no ownership of his wares - that he is a slave to others.

Whether or not the exercising of his property rights alienates others is irrelevant, they're not entitled to be included. In true free markets no such regulation occurs, and it functions fine. Black markets are the ideal example: discrimination is rife in the cannabis industry, because you have to pick your clients very carefully and many dealers have prejudices. Those who aren't sold to can look elsewhere, or go without.

 

Quite simple really, being able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Ownership gives a right to exchange the owned good or service on your terms, not the state's.

- - - Updated - - -

Anti-discrimination laws prevent people from refusing service to whomever they please, and require you to use the state's metric for hiring employees rather than your own.

 

Not exactly. I'm sympathetic to people with a wide variety of political ideologies - I think people ask the wrong question "what should happen", rather than "who should get to decide?" - I quite like some left anarchists, because while we have different conceptions of ownership, freedom, etc - they believe sovereignty should lie with the individual. If a law is unjust, disobey it. You are loyal to your conscience first, your promises second, and the whim of others not at all.

[in response to italicized text] Freedom is a word which has a multitude of concepts behind it. Your conception of freedom appears to be one wherein the majority rules for the general welfare of all. Fair enough. I don't share that evaluation. I see freedom in the sovereignity of the individual, security in one's labor and property, and lack of obligation placed on him without his consent.

In the end I think we'd agree on most issues, excepting economic policy and a select few social policies the left has decided to go totalitarian on (gun control, affirmative action, hate speech, anti-discrimination, etc). The topic of this thread is the perfect example.

 

I would say that one does not necessarily have a right to refuse to hire someone under any circumstance simply because they are black or white or whatever. In some cases it may be fine, like my example. One has a right to property--can he use it to kill someone? No, he cannot, unless he is doing so out of defense. Property rights are far from absolute. Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins. We are just disagreeing about where the nose is.

 

Except that it does not. I don't know what country you live in, but it must not be the United States. If you own a business and claim to be open to the public, then that's what you do- serve the public. If you do not want to serve the public, start a private club. You can then discriminate all you like.

And that's about as simple as it gets.

 

Not saying this from a legal standpoint, but from a principled one. Preventing me from refusing service to hipster university kids deprives me of my right to property.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a fair assessment.

 

THIS......

is a human rights issue that involves gays that I am completely in support of stopping. Not Russia's issue with stopping gays from giving pamphlets to kids

 

Actually, you could sit at the fromt door of your business and pick and choose, who you want as customers, AS LONG AS you dont make those decisions based upon race, gender, national origin, religion and in some states sexual orientation. I could post a big sign on the front door of my business 'No ugly customers served' and sit at the front door denying entry to anyone I judge to be ugly.

 

One more time- if you have a business that is open to the public, then you serve the public. If you want to discriminate, start a private club. It's that simple.

And there is nothing "principled" about denying service to people because of what they are. And you have lost no property rights either.