Road to the White House 2016

[Ineth]

 

If you use the word capitalism to refer to the worst manifestations of the mixed-economy corporatism of today's Western world, then sure.

Ah yes the "my perfect version of capitalism would not have these flaws" meme.

 

I'm not talking about a version of today's economic system ("capitalism") under ideal conditions or something, I'm talking about a different system¹ - one where the government's involvement is strictly limited and fundamentally respects individual liberty (including property rights) and free markets.

 

I'm saying such a system under real-world conditions would not rely on repression, while socialism does.

 

Plus socialists would say exactly the same thing (to all practical purposes) about socialism.

 

They'd be wrong.

 

My ideal system would be so good that no repression would be needed, everybody would be so ecstatic about living in my [econo-societal model] utopia there would be no dissenters and everyone would freely opt in to its intrinsic awesomeness!

 

Yes, this is the silly argument that socialists would have to make in order to "say exactly the same thing" about socialism, but no, it's not the argument I'm making.

 

Because that's the thing: In a free market system, you don't have to rely on people being nice enough to choose not to oppress you - they simply wouldn't have the tools to do so.

 

Socialism is doomed to totalitarianism because it puts the power of allocating other people's resources and managing other peoples lives in the hands of a few. And no matter how fairly 'elected' those few are ("democratic socialism"), they won't be immune to corruption, and there's nothing that you can do to stop them.

 

Whereas in a free-market system, everyone manages their own lives and own resources, in voluntary exchange and cooperation. Others can be **** to you and try to make things difficult for you, but they could never reach the level of power over you that a centrally-planning government could. They'd all be subject to the same civil and criminal law as you. Hence, no repression.

 

-----

1) Though, luckily, compatible with the US constitution.

[Ineth]

Without regulation companies just get bigger and bigger [...]

people can't just buy from a smaller company that does things better [...]

 

What makes you so sure?

 

I think it's much more likely that in a significantly more free-market and small-government society than we have today, mega-corporations would be unsustainable, and would have to give way to a much larger number of smaller (more flexible & competitive) companies.

 

 

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years.

 

You have a different set of regulations (not to mention different external conditions).

 

In many ways (that matter) you actually have very high economic freedom compared to the rest of the world.

 

(Note that the meme of calling Scandinavian countries "socialist" does not stem from your level of economic freedom, but rather from the size of your welfare state and from certain social policies.)

 

Of course, the high taxation that goes along with the huge welfare states brings problems too. Scandinavia got rich thanks to the free-market reforms of the 19th century; the 'big welfare state' part of the equation actually crept in much later, only a few decades ago. So the empirical evidence on whether that part will "ruin things" or be sustainable in the long term, is still out.

 

In any case, I think it's generally safer to skim off the top of what a machine produces ("taxation") than to take an iron bar and ram it into the machine's gears ("corporatist anti-competitive regulations").

 

Especially in cases of intellectual property.

 

IP isn't actually a kind of property right.

 

It's a just a misleading name that smart industry lobbyists have made up for certain corporatist laws so that congress would pass them without looking too closely.

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

But isn't property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

 

You mean "private property" right? Can't really even have a market without at least personal property. As for intellectual property: The whole idea's hogwash. It's a concept that should be disposed of and not practiced.

Yes, I meant private property.

 

I suppose a market could exist without personal property, such as communes trading goods between themselves, but it doesn't sound particularly good.

[Namutree]

 

But isn't private property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

 

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example?

[BruceVC]

 

 

But isn't private property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

 

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example?

 

Namutree you thought the gay marriage bill was a step to far by the federal government ?

 

I know you support gay rights but this more about the perceived interference by the federal government ...is that right ?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

But isn't private property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

 

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example?

Of private property or private property being a limiting entry into a market?

[Barothmuk]

I'm not talking about a version of today's economic system ("capitalism") under ideal conditions or something, I'm talking about a different system¹ - one where the government's involvement is strictly limited and fundamentally respects individual liberty (including property rights) and free markets.

So like I said, your own special brand of capitalism that hasn't been tried.

 

I'm saying such a system under real-world conditions would not rely on repression, while socialism does.

Then you're blind. When you've got the divide between propertied and property-less, employee and wage-worker, master and servant there is going to repression by the former against the latter to maintain their position.

 

Whereas in a free-market system, everyone manages their own lives and own resources, in voluntary exchange and cooperation.

Are you going to forcibly redistribute resources so everyone begins with a level start/actually has resources or are we going to leave things as is so those who already have the most wealth and power have greater freedom to exploit these privileges while the poor and hungry bend over for their economic masters.

 

Depending on your own economic background I'm guessing you are either incredibly servile or a would-be tyrant.

[BruceVC]

 

I'm not talking about a version of today's economic system ("capitalism") under ideal conditions or something, I'm talking about a different system¹ - one where the government's involvement is strictly limited and fundamentally respects individual liberty (including property rights) and free markets.

So like I said, your own special brand of capitalism that hasn't been tried.

 

I'm saying such a system under real-world conditions would not rely on repression, while socialism does.

Then you're blind. When you've got the divide between propertied and property-less, employee and wage-worker, master and servant there is going to repression by the former against the latter to maintain their position.

 

Whereas in a free-market system, everyone manages their own lives and own resources, in voluntary exchange and cooperation.

Are you going to forcibly redistribute resources so everyone begins with a level start/actually has resources or are we going to leave things as is so those who already have the most wealth and power have greater freedom to exploit these privileges while the poor and hungry bend over for their economic masters.

 

Depending on your own economic background I'm guessing you are either incredibly servile or a would-be tyrant.

 

 

Baro I think you guys are talking past each other ...I agree with both of you for different reasons 

 

Everything Ineth says is true but you also right, there will always be people in a Capitalist society who will live in poverty ....but thats fine we accept that. We are  not going to redistribute anything because the view of people who believe in free markets have a view that people need to gain there own opportunities...they can't expect others to do it for them

 

And if they can't for a variety of reasons then yes they won't have the same quality of life as others ...and I'm not judging people for there circumstances. I'm saying this is the reality of a Capitalist society...but the good outweighs the bad  

[Orogun01]

Baro I think you guys are talking past each other ...I agree with both of you for different reasons 

 

Everything Ineth says is true but you also right, there will always be people in a Capitalist society who will live in poverty ....but thats fine we accept that. We are  not going to redistribute anything because the view of people who believe in free markets have a view that people need to gain there own opportunities...they can't expect others to do it for them

 

And if they can't for a variety of reasons then yes they won't have the same quality of life as others ...and I'm not judging people for there circumstances. I'm saying this is the reality of a Capitalist society...but the good outweighs the bad

Capitalism sounds like a good idea until you realize that it only works when the gap between classes isn't to wide and there is mobility. Don't know why they keep arguing Capitalism thought, because what we have is a plutocracy that has been accurately described as social welfare for the wealthy. I think I covered my thoughts on that on previous threads, so I'll just say that systems are never the problem as they tend to be made with the best intentions to work under their circumstances. The monkey wrench its always the human element.

 

One final note; people better get used to the idea of socialism as our spending capacity will soon not be able to keep up with production and some markets will shrink further decreasing spending power. Social planning to enable employment or to make basic necessities affordable to everyone will become a necessity as it will increasing taxes on companies and ensuring that they employ domestically. We might see a lot of capital outflow but with a boycott in place it would  mean that the markets will be ripe for a takeover.

 

[BruceVC]

 

Baro I think you guys are talking past each other ...I agree with both of you for different reasons 

 

Everything Ineth says is true but you also right, there will always be people in a Capitalist society who will live in poverty ....but thats fine we accept that. We are  not going to redistribute anything because the view of people who believe in free markets have a view that people need to gain there own opportunities...they can't expect others to do it for them

 

And if they can't for a variety of reasons then yes they won't have the same quality of life as others ...and I'm not judging people for there circumstances. I'm saying this is the reality of a Capitalist society...but the good outweighs the bad

Capitalism sounds like a good idea until you realize that it only works when the gap between classes isn't to wide and there is mobility. Don't know why they keep arguing Capitalism thought, because what we have is a plutocracy that has been accurately described as social welfare for the wealthy. I think I covered my thoughts on that on previous threads, so I'll just say that systems are never the problem as they tend to be made with the best intentions to work under their circumstances. The monkey wrench its always the human element.

 

One final note; people better get used to the idea of socialism as our spending capacity will soon not be able to keep up with production and some markets will shrink further decreasing spending power. Social planning to enable employment or to make basic necessities affordable to everyone will become a necessity as it will increasing taxes on companies and ensuring that they employ domestically. We might see a lot of capital outflow but with a boycott in place it would  mean that the markets will be ripe for a takeover.

 

Interesting post, whats your view on the gay marriage bill that was passed ?

[Orogun01]

 

 

Baro I think you guys are talking past each other ...I agree with both of you for different reasons 

 

Everything Ineth says is true but you also right, there will always be people in a Capitalist society who will live in poverty ....but thats fine we accept that. We are  not going to redistribute anything because the view of people who believe in free markets have a view that people need to gain there own opportunities...they can't expect others to do it for them

 

And if they can't for a variety of reasons then yes they won't have the same quality of life as others ...and I'm not judging people for there circumstances. I'm saying this is the reality of a Capitalist society...but the good outweighs the bad

Capitalism sounds like a good idea until you realize that it only works when the gap between classes isn't to wide and there is mobility. Don't know why they keep arguing Capitalism thought, because what we have is a plutocracy that has been accurately described as social welfare for the wealthy. I think I covered my thoughts on that on previous threads, so I'll just say that systems are never the problem as they tend to be made with the best intentions to work under their circumstances. The monkey wrench its always the human element.

 

One final note; people better get used to the idea of socialism as our spending capacity will soon not be able to keep up with production and some markets will shrink further decreasing spending power. Social planning to enable employment or to make basic necessities affordable to everyone will become a necessity as it will increasing taxes on companies and ensuring that they employ domestically. We might see a lot of capital outflow but with a boycott in place it would  mean that the markets will be ripe for a takeover.

 

Interesting post, whats your view on the gay marriage bill that was passed ?

 

I tend to lean towards the cynical when dealing with politics, whatever they do they do for their benefit. Bills like that are good PR and help distract everyone from more important issues. BTW, hell of a segue into that question

[Namutree]

 

 

But isn't private property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example?

Of private property or private property being a limiting entry into a market?

 

Private property being a limiting factor to entry into a market.

 

 

 

Baro I think you guys are talking past each other ...I agree with both of you for different reasons 

 

Everything Ineth says is true but you also right, there will always be people in a Capitalist society who will live in poverty ....but thats fine we accept that. We are  not going to redistribute anything because the view of people who believe in free markets have a view that people need to gain there own opportunities...they can't expect others to do it for them

 

And if they can't for a variety of reasons then yes they won't have the same quality of life as others ...and I'm not judging people for there circumstances. I'm saying this is the reality of a Capitalist society...but the good outweighs the bad  

 

I think Baro's point was that even if he's generous enough to grant (not that he believes it; this is just a thought exercise) that "proper" free market capitalism could work without devolving into corporatism or being unfair in and of itself; what would be done about the the wealth that has been wrongfully acquired by the previous system? He presents us with two uncomfortable scenarios:

 

A) Redistribute it to get an even playing field and start from scratch. -Don't even know where to begin in addressing why this option is so unpleasant. Suffice to say it'd be messy and likely would be the cause of BIG trouble.

 

B) Just let the past be the past and try to move on allowing those who abused the previous system keep the wealth they've wrongly earned. -This option isn't all too pleasant either. It gives some of the worst of our society an unfair advantage not to mention is just a knife in the eye to justice. Not exactly appealing.

 

To be honest I don't quite have an answer for this myself. It's kind of a no win scenario. I guess I'd default to B) but that answer doesn't seem right. I'd definitely be open to alternatives. I'm interested in Ineth's response cuz I'm kinda stumped. Clearly, I haven't spent enough time thinking about how to transition to a free market society. 

 

Or did I misunderstand you all together Baro?

Edited August 22, 2015 by Namutree

[Barothmuk]

Or did I misunderstand you all together Baro?

Nope, you got it spot on.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

But isn't private property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example?

Of private property or private property being a limiting entry into a market?

 

Private property being a limiting factor to entry into a market.

 

 

 

Baro I think you guys are talking past each other ...I agree with both of you for different reasons 

 

Everything Ineth says is true but you also right, there will always be people in a Capitalist society who will live in poverty ....but thats fine we accept that. We are  not going to redistribute anything because the view of people who believe in free markets have a view that people need to gain there own opportunities...they can't expect others to do it for them

 

And if they can't for a variety of reasons then yes they won't have the same quality of life as others ...and I'm not judging people for there circumstances. I'm saying this is the reality of a Capitalist society...but the good outweighs the bad  

 

I think Baro's point was that even if he's generous enough to grant (not that he believes it; this is just a thought exercise) that "proper" free market capitalism could work without devolving into corporatism or being unfair in and of itself; what would be done about the the wealth that has been wrongfully acquired by the previous system? He presents us with two uncomfortable scenarios:

 

A) Redistribute it to get an even playing field and start from scratch. -Don't even know where to begin in addressing why this option is so unpleasant. Suffice to say it'd be messy and likely would be the cause of BIG trouble.

 

B) Just let the past be the past and try to move on allowing those who abused the previous system keep the wealth they've wrongly earned. -This option isn't all too pleasant either. It gives some of the worst of our society an unfair advantage not to mention is just a knife in the eye to justice. Not exactly appealing.

 

To be honest I don't quite have an answer for this myself. It's kind of a no win scenario. I guess I'd default to B) but that answer doesn't seem right. I'd definitely be open to alternatives. I'm interested in Ineth's response cuz I'm kinda stumped. Clearly, I haven't spent enough time thinking about how to transition to a free market society. 

 

Or did I misunderstand you all together Baro?

 

 

 

 

Or did I misunderstand you all together Baro?

Nope, you got it spot on.

 

Baro I'm glad you are commenting on this and I understand where you coming from even if I differ on my view . I have been told I come across as condescending and the result of that is certain people who differ with me ideologically just wont answer certain questions that I ask them. For example I have asked Zora and 2133 why they are anti-Western and neither of them responds ...and the reality is I am just trying to understand there view. Some people I get, like Sarex as he is Serbian and I know what motivates him and even though I don't agree with him I know why he resents the West 

 

And I enjoy debates with intelligent people on these forums...yes I mean intelligent so for example you and Zora will have different views but thats fine. But it doesn't help me if I come across dismissive and then no one who has a different and unusual view feels they want to engage with me. So I'm trying very hard to not be condescending but its hard as sometimes I dont mean to do it 

 

So I want to explain why redistribution is not as simple as it may seem and please tell me at the end where you disagree. I have some experience with this topic as this is  something that comes up regularly in South Africa where many black people want land and things like mines returned to them as they feel this was stolen by the Colonialists 

 

I assume when you say redistribution you mean the indigenous people like the Aborigines ...is that correct? If not can you explain who you are referring to ?

[Zoraptor]

They'd be wrong.

 

Everybody who says that would be wrong. Theoretically near every economic system is 'fair and free' because that is what sells it to the masses who, whatever the system, will inevitably be the ones at the bottom.

 

 

My ideal system would be so good that no repression would be needed, everybody would be so ecstatic about living in my [econo-societal model] utopia there would be no dissenters and everyone would freely opt in to its intrinsic awesomeness!

 

Yes, this is the silly argument that socialists would have to make in order to "say exactly the same thing" about socialism, but no, it's not the argument I'm making.

 

Well.. we'll see. Frankly, I am expecting as idealised a system as 'perfect' socialism or any other kind of theoretical -ism but I'm open to persuasion.

 

Because that's the thing: In a free market system, you don't have to rely on people being nice enough to choose not to oppress you - they simply wouldn't have the tools to do so.

 

Socialism is doomed to totalitarianism because it puts the power of allocating other people's resources and managing other peoples lives in the hands of a few. And no matter how fairly 'elected' those few are ("democratic socialism"), they won't be immune to corruption, and there's nothing that you can do to stop them.

 

Whereas in a free-market system, everyone manages their own lives and own resources, in voluntary exchange and cooperation. Others can be **** to you and try to make things difficult for you, but they could never reach the level of power over you that a centrally-planning government could. They'd all be subject to the same civil and criminal law as you. Hence, no repression.

Well, I've seen, and I'm not persuaded. It's about as idealised a system as it's possible to get; where the magic hand of the market waves and everything is fair and free with no barriers, no conmen, no power aggregation or monopolies created and the glories of hard work and reticence are rewarded as they so richly deserve and laziness and profligacy are righteously punished.

 

It's pretty much the exact (economic) flip side of anarcho marxism or anarcho syndicalism where it's easy to design a perfectly (theoretically) free and fair socialist system by hand waving- everybody gets an equal slice of the pie doled out monthly/ weekly and is free to spend that pie however they want with strict rules to prevent aggregation or graft; and enforcement officials who can only be elected once or are balloted. Couldn't get more hand waving in a Queen Liz montage- for either idealised system.

[BruceVC]

 

They'd be wrong.

 

Everybody who says that would be wrong. Theoretically near every economic system is 'fair and free' because that is what sells it to the masses who, whatever the system, will inevitably be the ones at the bottom.

 

 

My ideal system would be so good that no repression would be needed, everybody would be so ecstatic about living in my [econo-societal model] utopia there would be no dissenters and everyone would freely opt in to its intrinsic awesomeness!

 

Yes, this is the silly argument that socialists would have to make in order to "say exactly the same thing" about socialism, but no, it's not the argument I'm making.

 

Well.. we'll see. Frankly, I am expecting as idealised a system as 'perfect' socialism or any other kind of theoretical -ism but I'm open to persuasion.

 

Because that's the thing: In a free market system, you don't have to rely on people being nice enough to choose not to oppress you - they simply wouldn't have the tools to do so.

 

Socialism is doomed to totalitarianism because it puts the power of allocating other people's resources and managing other peoples lives in the hands of a few. And no matter how fairly 'elected' those few are ("democratic socialism"), they won't be immune to corruption, and there's nothing that you can do to stop them.

 

Whereas in a free-market system, everyone manages their own lives and own resources, in voluntary exchange and cooperation. Others can be **** to you and try to make things difficult for you, but they could never reach the level of power over you that a centrally-planning government could. They'd all be subject to the same civil and criminal law as you. Hence, no repression.

Well, I've seen, and I'm not persuaded. It's about as idealised a system as it's possible to get; where the magic hand of the market waves and everything is fair and free with no barriers, no conmen, no power aggregation or monopolies created and the glories of hard work and reticence are rewarded as they so richly deserve and laziness and profligacy are righteously punished.

 

It's pretty much the exact (economic) flip side of anarcho marxism or anarcho syndicalism where it's easy to design a perfectly (theoretically) free and fair socialist system by hand waving- everybody gets an equal slice of the pie doled out monthly/ weekly and is free to spend that pie however they want with strict rules to prevent aggregation or graft; and enforcement officials who can only be elected once or are balloted. Couldn't get more hand waving in a Queen Liz montage- for either idealised system.

 

I am not sure if you are being serious but I will treat this post as genuine as I have heard similar views 

 

It sounds like the perfect idea  and it may be seem reasonable because its based on a system that is about true equality for all...how can anyone object to this type of idea? 

 

But there are  several real problems with this type of utopia. Firstly human beings are not equal but  this is actually one of our strengths. You will always get people who are more ambitious and others who are lazy. We excel when under pressure to be innovative .True socialism failed for a reason, the Cubans were probably the most sincere in there belief during the Cold War. I remember reading a good book called Conflicting Missions which was a fascinating and rare read about the Cuban military endeavors in Africa during the Cold War. And Cuba has special resonance for South Africa as we fought them in Angola, but all we knew about them was that they were ignorant zealots who had traveled from across the world  to kill us and spread there inconceivable ideology...Communism

 

But when I read that book I learnt new respect for them, they truly believed that Capitalism was a great repressive form of government, something evil  and they really believed in a free and equal society through there view of socialism. And unlike the Russians and Chinese they held a belief  in black Africans being uplifted and creating there own destiny ...so in some cases they spent years living and training certain African leaders and groups. They received no money and lived in jungles and were killed and suffered in numerous conflicts and all because they believed in this better life for Africa 

 

Of course the majority of African leaders had no real interest in socialism....they wanted wealth and frankly I can't blame them after the deprivations of colonialism. But they needed the Cubans so they played a part and pretended to believe in a" system where all would be treated equally and the wealth would be distributed ...unlike the greedy Capitalist " 

 

So a true equal society like some suggest  just doesn't work because of human nature. Also you need certain people to take a lead and drive certain initiatives. Without this industrious many people would be happy to live a sub par existence  or to unintentionally suffer ...so why go through all of this just to prove that for a year or two everyone is equal? And then when it falls apart or starts to deteriorate who fixes it ?

 

Now you may say ....but who says it will fail ? It will ...it failed in Africa where you think it should have worked. No its best to accept that in life we need a system that motivates people and rewards them for hard work. That's the best way to get results from human beings. And we also have to accept that there will always be people who live a more difficult life ..but thats fine as  we help people when we can  

[Wrath of Dagon]

Interesting post, whats your view on the gay marriage bill that was passed ?

If you're still talking about America, there wasn't any bill that was passed, it was decided by one man. And you can come up with any right you want using his logic.

 

As far as Socialism, it means the government has a monopoly on the means of production, so there can be no free market in a monopoly. The government decides what's to be produced and how much it will cost. There can be no freedom either, because everyone works for the government and is completely dependent on the government, so no one can go against it.

 

As far as our system of government, yes it is more of an plutocracy/oligarchy than a democracy, but that's entirely because of the ignorant and apathetic voters who are easily swayed by any commercial they see instead of thinking for themselves. The Founders of the Republic said democracy wasn't possible without educated voters, and they were right.

[BruceVC]

 

Interesting post, whats your view on the gay marriage bill that was passed ?

If you're still talking about America, there wasn't any bill that was passed, it was decided by one man. And you can come up with any right you want using his logic.

 

As far as Socialism, it means the government has a monopoly on the means of production, so there can be no free market in a monopoly. The government decides what's to be produced and how much it will cost. There can be no freedom either, because everyone works for the government and is completely dependent on the government, so no one can go against it.

 

As far as our system of government, yes it is more of an plutocracy/oligarchy than a democracy, but that's entirely because of the ignorant and apathetic voters who are easily swayed by any commercial they see instead of thinking for themselves. The Founders of the Republic said democracy wasn't possible without educated voters, and they were right.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_7470036.html

 

WOD  I meant this ruling in the supreme court where gay marriage is legal in all states. Now I know you are more conservative on these matters and I respect that. But what is interesting is even people on these forums who support gay rights like me thought this was a step too far by the US Supreme court, what did you think?

[Guard Dog]

Not to step in and intercept a pass to WoD but count me among those who thought the SCOTUS went too far with Obergefell. In one fell swoop five unelected people imposed their political will on 320 million people who have no recourse to contest it now. As you all know I am a supporter of gay rights and indeed freedom to live ones life as they see fit in any way that suits them and does not harm others. But what happened in this case and the consequences that we have seen and have yet to see is very upsetting.  

 

Because gay marriage has legal sanction the votes of every state who petitioned their legislatures to ban it and the legislatures that acted on the will of it's constituents have been nullified. The democratic process was been crushed by the will of a judicial oligarchy. That is never a good thing.

 

Second the majority decision undermines the first amendment of the constitution. By making it legally unacceptable to abstain from performing gay marriages or bake cakes for their weddings and so on the 5 judges in the majority trampled on the 1st Amendment rights of the people who would refuse to participate on religious grounds. Anthony Kennedy addressed that in his majority opinion:

 

 

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

 

So you get to talk about it but you cannot ACT on it. Therein lies the problem. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right of "Free Exercise". This sets a nasty precedent that can have consequences elsewhere including compulsory military service exemptions based on religious convictions, "conscientious objector" status, etc.

 

I could go on but this is just two problems I have with it. I have never seen the problem with gay marriage. As I've said before if you object, don't marry a gay person. Don't attend their wedding, don't bake them a cake. That should all be ok. But don't try to stop them from doing their thing because what is it to you if two consenting adults wish to marry? Those who object because of religious reasons, particularly Christians should probably try reading the bible a little closer. Jesus did not instruct us to compel others to follow Him. He asked US to follow Him and lead others by example. Jesus did not believe in forcing anyone to do anything.

 

Gay marriage was coming no matter what. More an more people were wondering what the big deal was. But by ramming it down our throats the SCOTUs may have done more harm than good by damaging the democratic process,  undermining the constitution and creating animosity towards gays where they might have been none before. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

 

 

But isn't private property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

 

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example?

Of private property or private property being a limiting entry into a market?

Private property being a limiting factor to entry into a market.

Well there's IP, but you don't consider that valid. Private property, such as land and buildings, is similar to intellectual property in that it's a legal construct supported only by the threat of force from the state.

 

When private property exists, both the means of production and distribution are private channels. So while production is obviously exclusive to those with access to means of production, the ability to distribute products is also gatekept by private entities. Steam is an example of this, as distribution of videogames is relegated to a private entity and entry into the market will be nigh impossible if you are unable to sell through Steam(or GoG or whatever other digital distribution service there is) due to the owners of the distribution channel not allowing it. Direct sales require a go between for payment, so if currency processors don't want to do business with you, you're out of options to sell your product and are barred from the market.

[BruceVC]

Not to step in and intercept a pass to WoD but count me among those who thought the SCOTUS went too far with Obergefell. In one fell swoop five unelected people imposed their political will on 320 million people who have no recourse to contest it now. As you all know I am a supporter of gay rights and indeed freedom to live ones life as they see fit in any way that suits them and does not harm others. But what happened in this case and the consequences that we have seen and have yet to see is very upsetting.  

 

Because gay marriage has legal sanction the votes of every state who petitioned their legislatures to ban it and the legislatures that acted on the will of it's constituents have been nullified. The democratic process was been crushed by the will of a judicial oligarchy. That is never a good thing.

 

Second the majority decision undermines the first amendment of the constitution. By making it legally unacceptable to abstain from performing gay marriages or bake cakes for their weddings and so on the 5 judges in the majority trampled on the 1st Amendment rights of the people who would refuse to participate on religious grounds. Anthony Kennedy addressed that in his majority opinion:

 

 

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

 

So you get to talk about it but you cannot ACT on it. Therein lies the problem. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right of "Free Exercise". This sets a nasty precedent that can have consequences elsewhere including compulsory military service exemptions based on religious convictions, "conscientious objector" status, etc.

 

I could go on but this is just two problems I have with it. I have never seen the problem with gay marriage. As I've said before if you object, don't marry a gay person. Don't attend their wedding, don't bake them a cake. That should all be ok. But don't try to stop them from doing their thing because what is it to you if two consenting adults wish to marry? Those who object because of religious reasons, particularly Christians should probably try reading the bible a little closer. Jesus did not instruct us to compel others to follow Him. He asked US to follow Him and lead others by example. Jesus did not believe in forcing anyone to do anything.

 

Gay marriage was coming no matter what. More an more people were wondering what the big deal was. But by ramming it down our throats the SCOTUs may have done more harm than good by damaging the democratic process,  undermining the constitution and creating animosity towards gays where they might have been none before. 

This is a good post and accurately and reasonably positions the general objection. Its interesting but most people on these forums made a similar argument. Even Gromnir who has a gay sister and is a lawyer and not at all homophobic objected to it for similar reasons and he used a very technical response

 

So I know its not about homophobia but real objections to perceived interference by the federal government . I have been thinking of how I can explain why this was necessary in way that makes sense  

 

To be honest what I am about to say may sound strange and you probably will be thinking WTF but hear me out. So firstly the Western world considers the USA the foundation of Western ideology...now I can hear our Europeans members saying " excuse me...I don't think that " but they misunderstand the broader point

 

In the world we have this system of government which is basically based on Democracy\Capitalism\Free Markets that despite its challengers actually offers its citizens the best quality of life. Now I know all you guys live in first world countries so this may not resonate with you but for someone like me who lives in Africa and sees the how people really believe in this word Democracy it is relevant. Now the interesting part is for many African people they don't really understand what a Democracy is because in some cases they had  an " election '"  but then there leaders basically ruled the country as a  private fiefdom and they saw no economic benefit so I sometimes  hear things like " this Democracy concept is a Western thing ...its not African" because for them they see no benefit due to corruption 

 

 

So there is a basic  humanitarian obligation and or responsibility for many of us to try to uplift Africa out of poverty and actually let its citizens see that life is not about suffering. Now this is not your responsibility but the reality is the West is used as the example of how good life should be and the USA is the foundation of that. And the USA was the only country in the West where gay marriage was still not allowed

 

Secondly as you probably know there is a  movement in some countries of people who  basically dislike the USA...I mean really dislike the USA. Its normally fringe elements of the Muslim community, in South Africa they are particularly antagonistic and really exaggerate what the USA has done, they think that the USA is on some real crusade to annihilate Islam and when 9/11 happened  there were cheers heard from the mosques in South Africa .....seriously disgusting and misinformed

 

Now you may think " well thats not my problem "  but the thing is these people don't only dislike the USA they actually dislike all Western  and European culture. They just are careful to hide it because on popular radio talk shows in South Africa you can't be racist. But its very annoying ..,oh and they all Sunni Muslims and think ISIS is creation of the USA so the USA could bomb Iraq again and that the Arab Spring was arranged by the CIA to.....disrupt the Middle East because " Arab people couldn't possibly want a better life for themselves ...no...they are all  happy living under dictatorships like Gaddafi and Assad "

 

 Now you may think " but let France and the UK fight the good fight where required " but the reality of the world is despite all the criticism we all know when it comes to military action if the USA doesn't get involved its unlikely the other Western countries will act. And then there is this view " the USA just should say no to all external conflicts....we aren't the worlds policeman"  and this may seem reasonable but the USA is a country of extreme generosity. When Ebola was ravaging Africa the African Union did nothing as usual ....imagine not even trying to stop a virus that was destroying 3 countries in your own continent.This was the final straw for me and since then I am critic of the AU

 

So in summary you guys may not see it but many countries rely on the USA to act in crisis, this may sound unfair but the USA also has global interests so it makes sense to intervene in relevant world affairs. And of course you cant have something like no gay marriage in some states ...it was like a contradiction. So this whole gay rights thing was really about the global symbolism and relevance. You don't want to be compared to Russia and trust me people were doing this as a way to undermine the USA

 

So please dont think this was  about federal interference  but rather a support for Western ideology which is a good thing for all of us

[Guard Dog]

Bruce it is very tempting to think that a good outcome justifies a bad means. This simply is not so. While we may be ok with the end result, the way the result came about can and usually does give rise to horrors unforeseen down the road. A good example is the changes made to the ACA (obamacare) AFTER it became law. the administration changed deadlines and requirements of the law by executive fiat after it was signed and in effect for two years. Few on the left had a problem with it because they liked the outcome but the responsibility of writing law is invested in the congress, not the president. He usurped their power, violated the law and was praised for doing it. You have to remember that now the precedent is set and someday that power will be in the hands of someone they don't like doing something they don't approve of. 

 

The ends justify the means does not work in politics and statecraft. If the rule of law is not supreme then nothing and no one is safe.

[BruceVC]

Bruce it is very tempting to think that a good outcome justifies a bad means. This simply is not so. While we may be ok with the end result, the way the result came about can and usually does give rise to horrors unforeseen down the road. A good example is the changes made to the ACA (obamacare) AFTER it became law. the administration changed deadlines and requirements of the law by executive fiat after it was signed and in effect for two years. Few on the left had a problem with it because they liked the outcome but the responsibility of writing law is invested in the congress, not the president. He usurped their power, violated the law and was praised for doing it. You have to remember that now the precedent is set and someday that power will be in the hands of someone they don't like doing something they don't approve of. 

 

The ends justify the means does not work in politics and statecraft. If the rule of law is not supreme then nothing and no one is safe.

Sure, I get your concern. You are genuinely worried about the president overreaching 

 

But he is gone next year and I can promise you nothing more serious will happen, I admit I don't really understand most of your guys concern with the president making good laws. But thats because where I live people would just be grateful for these types of SJ changes like Obamacare ...but I respect this is important to you but I just can't identify with it 

 

But lets see if other presidents do the same because obviously that would be an issue 

 

But GD what you may not realize is the USA gets to make a difference in peoples life's ..doesn't that make you feel good that your country makes a difference even if it doesn't feel like it?

[Guard Dog]

I admit I don't really understand most of your guys concern with the president making good laws.

 

But GD what you may not realize is the USA gets to make a difference in peoples life's ..doesn't that make you feel good that your country makes a difference even if it doesn't feel like it?

 

 

It isn't about making good law, it's about exercising power he does not have. What is the difference between a President and a Dictator? As to your second point no, it is not something I ever concern myself with. I do not count myself as a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States. My first and foremost concern is the freedom and prosperity of the United States not the rest of the world. If by advancing the former we accomplish the latter then that is great but if the two ever conflict then there is no conflict.

[BruceVC]

 

I admit I don't really understand most of your guys concern with the president making good laws.

 

But GD what you may not realize is the USA gets to make a difference in peoples life's ..doesn't that make you feel good that your country makes a difference even if it doesn't feel like it?

 

 

It isn't about making good law, it's about exercising power he does not have. What is the difference between a President and a Dictator? As to your second point no, it is not something I ever concern myself with. I do not count myself as a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States. My first and foremost concern is the freedom and prosperity of the United States not the rest of the world. If by advancing the former we accomplish the latter then that is great but if the two ever conflict then there is no conflict.

 

Sure I understand a person needs to obviously have a belief in there own country but I am just saying there is a greater good...so its not all bad