Libertarians Join Liberals in Challenging Sodomy Law

NYTimes ^ | March 19, 2003 | LINDA GREENHOUSE

[Dataman]

People have the right to do anything which does not violate others rights.

Interesting moral statement.

1)What are the rights of others?
2)How does one determine if the rights of others have been violated?
3)Is paying for the medical expenses of another person's promiscutity a violation of my rights?
4)What is the basis for any human rights at all?

Without answers to at least 3 of the 4 questions, your statement is meaningless.

[Zack Nguyen]

Very well then - by holding to a libertarian philosophy, these people find it difficult or impossible to make absolute moral judgements.

[HumanaeVitae]

If I respect private property rights I have no choice

This is why libertarians will never get elected to any major office. If you'll fess up to being ok with this, then I can't argue you out of your libertarianism. But I am conforted by the fact that you guys will never be in power.

[freeeee]

Is there a black market for human organs? Yep. Would you allow this in libertarian 'world'?

Right now there is a black market in human organs because government dictates who gets what organs, regardless of what the donor wishes.

Willing donors could sell (or bequeath) their organs to whoever they like. Since it would be illegal to initiate force or fraud, organs could not legally be stolen from the unwilling.

There would be an open market for donor organs, and the black market for donor organs would disappear. There would still be a black market for stolen organs, but it would be illegal.

[Hacksaw]

I'm saying that you made a charge, I asked you to cite the posts.

The title of this thread is "Libertarians Join Liberals in Challenging Sodomy Law". I stated "What I find funny is that the libertarians are in favor of the law being overturned by judicial fiat, with no legislative action. It seems as far as social issues go, the libertarians favor judicial activism as much as liberals do." I didn't make a charge, I stated a fact based on the title of this thread and the people who agree with it.

You cannot. Because you made it up, as usual.

Nope, the title of the thread backs me up.

Why would I say that?

Because you took such exception to my statement, I think you should come out and state what your position is.

I don't care one way or the other.

Hmmmm.... Your posts indicate otherwise, but if you say so I will take you word for it.

It has never been overturned judicially that I'm aware of, but I think it has been overturned legislatively many times.

You act like overturning a bad law is something your band of merry men thinks is bad, is that so?

Yes - if said law was constitutional for most of our history, overturing it in court IS a bad thing. That is what legislatures and amendments are for. Letting courts amend our constitution on their own makes it eventually meaningless.

[Protagoras]

Such a law may be impossible to pass. That wouldn't make such a law wrong.

The law would be wrong regardless of it's "passability".

So God requires that we don't punish evil acts?

I never said that, strawman. Turn it around, Does he require us to punish them? Which ones?

He will deal with evil, we must deal with interactions among men in this realm.

You told me that God will pass his judgement at the end. My question to you is, will God look favorably upon me for being indifferent to the criminalization of homosexual acts?

Indifferent? The better question is, will you be looked upon favorably for using violence to enforce what you perceive to be his will?

I can't seem to find where Christ instructed us to enforce his will by violence or threat thereof. In fact, in one instance, he told us to bug off and he would handle it.

[Liberal Classic]

Not familiar with The Watchmen. :) Back to the topic at hand, I am of the opinion that some rights are inalienable, particularly the right to life, and cannot be abdicated or abrogated. This is not to say that a man does not have the right to lay down his life for another, or does not have the right to serve another man faithfully. What I am saying is that there are a few rights that you may not give away, and the right to life is one of them. No one being of sound mind would voluntarily be raised for slaughter, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy not withstanding. So your hypothetical and thoroughly absurd restaurant example is not a lawful thing, in my opinon.

I am opposed to blood sports that are to the death, but in principle am not opposed to boxing as a sport, or other sports that are dangerous and potentially deadly. I am not as opposed to cock or dog fights, because chickens and dogs mere are animals not men. But we are not talking about animals, we are speaking of people. People who willingly engate in riskly behavior may be seeking thrills, but people who seek death are not well in the head. Slavery has been abolished at great cost, and I do not believe that it should be made lawful even at the agreement of the parties involved. Again, someone who gives his free will away in perpituity is not well in the head. This is not to say that I am against maids and the like, or even that I am against indentured servitude. Were it not for indentured servitude I would not be alive here today, because my ancestors came across the atlantic as indentured servants. The crucial difference between indentured servitude and slavery is that there can be no fulfillment of slavery. Working off one's passage to the new world was not slavery.

A man may not give these few gifts away, and I believe that we the people through the government have a certian interest that others do not give themselves away as slaves or cattle. However, that still great concern of government to prevent these things has no bearing whatsoever on the love life of my wife and I in the privacy of our own homes. We have the right to be secure in our places and persons.

[freeeee]

Why do you believe that some people are good and others bad?

Rational observations of their behavior can be used to impartially identify good and evil individuals.

[steve-b]

The better question is, will you be looked upon favorably for using violence to enforce what you perceive to be his will?

[jimt]

What I find funny is that the libertarians are in favor of the law being overturned by judicial fiat, with no legislative action. It seems as far as social issues go, the libertarians favor judicial activism as much as liberals do.

Libertarians favor the courts checking the unbridled power of legislatures enacting un-Constitutional measures, i.e. removing laws conflicting with the Constitution.

Liberals favor the courts enhancing laws, increasing the power of government over the people, Constitutionally or not.

Naw, no difference - only that they're exact opposites !

[Protagoras]

Yes - if said law was constitutional for most of our history, overturing it in court IS a bad thing.

LOL, nice try at a dodge. Slavery was constitutional for "most of our history" when it was overturned. This not-so clever dodge lets you advocate overturning some and leaving others, depending on your personal preference. Roe springs to mind.

Letting courts amend our constitution on their own makes it eventually meaningless.

They shouldn't amend it, they judge cases brought to them. They overturned at least one sodomy law according to the story.

[Protagoras]

I don't get the reference.

[freeeee]

This is why libertarians will never get elected to any major office

I understand that most people are scared of freedom, and would rather take the easy way out. They don't want to take responsibility for themselves, they don't want to solve their own problems. For many, giving away their rights is an acceptable bargain for being taken care of. That's why socialism and collectivism are so popular, even if people are ashamed to admit that's what they prefer.

That's fine. I've accepted and acknowledge that. But you do what you can. One day I hope there is some free society on Earth. If there is, I'll go there.

[jimt]

Are aspects of the body ordered toward specific ends?

They certainly seem to be.

Is the hearing system ordered toward hearing? Is the reproductive system ordered toward reproduction?

Yes and yes.

If not, then is the act of attempting to reproduce with one's ears equivalent to attempting to reproduce with one's reproductive system? Would the former activity be disordered and unnatural?

No and yes.

Disordered, unnatural, yes. Should it be illegal, no. NO ONE'S RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED.

[Protagoras]

Very well then - by holding to a libertarian philosophy, these people find it difficult or impossible to make absolute moral judgements.

Nonsense, I do not find it difficult at all.

Libertarian philosophy concerns itself with how men govern themselves and the proper role of government in a free society. It defends rights.

It leaves moral judgements to the individual and God. And that is what drives authoritarians crazy.

[Roscoe]

Libertarians favor the courts checking the unbridled power of legislatures enacting un-Constitutional measures, i.e. removing laws conflicting with the Constitution.

Which has nothing to do with judicially legislating sodomy "rights".

[freeeee]

If you'll fess up to being ok with this

Please note I wasn't "OK" with it. I didn't like it, and I would work towards getting your sign removed. The only difference is the method I would use.

You would sacrifice your own property rights so government would take care of your problem. I would take responsibility for myself. I agree I won't get elected that way, people prefer to be pets.

[steve-b]

It's a rather well-known example of the use of violence to implement what the perps considered to be the divine will. Check the date stamp....

[Protagoras]

Interesting moral statement.

It isn't a statement about morals.

1)What are the rights of others?

Life, liberty , property, the pursuit of happiness among them if you need a list. Anything that does not violate others rights.

2)How does one determine if the rights of others have been violated?

Life, liberty , property, the pursuit of happiness among them if you need a list.

3)Is paying for the medical expenses of another person's promiscutity a violation of my rights?

Yes. Paying for anyone's expenses against your will is theft. It is not the promiscutity that violates your rights, it's the theft of your money.

4)What is the basis for any human rights at all?

They are granted by the creator. Some can be found in the ten commandments if you look.

Without answers to at least 3 of the 4 questions, your statement is meaningless.

Curious standard. And it might be meaningless to you, which of course is no standard of meaning. I'm also curious which one you thoght couldn't be answered.