Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
SCOTUS sided with the perverts.
I love debating libertarians. Nothing like giving Randians good, old-fashioned Tom and Jerry-like upside-the-head whoppings with the logic stick.
It applied to homosexuals, bisexuality is homosexuality. I contend sodomy laws pre 1960 were for homosexuals because no right minded person thought any different and yet here we are.
Why don't you whip out the ol' logic stick on this Randian?
Do you think Texas should have the right to make marijuana legal? Gay marriage?
I gave you the reasons why your example failed. The characters in your story did not adhere to libertarian principles.
"If you assert the right to homosexual sex, I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex.
You were told that's fine. No one will force you, to be around them. It's up to you though to isolate yourself sufficiently.
"I assert it to the point that I do not wish to be in the same society as people who practice it."
Sufficiently far.
" The people who practice it cannot survive by themselves and thus need people to support their behavior."
That's not true at all.
"I do not wish to support their behavior."
Fine, don't.
"There is a conflict between the "right to homosexual sex" and the "right to free association".
None whatsoever. You can associate with whom you please and they can do what they please without anyone violating another's rights.
" What homosexuals really want is the "right to homosexual sex while violating everyone else's right to free association".
No! You are confusing free association with your urge to sanction their behavior. You have no right to dictate to them what is tasteful, anymore than they have a right to do that to you. That is the truth!
"Thus they have to find a way to force people who don't want to be around them to accept them while still engaging in behavior that hurts people who do not engage in it.
It hurts people in their imaginations only. It consumes some people, but the homos aren't consuming. It's those that dwell on the thought that do the comsuming.
"They want to have their cake and eat it too."
That's a perfectly natural and good thing.
"So, they have to "initiate judicial coercion" against non-compliant heterosexuals via the SCOTUS.
Non-compliant heterosexuals? No one was attempting to force anything on them. It was the other way around. The law was rotten to begin with and they're using the manifest viciousness of those that consume themselves with images of what they are upset by as propaganda. The law is a flagrant rights violation. They know it and so do most Americans. The State of Texas set the stage and baited it.
"Because if the state of Texas ignores this decision, there will be consequences. Financial and so on."
The consequences they will face are not, because of this SCOTUS decision, but because they chose to violate the rights of these people before and created allowed the rights of others to be violated by coercing charity.
"The SCOTUS just violated the "force, fraud, coercion" principle of libertarianism by initiating coercion against the people of Texas."
The SCOTUS is not composed of libertarians. They performed a feat of illogical construction to defeat one element of TX law. The people of TX aren't adherents of libertarianism either.
What you just witnessed was a skirmish in the war between left and right authoritarians. Both are determined to fight to the death to gain enough power to force their will, their vision on the world. Neither side gives a damn about rights. Freedom lost under a SCOTUS that imposed their abitrary will under the cover of BS.
"Happy Day, huh libertarians?"
Sure, BS reigns, so we're all happy.
Homos aren't going to ever be anything other than queer. That's the way they are. They are never going to get married, so there's no point in saying they are a threat to the institution. They are a minority. As long as free speech reigns you can counter any claim they make that says gay's OK. Once the 2 differing sides war and attempt to force their will on the other, they both become evil. What the libertarians will see are 2 groups at each others throats attempting to coerce each other into submission. The left authoritarians got their way, because the right authoritarians challenged them with pettiness.
Your battle has furthered the authoritarian cause that limits free speech. SCOTUS said, the law demeans the homos. Now I'm risk attack from these morons if I give my take on being a homo as advice and council.
I'm a lawyer (never practiced, almost certainly never will), but the last time I got paid by someone it was by straight commission (sales). That's a more honest way to make a living than chasing ambulances, I think.
In my example, the society would determine the scope of property rights. Voluntarily. This argument fails.
Not if it’s, now say it with me, C-O-N-S-E-N-S-U-A-L.
??? Adulterors may very well be consenting adults, usually are in fact. Of course it's not a crime in most, if not all, states. Grounds for divorce it is, but not a crime.
I know. That's my point. I laugh at how many people on FR deride San Francisco when probably 90% of them have never been there. They must have images in their head of rampant orgies in the parks and bodily fluids covering the sidewalks.
I guess under this ruling, as long as it's in a situation with an expectation of privacy, such as motel room, a home, a rented hall, or such, it's just fine.
You're so wrong, but I will concede the point since it's irrelevant to this case.
I contend sodomy laws pre 1960 were for homosexuals because no right minded person thought any different and yet here we are.
Are you saying that heterosexuals have not been punished for becoming involved in oral or anal sex?
On gay marriage, I believe that Gov. Rick Perry just signed a Defense of Marriage act, but yes, if the people of Texas were somehow insane enough to want that, sure. That's why social conservatives like me want to amend the Constitution with a Federal Marriage Act to stop that from happening in every state (I'm not worried about it being passed into law by a legislature; I'm worried about the kind of judicial activism we saw today).
Regarding marijuana, it gets a little more complicated. Again, I'm arguing from the 'original conception' of the Constitution that libertarians love to 'defend'. Under that regime, with a very narrowly interpreted ICC (interstate commerce clause) then yes. Today, no way. One state legalizing marijuana would never pass muster. You might want to note here that banning alcohol took a Constitutional Amendment (18th), but ever since roughly 1937 that kind of narrow interpretation of the ICC has kind of gone by the boards.
That is of the utmost importance. The property rights of privately owned land are the basis of the libertarian nature of the rules established by the owner.
If it is publicly owned land, there are no property rights to enforce your personal preferences as to what occurs on that land. The only rules that would apply there would be from the governing body, and that body by definition cannot initiate force or fraud and still be classified as libertarian.
The small society has to agree, voluntarily, on social organization. However they do that is irrelevant to the argument, because whichever way they do it, it's voluntary. I stated that there was a pre-existing taboo (social rule) on sodomy. It was well established
A 'preexisting taboo' is most certainly not even close to a binding contract upon any individual. You do know what a contract is, don't you?
By living in that society, they agree to abide by it.
You are describing democracy, not libertarianism. A libertarian society has no legitimate power under to enforce any law through initiation of force, no matter what 'society' wants. If it does, its not libertarian.
They initiated fraud. There was a pre-existing, informal, covenantal agreement forbidding homosexuality.
There is no such thing as a pre-existing agreement. That is a meaningless, fictitious term What does pre-existing mean, exactly? It existed before it existed? An agreement either exists or it doesn't.
If they have made no agreement, then no agreement exists.
I can understand why you're arguing specifics. You've pretty much lost the broad point.
Yes, why bother with the minor details like what actually is a libertarian society, rather than the democracy you use in your example. Silly me.
There’s no part time pathologies, either you have the disorder of same sex attraction or you don’t…either you have child sexual attraction you don’t, there’s no such thing as a hetero-pedo-sexual.
Are you saying that heterosexuals have not been punished for becoming involved in oral or anal sex?
Outside of public sex, I think not but those legislatures that make that distinction in their law clearly did so to avoid what happened today. And I would presume put the “equivalence” laws on the books post 1960 and probably since 1980.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.