Sodomy laws struck down! That is such a libertarian thing to do. I'm sure everyone will be talking about how the libertarians won today. Libertarians.

No other group will be mentioned, because this is a libertarian issue. You'll hear "libertarian" a lot, nothing else. "LIBERTARIANS" have won, remember the word "libertarian".

That reminds me of the Simpsons song....

That's the word: monorail!
Monorail! Monorail!

:D

Being that it's primarily a homosexual issue, I think that homosexuals will be pretty damn pleased, too! Go us!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html

There is also a thread about this in Ethics Morality and Justice, which was started by goofyfish.

Originally posted by Fen
Sodomy laws struck down! That is such a libertarian thing to do. I'm sure everyone will be talking about how the libertarians won today. Libertarians.

Yay! Not homosexual myself, but I sympathize. Ironic that that bastard law proposal would come from Texas, high castle of the bible belt...!

(nah, just kidding. I'm not surprised at all.)

It sicken me the such a law still exits today! As long as it in private, coessential, between adults and does not result in punishable physical harm (like snuff sex) it should be perfectly legal.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
It sicken me the such a law still exits today! As long as it in private, coessential, between adults and does not result in punishable physical harm (like snuff sex) it should be perfectly legal.

Wow, I hadn't even thought of that! Gotta update my DVD collection. Gee thanks!

i hadn't heard anything about the libertarians, but ok. it is a victory for homosexuals and it's about damn time.

:D hurray!
(i'll be accompanying my good friend to the gay pride parade. if you're a supporter, consider coming)

Hey, its a personal rights issue, not a libertarian one. tarring all personal rights with the brush of libertarianism is like, well, im not sure what a good analogy is, illl think up one later.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
It sicken me the such a law still exits today!

Heh, well, acctualy as of today the law no longer exists. And that's really the point, and the cause for celebration.

I declare today to be Sodomy day!

But do they still prohibit anal sex between a man and a woman? I think they did here in the UK, not sure if it still holds.

Originally posted by guthrie
Hey, its a personal rights issue, not a libertarian one. tarring all personal rights with the brush of libertarianism is like, well, im not sure what a good analogy is, illl think up one later.

A libertarian is a person who fights for freedom and against state sanctioned regulation and opression.

If you like freedom and fight for it, you are, per definition, libertarian.

Are you trying to convert us all to libertarianism by narrowing the definition so much that we all have to agree with it or look like unreconstructed wannabee dictators? (although i can think of a few people here who would like that).

Or perhaps you mean that we are actually anarchists, who are for total freedom? Perhaps you are one yourself?

Oh, you mean just state sanctioned oppression? What about oppression from companies and other people?

Or, perhaps your like GW bush, who is fighting for freedom from gvt oppression in iraq. So you support him, right?

Then again, perhaps we like state regulation, after all, we voted for them, so we must like what we're getting.

Perhaps you would better define "freeedom" "state" "libertarianism" and then we'll start again.

And if you think that its ok for people to get together and do things for the common good, I shall call you a socialist, in that you do things socially.

Originally posted by guthrie
Are you trying to convert us all to libertarianism by narrowing the definition so much that we all have to agree with it or look like unreconstructed wannabee dictators? (although i can think of a few people here who would like that).

--- I dont see any "conversion" process, I am however trying to se definitions straight. Try looking up 'libertarian' in a dictionary sometime.

Or perhaps you mean that we are actually anarchists, who are for total freedom? Perhaps you are one yourself?

--- At heart yes, but since it is clear to me that anarchy (in the positive sense of the word) is pretty much a utopia, I fall back to liberalism.

Oh, you mean just state sanctioned oppression? What about oppression from companies and other people?

--- While I agree that monopolies are bad (say Microsoft), do not confuse monopoly power with government power. Microsoft (et al) may be robbing consumers on various levels, but they sure as heck never killed anyone, the way govt power has been used over the centurised to kill & maim.

Or, perhaps your like GW bush, who is fighting for freedom from gvt oppression in iraq. So you support him, right?

--- Only in the Iraq case. I generally find GWB to be a bit of a parrot.


Then again, perhaps we like state regulation, after all, we voted for them, so we must like what we're getting.

--- Exactly! In a representational democracy, people get what they deserve.


Perhaps you would better define "freeedom" "state" "libertarianism" and then we'll start again.

--- Try a dictionary, my friend.

And if you think that its ok for people to get together and do things for the common good, I shall call you a socialist, in that you do things socially.

--- Then you are using a faulty definition.

Socialism is defined as state ownership of the means of production, often in tie with a planned economy. I support neither.

Clearly i am broadening the definition somewhat. a bit like the opposite to what you are doing with libertarianism.
Put it this way, hang around here, youll find a wheen of libertarians, who wouldnt say any of us who've posted above are libertarians.

Originally posted by guthrie
Clearly i am broadening the definition somewhat. a bit like the opposite to what you are doing with libertarianism.
Put it this way, hang around here, youll find a wheen of libertarians, who wouldnt say any of us who've posted above are libertarians.

Nobody forces you to put a label on your forehead ;)

"One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
One who believes in free will. "

Not quite the same as what you seem to be suggesting. dont you just love words? So mutable. See, i dont see us all advocating the maximisation of individual rights and minimising the role of the state.

As for gvt killings etc, look around a bit, youll find plenty of killings in the past due to companies. They have lessened somewhat recently, now we need to work on gvts. Although strictly speaking in many cases gvt and companies have worked hand in glove.

Ahh, doesnt saying people get what they deserve inject morality into it, rather than simply that they get what they voted for?

And if your a liberal, welcome. I get called one myself, by communists and libertarians.

Originally posted by guthrie
"One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
One who believes in free will. "

Not quite the same as what you seem to be suggesting. dont you just love words? So mutable. See, i dont see us all advocating the maximisation of individual rights and minimising the role of the state.

--- Aw come on. Do you want everybody to conform the textbook definition 100% before you can be said to be libertarian?

As for gvt killings etc, look around a bit, youll find plenty of killings in the past due to companies. They have lessened somewhat recently, now we need to work on gvts. Although strictly speaking in many cases gvt and companies have worked hand in glove.

--- Do you have proof for that claim? Please show me proof that private enterprise has murdered and maimed.


Ahh, doesnt saying people get what they deserve inject morality into it, rather than simply that they get what they voted for?

--- Same thing.

And if your a liberal, welcome. I get called one myself, by communists and libertarians.

--- Who cares what people call each other. Most of the time political definitions are used as profanity :p

Originally posted by guthrie
Are you trying to convert us all to libertarianism by narrowing the definition so much that we all have to agree with it or look like unreconstructed wannabee dictators? (although i can think of a few people here who would like that).

Or perhaps you mean that we are actually anarchists, who are for total freedom? Perhaps you are one yourself?

Oh, you mean just state sanctioned oppression? What about oppression from companies and other people?

Or, perhaps your like GW bush, who is fighting for freedom from gvt oppression in iraq. So you support him, right?

Then again, perhaps we like state regulation, after all, we voted for them, so we must like what we're getting.

Perhaps you would better define "freeedom" "state" "libertarianism" and then we'll start again.

And if you think that its ok for people to get together and do things for the common good, I shall call you a socialist, in that you do things socially.
Paragrpah by paragraph.

Wouldn't that be broadening the definition of libertarianism?

Libertarianism is conservative anarchy (like that definition myself). It's anarchy, but keeping what seems to be the least amount of order necessary.

Other people? Keep guns. Other companies? Keep big guns.

GW is using the state to fight foreign wars. Big no-no.

"--- Aw come on. Do you want everybody to conform the textbook definition 100% before you can be said to be libertarian? "

No, but you seemed keen on dictionaries yourself.

"--- Do you have proof for that claim? Please show me proof that private enterprise has murdered and maimed. "

Lets see. The slave trade. The east india company. The avoidable deaths due to accidents at work that needent have happened, but did because to ensure they dont costs money. Fortunately its happening less in western countries, like I said.

"Ahh, doesnt saying people get what they deserve inject morality into it, rather than simply that they get what they voted for?

--- Same thing. "


Not the same thing. morality is a value judgement, separate from people getting what they voted for.



"Who cares what people call each other. Most of the time political definitions are used as profanity "

Yeah. i hate politics myself.



"Libertarianism is conservative anarchy (like that definition myself). It's anarchy, but keeping what seems to be the least amount of order necessary.
Other people? Keep guns. Other companies? Keep big guns.
GW is using the state to fight foreign wars. Big no-no."

Then it isnt really anarchy then is it? From what galt says, you keep a minimal gvt to keep some services and stuff going. which certainly isnt anarchy.