Finally!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by normbenign
Democracy is evil, if it is unlimited. Many, perhaps most things, should never be voted on, in a legislative or regulatory manner. Approval of even a super majority (say 75% ), leaves the dissenters (25% ) wondering where their rights went.

The Friedmanesque argument against democracy is an old one, but it is also flawed because it doesn't take into account that democracy tends to weigh not just the proportion of preferences but also its weight. That is, especially in a democracy with proportional representation (which gives more clout to minorities versus a winner-takes-all voting system), minorities who care a great deal about a certain issue are protected against a majority who cares only a little about the opposite. This is because politicians stand to gain from courting the minority vote by siding with them, while they don't risk losing many voters from the majority that doesn't really care.

Suppose 60% of the population likes blue shirts, and 40% likes red shirts, which politician would win the election: the one who wants to ban blue shirts or the one who wants to ban red shirts? Answer: the one who doesn't ban any of them.

Originally posted by KingDavid403
Typical narcissistic rapist lover. Me, Me, Me, 🙄🙄😴 You act like you are the only one who works for a living. That is if you actually do. Also, notice your wife would not have a job if it was not for society. 🙄🙄🙄

Sir, I believe you are using unwarranted hate speech. Please calm down. Some people are not socialists, like you. 😏

Originally posted by Eladar
There is no such thing as 'Society' in a free country. There are only individuals.

You are in fact part of a society and choose to be so daily.

Not to society's benefit, I should add.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
You are in fact part of a society and choose to be so daily.

Not to society's benefit, I should add.

I believe he may have been associating society with socialism and the socialists form of government where the freedoms of the individual is secondary to the needs of the society as a whole. Isn't that the result of that ideology or am I mistaken too?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe he may have been associating society with socialism and the socialists form of government where the freedoms of the individual is secondary to the needs of the society as a whole. Isn't that the result of that ideology or am I mistaken too?

A socialist society sees freedom as an ill of society. That's why they oppose things like a free market. Freedom allows us to make poor choices that hurts society as a whole. The less freedom we have the better they can minimize the ills of vices like greed.

The only thing that ever separates us from utopia is the need for more laws.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So what you are saying is that democracy doesn't work, because there are too many people like you?

Can't you read?

It only works under certain circumstances that I listed.

Try having a bunch of uneducated convicts in a jail cell vote and find what kind of society you will create.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
If the 90 year old rich guy wouldn't marry the 20 year old blonde "these kinds of things" wouldn't happen.

Maybe you should just allow people to make stupid mistakes, instead of taking their choice away. You're in favor of freedom, aren't you?

Edit: of course, all you're looking for in the end is ways to not "normalize" being gay, but let's pretend we're actually talking about marriage in general.

When did I say that I would take the freedom of this individual away? He is perfectly free to give all of his possessions to anyone he wishes, but her getting married to obtain them due to the prefabricated rules of marriage that he had nothing to do with will all go bye, bye.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why not insist the State get out of the "will business"? If you're dead, you're dead and whoever gets to your property first gets to keep it. Or not; maybe the State should get out of the "property business" too

So you wish to take the freedom of those who die away and simply let the mob rule take his possessions?

I reckon this will come very soon.

Originally posted by whodey
A socialist society sees freedom as an ill of society. That's why they oppose things like a free market. Freedom allows us to make poor choices that hurts society as a whole. The less freedom we have the better they can minimize the ills of vices like greed.

The only thing that ever separates us from utopia is the need for more laws.

I thought it was something like that. Thanks.

Originally posted by whodey
So you wish to take the freedom of those who die away and simply let the mob rule take his possessions?

I reckon this will come very soon.

Your positions are breathtakingly inconsistent to the point of incoherency.

Originally posted by whodey
A socialist society sees freedom as an ill of society. That's why they oppose things like a free market. Freedom allows us to make poor choices that hurts society as a whole. The less freedom we have the better they can minimize the ills of vices like greed.

The only thing that ever separates us from utopia is the need for more laws.

🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by whodey
When did I say that I would take the freedom of this individual away? He is perfectly free to give all of his possessions to anyone he wishes, but her getting married to obtain them due to the prefabricated rules of marriage that he had nothing to do with will all go bye, bye.

It was his choice to get married, knowing of the "prefabricated rules" that go along with it.

He used his freedom to get married and accept the rules that go with that marriage. He didn't have to. But he did.

You perhaps wouldn't do it. He did. Freedom reigns.

What are you arguing against?

There exist possibilities to get married and accept the rules that go with said marriage. Some people wish to get married. Others don't. Great. All's well.

What are you arguing against???

Originally posted by whodey
A socialist society sees freedom as an ill of society. That's why they oppose things like a free market. Freedom allows us to make poor choices that hurts society as a whole. The less freedom we have the better they can minimize the ills of vices like greed.

The only thing that ever separates us from utopia is the need for more laws.

Robert Reich on the "free market":

A market—any market—requires that government make and enforce the rules of the game. In most modern democracies, such rules emanate from legislatures, administrative agencies, and courts. Government doesn’t “intrude” on the “free market.” It creates the market.

The rules are neither neutral nor universal, and they are not permanent. Different societies at different times have adopted different versions. The rules partly mirror a society’s evolving norms and values but also reflect who in society has the most power to make or influence them. Yet the interminable debate over whether the “free market” is better than “government” makes it impossible for us to examine who exercises this power, how they benefit from doing so, and whether such rules need to be altered so that more people benefit from them.

The size of government is not unimportant, but the rules for how the free market functions have far greater impact on an economy and a society. Surely it is useful to debate how much government should tax and spend, regulate and subsidize. Yet these issues are at the margin of the economy, while the rules are the economy. It is impossible to have a market system without such rules and without the choices that lie behind them. As the economic historian Karl Polanyi recognized, those who argue for “less government” are really arguing for a different government—often one that favors them or their patrons.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
It was his choice to get married, knowing of the "prefabricated rules" that go along with it.

He used his freedom to get married and accept the rules that go with that marriage. He didn't have to. But he did.

You perhaps wouldn't do it. He did. Freedom reigns.

What are you arguing against?

There exist possibilities to get married and accep ...[text shortened]... eople wish to get married. Others don't. Great. All's well.

What are you arguing against???

Unmarried couples are not afforded the same rights.

Originally posted by no1marauder
. As the economic historian Karl Polanyi recognized, those who argue for “less government” are really arguing for a different government—often one that favors them or their patrons.[/b]

Politics is simply a struggle for the average citizen to get a leg up on each other.

For example, gays lobbied government for the right to marry by throwing money at them.

Conversely, polygamists did not.

The end result is, one group continues to be marginalized while they other can now get married.

If government was really about equality no one would waste throwing money at them.