General Discussions
Does Firefly promote Prostitution?
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Monday, January 26, 2004 05:41
VIEWED: 17201
PAGE 7 of 8
Friday, January 23, 2004 11:46 AM
Quote:
We can work out a "social contract", agree that you have the right to own guns, or whatever obligations you want to place on me, as long as the same obligations are reciprocated, as long as I can place the same obligations on you. That includes the obligation to practice your freedom in a responsible manner, so as not to cause me any problems. You don't break the deal, I won't. But if you do, then I am no longer bound by those the obligations you have placed on me.
That's exactly what I said -- with different words.
Quote:
It should be noted that this only works in the area of "negative rights" My obligation in recognizing your right to own guns is inaction as a response to that ownership. To do nothing to stop you. However, if you claim say, a right to housing, or medical care, or my property, then we got a problem. If you can build your own house, you don't need a right to housing, nor me to build you one. And if you cannot, then you cannot reciprocate, offer me the equivalent obligation in return.
If what you are saying is that an individual has a right to earn property, but not to vote for it, then we are in complete agreement.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, January 23, 2004 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Anything can be seen as a problem. Not having the right religion can be seen as a problem. Criticizing the government can be seen as a problem. Television shows that sidestep cursing laws by cursing in a foreign language can be seen as a problem. The question is, who gets to decide what is seen as "a problem"? How much power does the government get to have to declare "problems" and what limits should there be against such power?
It depends mostly on the particular type of government. In democracies, the voters get to declare what is, and is not, a problem. And to a large extent, what the solution is. In tyrannies, whoever is the elite du jour gets to decide.
Quote:Quote:
Morality is a function of our environment and the potential consequences of our actions. If someone has to clean up the mess you made, well that someone is gonna make sure you don't do whatever it was that created that mess in the first place.
If you don't like cleaning up the mess I made, you can always choose to NOT CLEAN IT UP.
This is not a viable option. You living in your own waste, well, that waste exists somewhere. Neighbors have to deal with the smell, or the risk of diseases or what other problems that can cause. Employers have businesses to run, and family, friends and relatives have emotional attachments.
How bout this. YOU NOT MAKE A MESS FOR OTHERS to begin with. You seem intent on demanding your rights, with little thought to the responsiblities such rights entail, or the rights of others. This is not a good idea, if you wish to garner the benefits of living in any society.
Quote:
"Morality" as you put it, is simply people's inability to tolerate other people's messes. It is the legal equivalent of the obsessive-compulsive need for cleanliness and is ultimately self-serving. Yes, mistakes are messy. But people have to be allowed to make them, and learn from them, to learn independence and responsibility.
Getting killed by a drunk driver is messy. Its also a direct threat to the lives and welfare and rights of other folks. Watching out for your own safety is hardly "enabling" nor anything like what you are talking about here. It may be a mistake, but that does not bring anyone back from the dead.
YOu are not talking about responsibility here, but tolerating irresponsible behavior, even if that behavior is a direct threat to the lives, welfare and rights of others. That is just not going to work, folks, out of self preservation, are not going to stand for it. They can't, it is simply too dangerous, too costly, and too risky.
Quote:
I am not saying there are no "problems" or that people with problems shouldn't get help. I am saying we who choose to help should take responsibility for our own choices and not blame it all on people with "problems."
I am not getting this. If the people with "problems" had not created the problem in the first place, there would be no problem to solve, no mess for others to clean up. I am not quite sure what you mean here.
A lot of times, you have no choice whether to solve a problem or not, other than let the problem fester to the point where it hurts you. If you want the right to do drugs or what have you, the solution to me is quite simple. Don't make it anybody else's problem.
Quote:
Moreover, prostitution and drug abuse and not wearing seat belts are not "problems" that involve force against others. As a Libertarian, I believe that solutions involving government force should generally be reserved for problems that involve someone initiating force (with a few exceptions). All other problems can be addressed with non-forceful, non-violent solutions.
Whether you see it as a problem or not, or whether I agree or not, is irrelevant. Lets face it, what has screwed this all up is the folks who have used their freedoms irresponsibly, who have driven drunk or stoned, passed diseases along, produced unwanted children, beat their wives after getti
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, January 23, 2004 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
If what you are saying is that an individual has a right to earn property, but not to vote for it, then we are in complete agreement.
Good. But that is not all I am saying. I have no problem with your freedom as long as you don't make it a problem for me. Its when you do, that I got a problem, that I have to solve. And my interest is in fixing MY problem. Not so much in what you want or desire.
If you are the source of that problem, I usually consider that breaking the contract, and if the contract is broken, well, its broken and I am no longer bound to it. I understand accidents, and mistakes. And willing to grant some leeway, as long as you fix the problem, and don't let it happen again.
With rights come responsibilities. Not so much to use that freedom "wisely" no matter how its defined, but to utilize it in such a manner as to avoid being a detriment to others. I see a lot of folks complaining about their rights being violated, but I am seeing all too little about why other folks feel free to violate those rights in the first place. The problem is not the voters, or those who "choose" to clean up the messes of others. Its the guys who make the messes and screw it up for the rest of us.
The entire purpose of the concept of rights in the first place is to further and promote the lives and happiness of all. To garner the benefits of a society, without being so tolerant that you tolerate your own death. And that means taking personal responsibility for your actions, and cleaning up your own mess. Or better, not making a mess in the first place. Then nobody has to clean up what ain't there.
Besides which, if you can't take responsibility for your failures, how can you take responsibility for your successes?
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, January 23, 2004 1:46 PM
A great question but a thread that ran completely amuck.
Who gives a shit about your long-winded opinions or supposed thesis-supported arguments? You don't have a better outlet? It sucks to be you...smart without an audience. Or opinionated without a clue?
To answer the question, it don't matter. {wannabe Joss} Mal decides what's right & wrong and so do you.
It sounds like you guys are a bunch of damn fools...oh, I'm sorry, that's me.
"I'm like a Phoenix...reborn again...rising from Arizona!" - Frank Costanza
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, January 23, 2004 8:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
And I'm all for the second amendment...but...an assualt rifle?
Hey, here in the USA we have magazines that legally, openly sell AK-47 ammo. I have some in my house. Also, the ban on assault rifles is ending, so soon you'll be able to buy them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, January 23, 2004 8:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
I don't care what you own ... only how you use it! In short; every man, every woman, every responsible child, has an absolute, innate, inherent, inalienable, natural, civil, Constitutional, and human right to acquire and own any handgun, any rifle, any shotgun, any machine gun -- ANYTHING! -- and to carry it, openly or concealed, any place, any time, without asking anybodys permission.
While I agree with you, I have to say that this is a conservative, Republican principle. It's also a conservative, Republican principle that your nation can be invaded for having "banned" weapons. Not criticizing you, just pointing that out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, January 24, 2004 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:Quote:
I'm generally in favor of freedom over protection. The only things that should be crimes are actions that violate the freedoms of others, in my mind. Homicide, rape, arson - these all affect others. More minor things like public drunkeness, or assualt also affect others, just less so (BTW, for anyone who didn't know, assualt is threatening violence). But I were using herion right now, alone in my house...that affects no one but myself.
...I'm not, by the way.
Again, you need to find someone who disagrees with you to argue this point. The problem, again, was this was not what was happening. Folks were getting drunk and causing problems for others. Folks were making messes that someone else got stuck cleaning up. Cleaning up someone else's mess is never fun, and most folks don't like it. So they will do what they see as necessary to prevent getting stuck like that.
Wasn't so much arguing a point as writting where I stand on the issue.
Quote:
Congratulations. Now you see the problem. I think everyone agrees with that sentiment. What they don't agree with is exactly where that line should be drawn. Some will say "no private ownership of ICBMs. Some will say, no drugs and prostitution.
Not sure I see the similarity. If spend tonight with a whore, how is that the same as you stock-piling ICBMs? It isn't that the latter is a more extreme example of the first; they don't fall into the same category at all!
Quote:
Hey, here in the USA we have magazines that legally, openly sell AK-47 ammo. I have some in my house. Also, the ban on assault rifles is ending, so soon you'll be able to buy them.
Actually, my problem wasn't so much the type pf weapon owned, as the fact that he was carrying said weapon openly in public.
Quote:
A great question but a thread that ran completely amuck.
Nah, someone mentioned the legality of prostitution...just had to throw in my two cents on the topic. It didn't run amuck, it just...ran.
It's cool there are so many libertarians here...never met one in real life.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, January 24, 2004 2:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
I don't care what you own ... only how you use it! In short; every man, every woman, every responsible child, has an absolute, innate, inherent, inalienable, natural, civil, Constitutional, and human right to acquire and own any handgun, any rifle, any shotgun, any machine gun -- ANYTHING! -- and to carry it, openly or concealed, any place, any time, without asking anybodys permission.
While I agree with you, I have to say that this is a conservative, Republican principle. It's also a conservative, Republican principle that your nation can be invaded for having "banned" weapons. Not criticizing you, just pointing that out.
Since when has owning weapons become a conservative republican principle? From my stand point the very term "republican principle" is an oxymoron -- special emphasis on the moron part.
To what do you refer in your second sentence? Iraq possibly? If so, then I've got to agree with you, It is very much a part of the Neo-Con's -- special emphasis on the CON part -- to have an attitude of "do as I say, not as I do."
Of course the democraps aren't any better.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, January 24, 2004 6:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Since when has owning weapons become a conservative republican principle? From my stand point the very term "republican principle" is an oxymoron -- special emphasis on the moron part.
To what do you refer in your second sentence? Iraq possibly? If so, then I've got to agree with you, It is very much a part of the Neo-Con's -- special emphasis on the CON part -- to have an attitude of "do as I say, not as I do."
Of course the democraps aren't any better.
Hey I only know what I read in the paper. And the way I see it, democrats are the only one's pushing gun control, and Republicans are the only one pushing the Iraq war, and implying threats about all the other nations suspected of having weapons. (Except for North Korea, who has been boasting of their "nuclear deterent" for some time now.) I know there's a difference between neocons and old-style conservatives, but I find it more convenient to group them together. By Republican principle I mean "something Republicans in general support."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
