Gay Poll...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you for real? They're losing custom by turning away gay people DESPITE the fact they might have full wallets.

So what you're saying is the state shouldn't intervene in economic transactions in order to ensure equality?

Indeed, liberty comes above equality.

So by that logic, we should have never passed laws to ensure women are paid the same as men?

Economic fallacy.

So they can be racist, sexist, all kinds of -ist as long a they don't advertise it? Because at the moment you seem to be saying that they have the right to turn people away at the door for whatever trivial reason but they can't advertise the fact that they don't let such people stay.

Do you not see you are being as bad as those who wanted to ban homosexuality via the law all those years ago? you are using the state to force people to act in a moral or just way that you see fit - just as those who opposed the legalisation of homosexuality did all those years ago. Surely morality and private services/choices ought to be decided by individuals rather than one group of individuals using the state to force another group of individuals to comply.

[dbgtz]

Are you for real? They're losing custom by turning away gay people DESPITE the fact they might have full wallets.

So what you're saying is the state shouldn't intervene in economic transactions in order to ensure equality?

So by that logic, we should have never passed laws to ensure women are paid the same as men?

Yes and they'll suffer for it if it angers people as they should not pay for the service, that's the point.

No they shouldn't as it's not real equality. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

So they can be racist, sexist, all kinds of -ist as long a they don't advertise it? Because at the moment you seem to be saying that they have the right to turn people away at the door for whatever trivial reason but they can't advertise the fact that they don't let such people stay.

No I said they should but at the moment, they can't.

[lawrawrrr]

Indeed, liberty comes above equality.



Economic fallacy.





Do you not see you are being as bad as those who wanted to ban homosexuality via the law all those years ago? you are using the state to force people to act in a moral or just way that you see fit - just as those who opposed the legalisation of homosexuality did all those years ago. Surely morality and private services/choices ought to be decided by individuals rather than one group of individuals using the state to force another group of individuals to comply.

Do you understand why laws are made? People elect politicians, who make laws (broadly) in line with the wishes of those who elect them. This isn't me, or some non-existent "political class", dictating a set of personal morals to everyone else. The vast majority of people think that they should be paid the same regardless of their gender. This goal is not achievable without state intervention in the form of equal pay laws.

The reason there are no libertarian states is because they're an awful idea.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you understand why laws are made? People elect politicians, who make laws (broadly) in line with the wishes of those who elect them. This isn't me, or some non-existent "political class", dictating a set of personal morals to everyone else. The vast majority of people think that they should be paid the same regardless of their gender. This goal is not achievable without state intervention in the form of equal pay laws.

The reason there are no libertarian states is because they're an awful idea.

The US Constitution and British Constitution are examples of documents based on libertarian ideals. Liberty is the best tool for providing freedom, not democracy - if one truly believed in democracy and the majority being able to impose their morality on others, then surely the repeal of the homosexuality act in the 1960s was wrong then? because back then it would not have had a majority of the public on side.

Yet in that case liberty triumphed over democracy, just as it should do when it comes to equality legislation.

[lawrawrrr]

The US Constitution and British Constitution are examples of documents based on libertarian ideals.

Have you got a link to the "British Constitution"?

Liberty is the best tool for providing freedom, not democracy - if one truly believed in democracy and the majority being able to impose their morality on others, then surely the repeal of the homosexuality act in the 1960s was wrong then? because back then it would not have had a majority of the public on side.

Yet in that case liberty triumphed over democracy, just as it should do when it comes to equality legislation.

(A slightly more historically accurate version of that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_ri...United_Kingdom)

If liberty triumphed over democracy, how did the 1967 Sexual Offences Act come to be passed? Because I'm fairly sure it went through the democratically-elected House of Commons, and even you would struggle to describe the Lords as "liberal" by any meaning of the word.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Have you got a link to the "British Constitution"?

Look up the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta and habeas corpus - all acts and ideas based in libertarian thought that sought to limit the power of the state over individuals. I take the spirit of those pieces of legislation and oppose your attempts at imposing your morality over other people, just as it was right people did the same and overturned the criminalisation of homosexuality act in the 1960s.

(A slightly more historically accurate version of that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_ri...United_Kingdom)

If liberty triumphed over democracy, how did the 1967 Sexual Offences Act come to be passed? Because I'm fairly sure it went through the democratically-elected House of Commons, and even you would struggle to describe the Lords as "liberal" by any meaning of the word.

I never made the claim we've always stuck to libertarian principles, far from it. It's exactly that acts such as the criminalisation of homosexuality passed in the first place which make me more determined to see similar more modern day draconian acts (such as equality acts) defeated. I don't quite see the logic in greatly opening up the personal freedoms for one group [homosexuals] and claiming it a liberation, and then seeking to impose that particular groups 'morality' on those who still happen to disagree with those acts/lifestyles, ie Christian B&B owners.

Near the end of your post you also confuse libertarianism (classical liberalism) with modern day liberalism which is socialism.

[dbgtz]

Have you got a link to the "British Constitution"?

(A slightly more historically accurate version of that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_ri...United_Kingdom)

If liberty triumphed over democracy, how did the 1967 Sexual Offences Act come to be passed? Because I'm fairly sure it went through the democratically-elected House of Commons, and even you would struggle to describe the Lords as "liberal" by any meaning of the word.

A constitution doesn't have to be in one written document.

Few governments actually get the majority of votes and liberals don't even like democracy, it's just the best of the worst if I remember correctly.

Just a couple of points I wanted to make which aren't really developed but are just things to be aware of.

[lawrawrrr]

Look up the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta and habeas corpus - all acts and ideas based in libertarian thought that sought to limit the power of the state over individuals. I take the spirit of those pieces of legislation and oppose your attempts at imposing your morality over other people, just as it was right people did the same and overturned the criminalisation of homosexuality act in the 1960s.

It's a fairly basic historical fallacy that the Magna Carta had anything to do with protecting the rights and freedoms of the population. The Magna Carta was more concerned with safeguarding the rights of the nobility than it was any rights of the people.

The Bill of Rights similarly was less concerned with individual freedom than it was the power of parliament. One clause allowed Protestants to bear arms at the expense of Catholics - hardly a libertarian principle.

You can't claim every legal principle that establishes or safeguards freedom to be solely libertarian; habeas corpus is as much a fundamental part of democracy as it might be a libertarian state. To use HC to evidence a claim that the British Constitution is based on libertarian principles is misleading.

I never made the claim we've always stuck to libertarian principles, far from it. It's exactly that acts such as the criminalisation of homosexuality passed in the first place which make me more determined to see similar more modern day draconian acts (such as equality acts) defeated. I don't quite see the logic in greatly opening up the personal freedoms for one group [homosexuals] and claiming it a liberation, and then seeking to impose that particular groups 'morality' on those who still happen to disagree with those acts/lifestyles, ie Christian B&B owners.

The way this state (and most others) works, most people have decided that's a good idea. If people thought - oh, actually, you know what, we've taken this a bit far now - then they would change the way they vote at the next election (even starting a new party if they had to). But they don't, because the people chose how they want to be governed and this is what they've chosen. It's great to have these libertarian principles and they can seem quite sensible sometimes. The problem is that they're not great when it comes to actually working.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's a fairly basic historical fallacy that the Magna Carta had anything to do with protecting the rights and freedoms of the population. The Magna Carta was more concerned with safeguarding the rights of the nobility than it was any rights of the people.

The Bill of Rights similarly was less concerned with individual freedom than it was the power of parliament. One clause allowed Protestants to bear arms at the expense of Catholics - hardly a libertarian principle.

You can't claim every legal principle that establishes or safeguards freedom to be solely libertarian; habeas corpus is as much a fundamental part of democracy as it might be a libertarian state. To use HC to evidence a claim that the British Constitution is based on libertarian principles is misleading.

Then you fail to understand the English and later British experience. Nobody, not even me, claims that a Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson or Hayekesque group of men surrounded the King and demanded individual rights for everybody - the constitution was ever evolving but was based on those principles. It was only in the 1700s and 1800s that the individual line of thought came into maturity with the flourish in academic liberalism (now called classical liberalism).

The British constitution is the father of libertarianism.

The way this state (and most others) works, most people have decided that's a good idea. If people thought - oh, actually, you know what, we've taken this a bit far now - then they would change the way they vote at the next election (even starting a new party if they had to). But they don't, because the people chose how they want to be governed and this is what they've chosen. It's great to have these libertarian principles and they can seem quite sensible sometimes. The problem is that they're not great when it comes to actually working.

So if the majority voted tommorow to overturn gay marriage (as many American states have done) or voted to make homosexuality illegal once more, is that justified because the majority voted for it? yes or no.

Also, you keep saying it would not work - why not? if we truly followed libertarian principles then gay marriage would have long ago been de facto legalised by getting the state out of it and we wouldn't have the endless debate back and forth about whether or not it should be legal and what safeguards to put in place. It'd be a done and buried issue. The same applies to homosexuality itself.

It was libertarian principles (liberty) that overturned the ban on homosexuality, had it been down to democracy it would have remained illegal.

[Spoltage]

Because gay people aren't humans right? Like it's totally unethical and weird like snow leopards.

Well someone doesn't like gay people.. we are clearly humans...

Sam