Gay Marriage

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/12/2004, 11:50 am

Seriously Doug, you say you "own" your land, but I ask you this. Prove it. What with a piece of paper that says you do? Big deal, to a fellow anarchist that piece of paper might as well be toilet paper, because that is what I'd use it for. Oh you handed a few pieces of cloth over to the previous "owner" so that makes it yours you say? And what value did those pieces of cloth have? Nothing to me without something to back it up. Hey look, I just wrote something down on my own piece of paper that says your house actually belongs to me. Get out of my house! Bang!! You're dead. My house now. Ahhhh, sweet, sweet justice.

Face it, without the government, your property deed means nothing, your money is worthless, and the only rights you have are the ones I choose to respect.

Oh and by the way, a mansion next to my house would increase the value. Kind of like being next to a lake. or a golf course, or any other highly marketable area. Businesses tend to go where the money is. Honestly, being an economics expert, you should know that. As they say, location, location, location. Would you rather have a house built next to a garbage dump or one on the beach. And don't come back with a silly answer like, it depends on the condition of the house, or "I hate the beach".

One last thing. Stop pretending anarchy gives you this almighty power to protect yourself where government takes it away. You say protecting yourself is "safer" than the police. How is this so. What? The presence of government all of a sudden makes me defenseless against intruders of my home? I am fully capable of buying a gun, hiring guards and private investigators, and getting locks for my stuff with or without government. So how is that little tidbit BETTER in anarchy? That just doesn't make any sense. With the police, not only do I get to protect myself but I get the bonus deterrent for criminals to make them think twice about doing something. No it won't work on all, but it will work on the ones that are worried about consequences.

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 7/12/2004, 11:59 am

Well Doug would defend himself with his gun and his willpower.

Random Name · Post by **Random Name** » 7/12/2004, 12:03 pm

We don't own anything. We just borrow it for a while.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 7/12/2004, 12:57 pm

man i'm tired of fighting

it seems like we're always going around in circles

so if we don't change the debate a little

then i think we should all just quit.

but anyway

Corey, the rights i'm talking about don't need anybody to recongize them, because they are self-evident

natural law is axiomic. i don't need a government to recognize it.

you're right, you could buy a gun today. i couldn't, though. My government regulates the firearm industry.

my money would have value because other people want it, not because of the state. that's the only thing that gives anything any value anyway - demand.

yes, i understand how real estate works. my point was, even if the guy next to narbus lives in a dump, his property is not going to automatically drop the lowest common denominator.

NEW QUESTION

You guys don't think anarchy is rational. Why not?

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 7/12/2004, 1:42 pm

I think you're right we're going around in circles. So here's my take on your new question:

It's not that anarchy is inherently irrational. The theory of "rational self-interest" is an interesting one and not without merits. The problem is, people rarely actually act in rational self-interest in a Randian sense. Furthermore, acting selfishly is not always ethical. It's in a corporation's rational self-interest to procure a monopoly on their market by buying out the competition or killing them/destroying their property if they refuse. It's in their rational self-interest to make as much money as possible, even if that means exploiting their employees and creating products that, say, cause cancer. It's in their rational self-interest to pay off the media so the story about their use of sweatshops and the poisonous chemicals in their products never gets out. This is all great for the corporation's executives, not so much for anybody else. It's ridiculous to say that everyone's rights would be respected if everyone acted in "rational self-interest".

But even if that weren't the case, people don't act in rational self-interest most of the time. I mean, it's not in anyone's rational self-interest for a psychopath to break into your house and kill your family, but that doesn't make you any less dead. It's not in a blood donor's rational self interest to give blood, but thousands do it all the time, and thousands of lives are saved because of it. It's not in a religious zealot's rational self-interest to waste time and energy trying to convert strangers, but that doesn't stop them from annoying you on the street corner. Fact is, people are not automatons that always act rationally.

Therefore, the basis of the entire system of Randian anarchy is flawed. And just because you say people should act in rational self-interest doesn't mean that they will.

Tattooed Angels · Post by **Tattooed Angels** » 7/12/2004, 2:43 pm

I am going off topic here with Gay Marriage for a moment.

they had in the paper today about the Gay Family Cruise that Rosie O'donnel and her Wife did. It was a cruise from NYC to Florida then Bahamas for same sex families. I have tosay I did like the idea. they should be able to enjoy the same kinds of vacations we are Non-Homosexuals can

This now explains why I saw a Cruise Ship the other day

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/12/2004, 2:44 pm

Would you share that opinion if it were a "Straight Cruise"?

Tattooed Angels · Post by **Tattooed Angels** » 7/12/2004, 2:46 pm

Corey wrote:Would you share that opinion if it were a "Straight Cruise"?

'

share what opinion. I don't know if you know, but I am for Gay Rights. I ahve always done volunteer work with the AIDS charity in NYC. The biggest one being the GMHC(Gay Men's Health Crisis) plus I am a big Fag Hag. I also have a few Male Gay Friends who are *married* or have significant others

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 7/12/2004, 2:50 pm

What he's asking is: Would you be okay with a straight-only cruise?

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 7/12/2004, 2:57 pm

whoa nelly, this one here's a bard burner.

Tattooed Angels · Post by **Tattooed Angels** » 7/12/2004, 3:01 pm

Axtech wrote:What he's asking is: Would you be okay with a straight-only cruise?

why would you ask that.? It be kind of stupid to say I like that they Gays can cruise but the non gays can't. I am a little confused on this question.

I was saying it is great that these same sex families have this option. You have to know that alot of places(spas, cruises, etc) are against same sex couples and families. That is why I said I was glad to see something like this.

speaking of cruise. One year I love to take a cruise up the Amalfi coast in Italy.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 7/12/2004, 3:06 pm

The point is to question whether or not it's right to say that there's a cruise or a place or an event for only one group of people but not another.

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 7/12/2004, 3:06 pm

I think the actual question is, unless the cruise line is banning same sex familes from them, they are allowed to go just like anyone else. Obviously on this particular cruise it was same sex families only allowed. Would it be ok to have heterosexual families only on a cruise ship? I think it's segregation...basically.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 7/12/2004, 3:08 pm

Exactly.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/12/2004, 3:31 pm

Ok, lets stop and assume that the gay cruise ship allowed straight couples as well.. but still it is marketed as a "Gay Friendly" cruise. Are we on the same page? Ok, good.

Likewise gays would be allowed on this imaginary "Straight Cruise" (like any other cruise) only it would be marketed as a Straight cruise.

Example:

"Come bring the whole straight family! It will be a totally hetero time! Man & Woman couples will have a super time on this cruise!"

Fine print: "gays allowed too."

Does anybody see something wrong with this picture?

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/12/2004, 3:34 pm

psycho groupie wrote:I am a little confused on this question.

That's putting it mildly.

For the record: I don't have a problem with a gay cruise. Just creating conversation.

Tattooed Angels · Post by **Tattooed Angels** » 7/12/2004, 3:50 pm

Corey wrote:
psycho groupie wrote:I am a little confused on this question.

That's putting it mildly.

For the record: I don't have a problem with a gay cruise. Just creating conversation.

YOu know you talk about gay marriage which to me is stupid cause marriage is marriage.

I said there was an article in the paper today about a cruise so same sex families could go on vacations together.

It was a way for same sex families to meet other same sex families.

if you think same sex families are as welcome on other cruises youare sadly mistaken.

If you are going to talk about gay marriage then you should be able to talke about gay familes. Alot of the couples who want to get married want to have familes or do have families.

here is the link to the full story anyway

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/ ... 2043c.html

Random Name · Post by **Random Name** » 7/12/2004, 3:55 pm

but its only drawing attention to differences and singling out certain groups. While we are at it, why don't we have black-only cruises? Doing things like this only create a wider gap. Its basically the opposite of equality.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 7/12/2004, 3:59 pm

One-Eye wrote:It's not that anarchy is inherently irrational. The theory of "rational self-interest" is an interesting one and not without merits. The problem is, people rarely actually act in rational self-interest in a Randian sense.

Aha, but they do. Most people don't walk around shooting others or robbing them. I ask you, do you believe that people behave out of fear of the government, or out of what's called "common sense"?

Most members of the population are not violent criminals.

Furthermore, acting selfishly is not always ethical. It's in a corporation's rational self-interest to procure a monopoly on their market by buying out the competition or killing them/destroying their property if they refuse.

No, it's not. Violence (ie murdering your competitors) is not rational. That's my entire problem with government. Coercion is not okay.

Please make this distinction. The reason i bother to use the term "rational self-interest" is to draw the line between doing whatever you want, and doing whatever you want so long as your respect the lives of others.

It's in their rational self-interest to make as much money as possible, even if that means exploiting their employees and creating products that, say, cause cancer.

Exploiting the employees how?

PS Cigarettes cause cancer. They're produced right now, in a democracy. And they're a big friend of big government.

It's in their rational self-interest to pay off the media so the story about their use of sweatshops and the poisonous chemicals in their products never gets out.

Again, fraud and knowingly poisoning consumers is not rational behavior. Killing people or deliberatley misleading individuals is a violation of their natural rights.

This is all great for the corporation's executives, not so much for anybody else. It's ridiculous to say that everyone's rights would be respected if everyone acted in "rational self-interest".

But it's really not.

But even if that weren't the case, people don't act in rational self-interest most of the time.

Come on. yes they do. The fear of the law is not what keeps my co worker Trent at work in favor of commiting crimes. It's his own "moral compass" that says he should earn his living the honest way.

Keep in mind that even if it was the fear of concequences that helped maintain his behavior, that same fear would still exist without a government.

I mean, it's not in anyone's rational self-interest for a psychopath to break into your house and kill your family, but that doesn't make you any less dead.

Still happens, government or no.

It's not in a blood donor's rational self interest to give blood, but thousands do it all the time, and thousands of lives are saved because of it. It's not in a religious zealot's rational self-interest to waste time and energy trying to convert strangers, but that doesn't stop them from annoying you on the street corner. Fact is, people are not automatons that always act rationally.

Let's talk about what rational self interest means. If a person is motivated by some reward, be it materialistic (money) or emotional (a warm fuzzy) and they take an action based on this motivation then they are acting in their own interest, even if it's an act of charity.

So long as doing so doesn't involve killing or harming another individual or their property, then the person is also acting rationally.

So the zealot the blood donor and the good samaritan are all behaving rationally and they're all acting in their own interest.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 7/12/2004, 4:00 pm

Random Name wrote:but its only drawing attention to differences and singling out certain groups. While we are at it, why don't we have black-only cruises? Doing things like this only create a wider gap. Its basically the opposite of equality.

hear, hear!