puppydog85 wrote:Ok, Stalin (am I really having a discussion with a guy name stalin about the wrongness of coercion?)
Hey, no worries. I'm BigBallin, so it's all good. And Stalin was just misunderstood. He's such a great guy if he doesn't suspect that you're against him!
puppydog85 wrote:One- I you seem to think I want to force it on someone. I don't. I fully support a republican form of government. A side note here, I am not forcing gay marriage, they are. It is the norm in society that they not marry. Should you not tell them not to raise such conflict? I think that any new law should be made with the consent of the people and if they want to be stupid and enact crazy laws then so be it. But that won't stop me from telling them that it is stupid (that would be your situation #2 from earlier). But until that point I would be willing to use my rights as a citizen to vote a against a law that I think is immoral or frame a law that I think is right (ie. don't kill people)
What's the Deal with Theocracy?When you say, " What's wrong with a theocracy?", I'm going to list reasons that are wrong with theocracy. Hopefully, you've distanced yourself from any remote appeal you may have had for imposing a theocracy on 330+ million people. To be clear, asking that question to me is similar to asking, "what's wrong with Applied Socialism--Soviet Union style?" It's almost as funny as "what's the deal with airline food?"
Consent?In a representative government like the US, you don't get direct consent of the people. You vote for a promised, political package which hopefully is released through the State's monopoly on the legislative and legal system. I don't find this form of governance to be one founded on proper consent; therefore, it is not legitimate and in fact does not convey the consent of the governed. Furthermore, majority rule doesn't automatically lead to the promotion of justice.
My main policy is promoting the incurrence (*copyright pending) of consequences on the political boundaries whose residents have created them. That is, people should eat their own costs, instead of being able to impose them on everyone else (or onto huge groups of other people). If community A doesn't want gays to marry, then fine, but their jurisdiction is limited to their own community, and they can suffer (or gain) from the consequences.
Fighting the Good Fight?Using the state-granted means to prevent gays from marrying is morally impermissible on the grounds that consenting adults should be free to love another and should have equal access to the state-granted benefits from marriage. So, yes, people should support individual freedom and equality before the law, and yes, the conflict is justifiable. It's definitely worth the costs of offending a portion of the religious whose religious managers won't be required to marry gay couples.
Call me a libertarian, but that's how it should be.
Of course, you'll disagree with this because the Christian God says so, and I eagerly await for you to push for new laws requiring that all women who have had sex before marriage shall be stoned to death. You'd have to be logically consistent to push for such a barbaric practice, but I think your own moral intuition prohibits you from stoning extra-marital sex offenders (which would imply that your morality is at times independent of the Christian god's word).
What explains your inconsistency here? I can only wonder why... Maybe it's similar to jay's underlying reasons for being against gay marriage?
puppydog85 wrote:Most Muslim law has no problem enforcing there law upon a people by the sword. I would strenuously object to any effort by a Christian to do so. Most Christian missionaries work in such a way as to change a culture from within rather than enforcing in from without (exceptions obviously).
Let's use Mass. and PA as examples. Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage. Wrong by me but now it is the law of the land for them. I do not advocate nuking them to change their laws. I would attempt to convert them and get it changed by popular support furthermore if I was so put out by it I would move. Now on to PA, (let's assume that the Anabaptists here would actually vote) some homosexual couple wants legalize gay marriage. I would fully support any law enacted by our republican form of government outlawing it and it would pass because of popular support. I would not support breaking the law though to sneak some ban through by oh let's say a Supreme court order (I don't believe in judicial review). And if they don't like it then they can move, too.
Ultimately, all laws are enforced through the threat of violence, which is the last resort, so your criticism against Islamic law applies to Christian law and laws legislated by the State and through customary law. Interestingly, the Muslims provided tax incentives for those who wished to convert--according to Bernard Lewis' The Middle East.
Again, majority rule doesn't automatically lead to upholding that which is just. But if your means are peaceful, then at least your means are peaceful...
"they can move if they don't like it" argumentYour means for changing such laws would be fine if the laws only applied within a municipality or a district of a city. The transaction costs of moving from a district or city are significantly less than the transaction costs of moving from a State or the US. So, in my mind, the difference in transaction costs matter because I'm a moral consequentialist. It's less fair to require someone to move from an entire country compared to it being more fair to require someone to move from a city district.
Why do I support this? Because it's voting with one's feet. This form of competition induces politicians to ensure that they incur the costs of their own policies--and do not impose such costs on others. This form of competition ruins the "concentrated benefits, dispersed costs" incentive, which enables perhaps all crony capitalist policies.
puppydog85 wrote:Your Amish example, well, I live in Pa and work and live with the Amish/Mennonites. And trust me they have ways of enforcing their laws. You are free to go but your family might shun you/ refuse to do business with you and you can kiss you friends goodbye.
Oh, of course, peer pressure acts as an enforcement mechanism, but with that voluntary association, the costs of defecting are significantly lower than being pressured to leave a State or country. Due to the difference in these costs and in the means of enforcement, I'm fine with peer pressure being applied to such a small political boundary--compared to the alternatives.
Besides, other associations (like living in a State or country) can impose more than just peer pressure. If you disagree with your family, you can move out. If your dad holds a gun to your head to enforce his will, then at least you have legal means to seek redress, or you can covertly leave.
If you disagree with the state, well..., haha, you can be violently coerced into tolerating it, or incur a tax for leaving (and incurring the significant costs of moving to another country)--assuming the state even allows that. And if the state holds a gun to your head, well you can appeal to their monopolized courts, haha. As for leaving covertly? The Amish got nothing on the NSA, CIA, FBI, DoD, and the blah blah and blah.