Free Republic

Off the thread. Just downloaded Scalia's dissent. I'll read that before the majority opinion. Best to save the worst for last.

Valid question. It is a chicken and egg question. You could make a strong argument that WWII was the culprit. Morals, from what I understand, tend to decay after major wars. Having said that, the case for enforcement of the public morality is still valid whether or not people want the public morality enforced. If they do not want it enforced, however, it won't be. The people themselves are the enforcement mechanism

What was the compelling state interest to regulate heterosexual sodomy until 1960?

Cultural norms. It's hard not to notice that all kinds of sexual deviancy, and the effects thereof, took off in the 1960s.

No...one of the things you see a lot is liberals (and libertarians) arguing for federalism when it benefits their particular issue and conservatives arguing the opposite (for instance, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban), and vice versa when the terrain is reversed. I'm just being honest. However, it's difficult to argue what is and what is not 'Constitutional' these days. It kind of depends on whether or not Sandra Day O'Connor has taken her Metamucil.

From what I've read, there have been about three different working interpretations of the Constitution throughout American history. The last major shift was in 1937, the 'switch in time that saved nine', where much of the New Deal was upheld. I believe the 10th Amendment was finally finished off for all practical purposes in 1940, but I'd have to look that up. I'm a little foggy on that.

Do you think Texas should have the right to make marijuana legal? Gay marriage?

On gay marriage, I believe that Gov. Rick Perry just signed a Defense of Marriage act, but yes, if the people of Texas were somehow insane enough to want that, sure. That's why social conservatives like me want to amend the Constitution with a Federal Marriage Act to stop that from happening in every state (I'm not worried about it being passed into law by a legislature; I'm worried about the kind of judicial activism we saw today).

Regarding marijuana, it gets a little more complicated. Again, I'm arguing from the 'original conception' of the Constitution that libertarians love to 'defend'. Under that regime, with a very narrowly interpreted ICC (interstate commerce clause) then yes. Today, no way. One state legalizing marijuana would never pass muster. You might want to note here that banning alcohol took a Constitutional Amendment (18th), but ever since roughly 1937 that kind of narrow interpretation of the ICC has kind of gone by the boards.

If the land isn't yours, you have no such right under libertarianism. To assert such a right on land you do not own, or is publicly owned is initiation of force or fraud.

In my example, the society would determine the scope of property rights. Voluntarily. This argument fails.

That argument has all the veracity of a trial lawyer working on a contingency fee.

I'm a lawyer (never practiced, almost certainly never will), but the last time I got paid by someone it was by straight commission (sales). That's a more honest way to make a living than chasing ambulances, I think.

You are holding up pretty well here IMO, as well as others I imagine.

I love debating libertarians. Nothing like giving Randians good, old-fashioned Tom and Jerry-like upside-the-head whoppings with the logic stick.

1. Who owns the land? You never say. If the land in your small society is privately owned, those who own it can tell gays or anyone else to leave for any reason, or no reason at all.

Completely irrelevant. Under the libertarian construction of things, if people voluntarily agree to organize society in any way they wish, that's kosher with libertarians. Doesn't matter if the land is communally owned or privately owned. The small society has to agree, voluntarily, on social organization. However they do that is irrelevant to the argument, because whichever way they do it, it's voluntary. Perfect libertarianism.

Are you asserting that the gay men are breaking a rule they consented to? This is a profound breakdown of logic on your part

I stated that there was a pre-existing taboo (social rule) on sodomy. It was well established. By living in that society, they agree to abide by it.

A libertarian society cannot have laws that initiate force or fraud, no matter if everyone there agrees to them. The gay people in your example never initiated force or fraud in their actions.

Sure they did. They initiated fraud. There was a pre-existing, informal, covenantal agreement forbidding homosexuality. They broke it.

I can understand why you're arguing specifics. You've pretty much lost the broad point.

i assume you would have no problem with them at that point in time, correct?

No, I still would. Homosexuality is immoral now and forever. Having said that, I'm consistently amused by you libertarians always instantly promoting social conservatives to positions of super-authority. Gotta be Freudian. Anyway, if society has descended to that point and people have no problem with it, there's not much one guy banging away on a keybord on the North Shore can do about it.

What century are you living in? Are you telling me this isn't already the state we're in?

If people have changed their opinions so greatly, then there should be no problem with voting on this, should there.

No, I'm against this vote because the people of Texas have a right to regulate their society for the greater good. As I detailed in the longer post, there are both profoundly negative public health and public morality implications for the public acceptance of homosexuality. I would try to make this case to the people of Texas or anywhere else if I could. If they blew me off and voted otherwise, there's not much I could say.

If the people want to go to Hell, they're going to Hell, sodomy statutes or no.

Your example fails, because the folks in your case in point aren't libertarians. They're authoritarians. Your example is centered around a majority denying a right to a minority. That is not Freedom, it is authoritarian rule. There is no right to not have your sensibilities offended. (l)ibertarians understand this.

Actually, no, my example does not fail. You're thinking it fails because it destroys libertarianism right before your eyes and you don't want to believe it. If you assert the right to homosexual sex, I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex. I assert it to the point that I do not wish to be in the same society as people who practice it. The people who practice it cannot survive by themselves and thus need people to support their behavior. I do not wish to support their behavior.

There is a conflict between the "right to homosexual sex" and the "right to free association". What homosexuals really want is the "right to homosexual sex while violating everyone else's right to free association". Thus they have to find a way to force people who don't want to be around them to accept them while still engaging in behavior that hurts people who do not engage in it. They want to have their cake and eat it too. So, they have to "initiate judicial coercion" against non-compliant heterosexuals via the SCOTUS. Because if the state of Texas ignores this decision, there will be consequences. Financial and so on.

The SCOTUS just violated the "force, fraud, coercion" principle of libertarianism by initiating coercion against the people of Texas.

Happy Day, huh libertarians?

FYI -- Common sense & experience shows that the overwhelming anount of people in this society do not regard sex outside of marriage or sex for reasons other than procreation as "taboo".

Great. Then people will vote to remove that taboo by electing people to state legislatures who vow to remove laws reflecting that taboo. Pretty easy this voting stuff.

Would you like to see smoking cigarettes be banned? What about fast food joints

I always love how you libertarians reflexively appoint me Tsar. I have one vote. So do you. If you don't like my positions, vote against them. And no, neither.

Of course you do. Nobody owns you. You don't even need a reason. Secede all you want.

Congratulations freeee. You have just refuted libertarianism for me.

Effectively what you have just conceded is that people have a right to associate with people they wish, which should be obvious for a libertarian, right? Actually, this is a huge problem for strict libertarianism. Case in point:

Let's build a primitive society. A thousand people. They're all living together because they agree on basic standards of conduct, speak the same language, and so on. In other words, they like associating with each other. They share a small public infrastructure, a system of laws and so on. They are living together, of course, because people cannot live in a state of nature by themselves. They need to cooperate. Libertarians would obviously agree with this, because one of the fundamental truths of capitalism is the division of labor, i.e. people specialize in what they are good at. So you have this small, homogenous, cooperative society that is surviving pretty well.

Now, let's say that two percent of the society starts engaging in homosexuality. All men. And by doing so they insult the informal, voluntary rule-structure of society. This society has deemed homosexual sodomy to be taboo because it is a) dangerous to those participating in it, and thus costs this society in terms of having some of its members sick (lowering productivity and thus making everyone work harder, kind of like homosexuals today spread the cost of their perversion over society), and b) represents a violation of the informal understanding amongst this small society that heterosexual marriage and monogamy is the norm. This behavior damages society in that way because it breaks a taboo of society, namely that sex is for procreation inside of monogamous marriage. And the 'village elders' know from experience that if that taboo is broken, then heterosexuals will start engaging in non-marital, non-monogamous sex, and cause all kinds of other problems such as adulterous relationships, children born out of wedlock and so on. Therefore, the society itself has put it's own taboo on homosexuality (voluntarily) because it is detrimental to the whole.

So, the 'village elders', along with the rest of the 'village', come to these 30 homosexual men and tell them that their behavior is negatively affecting the community. It is causing problems, and the village wants them to stop. The men say, 'no, we have a right to engage in this behavior, and we don't think we're hurting anyone'. The village elders reply, 'Well, we think you are hurting us, by hurting our society. We don't want to punish you, but we don't want you around. We don't want to freely associate with you. Either you stop doing what you're doing, or you leave the village'.

So, the homosexual men have a problem here. They don't want to stop buggering each other, but they know full well that if they continue, they will be thrown out of society. They could choose to leave the society, and go it alone, but they also know that they'd probably die because the behavior that they engage in is inherently destructive. So, they know that they can't live without society, and society can live without them and their destructive behavior that is hurting society. Society is asking them to make a voluntary choice. If they choose buggery, they get banished to the wilderness to die. If they choose to give up buggery, they get to live.

Note, society is coercing these 30 homosexuals into stopping their behavior. Their choice is either heterosexuality and life, or going out into the state of nature to continue their homosexuality and death. But, they also have a free choice. It's up to them. Society has already spoken. Under the libertarian construction of things, the society--as a voluntary association of individuals, freely making the choice to associate with one another--has a perfect, libertarian right to determine who has 'membership' in the 'club'. They've decided that homosexuals do not qualify for membership. Homosexuals desperately want in the 'club', primarily because being in the club means safety and security, but they don't want to give up their homosexual behavior.

So, on one side of the debate, we have the 'right to free association', and on the other side of the debate we have the 'right to homosexual sex'. The homosexuals can't live without the heterosexuals, but the heterosexuals can easily live without the homosexuals. And the heterosexuals don't want to be around homosexuals. And this, my dear, is where libertarianism collapses. Because just as you can assert the 'right to homosexual sex', I can just as easily assert the 'right to free association', i.e. not be affected whatsoever by homosexuals. And both are equally valid, under the libertarian construction.

So, really if the homosexuals want all the great benefits of society, they have to give up their behavior. But the heterosexuals don't need to do anything. They'll just keep on keepin' on and not think a thing of it. The way this plays out in this debate today is that homosexuals tell us they have a 'right' to engage in their behavior, which is uniformly destructive and anti-social. I would like to assert my 'right' to tell them otherwise, but unfortunately what the SCOTUS told us today is not that homosexuals have a 'right' to engage in their behavior, but that society doesn't have a 'right' to stop it. And how would we know if the village (the people of Texas) approve or disapprove of homosexual sodomy? By voting, of course, through the elected representatives of the state of Texas. Basically, all the SCOTUS did today was disenfranchise Texas voters to please the PC cops.

Libertarianism is untenable. You assert a 'right' pro, I assert a 'right' contra. And because there's no way to know who's right and who's wrong in any objective way, it all comes down to power. In my example above, society had the power to dictate to the homosexuals. In Lawrence v. Texas, a pro-homosexual SCOTUS used their power to dictate to the people of Texas on behalf of the homosexuals. In other words, the homosexuals just hired some muscle. That's it.

Cheer your 'win', libertarians. It is suitably appropriate that the libertarian version of 'liberty' only works when it's being shoved on people by autocratic judicial diktat.

I've never before heard anybody assert their religion has a monopoly on charitable expression.

Christians more or less invented the idea of large-scale charity. Sure, other people are charitable, to be sure. But if we're talking America here, the most consistently charitable people are devout Christians.

But, hey, go for it.

Well, first, I think that I could take about 45% of the population of the U.S. with me (the percent that thinks homosexuality should be illegal), probably more since abortion and other things would be illegal there.

So, you're ok with this?

But what if I want to form my own society? What if I don't want to be affected by people who engage in anti-social behaviors whatsoever? You see, as hard as you try, I'm still going to have to pick up the costs for anti-social behaviors in some way. As long as I'm sharing a society with perverts, they're going to affect me in some way. We'll vote in the same elections, pay the same taxes, and so on. It's impossible not to be affected by people you share a society with.

Let's say I want to form my own society with other social conservatives. Let's call it Bluenoseprudeland. And then you libertarians and all your drug-addled, pervert friends can form your own society, Transvestitistan. That way, we can both be happy and live around people we like.

Don't I have a 'right' to live the way I wish, around the people I wish to live around? Isn't this the essence of libertarianism?

Do I have the right, freeee, along with like-minded citizens, to secede from a society that embraces homosexuality. Yes or no.