toshiromiballza wrote:

qwertyytrewq wrote:

Homosexual (equal) rights is an easy one to solve (just change the law, people who oppose it just have to deal with it like they dealt with interracial marriage and women's rights).

Are you living in a dictatorship where you can just decide to change the law without the people's approval? As long as the majority opposes it, tough luck. If the majority agrees, good for them.

Human rights aren't subject to popular vote.  Discriminatory laws aren't either.

Hyperborea wrote:

Yes, and not that long ago so was inter-racial or inter-faith marriage. In many parts of the US they'd still like to ban it too. Should we submit that to a vote too?

If you have a majority that is against it, yes, why not. If you have a minority that is against it, no. Why would a democratic country, where the majority decides, have laws that the majority is against? Today, the majority are supportive of inter-racial marriage, but if this should change in the future (not likely), then the majority should have the right to vote against it. It just so happens that there are more people today that are against homosexual marriage, so tough luck for them. If this changes and the majority become supportive, tough luck for the opponents.

Quite simple.

toshiromiballza wrote:

Quite simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

?

toshiromiballza wrote:

kitakitsune wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

?

I can invent a phrase too: "Tyranny of the minority." Really simple to figure it out, I think.

Yeah, but Tyranny of the Majority is an actual concept, and yours is some nonsense you just made up.

toshromiballza wrote:

If you have a majority that is against it, yes, why not. If you have a minority that is against it, no. Why would a democratic country, where the majority decides, have laws that the majority is against?

So I guess if the majority decided to reinstitute slavery, or (as you mentioned above) stoning adulterers, that'd be ok?

toshiromiballza wrote:

JimmySeal wrote:

So I guess if the majority decided to reinstitute slavery, or (as you mentioned above) stoning adulterers, that'd be ok?

Quite an extreme example for America, which is not ever going to happen... BUT, if some other country decided on those things, so be it. Not that it would be okay. But then again, who am I to tell them what "okay" is? If their majority thinks it's okay, tough luck for me.

No, but let's say for the sake of argument that your home country agreed to pass one of those laws.  You'd be ok with that?

Zgarbas wrote:

IceCream wrote:

Wait, i see, it's just the minimal state concept. Ayn Rand. ew.

....How is it Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand is an objectivist, which is pretty right wing. Minarchy started out as a functional alternative to anarchy, basically from the concept that the state is a necessary factor as humans need something to keep them safe.

Basically, you're what you make of yourself. if you can't make something of yourself because of factors you can't control (no parents, poor parents, being sick, what not) then the state should be there to help you out by providing for you until you can make something of yourself. It also keeps you safe by enforcing laws which keep others from getting in the way via crime&co. But if you can't make something out of yourself it's your own fault, as it's not the state's job to nanny you around if you can take care of yourself, and people shouldn't expect that.

It isn't the state's job to reform the way the world works, and that's a pretty hard thing to do as it's the way it's always worked. If you can't fit in when you've not had any considerable disadvantages then it's your own fault.

Maybe socialist not as much offending as communist, although, thanks to communist propaganda, some people in Eastern Europe seem to think that they are the same thing.

Also, comparing to US most European states *are* socialist (even Australia is) – just watch Sicko by Michael More to see how the American (sorry, the US) system is screwed up.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

According to Wikipedia "Minarchism" doesn't mean what you seem to be purporting that it does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

" In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions."

"Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, supports the establishment of a minarchist state responsible for a court system, police, and military."

I'd also like to point out that it's also really hard to define what are factors you can control yourself and what you cannot control. You are basically saying that "we know EXACTLY what to do! ... provided we know all these things that would tell us exactly what to do". Like most strategies built on ideals, it is too far removed from practical implementation to be useful in reality, even if the most able minarchist alive was given total power to build a minarchist state, compromises would have to be made etc. etc. and basically the state would end up struggling with many of the same issues as current states do.

In fact, the same thing can be said regarding many of the issues brought up in this thread. Sure, some, even many things can change if leadership is switched around. But no matter how competent the leadership, some problems will be left. Not leastly because as much as the US might hate it, their leadership can't change everything on their own - and I'm not only talking about international political actors, in fact the biggest obstacle is probably the mega-companies that seem to be growing ever more powerful. I'd love it if someone figured out a way to combat them, but I don't see anything so radical that is also somewhat realistic being presented or being on the rise. But what do I know, maybe if "independent" parties gain control and a greater political diversity is achieved in the US, that will lead to chain reactions where corruption is decreased.

Regarding the "unwashed anonymous unintellectual masses" mentioned earlier - I personally think the contempt for "non-urban" citizens is overdone, though suggesting lack of good education is the main problem is somewhat - what are their young generations like? Are Bible Belt youngsters jumping on the social networking bandwagon? I really hope that our generation, or at least those ten years younger (ie ca 13 year olds) will gain an increased belief in citizen action and that we'll be better at updating ourselves on happenings using multiple and independent sources, even as we grow older.

On the other hand, I was recently mind-mucked by how extremely conservative my classmates, studying PSYCHOLOGY at one of the most respected universities in Sweden, are. Discrimination of homosexuals, badly guised racism, defending arbitrary norms and taking them for granted, pure lack of ability to even consider that it would be OK for a psychology to attend a swinger party in their free time if they want to... I'm finding more and more that there is no place you can go to be free of bigots. But hey, at least people aren't being totally racist all the time everywhere! Openly anyhow.

Edit: "Black people have the most testosterone of all races, and with testosterone comes aggression." OH SHUT THE F- SOURCE! GODDAMN SOURCE! AND NOT JUST AFRO-AMERICAN PEOPLE, ALL BLACK PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID! Moreover, the link between testosterone isn't quite as simple as you make it out to be. This is such total bullshit to push a racist agenda I can't believe it. Oh, and how would you even know it's caused by genetics and not the added societal stress of being a discriminated minority with more day-to-day problems regarding basic things like providing for your family? YOU DON'T! BECAUSE ALL YOU'VE READ IS SOME POP PSYCHOLOGY/SOCIOLOGY BULLSHIT THAT HAPPENS TO MESH WITH YOUR RACIST BELIEFS! God. Damn. Don't even try to save face, it's just not defensible. The "oh he said 95% of all nig- I mean black men are criminals? ohh that's maybe slightly exaggerating but HE TELLS THE TRUTH!" stuff was bad, but this is just hideous. You're a racist, pure and simple.

Last edited by Surreal (2012 September 24, 1:49 pm)

Surreal wrote:

According to Wikipedia "Minarchism" doesn't mean what you seem to be purporting that it does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

" In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions."

"Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, supports the establishment of a minarchist state responsible for a court system, police, and military."

I'd also like to point out that it's also really hard to define what are factors you can control yourself and what you cannot control. You are basically saying that "we know EXACTLY what to do! ... provided we know all these things that would tell us exactly what to do". Like most strategies built on ideals, it is too far removed from practical implementation to be useful in reality, even if the most able minarchist alive was given total power to build a minarchist state, compromises would have to be made etc. etc. and basically the state would end up struggling with many of the same issues as current states do.

Ayn Rand may support the establishment a minarchist state, but that doesn't mean her philosophy has anything to do with minarchism. It shares a common principle to a point, but for completely different purposes (minarchism supports the minimal state because freedom is good but a state is necessary; Ayn Rand supports the minimal state because screw everyone who wants to leech). Libertarianism is about minimal state intervention, but the reasons as to why and the nuances of the ideals have formed many subbranches with little to no in common aside from this common factor.

Back to minarchism. Basically minarchism is sketchy to define since it's pretty new. The basic idea that people should be what they make of themselves and that the state should only be there to support matters the people can't control is there, but how far this should go is pretty much a personal factor. Imho the welfare part of the deal is a given since otherwise there would be too much natural selection and too little organization consisting of rational human beings. Of course, your mileage may vary. You also have to keep in mind that minarchism was formed as a response to anarchism as Proudhon defined it, and shares many of its ideals but wishes to do so in a more realistic manner. Knowing a bit about Nozick's views, I think saying that minarchism only cares about state institutions which keep people in line, rather than help those in need is a bit silly.

Also, as to the practical implementation of a minarchist state, don't get me wrong, I'm not even dreaming of such a state. I am fairly well aware that it's a personal ideology (thought I'd leave a note on that in my original post, but eh). In the real world I'm all for democracy. You'd be surprised at how well they go together. Or how well they would go together had I been living in what I like to think of as a real democracy anyway =/, but I'm sure you have better things to read about.

Btw, toshiromiballza, have you actually read that article? And are you seriously dissing positive discrimination whilst saying non-positive discrimination is normal?

He's a great spokesman for Ron Paul -- majority vote can institute slavery, Blacks are all criminals, marriage isn't a human right, etc.

As for Bush in Iraq, I honestly don't think oil was the primary reason.  The primary reason is pretty clear -- Bush, Cheney, and the other high-ups had the incredibly naive view that they could march into Iraq and turn it into a US-supporting democracy in a few months.

toshiromiballza wrote:

The reasons are historical, economic, cultural and genetic. Yes, genetics play a role in it as well. Black people have the most testosterone of all races, and with testosterone comes aggression. Most are also rather slow, with the black IQ being some 15 points below the national average. Add all these things together and you have a recipe for disaster. People can call me a racist for pointing these things out, but I don't care, I'm not afraid of the truth, however inconvenient it may be for some.

How do you know testosterone levels are necessarily caused by genetics? Could they be the result of diet or physical/social environment? Likewise, what are the causes of their lower overall IQ? You're right that it's important to accept the truth, but it's even more important to know how to effectively deal with it. For instance, if the cause of increased testosterone is mainly diet, focusing on a genetic solution won't be very helpful. Understanding the cause is important for finding effective solutions.

toshiromiballza wrote:

To prove it's not merely an economic issue, take a look at Appalachia. Mostly white uneducated rural-type people, the poorest part in America, actually, yet almost zero crime. Indian or Chinese immigrants that come to the US with little money are not criminally inclined either. Their children become successful doctors and make a nice living. They even outscore the majority in schools. So no, it's not simply an economic issue.

The post you replied to did not say that only economic factors are the cause of crime, but rather an important one. As you noted, there are also historical, physical, and other factors. I suspect the key difference between Appalachia and impoverished urban slums is the physical and social environment. There's a big difference between living in an idyllic mountain range with almost guaranteed farm labor and a loving family and living in a crowded, crime-ridden ghetto with few opportunities and little support.

Last edited by vileru (2012 September 25, 12:16 am)

Hyperborea wrote:

kitakitsune wrote:

Hyperborea wrote:

Yes, and not that long ago so was inter-racial or inter-faith marriage. In many parts of the US they'd still like to ban it too. Should we submit that to a vote too?

Where are these parts of the US in 2012 where the people want to ban inter-raciial/faith marriage?

I would suggest some of the obvious choices. Alabama finally repealed their anti-miscegenation law in a 2000 popular election with only 60% of the vote. 40% of those voting wanted to retain the anti-miscegenation law. Thankfully even if the vote had gone the other way the law was still dead due to the Loving case of 1967 which ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.

So basically there is not a single place in the United States where people want to ban inter-racial/faith marriages. No vote would even be close.

Last edited by kitakitsune (2012 September 25, 1:28 am)

The results of the 2000 election in Alabama are available by county. But the point is there isn't a single state in the US where that kind of vote would even come close. In order for your statement to be true you would have to continue breaking down the state into counties and finally individual towns...But then you could easily find a group supporting racist policies in every state...

vileru wrote:

How do you know testosterone levels are necessarily caused by genetics? Could they be the result of diet or physical/social environment? Likewise, what are the causes of their lower overall IQ?

Because geneticists have proven so. Diet or the social environment makes no impact on testosterone levels that are produced during infancy and later childhood. It's a genetic thing. Asian men have the least testosterone levels, by the way. The IQ thing is both genetic and environmental, but mostly genetic. There's a clear link between IQ and race, with East Asians having the highest IQ, and Aboriginal Australians the absolute lowest. Such is the result of our evolution and there is no point in arguing about it. It is what it is. African people or the Australian Aboriginals evolved without the need for much critical thinking over the many millennia because of their environment, and thus have lesser intelligence on average.

vileru wrote:

The post you replied to did not say that only economic factors are the cause of crime, but rather an important one. As you noted, there are also historical, physical, and other factors. I suspect the key difference between Appalachia and impoverished urban slums is the physical and social environment. There's a big difference between living in an idyllic mountain range with almost guaranteed farm labor and a loving family and living in a crowded, crime-ridden ghetto with few opportunities and little support.

Yes, it's important, I agree, but it's genetic and cultural as well. They are offered education, as is every other child, they could go make something out of themselves (and while some do, most don't). Look at the Chinese or Indian immigrants who came here poor. They outscore the white kids. But this is where the lower IQ of blacks comes to play a factor and they simply can't manage what other students can. Thus, they give up and think of school as a joke. Whose problem is that if not their own? Are we supposed to make the tests easier for them? That's ridiculous. Although I heard the Affirmative Action you guys have in America does something in that regard, i.e., universities accept minority students with lower grades over the students with better grades. The Asian kids, although a minority, don't even need this AA, because they do so well in school anyway.

There are also more poor white people living in America than there are poor black people, yet the prison statistics still speak for themselves, even though one would expect the group that is the majority both in the overall population and in poverty to come out on top.

Just because what I'm saying is not politically correct doesn't make it any less true, and just because I'm speaking the truth doesn't mean I should be labelled a racist (Tzadeck).

Last edited by toshiromiballza (2012 September 25, 3:32 am)