Do these people never learn?! Frist backs Ban on Gay Marriage.

[Berzerker]

awfully catty tonight, eh?

Hypocrisy leaves a bad taste. Notice how others are copying and pasting but I never see you guys whine about them.

[Berzerker]

Templar -

A communal property system fits in with Jesus's teaching. As I said, a sort of "fiscal communism".

Voluntary communal systems are not communism. The Bolsheviks adopted the word "communism" from voluntary
farming co-ops to disguise what they were really planning.

True, but the community agrees their should be a tax policy, and the vast majority accept that the tax policy will involve actual taxes. It pays for things like education.

The community doesn't agree - some agree, others disagree, and some don't even participate in the process for whatever reason. But at least we settled that matter...I hope...

Now, now. I said kings (William the Conquerer to be precise) invented our property system. Later Kings and parliaments gave non-king people more rights.

Doesn't that mean kings preceded the idea of property? So, when a group of people grew food crops and someone else walked in to take or destroy their crops, the owners didn't react in any way that would leave one with the impression that they "owned" those crops?

Yes, animals. So if a bunny digs a hole in your yard, does this mean you can't remove him/her without violating his/her property rights?

Rights are a human invention involving moral claims of sovereignty between humans.

Animals are another example of taking things by force. The bunny only stays until you force it out. Yes a dog will defend it's territory but are you suggesting that a dog has some sort of right to its putative "property" that extends beyond his/her force to exclude others.

No, I'm saying even dogs instinctively know that property matters. If, as you claim, property isn't natural, then we wouldn't see this kind of behavior from animals.

The whole point of private property is that the community respects some bundle of rights that you have with respect to some things. For instance, if you own a parcel of land you have the right to alienate (or sell), the right to devise (or will), and have the right to exclude others. You may even have the right to develop the land - but your right to develop is constrained by zoning regimes. Get it? The government defines and creates property - but all property is is your bundle of rights with respect to a thing.

The fact government interferes with our property rights means nothing. Would you argue German Jews had no right to their possessions because the Nazis robbed them?

Exactly. If you made a dwelling, and someone else came in and threw you out that dwelling became theirs. No courts/cops/officials mean no one to enforce any right you might have. Pure right of force. It sounds like you're trying to make some sort of Lockean labor theory argument here. Unfortunately, Locke was wrong.

Obviously we don't agree on the definition of the word "rights".
You seem to think you have no right to live if someone murders you. A right is something to which one has a just claim, a moral claim. The fact someone might kill you doesn't mean you don't have a moral or just claim to live, it means they are violating your moral claim. How would you react if you built that dwelling and were forced out? So would the rest of us. Why? Because we all understand who had the moral claim to that dwelling.

This will come as a suprise to you, but yes murder is to some extent a political construction. The most important dimension to murder is the moral dimension. But if you feel that killing enemy soldiers is justified, then the moral and legal dimensions to murder do not exist exclusively.

While "murder" is a legal term, it describes an act that can occur with or without a legal system.

Now we could debate just war doctrine, but if you assume some form of the just war doctrine is true, then murder is to some extent a political construction.

If no government existed and my gang tried to kill your family, it wouldn't be murder if you killed us in self-defense. But if we did kill your family, that would be murder. Some governments only adopted this concept, they didn't invent it.

Don't confuse natual rights with legal definitions. Humans are a natural phenomena, property is a social construction.

Property rights are better preserved by involving others who share an interest in self-defense, but that doesn't mean those others gave me the right - the moral claim - to defend my property.

Moreover, I find it ironic that libertarians always think of slavery as a wrongful taking of one's property in one's self. It seems to me that slavery is best avoided by removing living beings from the relm of property entirely.

Slavery is the forceful acquisition of labor. If I spend years from my life to build a home and you take it away under communism, aren't you taking those years of labor from my life? For slavery to be accepted, one must first agree that the property rights of the victim are to be ignored.

The Nazis biggest crime wasn't a property crime. Nazis didn't steal Jews, they murdered Jews (morally, if not legally). I don't need to reduce people to property to protect their rights.

Before the Nazis began slaughtering Jews, they robbed them. And alot of that property ended up in Switzerland, which is why the Swiss were called to task - sued - for their involvement.

No government = no property. Ergo, no property = no moral claim to property

Millennia of people bartering their possessions before government refutes your assumption. How do you feel about the Brazilian government confiscating the lands of Amazonian Indians? If we were the only people on the planet and no government existed, how would you react if I walked up and took everything you had? Would you say I was behaving immorally?

Where does this moral claim come from?

Individual sovereignty. Your life is yours, not ours. Whatever created you failed to put a leash around your neck and hand us the end.

Justice does not entail property. According to Rawls (the best US political philosopher) Justice means something like fairness. Now once a property system is imposed by the state, we can talk about the justice or fairness of the system. But if their is no property system, there is no question of justice in property terms.

Does this mean government didn't create justice?

I'm still waiting for a verse quoting Jesus telling his followers to "tax" others or confiscate their property for the "community".

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
Nah, he's just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Are you kidding, he's setting new standards for hypocrisy.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


**shrug** I'm not about to get into a debate over activist judges vs. activist lawmakers. It seems that, depending on one's viewpoint, they're saints or Satan incarnate. Me? I take it case-by-case and this is a clear instance where Bill Frist is being a pandering politician, not a statesman.

The more I think about, maybe the Libertarians do have a point when it comes to individual rights. But, honestly, that's putting a helluva lot of faith that individuals will always do the right thing. And, as the human condition can easily attest to, that's not always the case a significant part of the time.

Gatekeeper

I'd prefer a more libertarian-minded government for exactly that reason. Once in a while there is someone who will fool most of the people most of the time, and I'd prefer that this person has the least amount of leverage possible to do his mischief. A smaller government means that there is that much less to fall on your head when that time comes.

[GePap]

Millennia of people bartering their possessions before government refutes your assumption. How do you feel about the Brazilian government confiscating the lands of Amazonian Indians? If we were the only people on the planet and no government existed, how would you react if I walked up and took everything you had? Would you say I was behaving immorally?

How do you define government? Man is a social being, and thus has always lived in groups, groups that set up customs and taboos and then enforce them. They may not make LAW, but they make norms and customs. It is only within such a system that bartering can take place, since there is anorm that the objects traded will be of equal value to the ones giving them.

As for morality, it changes. Take slavery: it was viewed as normal and morally correct for millenia. You can not base a system of absolutes on something so variable as morality.

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
while I can understand the ban on homosexual marriage, that of ethnic minorities is hilarious.

And desevces the idot of the year award!

[David Floyd]

As for morality, it changes. Take slavery: it was viewed as normal and morally correct for millenia. You can not base a system of absolutes on something so variable as morality.

So your argument is that slavery was moral in the 1700s?

[*End Is Forever*]

Well, it was viewed as moral by the majority. In essence, "morality" is utterly subjective.

[David Floyd]

Well, it was viewed as moral by the majority.

That's not what I asked. Was slavery morally OK, just because everyone said it was?

In essence, "morality" is bollocks.

So, then, the Holocaust was OK, too?

[*End Is Forever*]

No, of course slavery wasn't okay because the majority thought it was. The question is, who is right? Whose morality is correct? It's utterly subjective...

[Sava]

Hypocrisy leaves a bad taste. Notice how others are copying and pasting but I never see you guys whine about them.

Geez, take a chill pill... long cut and paste posts are your calling card buddy!

[David Floyd]

No, of course slavery wasn't okay because the majority thought it was. The question is, who is right? Whose morality is correct? It's utterly subjective..

If morality is utterly subjective then how can you make a blanket statement that slavery was wrong? At best, you can say that as far as you are concerned, slavery is wrong, but this wouldn't necessarily be true for everyone.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Was slavery morally OK, just because everyone said it was?

At that time, yes (at least to those that took that view).

So, then, the Holocaust was OK, too?

To German higher-ups, at that time, yes, it was moral.

[David Floyd]

At that time, yes (at least to those that took that view).

So slavery was moral up until the point in time when 50% + 1 decided it was immoral?

To German higher-ups, at that time, yes, it was moral.

So the Holocaust was moral because the Germans didn't think it was wrong. Right?

Those are indeed the logical extensions of your beliefs, and if you want to continue your beliefs to that level, be my guest.

[*End Is Forever*]

It was moral to the Germans.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So slavery was moral up until the point in time when 50% + 1 decided it was immoral?

Yep... but to certain individuals it was still moral to own slaves even after it was declared illegal.

So the Holocaust was moral because the Germans didn't think it was wrong. Right?

Right.

Those are indeed the logical extensions of your beliefs, and if you want to continue your beliefs to that level, be my guest.

I don't need to be your guest, I can say it myself .

[David Floyd]

EiF,

It was moral to the Germans.

And immoral to, say, the Jews. By extension, the British/French intervention in WW2 was moral to the British/French, and immoral to the Germans. So, then, both the Holocaust and the British/French declaration of war were both right and wrong. If this is the case, you have no logical basis for punishing anyone for an act you consider to be wrong, because their equally valid view is that the action is right.

Imran,

Yep... but to certain individuals it was still moral to own slaves even after it was declared illegal.

And to certain individuals murdering infidels is moral, but that doesn't make it so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And to certain individuals murdering infidels is moral, but that doesn't make it so.

To them it does. And if the leadership or the society believes it moral than to the society it does as well.

[Berzerker]

Sikander -

I'd prefer a more libertarian-minded government for exactly that reason. Once in a while there is someone who will fool most of the people most of the time, and I'd prefer that this person has the least amount of leverage possible to do his mischief. A smaller government means that there is that much less to fall on your head when that time comes.

So true, brutal dictators who resort to mass murder always have big, intrusive governments backing them up.


GePap -

How do you define government?

That's a rather difficult and somewhat subjective question.

Man is a social being, and thus has always lived in groups, groups that set up customs and taboos and then enforce them. They may not make LAW, but they make norms and customs. It is only within such a system that bartering can take place, since there is anorm that the objects traded will be of equal value to the ones giving them.

Bartering can occur without any government and did for who knows how long. But true, being social creatures in need of protection in a violent world, people eventually banded together beyond the family unit. But since we are debating government, taxes, and theft, I'd say some kind of government endorsed or manufactured currency and actual taxes would be a pre-requisite.

As for morality, it changes. Take slavery: it was viewed as normal and morally correct for millenia. You can not base a system of absolutes on something so variable as morality.

It may have been viewed that way by the slaveholders, but I doubt the source populations "supplying" the slaves would have agreed. So, would those slaveholders have such a ringing endorsement of slavery if they were the slaves? No, morality is absolute, not variable, and the Golden Rule adequately shows why.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, morality is absolute, not variable, and the Golden Rule adequately shows why.

And what if a society refuses to follow the Golden Rule? What if they say 'screw em'? You may say they aren't moral, but they'd think they, themselves, were moral, and they wouldn't care what you'd say about your 'absolute morality' because their morality is different. You can call them 'immoral', but not like they'll give two shits.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Templar -

Voluntary communal systems are not communism. The Bolsheviks adopted the word "communism" from voluntary
farming co-ops to disguise what they were really planning.

Not worth responding to since I'm not talking about Bolshevism.

The community doesn't agree - some agree, others disagree, and some don't even participate in the process for whatever reason. But at least we settled that matter...I hope...

I would say the vast majority of people (minus nutjobs in Montana living in shacks) support taxation in some form. The question is only how much and who pays.

Doesn't that mean kings preceded the idea of property? So, when a group of people grew food crops and someone else walked in to take or destroy their crops, the owners didn't react in any way that would leave one with the impression that they "owned" those crops?

I have no idea what the first political system to create property rights looked like, so I don't know if it was a monarchy of not. I'll only say government precedes property. Property is, in fact, nothing but a government regulation on the use and distribution of resources.

Rights are a human invention involving moral claims of sovereignty between humans.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm only talking about property, not other conceptions of rights. We can save that for another thread.

No, I'm saying even dogs instinctively know that property matters. If, as you claim, property isn't natural, then we wouldn't see this kind of behavior from animals.

Dogs are instinctively territorial, seeking to exclude other dogs from their territory. This is not the same as property. The right to exclude and exclusion by force are not the same thing. You can exclude me from my property by force for example.

The fact government interferes with our property rights means nothing. Would you argue German Jews had no right to their possessions because the Nazis robbed them?

I don't know much about the legality of Nazis seizing Jewish property. If the government extinguished the property rights, then yes it was legal. Not fair or just bcause it only targeted Jews, but legal. If there was some sort of Nazi due process that was involved and was not followed then it was theft.

Obviously we don't agree on the definition of the word "rights".
You seem to think you have no right to live if someone murders you.

I already said that this was not my position. Please argue with my actual position if you want to argue.

While "murder" is a legal term, it describes an act that can occur with or without a legal system.

Again, reread my post and argue with my actual position. I said murder had a political dimension in that certain homicides, like killing enemy soldiers, was sanctioned by the state. If you believe one does not have a moral right (or obligation) to kill enemy soldiers - then murder has no political dimension. But if you do believe that such a killing is not murder, and given that the state defines the enemy, then murder does have a political dimension.

Slavery is the forceful acquisition of labor.

Really? I thought slavery was the reduction of people to chattel. One did not need to do labor to be a slave.

If I spend years from my life to build a home and you take it away under communism, aren't you taking those years of labor from my life? For slavery to be accepted, one must first agree that the property rights of the victim are to be ignored.

Wrong. Conceivably, you could have a system of slavery where slaves could own property but whose bodies were still the chattel of their masters.

And labor is only property if it is propertized under a property system.

Before the Nazis began slaughtering Jews, they robbed them. And alot of that property ended up in Switzerland, which is why the Swiss were called to task - sued - for their involvement.

True, but non-sequitur. What does this have to do with property rights?

Millennia of people bartering their possessions before government refutes your assumption. How do you feel about the Brazilian government confiscating the lands of Amazonian Indians? If we were the only people on the planet and no government existed, how would you react if I walked up and took everything you had? Would you say I was behaving immorally?

When was this barter happening? Ancient Egypt? Sumeria? India? China? They all had governments. Of course, even without property on can barter. It often proves "cheaper" than fighting if you are about equally matched against your opponent.

Individual sovereignty. Your life is yours, not ours.

Yes, because treating life as property is morally wrong.

[Shi Huangdi]

It was moral to the Germans.

The Germans were wrong.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

And what if a society refuses to follow the Golden Rule?

It would be an immoral society depending on how it violated that rule.

What if they say 'screw em'? You may say they aren't moral, but they'd think they, themselves, were moral, and they wouldn't care what you'd say about your 'absolute morality' because their morality is different. You can call them 'immoral', but not like they'll give two shits.

Would both they and I be right?

Templar -

Not worth responding to since I'm not talking about Bolshevism.

But that was how the word "communism" came to have another meaning. Are you suggesting communism is voluntary?

I would say the vast majority of people (minus nutjobs in Montana living in shacks) support taxation in some form. The question is only how much and who pays.

So once we exclude those who don't agree because they are "nutjobs", we're still faced with the reality that your claim is false since at most a plurality agrees with tax policy.

I have no idea what the first political system to create property rights looked like, so I don't know if it was a monarchy of not. I'll only say government precedes property. Property is, in fact, nothing but a government regulation on the use and distribution of resources.

Then why tell us kings invented property? And if you don't know what political system invented property, why tell us government preceded property?

Maybe, maybe not. I'm only talking about property, not other conceptions of rights. We can save that for another thread.

But the enlightenment thinkers who came up with "rights" included property. In fact, before Jefferson put "pursuit of happiness" in the Decl of Independence, property was the 3rd inalienable right...you know...those rights given us by the creator...

Dogs are instinctively territorial, seeking to exclude other dogs from their territory. This is not the same as property.

Sure it is, but if you want to substitute "territory" for "property" because my example shows property is natural, I understand...

I don't know much about the legality of Nazis seizing Jewish property. If the government extinguished the property rights, then yes it was legal. Not fair or just bcause it only targeted Jews, but legal. If there was some sort of Nazi due process that was involved and was not followed then it was theft.

"Not fair or just"? I thought government invented property, so why would fairness or justice matter (btw, you didn't explain if government invented these too)? According to you, government invented property and we have no rights except for what government allows us.

I already said that this was not my position. Please argue with my actual position if you want to argue.

So we do have a right to life that precludes being murdered? Where did this "right" come from?

Again, reread my post and argue with my actual position.

Maybe if you made your position clear instead of adding in a bunch of caveats about killing in war time, I'd know your position.

I said murder had a political dimension in that certain homicides, like killing enemy soldiers, was sanctioned by the state.

All I asked was if we had a right to life that precludes being murdered.

Really? I thought slavery was the reduction of people to chattel. One did not need to do labor to be a slave.

Would you care to show examples of slavery not being used for labor?

Wrong. Conceivably, you could have a system of slavery where slaves could own property but whose bodies were still the chattel of their masters.

Can we deal with the institution of slavery as it has been practiced? If they were slaves, they didn't "own" anything.

And labor is only property if it is propertized under a property system.

Once you labor to make a spear for hunting, you've invented a property system.

True, but non-sequitur. What does this have to do with property rights?

According to you, the Jews had no property rights because government invented property. Those whose property was stolen didn't let that "logic" prevent them seeking damages.

When was this barter happening? Ancient Egypt? Sumeria? India? China? They all had governments. Of course, even without property on can barter. It often proves "cheaper" than fighting if you are about equally matched against your opponent.

Re-read my post, I said bartering existed for millennia before government. And claiming people can barter without property is ridiculous, just what do you think they're exchanging?

Yes, because treating life as property is morally wrong.

That's nice, but not what I said. In fact, that has nothing to do with what I said...

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Templar -

But that was how the word "communism" came to have another meaning. Are you suggesting communism is voluntary?

Communism predated Bolshevism. Bolshevism was socially and fiscally communist. I'm talking about a communal as opposed to private property system. I had hoped the inference was obvious - but why infer when a rhetorical cheap shot is easier?

So once we exclude those who don't agree because they are "nutjobs", we're still faced with the reality that your claim is false since at most a plurality agrees with tax policy.

Plurality = most popular but less than 50%
Majority = over 50%

Since even the libertarian party believes in taxes to fund defense and police, this leaves anarchists and nutjobs in Montana who categorically disagree with all taxes.

Then why tell us kings invented property? And if you don't know what political system invented property, why tell us government preceded property?

While that is an interesting question for archaeology, its not important for the present discussion which is conceptual - not empirical. Property, being a social construct defines and enforced by the state, the firat state to institute a property system had the first type of government to create property as a regulatory tool.

But the enlightenment thinkers who came up with "rights" included property. In fact, before Jefferson put "pursuit of happiness" in the Decl of Independence, property was the 3rd inalienable right...you know...those rights given us by the creator...

And Newton told us light was particles. Newton was half right. The enlightenment thinkers thought property was a natural kind and natural right. They were half right, property is a right or entitlement - but a state created one. People tend to get things wrong occasionally.

Sure it is, but if you want to substitute "territory" for "property" because my example shows property is natural, I understand...

territory is space, property a bundle of rights. This is a conceptual difference which you tried to elide. I'm separating them out. A dog has no bundle of rights with repect to his/her territory - that territory is maintained by might, not right.

"Not fair or just"? I thought government invented property, so why would fairness or justice matter (btw, you didn't explain if government invented these too)? According to you, government invented property and we have no rights except for what government allows us.

Where did fairness and justice come from? That is a long philosophical question that exceeds the size of this forum. If you want to start a thread for this topic, fine.

But assuming fairness is a standard external to legal systems, one can judge whether or not a legal system is de jure or de factor unfair. Racism is unfair, so any property system that operates is a racist manner (say group x can't own property for instance) is unfair to the extent that it is racist.

So we do have a right to life that precludes being murdered? Where did this "right" come from?

Like fairness and justice, this would require its own thread. Suffice it to say that Kant and Hegel, to name two, have their own theories of how rights exists without a basis in property.

Maybe if you made your position clear instead of adding in a bunch of caveats about killing in war time, I'd know your position.

And if you read carefully you would understand my position. My point is, for the third time, war is not a natural state. It is a construct that requires other social constructs like nation, enemy, ally, etc. Murder has a moral dimension (leaving aside law for the moment). If you believe killing an enemy soldier in war is not morally murder, then you believe murder has a social component. If you remember correctly, you asked if murder was also like property created by the state. I answered.

All I asked was if we had a right to life that precludes being murdered.

Sure.

Would you care to show examples of slavery not being used for labor?

Many large slaveholders in the south purchased "quadroon" slave solely to rape and torment. I take it being raped does count as labor since it is neither productive nor voluntary.

Can we deal with the institution of slavery as it has been practiced? If they were slaves, they didn't "own" anything.

You asked a conceptual question about slavery. Conceptual questions often require hypothetical answers. You argued that the nature of slavery precluded slaves owning property. I argued this was not a necessary element of slavery. Whatever property rights actually belonged to slaves are irrelevant to the question of necessity.

[QUOTE]Once you labor to make a spear for hunting, you've invented a property system. [QUOTE]

Once you mine and smelt gold, you own it by virtue of admixing your labor with the material. WHile your not looking, I fashion the gold into a beautiful statue that is worth more than the mere value of the gold. I have also admixed my labor with the material. Who owns the gold and who owns the statue?

You are essentially espousing Locke's labor theory of property. My hypothetical shows just one of the many problems it creates. Locke's theory is not sufficient for understanding property.

Moreover, even if I did by the argument that your labor gave you some moral interest in the property, is that the whole story? Suppose you are the worst hunter in the tribe, but Bob is the best. Unfortunately, Bob can't make a spear to save his life - but you are the master of spear making. As tribal chief, I might decide that Bob has a greater right to the spear than you because he can actually use it. I also decide since Bob needs you spear, he has to share an equal portion of his meat with you. Here we have a centrally planned system of communal property where the tribal chief distributes entitlements. Is it fair? Sure, everyone benefits. Does it involve private property? No. Locke's theory is also not necessary for property.

Ergo, the labor theory of property is neither necessary nor sufficient to understand property so it is wrong insofar as Locke employed it.

According to you, the Jews had no property rights because government invented property. Those whose property was stolen didn't let that "logic" prevent them seeking damages.

Once the system was put in place, the Jews acquired property rights. The only question is whether the Nazi system allowed for the wholesale dispossession of the Jews. If it did, then the Jews had no property rights - but the system was neither just nor fair. Again, you are eliding concepts which are separate.

Re-read my post, I said bartering existed for millennia before government. And claiming people can barter without property is ridiculous, just what do you think they're exchanging?

Possession. If you are big and I am small, you will take my fish. If you are small and I am big, I will take your shoes. If we are approximately equal and don't feel like risking a fight, we might trade possession of fish for shoes. Possession without right is not property, and the right is created by the state even if the possession is not.

Now as fun as libertarian-baiting is, I hereby declare victory and bid you farewell.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by The Templar
Now as fun as libertarian-baiting is, I hereby declare victory and bid you farewell.

At least you managed to agree with yourself most of the time, I suppose that's a moral victory of some sort.

[David Floyd]

Now as fun as libertarian-baiting is, I hereby declare victory and bid you farewell.

Of course, you ignored my last post where I took apart your Sermon on the Mount example. Great method of debate, that

[mindseye]

Sorry to interrupt the debate with something on-topic, but... from today's Washington Post:

Bush Unsure Ban on Gay Unions Is Needed
Backing Standard Marriage, President Sidesteps Question
By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 3, 2003; Page A02


President Bush yesterday reaffirmed his belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman," but he sidestepped the question of a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay unions -- reflecting the cautious approach the White House is taking to a potentially explosive public debate.

Last week's Supreme Court decision to strike down the nation's remaining anti-sodomy laws has left some conservatives convinced that so-called "defense of marriage" laws prohibiting gay marriage cannot survive future court challenges. As a result, a move to amend the Constitution to define marriage as applying only to male-female couples has rapidly picked up strength. Last Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he supports such an amendment.

In an exchange with reporters, Bush said he is waiting for a legal analysis of the court's decision. "I don't know if it's necessary yet," he said of a constitutional amendment. "Let's let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court hearing. What I do support is the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer echoed that position in his daily briefing. "This is a matter for lawyers to assess," he said, "and I don't know that there is any clear assessment that anybody has at this point about the legal ramifications of a just-made decision."

Bush is stepping gingerly on an issue that could inflame his conservative base if he equivocates, or turn off live-and-let-live swing voters if he takes a stand that smacks of intolerance. He is also aware, one adviser said, that a constitutional amendment is extremely hard to win -- it must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states.

As one Capitol Hill Republican described it: "Bush is trying to defend the traditional idea of marriage without getting into the realm of gay-bashing."

Inside Bush's campaign strategy meetings, the sudden emergence of the issue has been surprising and unwelcome, one participant said. Although Bush would have a hard time winning an election in the gay community, his administration has taken steps to avoid being seen as antagonistic of gays. Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, who have a lesbian daughter, have expressed support for equal rights for gays. Without fanfare, the administration has appointed about 20 openly gay officials to government positions, according to the Texas Triangle, a gay newspaper.

Republicans have been thinking for some time that the gay marriage issue would enter the 2004 presidential election from stage left, through the rising prominence in the Democratic field of former Vermont governor Howard Dean. He signed the country's first law legalizing "civil unions" for gays, and it shows signs of becoming a for-or-against issue in the Democratic primaries. GOP strategists believe Democrats will alienate moderate voters if their nominee is supportive of gay marriage.

Having the issue boil up on the right, however, could be a problem for Bush.

"The president does not want to go back to the culture wars of the 1980s and early 1990s," one Republican strategist said. "He remembers what happened to his father in 1992," when Patrick J. Buchanan set the tone of the GOP convention by declaring "there is a religious war going on in our country," and urging Republicans to fight it "block by block . . . [to] take back our culture, and take back our country."

Instead, the strategist said, Bush would prefer to "culturally marginalize the Democrats, without reopening the culture war."

A longtime Bush friend was more forceful. "This is just not an issue we want to talk about," he said. "It plays to a negative stereotype of Republicans as sex-obsessed and narrow-minded. Swing voters -- and the libertarian elements in the Republican Party -- will not enjoy a debate about a constitutional amendment on gay marriage."

But some leading social conservatives believe the issue cannot be dodged. Gary Bauer, who ran for president in 2000 on a religious conservative platform, said in an interview yesterday: "Unless the president's lawyers are from Mars, they will tell him that there is no longer a legislative bar to same-sex marriage. At that point, it will not be possible for the administration to remain neutral as this debate heats up. I don't think they should even try to be cute about it."

The president of the conservative Family Research Council, Ken Connor, was less categorical. He said Bush's position so far is "prudential." But he too predicted that Bush will have to take sides. "All elected officials . . . are going to be forced to express their viewpoints on the meaning of marriage and the role of heterosexual marriage in our society," Connor said.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It would be an immoral society depending on how it violated that rule.

That's fine. But what if they don't care if you consider them immoral?

Would both they and I be right?

What does being right matter if they have all the power?

What absolute moralists just don't see is that it doesn't matter who's right. It never does. It just matters what the guys who have the power think. If you have a different opinion, and think you are right, well that doesn't matter when you are in a dank dungeon somewhere for disagreeing with the almighty ruler (or in a democracy, you get ignored by the rest) .

[The Templar]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Of course, you ignored my last post where I took apart your Sermon on the Mount example. Great method of debate, that

I'm only declaring victory on property - Berz is arguing about arguing and bringing up Locke's labor theory. The surest signs I have won on all substantive points.

As for your sermon on the mount thing (that got buried at the end of a page unfortunately), sinc I have the rest of the day off ...

Sermon on the Mount:
Matt. 5:3-11 essentially deals with rewards in heaven for certain types of people on earth. We cannot assume that this applies to people who are forced to "be good", because rewards in heaven, and indeed the status of salvation, revolve around the status of one's heart, as any Christian or Biblical scholar can tell you.

And the essence of demonstrating your good nature politically is to be found on the left. People using tax revenues to further projects directed towards the collective good. But granted, being taxed to feed and shelter poor people will not make you good. Said policy has to flow from a good heart. But a good heart will vote for this policy.

Matt 5: 13-16 are irrelevant verses for this discussion.

Not at all. Jesus is saying your good cannot be confined to prayers or the private feelings of your heart. In essence, Jesus is affirming that indeed the personal is political. So that one is not truly good unless that good is expressed with respect to the community (i.e. politically). Actions speak louder than feelings.

That is, a putatively good person who acts in selfish ways is like salt that has lost its taste - good for nothing

I might be off, but my girlfriend has work and is kicking me off the computer. More to follow.

[Shi Huangdi]

"

That's fine. But what if they don't care if you consider them immoral?"

Depending on just how immoral, then said society could be up for some "liberation"