Gay Marriage

[Count Duckula]

The complete avoidance of responsibility for the defense and maintenance of our borders (aided and abetted by many a rich Texan hiring illegal aliens for his yardwork while carping about "them wetbacks" ***grrrrrrr*** some of my neighbors irritate me back home) is hardly utile (futile?) if they create a complete restriction to lawful trade and lawful travel and lawful immigration.

There I was taking a jab at US government people who criticize certain immigrant groups yet encourage others. Apparently the only rigor I have is mortis. :P

Are you familiar with "The Iron Law of Wages?"   :D

Not exactly. But I think I've heard it before.

EDIT: Thank goodness Wikipedia heard of it. Tis too long and Pete-like to digest this late at night. Will try it again tomorrow.

[Occhidiangela]

I would endorse an immigration policy biased toward well educated persons, since they enter our society with more to offer. The influx of South Asians/Indians in the past decade or more has been a boon, in my opinion, to the economy and society. Nice side benefit of increasing the availability of a good curry house/Indian restaurant, which in my completely personal and culinary opinion is a raising of the bar, and a raising of the choices and options for a fine dining experience.

Hmmmm, mixed eating and other topics, maybe I need to go and have lunch.

*checks the base*

Drat, not a good Curry House to be found. Curses, foiled again!!!! :(

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Or, perhaps we have traded the masters, for Mastercard. Naw. It doesn't work does it? Today's wage slaves have any number of potential masters to work for, and it is even possible to check out of the race entirely if you so desire. Some friends of mine with dual incomes and 2 kids just sold off all their possessions, and bought some acreage in rural Oregon to become self sufficient. Not the easiest path, but always an option.

[Obi2Kenobi]

I thought I had mentioned *somewhere* that it was due to another person's right being denied (me and my crazy liberitarianism), or rather, that it was somewhere in Ducky's post, which I was referring to. Sorry for not making that clearer.
*wonders when someone will bring up prisoners to mess with my argument*

[LemmingofGlory]

I thought I had mentioned *somewhere* that it was due to another person's right being denied

How are you using "rights"? Are you using the U.S. Constitution's definition of "rights"? If so, then that again illustrates Pete's point about societal influence because, in that context, a right is a right when the required legislation passes. If, instead, you define "rights" by the writings of a particular philosopher, then you may be talking about "natural rights" or "human rights" instead of legal rights. There also exists the possibility that you're using "rights" to include legal rights and other sorts of rights. In that case, what criteria do you use to decide what constitutes a "right"?

How one defines a right is critically important to certain arguments. For instance, one common argument relating to same-sex marriage is "The government is denying same-sex couples the right to marry." One would need axioms from which one can conclude entering into certain legal agreements is a right.

-Lemmy

[Chaerophon]

Today's wage slaves have any number of potential masters to work for, and it is even possible to check out of the race entirely if you so desire.

Typically libertarian, and typically wrong. Look outside of the United States and 'Western World' for once and you'll see that that is not the case. Hell, look 15 minutes south of Texas. Below subsistence wages are the norm in the Mexican Maquiladors because workers are not allowed to unionize. If they do take action, they are either forcibly removed (that's right, the military), or the corporation takes its business to some other third world country without the same class consciousness, and the working population is left to fend for itself. The IMF and World Bank instate "reconstruction frameworks", destroying any chance of 'internal industry building' by making impossible the kinds of Keynesian demand-side manipulation that led to our own industrial boom. Stripping them of that capacity means that our own corporations are more than welcome to come and go in these countries as they please, while their own self-sufficiency is rendered conditional on 'playing by our rules'. Rules which are deliberately constructed against the construction of their own socioeconomic well-being and render these countries dependent on Western investment for their survival. While these people may not, strictly speaking, be slaves, they are certainly not "free to do as they please" in such a way as you seem to think is the case. Completely reconstructing a country so as to please western investment interest takes its toll on "traditional ways of life". With the new reality of the working woman and "Free trade zones" in countries such as the Phillipines, a subsequent return to "tradition" following oppositional labour movements that drive corporate investment from the region is all but impossible.

A few prominent lurkers need to look beyond their own domestic interest and see how libertarian (in the definitional, rather than "Pat Buchanan" sense) free trade policies of which we are so proud play themselves out worldwide. While libertarians may look at how our modern society is constructed and argue that we are much nearer the ideal than what we were under the Keynesian Welfare State of 25 years ago, it is ridiculous to suppose that we would have our present industrial capacity without having undergone such domestic industry-building as took place during the crucial postwar era of 1950 to the late 70's. The supply-side Reaganomics of the 1980's were only possible because demand stimulus had favoured the creation of domestic industry. Stats bear this analysis out (If you can find a copy of a book by Stephen McBride entitled 'Paradigm Shift', the statistical analysis found therein is quite striking. Unfortunately, I doubt if you can.) Thus, the imposition of our present neoliberal models in foreign countries and free trade agreements such as NAFTA serve to lock third world countries, such as Mexico, into societal models that can be catastrophic for their own capacity-building potential. There's probably not much we can do about that. However, if you want to vaunt the merits of libertarian ideology, you should realize that the West's present drive towards the individual rests on the back of Keynesianism's process of domestic structural construction. Structural factors play as much (probably more) of a part in facilitating the reality of your individualist vision as does the rational 'soundness' of your ideology. The drive away from demand-side economics and towards supply-side measures has little to do with the "rationality" of libertarianism and a lot to do with the shift in the interests of dominant political elites (read mega-capitalists) following the industry-building phase of Western development in the mid-20th century.

[Ashkael]

What day of your life, Ghostiger, did you wake up and think "I want to pass on my genes and perform my duty to populate the earth, so I will be heterosexual." ? You've got it bass-ackwards. There are plenty of gay couples that would love to have children with their mates, but they can't. It's not that they elect not to have children; it's that neither partner can fertilize the other.

Spot on. One of my goals in life is to have at least one child with my mate, which will of course be adopted (assuming they would let a gay couple adopt a child! ;) ).

[kandrathe]

Look outside of the United States and 'Western World' for once and you'll see that that is not the case. ... Typically libertarian, and typically wrong.

Sorry, in the context of the discussion I was not thinking beyond the US. I was probably under the mistaken notion that we were still talking about historical social injustice in the context of gay rights and marriage in the US. Your tone is a bit off-putting, don't you agree?

So what is my opinion of the "Western World's" role in the geopolitical manipulations of macroeconomic policies. Um. In a nutshell. You need freedom, before you can have the kind of equitable nirvana you seem to be alluding is possible (if it weren't for these damn exploiting capitalist pigs). We can call it free trade, even though the "free" part only refers to one side. The individuals who live in the conditions you describe need to take responsibility for their own problems. In some places in this world there could be no population if it were not for trade, they are too barren to support the locals. I think we touched on this once before, and I thought you too freely mingled the societal problems with the economic situations. How do we stop exploitation? Well, stop allowing yourself to be exploited. We have all known people who continuously allow other people to walk all over them. So, yeah, sometimes that means you have to be willing to fight or die for what you believe is right. It's hard to critique your solutions however, as you offer no opinion other than to denigrate mine.

However, if you want to vaunt the merits of libertarian ideology, you should realize that the West's present drive towards the individual rests on the back of Keynesianism's process of domestic structural construction.

Unfortunately, we only have one historical example to review in 20/20 hindsight, that of a "Keynesian demand-side" post world war construction boon culminating in "supply-side Reaganomics". I imagine that other economic policy possibilities may have also been successful.

Ah, Libertarianism: "It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism. " What is appealing to me about libertarianism is that each individual takes responsibility for their own success, and expects that the State will not overly impede them and similiarly does not expect State sponsored handouts. At a macroeconomic level, I can see a role for the government in helping to promote trade and insure that it is equitable (e.g. no dumping -- and yes, I know we are as guilty as anyone at violating trade rules). Trade, in practice, is conducted between companies, and abused by some "mega-capitalists". There were times in the history of the US when unionizing was harrassed and laborers were killed. My father was a Teamster, and I used to work for a railroad so I have witnessed and been told many tales involving labor disputes some of which have been violent. My grandparents were farmers, and uneducated emigrants. In a way, I have a clear perspective on agrarian, industrial, and information economies and the modern role of individuals within them.

Sorry that I don't fit neatly into your one size fits all box, as I am guided by more than one ideology. I'm also a pragmatist as well as other "ists" and "isms" we need not delve into at this time. A society as wealthy as the US can afford to put in place some social safety nets to cushion those who fail, and help them get back into the game. I'm ok with that as long as those safety nets aren't hammocks.

If you can find a copy of a book by Stephen McBride entitled 'Paradigm Shift', the statistical analysis found therein is quite striking. Unfortunately, I doubt if you can.

Paradigm Shift -- Globalization and the Canadian State brought to you on the internet by hard working non-unionized software engineers, such as myself. Here is a review.

If I do find this book I will read it, but I'm a bit too skeptical to just be guided by one academic elitists opinion. Neo-liberal Globalism And It's Challengers : Sustainability In The Semi-periphery

Thus, the imposition of our present neoliberal models in foreign countries and free trade agreements such as NAFTA serve to lock third world countries, such as Mexico, into societal models that can be catastrophic for their own capacity-building potential. There's probably not much we can do about that.

Sure there is, just none palatable to the bleeding hearts who smash in the windows of Starbucks during their weekend protests against globalization. We either choose to remove trade barriers or we choose to remain trade isolated. Just a hunch on my part, but I would expect that NAFTA has had a dramatic effect on the price of automobiles in Canada.

Mexican exports to the US grew by an outstanding 234 percent, reaching $136.1 billion. Exports to Canada also grew substantially from $2.9 to $8.8 billion, an increase of almost 203 percent.  Baylor Business Review - NAFTA Turns Ten

Also check out CATO Institute's Economic Freedom of the World: 2004 Annual Report Mexico seems to be doing much better since NAFTA.

[Chaerophon]

How do we stop exploitation? Well, stop allowing yourself to be exploited. We have all known people who continuously allow other people to walk all over them. So, yeah, sometimes that means you have to be willing to fight or die for what you believe is right.

Your Americo-centric elitism is showing here. America was possessed of ideal socioeconomic conditions to facilitate revolution, and let's face it, a large part of the revolution concerned the right of the American bourgeois to expand ownership control over domestic resources. No such domestic industrial infrastructure exists, for example, in the Phillipines. Whereas Americans were previously British subjects and thus attributed some freedom in capacity building, Phillipinos are a cheap source of labour. That's all.

It's hard to critique your solutions however, as you offer no opinion other than to denigrate mine.

I'm not sure that I have solutions. Concrete theoretical solutions from a given rational perspective are overrated. However, understanding the way in which power structures and political agents function and exploit is key to debunking certain other concrete ideological perspectives, and only through the mass dispersal of such knowledge is the toppling of the neoliberal propaganda machine a possibility. Just so you know, I'm not a Communist. I do, however, believe that the purpose of the state should be to protect the quality of life of its citizenry rather than solely to facilitate capitalist interest. Contrary to globalist claims, if we really want to make efforts toward the utopian goal of the spread of social justice, peace and equality worldwide, I would argue that the nation state must be the fundamental unit of analysis from within which domestic parties may make claims for social change. Capacity building takes place as a function of groups obtaining a political voice within the context of the nation-state. As current neoliberal trade frameworks currently stand in the periphery/semi-periphery, internal voices are constrained by executive committments made at a supranational level and democracy is hampered all along the way by threats of alienation from the so-called "big fish".

So... can these people do it for themselves? I would say no, they need a fundamental shift in attitude from the Western world for that pipe dream to become a reality. Is that likely? Not at all; thus, my opinion that there really aren't any immediate solutions that pop to mind. Talking about it is sure fun though.

Unfortunately, we only have one historical example to review in 20/20 hindsight, that of a "Keynesian demand-side" post world war construction boon culminating in "supply-side Reaganomics". I imagine that other economic policy possibilities may have also been successful.

Well, other economic public policy possibilities didn't eventuate because they weren't as much to the benefit of domestic industry as was the public funding of industry/capacity building. Besides which, that's a little bit beside the point. Now that there is such a gap in terms of capital and technology between the "big fish" and 'developing' "little fish", Keynesianism is a tool that has outlived its use. Cheap labour abounds, and all one need do is cross the ocean to get it. Diminishing returns is a partial myth. While it is, logistically speaking, true, the nature of capitalist investment in the third world is transitory and external, meaning that it is not domestic "capacity building" as such, but rather, providing them with the tools by which to supply the western world with cheap goods. Because it does little to improve their own capital stock, it does little to improve their social conditions, and so there is, as of yet, very little in the way of a "catch-up" effect. In fact, apart from the case of the "Asian Tigers", where domestic protectionism provided them a little bit of leeway in the pre-neoliberal reality of the modern era, the cheap labour of the third world has benefitted the global North far more than the South, and the gap has widened rather than shrunk between us.

What is appealing to me about libertarianism is that each individual takes responsibility for their own success, and expects that the State will not overly impede them and similiarly does not expect State sponsored handouts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for personal responsibility. However, what is unappealing about libertarianism to me is that it drags individualist rhetoric into a world of power relations over which the average lone individual, or even an assemblage of such individuals holds little to no control. The reality of what I call the Libertarian vision is that through its prioritization of property rights over any other societally determined rights, it would facilitate the continued control of dominant groups and individuals while robbing the rest of society of its voice. Ideological Libertarianism is a reductionist neoliberal protective sham, disguising exploitation and the status quo in the garb of 'personal responsibility' or 'individualism'. It would do nothing to protect the hard working; rather, it would reward the lucky and the powerful while robbing the rest of society of their right to appeal on the basis of collective shared sentiment.

Natural selection has no place in a world of inheritances and dynasties.

A society as wealthy as the US can afford to put in place some social safety nets to cushion those who fail, and help them get back into the game. I'm ok with that as long as those safety nets aren't hammocks.

I hate to point it out, but the US loses out far more every year from the wealthy few cheating on their taxes than it does from those who would use welfare as a 'hammock'.

If I do find this book I will read it, but I'm a bit too skeptical to just be guided by one academic elitists opinion. Neo-liberal Globalism And It's Challengers : Sustainability In The Semi-periphery

Good idea, Laxer is brilliant.

Just a hunch on my part, but I would expect that NAFTA has had a dramatic effect on the price of automobiles in Canada.

I would rather pay a bit more for cars and have retained the jobs, identificatory institutions (i.e. health care, our right to cultural protection a la UNESCO) and domestic control that we have lost or will soon lose under NAFTA.

Your economic evidence will have to wait until tomorrow. Until then...

[Jester]

"Just a hunch on my part, but I would expect that NAFTA has had a dramatic effect on the price of automobiles in Canada."

Maybe it did something, I'm not entirely sure, but there definitely isn't any drama behind it. Car prices in Canada are, and always have been in my lifetime, undramatic.

Jester

[Chaerophon]

Hmmmm... I had prepared a big long reply to your post, but I don't think that I'll put it up. Your point is well-made.

This is true enough:

Fine. But realize that that is, for this argument, an *assumption* and not a conclusion. You use that (as you should) as a springboard to argue for a certain treatment of humanity. But that starts where my point ends. My point was that you need to examine why you subscribe to such a belief. To do so, you need to examine those that did not subscribe to your belief (Cicero comes to mind with his instrumentum vocalae). You need to examine why for most of six thousand years of recorded history slavery, caste systems, sexual discrimination, etc. etc, were the *unquestioned* norm. Once you understand *why* most of humanity did not share your viewpoint and why you do, then you are on the path of knowledge and independent thinking.

I am *not* saying that your assumption is wrong (for I hold one very similar -- and don't feel like going further afield by arguing the differences), but simply that your assumption is, at as far as this thread goes, unexamined.

Anyways, I think that I misinterpreted your initial post a tad. There is some merit to your Hobbesian realism, and I mistook your relativism as a moral justification for those acts that were once considered 'just' when in fact you were merely pointing out that that was the way that it was.

However...

...the concept of "inherent entitlement" is what makes the modern liberalism a bad joke. Mankind has no rights other than those that they are willing to fight for. Just because overeducated idiots were handed these 'rights' on a platter by those who bled for them does not mean that these 'rights' are 'entitlements'. The modern liberal is an immature brat who is not thankful for his toys because he did nothing to earn them and has never considered their price. He exercises his sovereignty by the good graces of those who earned it for him and returns the favor by denigrating their sacrifice.

A bee in your bonnet perhaps? ;) Perhaps you stray a bit far in your own generalization?

Anyways, point well taken, and I welcome hearing your own "assumptions" some time in the future.

[Occhidiangela]

Why are so many leaving? Granted, some folks just pass through on the way Norte from other nations, but I can promise you, there is more than economics at work.

Not better enough, I suppose, is where one begins the discussion.

Malthusian challenges due to an unsophisticated approach to family planning and birth control.

The belief that "there's a chance I'll be better off."

And a few dozen, at least, other reasons.

My own observation is that the loopholes that allow for exploitation of lax enforcement of Mexico's environmental standards result in a poisoning the Mexico's land in return for "economic development and growth." Does anyone really learn the lessons of the real costs of industrialization?

Methinks not.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

True enough that millions still press northward, but that will always be true until the gap between types of opportunities and quality of life disappear. I would say that conditions are improving, but not that have achieved equity. I view international working conditions and wage gaps as in effect high and low pressure systems. Whenever disparate systems collide there is bound to be a storm until things equalize. The past 20 years of liberalizations have removed the artificial restraints causing the some economic upheavals as the system naturally seeks equilibrium. Population growth is a problem when the nations resources cannot supply the masses, whether that be land, water, food or all of the above.

[QUOTE]My own observation is that the loopholes that allow for exploitation of lax enforcement of Mexico's environmental standards result in a poisoning the Mexico's land in return for "economic development and growth." Does anyone really learn the lessons of the real costs of industrialization?[quote]Yes, the holes of compromise poked into seemingly good ideas to accomodate the powerful wealthy campaign donors, while containing the veneer of fairness to fool the constituency.

[kandrathe]

I wasn't sure, and I could't muster any evidence one way of the other. The significant difference after NAFTA is that Canada has imported more machined goods from the US, mostly relating to automobiles. Second place was chemicals. My assumption was that baring regulatory tariffs, automobiles as a product or a change in price would have the largest impact on the average Canadian. But, there might have been pre-NAFTA agreements on some things.

[kandrathe]

Your Americo-centric elitism is showing here. America was possessed of ideal socioeconomic conditions to facilitate revolution, and let's face it, a large part of the revolution concerned the right of the American bourgeois to expand ownership control over domestic resources. No such domestic industrial infrastructure exists, for example, in the Phillipines. Whereas Americans were previously British subjects and thus attributed some freedom in capacity building, ...

Actually, I was thinking about labor history, but one might think of the US revolutionary war as an extension of labor unrest and a successful attempt of the workers in shedding the shackles of the master Britain. Geography helped alot. Really, the turn of the century period was more crucial world wide in forming the trade unions and thwarting unrestrained capitalists.

Phillipinos are a cheap source of labour. That's all.

I'm sure they would disagree. They just need to find their voice, and courage.

I do, however, believe that the purpose of the state should be to protect the quality of life of its citizenry rather than solely to facilitate capitalist interest. Contrary to globalist claims, if we really want to make efforts toward the utopian goal of the spread of social justice, peace and equality worldwide, I would argue that the nation state must be the fundamental unit of analysis from within which domestic parties may make claims for social change.

To some extent they do by enacting laws and enforcing them. For example, these laws prevent slavery and exploitation of child labor and have enacted a "minimum wage". If utopia is a social endeavor, then let it be contributed at an individual level and not forced upon by government mandate. Each nation state has the concern of insuring the social justice, peace and equality of its citizenry, but I'm skeptical of any adventure in trying to export it beyond our own proletariat. We can be advocates and set a good example. When it comes to the relationships between nation states, then other more complicated factors intrude when state interests conflict with global concerns. For example, what right does the world body of nations have to tell Iran that they cannot pursue nuclear weapons? We have begun to implement international connections and "norms" for states through the UN, IAEA, and international treaty.

I hate to point it out, but the US loses out far more every year from the wealthy few cheating on their taxes than it does from those who would use welfare as a 'hammock'.

I mean more than the traditional "welfare" program. Those that rely on the hammock are individuals and corporations that feed off of the State without care to changing their situation toward becoming self sufficient. So that includes the abuse of defense industry subsidies for national security considerations.

[Occhidiangela]

For example, what right does the world body of nations have to tell Iran that they cannot pursue nuclear weapons? We have begun to implement international connections and "norms" for states through the UN, IAEA, and international treaty.

Could the fact that Iran is a signatory to the International non-proliferation treaty give sufficient justification? Yes. On that note, I am disturbed by the US Defense Department's pursuit of "small" nukes for "Bunker Busting." That is a topic for another post, however, it is a matter of proliferation, a re-ignition of the nuclear arms race that we have been trying to undo for some thirty plus years, and to my mind an incredibly bad military and political move. Leading by example is a good thing, we need to get back to doing that.

So that includes the abuse of defense industry subsidies for national security considerations.

The so called "military industrial complex" is IMO misnamed, it is a Congressional-Industrial complex, with some jobs programs being mis represented as "keeping the industrial base and infrastructure warm." But that too is a topic for another post, and because it is so embedded in the political process and "the art of the possible" it is certainly doomed to be less than 100% efficient.

Occhi

[Assur]

Hi

As far as I know Iran is a signatory state to both the NPT and the CTBT, but both treaties allow a signatory state to withdraw from them. Analogous to the withdrawal the USA did from the ABM-treaty with the USSR/Russia.

So according to international law, for what it is worth, Iran could go nuclear legaly.

good karma

[Ashkael]

Seems a lot of people here believe that what defines marriage is the ability of a couple to procreate. Since homosexuals cannot procreate through comfortable and intimate means, marriage has a much different meaning for us.

On a purely sentimental level, I see marriage as a way of taking my relationship with my mate to the next level. To me, marriage is a bond between two people that love each other and would like to be at each other’s side for the rest of their lives. What problem do people have with letting two men (or women) that love each other live happier than before? To tell you the truth, I could live without marriage (and probably will, since at the pace we are going, it won’t be legal during the next 100 years), but to me it would mean a lot, and I mean A LOT, to be allowed to marry the man I love. And yes, there are all the other benefits that are granted to a married couple by law, but the sentimental reasons are much more important to me.

I believe that if homosexual marriage is made legal, the divorce rate of homosexual couples will be MUCH lower than the divorce rate of heterosexual couples. This is because homosexual couples only have each other to love since there are (usually) no children in the picture. It’s a more personal relationship. Of course, a lot of homosexuals (myself included) would love to have children, even adopted, and try to form a family, but that’s a different story (and a different can of worms in the case of adoption).

So, I ask again, what problem do you have by letting me (and many others) live happier with our loved ones?

I think it was Ghostsieger who said that homosexuality is a mental illness. I would say that it’s more of a genetic thing. I “found out” that I was homosexual when I was around 13 (or 14?). And I quoted the “found out” part because I already knew, I was already experiencing homosexual feelings by the time, but I just hadn’t linked those feelings to homosexuality itself. Much in the same way you probably started experiencing heterosexual feelings until you finally were able to link it all to your sexuality. The way it happened to me makes me think that it was something that came from within, that was already there. I had no choice in the matter, much in the same way you had no choice.

So, don’t throw the “mental illness” argument at me. I’ve lived through it and I know for sure that my sexuality is not a result of a mental state.

Lastly, there’s that “if we allow homosexuals to marry, then we have to allow children to marry animals and etc.” Oh. My. God. Every single time I read or hear about a person using that argument, I just want to hand him a Darwin award. How can anybody be so utterly stupid as to come up with such an argument against homosexual marriages? Somebody already smoked that argument in this thread by saying that marriage is a contract by law, and thus only consenting adults should be allowed to marry. But do we really need to get that technical (if that can be called technical)? It’s called common sense, people!

Well, that sums up all I wanted to say. Have a good day. B)

[Ashkael]

You just made my day with that cheap photoshop. It made me laugh for hours. I'm still laughing like an idiot as I write this post and I see your post above me.

By the way, your generalization about parents supporting their children no matter what turned out to be true in the end (Thanks God!).

[Occhidiangela]

But I was not aware that they had in fact withdrawn. If they have, I am sure a checking of the UN website or a few anti proliferation web sites will solve the problem.

Neither, for that matter, did Iraq ever withdraw from its participation in the same treaty. That is a broad reaching multilateral treaty.

ABM was a bilateral treaty. Major difference, and its intents, to defuse the arms race by ensuring MAD was possible is an interesting bit of reverse psychology codified.

Occhi