DOMA and Prop 8. Both History.

[LochnarITB]

LOL. Are you trolling, or are you actually serious?

I am serious. You look for the worst possibility in every comment anyone makes. You seem to feel that makes you superior by laying out their faults, as you see them. Your view of the moral morass of our society, as it exists today, is just that, your view. That does not make it fact and it also does not mean that individuals can't rise above. When I point out that I see such assumptions in your statements, you respond with incredulity because you are, of course, above reproach.

[kandrathe]

And what would that mean?

That would mean the many people would be legally treated together as if they were one (incorporated), while also still being free to exercise their individual liberties. We already do this and we call it limited liability partnerships, or corporations. Just think of all those people living in the commune as "The Andersons, Inc." -- There are already models of this in the US, in Amana, or Amish, or other communitarian communes. They are treated as tax-exempt religious incorporation -- non-religious communes would just be the taxable sort.

But, is it marriage, or have we watered it down further?

[Hammerskjold]

Comrade, bla bla bla So if I am hanging out with my black friends bla bla bla bla bla bla reactionaries resort to bla bla bla bigotry bla bla bla bigotry

Ok, so 'Comrade', yep got that one...

Analogy to 'my black friends' scenario equals = fill in the blank bigotry...check.

'I'm the Red Knight here to Save Humanity from itself with my word salad and overwhelming intellect', well that's a freebie but I'm not too proud to mark that off.

And... YES!!111 'Reactionary'!

Just need one more for Commie-nist Comedy Bingo. Come on...diuretics...

If 'Revleft.com' is dropped, I'm eligible for a double multiplier bonus!

What was the original topic again?

Oh yes.

kandrathe wrote:

That would mean the many people would be legally treated together as if they were one (incorporated), while also still being free to exercise their individual liberties. We already do this and we call it limited liability partnerships, or corporations. Just think of all those people living in the commune as "The Andersons, Inc." -- There are already models of this in the US, in Amana, or Amish, or other communitarian communes. They are treated as tax-exempt religious incorporation -- non-religious communes would just be the taxable sort.

Yeah. That strikes me as a really bad idea in practice, and fraught with unintended consequences. Really, really bad ones. Things are already messy and complicated when it comes to office\workplace romance\fraternizing (THAT LANGUAGE IS SEXIST AND REACTIONARY!!111).

I'd have a hard time signing a job contract where I may or may not also be wedded into a corporation. I've heard of being married to a job, but this is just ridicilous. Though I reserve the right to change my mind if I am the official photographer\lotion boy of Victoria's Secret Runway Show. (THAT IS SEXIST AND KKKAPITALIZTIC REACTIONARY BORGIA!11)

I have no qualms about polyamorous relationships among consenting adults etc etc. But there is such a thing as practical reality. 4 people? That's certainly not impossible. 400 people? That's when IMO it starts to sound iffy, because most of the time there's usually abuse going on. Does that mean every Amish village is a Jim Jones cult situation? Uh, no. But is every polyamorous community a peaceful idyllic Amish village? Sadly, no.

But, is it marriage, or have we watered it down further?

'Watering' it down is only true if one thinks of 'marriage' is like fine whiskey. People are certainly entitled to that opinion.

Just as I'm entitled to think that 'marriage' is more like punch. One whose original recipe is lost in time, with many variations. Some are very good, some are bluntly speaking, vile. (And no, what I consider vile is not Adam and Steve marriage. But a 'marriage' situation where it is clearly abuse\outright slavery.)

Any claim of 'traditional' is always suspect to me, and IMO should be taken the same way when you hear a Diamond is 'traditional'. (Brought to you by DeBeers. Though I prefer da beers instead. More taste, and less filling.)

[Jester]

But is every polyamorous community a peaceful idyllic Amish village? Sadly, no.

Is every Amish village a peaceful, idyllic Amish village?

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

But is every polyamorous community a peaceful idyllic Amish village? Sadly, no.

Is every Amish village a peaceful, idyllic Amish village?

-Jester

Well of course it is!

There was one incident one time, but thankfully Han Solo was on the job, and he fixed that right up.

The -always- peaceful idyllic Amish village of course exists. I believe it's located pretty close to Commie-topia Boulevard, and Galt's Gulch Drive.

[kandrathe]

... and Galt's Gulch Drive.

Coming to a tropical island near you...

[Jester]

Coming to a tropical island near you...

Honduras isn't an island... I do, however, greet the news of a Honduran libertarian utopia rapturously, and wish that the rest of the world would look upon them kindly.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

... and Galt's Gulch Drive.

Coming to a tropical island near you...

Yeah I've read that one too. Not that exact link, but something similar.

It's semi interesting, unfortunately there is always something like this around, and I've yet to see it really go anywhere beyond the 'artist rendering' stage.

I remember one where a sea\open ocean based city was proposed, and this was even before 'Rapture'. Another was huge arcology, a sort of benign Mega-corp. (Picture a cheery hybrid between Blade Runner, Neuromancer, Anime, and Epcot. But nothing can and will go wrong with that kind of Babelithic project of course...)

To date, none of the things I've heard and read about has anything concrete to show other than maybe a scale model or two. At most a ground breaking ceremony, some bags of cement and an abandoned bare skeleton structure.

So call me cynical on this one, but I won't be surprised if it ends up the same way many of the other proposal did.

Maybe it's just me, but the most plausible plan I've read and at the same time, tragicomic was a guy who proposed an off-world planet to colonize.

A 'Libertaria Prime' planet if you will. (Though the same could be said about Commietopia Planetia-1. Where it's main industry I would imagine is tossing word salads and selling fair trade Che' berets.) Plausible because even though I don't agree with it, I understand what he's saying or at least frustrated about.

Tragicomic because although I actually agree with off world colonization, I think the notion where there is a paradise somewhere if only it's populated by the like minded alone...is very questionable.

To badly quote an obviously oppressive borgouis old dead white guy, 'The fault lies not in the stars...but in ourselves.'

[FireIceTalon]

Anyone want to take any bets on how long before it turns into some nightmare out of a Rand novel, hehe?

[Mavfin]

But is every polyamorous community a peaceful idyllic Amish village? Sadly, no.

Is every Amish village a peaceful, idyllic Amish village?

-Jester

Well of course it is!

The -always- peaceful idyllic Amish village of course exists. I believe it's located pretty close to Commie-topia Boulevard, and Galt's Gulch Drive.

Actually, I grew up about 30 miles from a rather quiet rural town in Missouri, where there were always some buggies around, and sometimes you might see buggies racing down the main drag on a weekend evening if it was quiet.

Also, the Amish girls would slip away, get 'normal' clothes, clean up, and go out and party with the 'normal' people a town away, then change back and get home before it was too late. Also, the girls in the period where they have to decide whether to stay with the community or leave (Rumspringa) were usually very....friendly.

[Hammerskjold]

Actually, I grew up about 30 miles from a rather quiet rural town in Missouri, where there were always some buggies around, and sometimes you might see buggies racing down the main drag on a weekend evening if it was quiet.

The Fast and the Furious, Amish Edition. That just sounds totally...awesome! I imagine it to be similar to Ben Hur but with more beards and bonnets

Also, the Amish girls would slip away, get 'normal' clothes, clean up, and go out and party with the 'normal' people a town away, then change back and get home before it was too late. Also, the girls in the period where they have to decide whether to stay with the community or leave (Rumspringa) were usually very....friendly.

Yeah I remember a great episode of 'Growing Pains' where Kirk Cameron dated an Amish girl during Rumspringa. All she wanted to do was the exotic things that are normal to him (mall, movies), and he wanted to do all the exotic things that was normal to her(hay ride, wearing amish clothes).

Actually it wasn't a great episode, or a great show now that I think about it. I was just stuck in the house at the time and figured, eh...why not.

Now where was I going with this? Oh yes. I find it interesting how some of these communities have some sort of ritual\time for someone who was born into the community, where you decide if you wanted to stay or go elsewhere.

Which IMO is actually not a bad idea. In practice I wonder how well can one choose when everyone you know so far have been saying the 'outside' is bad etc. Then again like you mention, there will always be people who wants to put a theory to a test. At least in the case of wild Amish party girls, I say gods bless them all!

But on a more serious note, that's the thing I always wondered with these Libertarian Island\Nation\Planet. Ditto with Commietopia, though there are examples of nation states that went with that, and not counting the clueless comrade defender, how well did that go. (INB4 'that's not -Real- commie-ism.)

What do you do with people who are born into them, but then decided they don't want to be in it? It's one thing to say the people who left for Libertaria Prime in the Horsehead nebula went willingly. But what about the generation who are born into it? (That's assuming things go well enough to sire a generation after the first pioneer) If they decide they don't want to live in Libertaria or Commietopia, can they leave? Or will it become something like a North Korea situation?

[kandrathe]

Anyone want to take any bets on how long before it turns into some nightmare out of a Rand novel, hehe?

So, obviously you never read one. But... Let's set our standards US high. Do you mean the nightmare where the government monitors your every move, and with a whiff of suspicion or oblique accusation sends in jack booted thugs to whisk you away in extraordinary rendition in the middle of the night to a secret off shore jail/torture facility?

In other considerations, have you ever been to Belize or Honduras?

---

If they decide they don't want to live in Libertaria or Commietopia, can they leave? Or will it become something like a North Korea situation?

In Libertaria, what's your is yours. So, when you leave, you take it with you. In Commietopia, there is no property, so you only share what the State says you can share. If you leave, you leave empty handed.

[FireIceTalon]

No, and have no desire to. I already feel guilty enough knowing that the clothes I buy were probably made by some poor, oppressed worker in Honduras (though I probably shouldn't since clothes are a basic necessity of life).

And as far as the Rand novels go, I actually read one back in high school. Then, I wasn't a communist, but even then I still thought it was odd since one has to practically be a sociopath to think that the poor oppress the rich. I wasn't referring so much to the content of what her novels are about when I said "nightmare", but much more to the foolishness of the ridiculous ideology (objectivism) which her novels are based on. She was a nutjob, who thought some labor aristocracy existed and was oppressing the capitalist class (lmao) - as if poor big, bad capital was in danger from labor and workers. This women wrote about billionaires going on strike for taxes being too high. As if those poor billionaires deserve societies sympathies She was completely delusional about how the world works, and so are most of her followers who swear up and down that she was right despite all the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.

In Libertaria, what's your is yours. So, when you leave, you take it with you. In Commietopia, there is no property, so you only share what the State says you can share. If you leave, you leave empty handed.

Except this is inaccurate, since as has been noted a million times before, there is NO state in "commietopia". The state only exists in class based societies. Communism, by definition, is a classless society - and therefore also stateless.

You have it completely backwards. In Commie-topia, what YOU produce is actually YOURS. In Libertaria, what you produce belongs to some parasitic, property-owning capitalist or bureaucrat. Then ofc, the lolbertarians don't want any state intervention, yet cant comprehend that a state is required to protect their very privileged position in society.

I'd give your libertopia about a week before civil unrest if not full-blown revolution developed. It's freedom alright, the freedom for the leisure property-owning class to oppress and subjugate the propertyless class and their labor.

[Hammerskjold]

So, obviously you never read one.

Well, let's not be too hasty about that one. Remember who you're replying to here.

Reading his comment it's certainly very plausible he never read Atlas Shrugged, and just went with an echo chamber 3rd hand interpretation. Looking at his past behaviour, I can go with that pattern.

However, given his reading comprehension level, it's also possible he did read it, but didn't understand what was on the page. Then thankfully, his Marxistitious Diuretical training kicked in, and voila'. Rand's nightmare=the complete opposite of what is actually on the page. (edited addition: I was writing this before I read rouge douche latest keyboard beatings, and apparently it's a case of a lil from column A, and a lil from column B. ;P )

Now I actually think Atlas Shrugged is more than a bore for most passages, and can read like a doorstop thick pamphlet of someone's personal political rantings\beliefs.

But, if you're going to critique something, I do believe it's only fair to see\read it firsthand, and do one's best to understand the work.

TL,DR: Rand's novel is -obviously- about the nightmare of unchecked capitalism and warns the danger of extremist objectivism. che. che.

In Libertaria, what's your is yours. So, when you leave, you take it with you. In Commietopia, there is no property, so you only share what the State says you can share. If you leave, you leave empty handed.

That is assuming a lot on the better nature of humans, on both cases. Again call me cynical, but just because this hypothetical island\nation\planet is filled with like minded people, I don't see that as an ironclad check on the worse impulses of our species. But allrighty, let's play a slight detour here.

So if an inhabitant of Libertaria decides to leave and pack all his\her belongings, they're certainly free to do so. It's in the name after all. And what happens, if that individual is, say the owner of the community power plant.

Or holds some key structure that is necessary to the survival of the community. I mean literally, like this guy\gal owns the grain mill, or the industrial oxygen re-combinator unit that allows people to breathe air, or the unobtainium reactor that powers everything in Libertaria.

There is no US gov't oppressor here, Libertaria is made up of refugees who fled that awful awful place remember. The Libertarianites are the gov't, and the gov't is the Libertarianites. (And this is even playing it straight that there will be no accusations of 'he is a US mole!' Kill the outsider!!1111 Kill the Traitor! He is not of the Body!)

My pessimist side says the other Libertarianites are quite likely to say, 'you're free to walk away, but you leave the things that keeps us alive right here. Otherwise, you will kill us, and we can not let you do that.' That's the polite version. The blunt version and again, pessimist me is more inclined to bet on, 'you want to live, walk away -without- the lewt. You walk away -with- the lewt, you won't make it past the door.'

For Commietopia, I'll make it even simpler and shorter. It might be assuming a lot that the 'state' will allow a Commietopian to leave, period. In Commietopia, state pwnz j00. Oh right, that's not real commie-ism.
(edited addition: And as usual, comrade jackass brays the same song at the expected moment. It's like (a stopped) clockwork at this point. 12:00...12:00...12:00)

Short version on both IMO: They're both on the extreme scale of things, and that's the problem. One advocates extreme independence, the other extreme dependence. Both ignores the reality that in real life\nature\society, it's not always an either or situation. And both seems to ignore the corruptible nature of humans in general.

Anyway that's enough of a detour for me. More on track to the original topic. It was Pride day a week ago was it? It was celebrated without incident (at least nothing serious to write about thankfully) in Toronto. In other places, not so much. There was literally blood spilt in some parts of the world.

I don't see the recognition of others who are different but does no harm to me, as watering down anything. As long as it does no harm to others, someone else's happiness does not detract from my own. And no, homersexhuals getting hitched does no harm to me or society's morals. Paris Hilton vacant stare and soul-less antics has done more damage to society's mores than gay marriage ever will.

[kandrathe]

So if an inhabitant of Libertaria decides to leave and pack all his\her belongings, they're certainly free to do so. It's in the name after all. And what happens, if that individual is, say the owner of the community power plant.

Or holds some key structure that is necessary to the survival of the community. I mean literally, like this guy\gal owns the grain mill, or the industrial oxygen re-combinator unit that allows people to breathe air, or the unobtainium reactor that powers everything in Libertaria.

If you owned something, like a dam, or a power plant, or the desalinization plant... then, you'd own it until you sold it to someone willing to buy it. Yes, you are correct, you'd have trouble taking it with you, so you'd leave it there until you could sell it to someone.

I'm not deluded into thinking no bad things occur, or bad people exist in Libertaria, just that they would tend to be less likely to originate from government. I would be hopeful government there would be quite limited, and therefore less coercive. Unlike our Hope and Change -- "Cough up those thumb drives and come in peacefully, and we'll consider not killing you for outing our violations of everyone's rights and embarrassing us to our formerly close friends."

If you are in a disagreement with your Angry Old Man neighbor Joe over the color of your common fence, that is negotiable. If you are fighting the city, the state, or the national government over the color of fences, then you're often fighting a losing battle.

Atlas Shrugged imho is a cautionary tale of "parasites", "looters", and "moochers" run amok. All classes in the novel were rife with corruption, seeking to get their wealth by taking it from others who had earned it honestly.

[shoju]

But is every polyamorous community a peaceful idyllic Amish village? Sadly, no.

Is every Amish village a peaceful, idyllic Amish village?

-Jester

If Every Peaceful Idyllic Amish Village has a man who will beat you, abuse you, hold you down and butcher your hair, and tell you that you some sort of heathen, and going to hell.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5...in-prison/

[kandrathe]

In Every Peaceful Idyllic Amish Village has a man who will beat you, abuse you, hold you down and butcher your hair, and tell you that you some sort of heathen, and going to hell.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo74Dn7W_pA

So don't be vain and don't be whiny or else, my brother, I might have to get medieval on your heinie.

[FireIceTalon]

Atlas Shrugged imho is a cautionary tale of "parasites", "looters", and "moochers" run amok. All classes in the novel were rife with corruption, seeking to get their wealth by taking it from others who had earned it honestly.

But it isn't. It is a PROMOTION of, not a cautionary tale against, the whole "greed is good" philosophy, selfishness, and materialism. Her novels are designed to paint the laughable notion that somehow it is the rich who are becoming oppressed in society. One of the key points of Objectivism, the ideology which her novels were based off, is that selfishness and exploitation of the weak by the powerful is a good and natural thing, so how can they be cautionary tales? The simple answer is they are not, and it doesn't take rocket science to figure it out. Her stories were her sick, twisted, sociopathic version of how she thinks society should look, and for the sake of humankind, I hope that such a thing never takes place. It is no surprise that much of the current GOP and prototype capitalists view her as a hero, but what is worrisome is that she seems to be developing a cult following among brainwashed high school/young college students today. All one has to do is have a basic understanding of what objectivism is, and read/watch any of her interviews to see that her works were not warnings, but diatribes on how she actually saw the world as it should be. Anything else is just a cover-up, or turning the facts around to make her views look like something that they really are not. This same women called a real life child rapist/killer the victim in the crime he committed for being persecuted and ultimately executed for it. She was scum, her work is utter crap, and objectivism is the virtue of the sociopath (and the hypocrite).

[kandrathe]

But it isn't. It is a PROMOTION of, not a cautionary tale against, the whole "greed is good" philosophy, selfishness, and materialism. Her novels are designed to paint the laughable notion that somehow it is the rich who are becoming oppressed in society. One of the key points of Objectivism, the ideology which her novels were based off, is that selfishness and exploitation of the weak by the powerful is a good and natural thing, so how can they be cautionary tales? The simple answer is they are not, and it doesn't take rocket science to figure it out. Her stories were her sick, twisted, sociopathic version of how she thinks society should look, and for the sake of humankind, I hope that such a thing never takes place. It is no surprise that much of the current GOP and prototype capitalists view her as a hero, but what is worrisome is that she seems to be developing a cult following among brainwashed high school/young college students today. All one has to do is have a basic understanding of what objectivism is, and read/watch any of her interviews to see that her works were not warnings, but diatribes on how she actually saw the world as it should be. Anything else is just a cover-up, or turning the facts around to make her views look like something that they really are not. This same women called a real life child rapist/killer the victim in the crime he committed for being persecuted and ultimately executed for it. She was scum, her work is utter crap, and objectivism is the virtue of the sociopath (and the hypocrite).

Same rant, different day. Someday I hope to be scum enough to get a book on the NYT best sellers list.

This must just really burn your britches...

[FireIceTalon]

Same rant, different day indeed. But doesn't make it any less true than it was the previous rant .

Doesn't surprise me that Rand is on the list since pro-capitalist ideology and values get shoved down our throats at every turn, though I am a bit perplexed that she has the top spot on there. But it really just bolsters my points all the more, that most of society is clueless. Oh well. At least LOTR, Steinbeck and Orwell are on the list too, they crap all over her.

*Edit*

I just noticed that she is only on the Readers List. The Board obviously doesn't think too highly of her, since she isn't even on the list AT ALL, let alone on top of it, lol. Steinbeck and Orwell are on it though. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" should have been on it though, too. But on second thought, I am not surprised that she is topping the readers list (I'm actually more surprised that she isn't even on the boards list) - it is a reflection of the sociopathic, individualistic, apathetic, and shallowness that permeates in our crapitalistic society.

But using such lists to prove a point anyways means little. People have little taste in anything these days. Otherwise, Justin Bieber wouldnt be worth millions with a shit ton of grammies. So I take such lists and awards with a grain of salt, in terms of them representing something with a qualitative value