All Things LGBTQ+ (3 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[bird]

How about banning birth control due to low reproduction rates? Would that be ok if the majority or the state wants that?

There is no 100% freedom. However that is no excuse to favor authoritarianism.

Sigh. Your first statement is nonsense. Your second statement does not answer the question.

 

[Paul]

Except Farb would have us believe that calling a "she" a "he" could result in a governmental fine, so maybe you need to explain the Constitution to him.

Thank God we are not there yet.

 

[samiam5211]

Yes, I agree , but freedom is diminished. The issue is this opens the door for more restrictions. What if people are offended by the low birth rate and someone comes up with the idea of banning birth control.

If someone is concerned about the low birth rate, then they should support increased immigration, unless they are just concerned about the low birth rate among white people.

 

[Farb]

Except Farb would have us believe that calling a "she" a "he" could result in a governmental fine, so maybe you need to explain the Constitution to him.

Except I didn't but you are correct in that I do very much believe that is the end game for this. The left loves governmental overreach. Look at the CDC and the seizure of private property rights.

 

[Paul]

If someone is concerned about the low birth rate, then they should support increased immigration, unless they are just concerned about the low birth rate among white people.

This is not about race. I was just giving an example of government coercion.

 

[bird]

Except I didn't but you are correct in that I do very much believe that is the end game for this. The left loves governmental overreach. Look at the CDC and the seizure of private property rights.

Odd. The right believes in private sector control. Property rights do not exist anywhere but the body politic. You are a number, nothing more, to the private sector. Your life is meaningless except as consumer. When your usefulness as consumer ends then you are cast away as worthless. So, wallow in the sludge of your false gods. Raise your hands and plead for your choice which doesn’t exist. All theophilosophy of the mad priests of “economics” meshed with the chimera called western civilization leads to dystopia.

Government by the governed or government by technocrats unaccountable to anyone or anything outside of the bottom line and put in place by a system of one dollar, one vote.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

It is unconstitutional to force people to speak in a given manner. We have accepted that when working for an employer a person may have to use certain words if that is part of the job description. However, outside of a job a free citizen cannot be forced to utter words he or she does not want to say.

Late in responding to this one, but that's not the hypothetical Farb posed. He specifically said people would get criminal fines.

 

[Paul]

Odd. The right believes in private sector control. Property rights do not exist anywhere but the body politic. You are a number, nothing more, to the private sector. Your life is meaningless except as consumer. When your usefulness as consumer ends then you are cast away as worthless. So, wallow in the sludge of your false gods. Raise your hands and plead for your choice which doesn’t exist. All theophilosophy of the mad priests of “economics” meshed with the chimera called western civilization leads to dystopia.

Government by the governed or government by technocrats unaccountable to anyone or anything outside of the bottom line and put in place by a system of one dollar, one vote.

Actually just like Marx you are quite correct. The analysis of Marx is correct hence socialism is always very compelling to the young generations. The problem is not the diagnosis. The problem is the treatment! The prescribed measures to fix the problem have not worked.

The Basic problem with Marxists is that they do not understand the human condition. Humans evolved to have some cooperation, however at the same time they also evolved to fiercely compete with each other. The members of the human species are different from each other. In other words there is no equality and they will always be a hierarchy of competence and talent.

 

[bird]

Actually just like Marx you are quite correct. The analysis of Marx is correct hence socialism is always very compelling to the young generations. The problem is not the diagnosis. The problem is the treatment! The prescribed measures to fix yhe problem have not worked.

The Basic problem with Marxists is that they do not understand the human condition. Humans evolved to have some cooperation, however at the same time they also evolved to fiercely compete with each other. The members of the human species are different from each other. In other words there is no equality and they will always be a hierarchy of competence and talent.

The basic problem with capitalists is that they ignore cooperation for zero-sum competition. Marx is very good for analysis but not for solutions. Capitalism is not good for analysis or solutions. Humans ARE NOT RATIONAL. Capitalism ignores this. The price of a good or service actually provides no information about that good or service. If humans were rational and pricing provided all the information necessary for economic decisions then Bernays would have been s.o.l. So would have Madison Avenue. Hierarchy of competence and talent is irrelevant. It doesn’t exist now and truly never has. Tribalism has more impact. The move is to a two-tier economy with what Jeffrey Faux,iirc, called the superstar service economy aimed at servicing wealth and the vast majority having to be content with servicing those with limited resources thus limiting their own resources.

 

[Paul]

The basic problem with capitalists is that they ignore cooperation for zero-sum competition.

Capitalism is not about socialism, that is obvious. However, within a capitalist nation citizens are allowed to pool resources and establish workers owned businesses. Only in a capitalist nation can you have a business that is owned by the workers. The

Marx is very good for analysis but not for solutions. Capitalism is not good for analysis or solutions. Humans ARE NOT RATIONAL. Capitalism ignores this. The price of a good or service actually provides no information about that good or service. If humans were rational and pricing provided all the information necessary for economic decisions then Bernays would have been s.o.l. So would have Madison Avenue.
Hierarchy of competence and talent is irrelevant. It doesn’t exist now and truly never has. Tribalism has more impact. The move is to a two-tier economy with what Jeffrey Faux,iirc, called the superstar service economy aimed at servicing wealth and the vast majority having to be content with servicing those with limited resources thus limiting their own resources.

Yes, humans are often irrational and spend money on things they do not need. Capitalists are aware of this. In the hyperabundancy of capitalism there is frivolity. However, from the historical record we know there is hyperabundancy of almost anything anybody wants. At the same time the disadvantaged struggle. It is a system that does not lead to equality. In any event equality is an undesirable outcome.

 

[V Chip]

Only in a capitalist nation can you have a business that is owned by the workers.

Nope.

 

[Paul]

Nope.

There are worker owned companies in America. Google is your friend.

 

[V Chip]

There are worker owned companies in America. Google is your friend.

That's not how logic works.

"Only when it is raining can you use an umbrella."
"Nope that's not true."
"It was raining just today and I used an umbrella!"

 

[Farb]

Capitalism is not good for analysis or solutions.

Has Capitalism not reduced poverty and extreme poverty world wide by a staggering amount in the last few decades?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Except I didn't but you are correct in that I do very much believe that is the end game for this. The left loves governmental overreach. Look at the CDC and the seizure of private property rights.

In fact, you did. Also bonus points for cliche slippery slope arguments.

 

[CoolBrees]

@Farb -

I would say that a global economy has helped more than the ethos of Capitalism but capitalism is certainly part of the global economy.

if you are speaking primarily about free trade being a mechanism of capitalism and that has helped the world enter the era of a global economy, then I would agree with you.

ETA- I know you didn’t ask me this questions but I thought it was a good one so I figured I would share my opinion

 

[samiam5211]

Has Capitalism not reduced poverty and extreme poverty world wide by a staggering amount in the last few decades?

Did Capitalism do that?

Are you crediting capitalism with the creation of a middle class in China? because that middle class in China exists at the pleasure of the CCP. Capitalism has definitely enriched the CCP, but the CCP is still in control of how much someone in China is paid not market forces.

 

[Paul]

Did Capitalism do that?

Are you crediting capitalism with the creation of a middle class in China? because that middle class in China exists at the pleasure of the CCP. Capitalism has definitely enriched the CCP, but the CCP is still in control of how much someone in China is paid not market forces.

You are correct. However, if China had remained a traditional socialist nation people would be starving to death as they did under Mao.