(May 18, 2013 at 11:04 am)ideologue08 Wrote: With regards to the gay marriage issue, why do you accept the government mandating who can legally marry? Don’t you think it would be more libertarian to abolish the government’s powers of defining marriage and just allow private institutions such as religions etc. to define marriage. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

I support that idea as well, but whilst government is insistent on being in the marriage business, they should be doing it fairly.

Quote:Of course unequal things can be “right”. The NHS and the UK social welfare runs on progressive taxation, unless you oppose universal healthcare, you must accept that unequal unfair taxation does result in a greater good. Who cares about the golden rule? I don’t, I don’t see why I should. It should not applicable in all circumstances.

The NHS and social welfare do not run on progressive taxation. They run on taxation, whether it is progressive or not. There is no reason to think that a flat rate of spending tax would not be able to fund these services, especially with cuts to the ridiculous military budgets and other overspending we have in the UK.

I think the golden rule is applicable in all circumstances. Unless you are a sociopath, why would you want to treat people worse than you would treat yourself, or have people treated worse than you would be treated?

(May 18, 2013 at 12:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I think the golden rule is applicable in all circumstances. Unless you are a sociopath, why would you want to treat people worse than you would treat yourself, or have people treated worse than you would be treated?

If I was rich, why would I want to treat poor people worse than I would want to be treated, by requiring them to pay astronomically higher taxes relative to their income when they already bring in just a tiny fraction of what I have?

To say that the flat tax is equal is true only up to a point. If everyone pays the same tax rate, that's equal only if everyone is paid the same amount of money. Since this is obviously not the case, a flat percent tax on goods and services is of virtually no consequence to the rich while being potentially devastating to the poor (who must spend a far larger portion of their far tinier incomes on these things, by necessity). Them as has, gits.

(May 18, 2013 at 12:50 pm)Ryantology Wrote: If I was rich, why would I want to treat poor people worse than I would want to be treated, by requiring them to pay astronomically higher taxes relative to their income when they already bring in just a tiny fraction of what I have?

To say that the flat tax is equal is true only up to a point. If everyone pays the same tax rate, that's equal only if everyone is paid the same amount of money. Since this is obviously not the case, a flat percent tax on goods and services is of virtually no consequence to the rich while being potentially devastating to the poor (who must spend a far larger portion of their far tinier incomes on these things, by necessity). Them as has, gits.

1) I've argued against income tax in this thread, so your argument against my point makes no sense.

2) A flat tax is equal, because the percentage is equal. 10% of 10,000 is less than 10% of 100,000, but it's still 10%...the same equal rate.

3) In this thread I've also advocated that under any income tax system, the first $X should be non-taxable, where X is the calculated living wage for a person, dependent on their area (i.e. taking into consideration house prices / rents).

(May 18, 2013 at 12:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(May 18, 2013 at 11:04 am)ideologue08 Wrote: With regards to the gay marriage issue, why do you accept the government mandating who can legally marry? Don’t you think it would be more libertarian to abolish the government’s powers of defining marriage and just allow private institutions such as religions etc. to define marriage. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

I support that idea as well, but whilst government is insistent on being in the marriage business, they should be doing it fairly.

Quote:Of course unequal things can be “right”. The NHS and the UK social welfare runs on progressive taxation, unless you oppose universal healthcare, you must accept that unequal unfair taxation does result in a greater good. Who cares about the golden rule? I don’t, I don’t see why I should. It should not applicable in all circumstances.

The NHS and social welfare do not run on progressive taxation. They run on taxation, whether it is progressive or not. There is no reason to think that a flat rate of spending tax would not be able to fund these services, especially with cuts to the ridiculous military budgets and other overspending we have in the UK.

I think the golden rule is applicable in all circumstances. Unless you are a sociopath, why would you want to treat people worse than you would treat yourself, or have people treated worse than you would be treated?

Like I said, I don't think marriage should be fair, but I respect your opinion about that. I don't mind somebody believing that any two adults can marry regardless of who they are but for me, that is very very extreme, I'll never accept that.

The NHS and UK social security cannot run on flat rates, you can't run a welfare state like that, it's just not going to happen, not sustainable, especially in cases of high unemployment when welfare payouts is higher and primarily the poor are impacted. That's why parties like UKIP are never going to get anywhere, their economic platform seeks "fairness", a flat rate of 20% would mean deep cuts in social security. Although as a libertarian, I can imagine you wanting a shrunken irrelevant central govt.

Murderers and thieves are treated worse than myself, are they not? Why should they be treated like me? Why should I treat a kid like an adult? Why should I treat an elderly person like a young, active, healthy young person? You're comparing apples and oranges here. If the concepts aren't the same, the consequences need not be the same. Two men in a relationship =/= a man and a woman, to label them the same should not be a right.

I remember an article on the evening standard one day, where a council refused a couple to adopt some immigrant children because the couple in question were UKIP members. Now, the "fair" thing to do would be to oppose such a move, but here are two UKIP members - not supporters- members of a party distinguished for its anti-immigration platform, the irresponsible thing to do would be to hand over to them immigrant children. This is is clear cut case of unfairness, but sometimes unfairness is the right approach. Would you hand over black children to members of the KKK? It's a hyperbole example but it proves the point.

1. Gay marriage opens the door to a plethora of new definitions of how "marriage" is defined, a door which the majority of people,especially in the UK, would like to see shut.

The flaw in this argument is that the other "undesirable" unions you mentioned already bear with them some onus or restriction, primarily that the individuals named are related in some prior legal or biological manner. OK, make it so gays can't marry their grandfathers or brothers or whatever. That has no bearing on unrelated gays marrying.

This is a typical, nonsensical method of argument. Blacks shouldn't be given equal rights because they'll lord it over the white man and rape his women. Women shouldn't be given the vote because they'll stop staying home having kids and the race will die out. It's bugaboo. It doesn't follow.

2: Gay marriage legislation will lead to religious oppression and a rejection of religious freedom.

It will? How? How does freedom for others infringe on anyone else's freedom---except the freedom to discriminate? This sounds like the same dumb argument we have in America, that gay marriage will erode straight marriage---and I've yet to hear any actual explanation of that one, either.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US we have secular, equally legal weddings, which can be performed by a justice of the peace, magistrate, judge, notary public, or any court-deputized individual (depending on where you are). The churches are still entitled to determine what marriages they will perform and recognize, and which they won't. If your churches don't retain that right then perhaps you have a point, and good luck with that.

Incidentally, anti-polygamy laws are stupid too.

ideologue08, what are you scared of, exactly?

He is probably scared he will fall to gay desires. Most homophobic people aren't very confident in their own sexuality.

(May 18, 2013 at 10:46 am)LastPoet Wrote: Good news everyone!


Portugal just passed a law allowing the co-adoption by gay couples. Its a small step against bigotry, a giant leap towards equality!

And that's why I'm proud to say I live in Portugal. My grandmother was appalled (the usual BS arguments, like saying kids will get bullied for having gay parents, et cetera), but I was quite glad to hear this.

It isn't full adoption yet, so not quite the equality that is searched... but its a step in the right direction.

Now, if only we could get the economy right

cneron Wrote:This sounds like the same dumb argument we have in America, that gay marriage will erode straight marriage---and I've yet to hear any actual explanation of that one, either.

I have yet to see any evidence that this has actually produced anything resembling erosion of 'traditional' marriage even though there has been legalized gay marriage in parts of the U.S. for enough years to produce at least trends worth remarking upon.