Libertarian is not left on social issues

[Cato]

I mostly agree with the concept of warnings a priori because there's many people traumatized by past events and generally we, as a society, can predict some descriptions and image that can trigger someone, like warfare, rape, murder, violence, bullying, alcoholism (explicit), etc. It's for the same reason movies, videogames and TV series come with a warning when there's violence.

Post secondary education was explicitly designed for those seeking formal education about the world while bridging the divide between adolescence and adulthood while also providing specialized knowledge in fields not accommodated by secondary school in sufficient depth. Sanitizing formal instruction via the sciences and humanities designed to inform students of the world they are soon to be thrust into for the sake of a potential adverse emotional reaction does a disservice.

Where are the trigger warnings for the 20 year-olds without a degree that find themselves witnessing actual war, rape, murder, violence and explicit alcoholism? If your excuse becomes "they volunteered for the military so they should expect to be exposed to the baser parts of our reality", then I will proclaim the same for those entering university. I used the extreme example of military service, but what of a majority of kids that are dumped into the world; where are their trigger warnings? University is a place to be challenged, not coddled.

Your entertainment rating example is more of the same. These rating systems are for lazy parents that entrust strangers with deciding what content is appropriate for their children. Perhaps 30 years ago these ratings served a general purpose, but with the information on the internet today there's simply no excuse. There's another reason why the rating system is bullshit. It's easier today than it was when I was a kid to buy a PG ticket and slide into an R movie. Seriously, why is it the theater owners responsibility to watch after your kid. Entertainment rating systems are bullshit.

[Tiberius]

Entertainment rating systems are bullshit.

Entertainment rating systems which use age limits (e.g. you *must* be over X years old) are bullshit, but I see value in rating systems which break the film content down further. If I had a 10 year old child and didn't know anything about a movie he/she wanted to go to, I would look at a rating system which told me how much sex / violence was in the film before making a decision on whether I wanted my child to see it. Rating systems should perform a purely advisory role.

[Cato]

Entertainment rating systems which use age limits (e.g. you *must* be over X years old) are bullshit, but I see value in rating systems which break the film content down further. If I had a 10 year old child and didn't know anything about a movie he/she wanted to go to, I would look at a rating system which told me how much sex / violence was in the film before making a decision on whether I wanted my child to see it. Rating systems should perform a purely advisory role.

I agree with the idea of the advisory role as it existed 20-30 years ago; however, with instant access to sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB and others I don't find much justification for the practice. I neglected to mention that the trailers for every movie or game are easily accessed on YouTube. If a young impressionable gains access to media content a parent finds objectionable, the blame rests with the parent, not the provider. If movie producers and distributors self-police in this regard, more power to them; however, I think some of this is done out of fear that the government will step in if they don't.

The fact that media is so easily distributed and accessible on so many different platforms makes controlling access a challenge, but I haven't heard a compelling reason why it is the creator's or distributor's responsibility for ultimate consumption. The creator or distributor can go to whatever lengths they deem necessary to advertise that content shouldn't be consumed by an under-aged demographic, but it hardly seems reasonable to blame them when a porn video pops up on a 13 year-old's phone. I'm quite certain that the 13 year-old wasn't involved in the original point of sale. If he/she was, there are already laws on the books to punish the transgression. In my opinion there is no difference between this and the distinction made in the free speech vs. incitement argument.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

I see what you’re saying in the OP, but have to agree with Min on what the actual definition of marriage is. Although, maybe we agree on some of these points. I never understood why most people got married. Back in middle school, I even remember myself thinking about this, watching people get divorced left and right. I always thought, why get the government involved in your relationship? If you guys decide you hate each other after a year, then why would you want to go to court, and make your life a living hell for 5+ years (could be the length of some nasty divorce cases)? I, still, can’t see myself ever getting married. If I ever had a serious relationship with someone, we could make our promises to each other in our own way, and not worry about the government being in one more aspect of our lives. It seems, people don’t think even think about it, or most of them feel peer pressure to try to blend in with the social norms of today’s standards.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why not abolish marriage altogether then?

Why not?

I think there should be advantages in being married depending on the socio-economic conjuncture - If there's a lack of young workforce the State should promote natality and give benefits to couples, [...]

Given that reproduction is a deep-seated biological urge, do you think this is really a necessity?

[...] and if there's too many people the government should simply raise taxes on married couples with more kids.

Is it the government's place to manage family size?

What do you think of China's "one child" policy?

Would you accept enforced abortion? Or enforced impregnation?

The reason why you can marry in the first place is because the government allows it - Certainly there is a law saying that you can marry and how marriage contracts work, are signed, the legal form of the contract and how many witnesses are necessary, who can marry who (for example minors can't marry) - Everything is subjected to regulation and marriage or other forms of contract are not an exception, since the State has interests to get parties to sign contracts, at the very least because it fulfils people's freedoms.

Marriage is indeed a contract. The question is, is that contract actually necessary for human beings to tie life to life? Power-of-attorney agreements can manage every benefit marriage gives but taxes (in some cases).

Just because a thing is subject to regulation doesn't mean that it should be subject to regulation.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not really saying you can't insult people or hate on them, but inciting violence trough hatred should be illegal. If I call for killing the jews, I am telling people to kill other people because of their race, and chances are some morons will believe my rhetoric and do it - This is disturbing to public order, and therefore shouldn't be something we allow under the pretence of "freedom". As for hate, sure hate anyone you want, you can come out as racist sexist bigot that it helps the rest of us - But rest assured, you are responsible for the consequences of going out showing your swastika tattoo. Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that you can drop a burning cigarette on the ground but can't be blamed for the fire because you didn't really "start it". Even in your premises, some degree of hate speech will always be a crime - I.e. When someone directly calls for violence ATM or something like that, because even if nothing happens we're better off not taking chances, and it is justified.

Punishing someone for their viewpoint is profoundly antidemocratic; requiring them to remain silent on said views is in itself a punishment. What if the restriction on speech was -- instead of racial hatred, which is I gather your point -- what if it restricted your ability to speak out on your atheism?  Because that too is offensive to many people (rightly or wrongly).

A free country has many freedoms, but one does not have the right to be free of offense. And rather than prosecute speakers who urge violence, as Tiberius notes, 'tis better to prosecute the violent themselves.  After all, they made the decision to act on the words. 

 Silencing hateful views doesn't lead to eliminating those views, it leads to driving them underground where they can grow and fester. Both in the abstract and pragmatic spheres, hate-speech laws are counterproductive.

[Dystopia]

Why not?

Because it is an important social institution that people value and grants certain privileges and stability to raise children (the next generation)? There's many reasons to ban marriage, and many reasons to not do it - Ultimately, if people want to get married the State shouldn't stop it from happening.

Given that reproduction is a deep-seated biological urge, do you think this is really a necessity?

Is it? But doesn't the number of children you have depend on many variables? If so, why is it that my country has a lack of young people and if it wasn't for immigrants we wouldn't have a significant young workforce (Europe has these problems)? Of course it is a necessity as the demographics and age of the population interact with employment rates, inflation, etc, and the State has the duty to run society the best possible way to make us all minimally satisfied.

Is it the government's place to manage family size?

What do you think of China's "one child" policy?  

Would you accept enforced abortion?  Or enforced impregnation?

First things first - Would never accept forcing anyone to do anything - But that doesn't mean the government can't pursue policies depending on the demographics - Again, using the example of Portugal, we have too many old people because back in the day people had 7-8 kids and some had 30 kids (seriously my mom knew an old lady who had literally 33 kids) and now with the emancipation of women and unemployment, etc, we have fewer young people - What should my government do? Just stand there and not give two shits? Economic planning isn't just about promoting and funding private enterprise to boost profits and the GDP, it's also about playing with other variables and knowing how to predict issues in the future that will arise if you don't do anything about it.

This does not mean I support extremist measures like forcing people to have X or Y kids, but it is possible to take some minimal measures to boost some variable you'd like to see growing - I don't see anything wrong about it - Not to mention that the benefits you have in taxes with kids exist for other reasons such as the fact married people spend a lot more of their income with children duties like diapers and food - It seems fair to me.

Marriage is indeed a contract. The question is, is that contract actually necessary for human beings to tie life to life? Power-of-attorney agreements can manage every benefit marriage gives but taxes (in some cases).

In my country, there are benefits marriage gives you that you can't get with any other contract. For example, if you are married to someone and they just die, you have a right to 50% of their belongings (Unless you have kids because then it's only 30-33%) even if they didn't sign a testimony saying so, but if you're not married to them you need to sign a contract before otherwise you won't get that percentage of belongings. Obviously there's other legal benefits like matrimonial regimes that allow a different and more pragmatic management of your personal goods and belongings that you can't get without a marriage contract. 

Just because a thing is subject to regulation doesn't mean that it should be subject to regulation.

Indeed, but sometimes it should - Specially life-changing super important contracts like marriage and even employment contracts. I don't know what you think, but IMO the most important contracts people ever sign are matrimony and employment (long-time) contracts - Those contracts shape your life and allow you to fulfil your most important desires - Because these contracts are so important and it would be a shame if someone used the law to abuse, twist and hurt others trough those contracts, there's a need for the government to regulate. That's why my country has a law saying husbands and wives are equal to prevent old school patriarchs from doing their thing - There's also laws saying a minimum salary must exist to prevent extreme poverty or saying you can't fire someone because of their race without paying them a compensation in money.

Punishing someone for their viewpoint is profoundly antidemocratic; requiring them to remain silent on said views is in itself a punishment. What if the restriction on speech was -- instead of racial hatred, which is I gather your point -- what if it restricted your ability to speak out on your atheism?  Because that too is offensive to many people (rightly or wrongly).

A free country has many freedoms, but one does not have the right to be free of offense. And rather than prosecute speakers who urge violence, as Tiberius notes, 'tis better to prosecute the violent themselves.  After all, they made the decision to act on the words. 

 Silencing hateful views doesn't lead to eliminating those views, it leads to driving them underground where they can grow and fester. Both in the abstract and pragmatic spheres, hate-speech laws are counterproductive.

I think I should reformulate my position - Only when someone does something like Adolf Hitler should they be arrested because they are effectively endangering public sphere and possibly causing riots and violence - I don't think your opinion should be a crime, or hate, I think inciting something that already is a crime should be illegal. Now, I certainly don't think inciting hate per se should be illegal, but if someone incites hate and then the result is other people doing harm to others because of the hater, this person should be punished because they basically act as one of the main sources of the crime's motives. I mean, if I told you to kill someone of your family for money and incited you to do it infinitely, shouldn't I be punished in court if you end up doing it (Of course you would be punished as well)?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because it is an important social institution that people value and grants certain privileges and stability to raise children (the next generation)? There's many reasons to ban marriage, and many reasons to not do it - Ultimately, if people want to get married the State shouldn't stop it from happening.

The state doesn't stop it from happening, nor does it promulgate it. Procreation long predates the creation of nation-states, and the species has never had to rely on laws in order to enjoy fucking.

Is it?

Wait, you're asking if reproduction is or isn't a deep-seated urge?

But doesn't the number of children you have depend on many variables? If so, why is it that my country has a lack of young people and if it wasn't for immigrants we wouldn't have a significant young workforce (Europe has these problems)?

Generally speaking, there is an inverse relationship between per capita income and family size. That means that folks in poorer countries tend to have more children, regardless of the ease or difficulty of marriage, whereas in wealthier countries, the tend to have fewer children. Reproduction is a deep-seated urge. We all like a piece of ass, and that tends to produce children. The institution of marriage is not needed to produce children; all you need to do is look at history. Up until 8000 years ago, there were no states to institutionalize marriage at all, and yet people still reproduced.The state

Of course it is a necessity as the demographics and age of the population interact with employment rates, inflation, etc, and the State has the duty to run society the best possible way to make us all minimally satisfied.

The state has a duty to ensure that laws are enforced, borders are secured, internal safety is promulgated (fire services, sewage, etc) -- but I don't think the state has any responsibility at all for my personal satisfaction. I am completely responsible for that myself.

First things first - Would never accept forcing anyone to do anything - But that doesn't mean the government can't pursue policies depending on the demographics - Again, using the example of Portugal, we have too many old people because back in the day people had 7-8 kids and some had 30 kids (seriously my mom knew an old lady who had literally 33 kids) and now with the emancipation of women and unemployment, etc, we have fewer young people - What should my government do? Just stand there and not give two shits? Economic planning isn't just about promoting and funding private enterprise to boost profits and the GDP, it's also about playing with other variables and knowing how to predict issues in the future that will arise if you don't do anything about it.

I have a deep distrust of any government attempting to manipulate the personal lives of its citizens.

This does not mean I support extremist measures like forcing people to have X or Y kids, but it is possible to take some minimal measures to boost some variable you'd like to see growing - I don't see anything wrong about it - Not to mention that the benefits you have in taxes with kids exist for other reasons such as the fact married people spend a lot more of their income with children duties like diapers and food - It seems fair to me.

And yet childless couples, or single persons, are forced to bear the burden of such subsidies. Is it fair to penalize someone because they don't want children, or don't want to get married, simply because someone in some capital city has determined that that is what is good for the country as a whole?

In my country, there are benefits marriage gives you that you can't get with any other contract. For example, if you are married to someone and they just die, you have a right to 50% of their belongings (Unless you have kids because then it's only 30-33%) even if they didn't sign a testimony saying so, but if you're not married to them you need to sign a contract before otherwise you won't get that percentage of belongings. Obviously there's other legal benefits like matrimonial regimes that allow a different and more pragmatic management of your personal goods and belongings that you can't get without a marriage contract. 

Of course, and that is the same here. I simply think that one can handle those contractual arrangements without involving the government outside the happenstance of breach.

Indeed, but sometimes it should - Specially life-changing super important contracts like marriage and even employment contracts. I don't know what you think, but IMO the most important contracts people ever sign are matrimony and employment (long-time) contracts - Those contracts shape your life and allow you to fulfil your most important desires - Because these contracts are so important and it would be a shame if someone used the law to abuse, twist and hurt others trough those contracts, there's a need for the government to regulate.

I think the government should be able to regulate the abuses, but not lay out conditions a priori. Here in America, the past practice of defining marriage as "one man and one woman" is a perfect example. What purpose of governance is aided by such a stipulation? None. It is only in place because venial politicians chase votes. But in so doing, the government trampled the rights of how many millions?

Let them sign a contract, and if it is violated, then bring the government in to adjudicate. That's my view.

That's why my country has a law saying husbands and wives are equal to prevent old school patriarchs from doing their thing - There's also laws saying a minimum salary must exist to prevent extreme poverty or saying you can't fire someone because of their race without paying them a compensation in money.

Sure, and I've no argument with such broad measures as that. Well, I think that the last example should be improved, but the others, no problem.

I think I should reformulate my position - Only when someone does something like Adolf Hitler should they be arrested because they are effectively endangering public sphere and possibly causing riots and violence - I don't think your opinion should be a crime, or hate, I think inciting something that already is a crime should be illegal.

I think the crime should be punished, not the speech which incited it. Prosecuting the speaker for encouraging violence implies that the perpetrator had no choice in the matter, when in actual fact we all have the power to act upon or ignore free speech as we see fit.

Now, I certainly don't think inciting hate per se should be illegal, but if someone incites hate and then the result is other people doing harm to others because of the hater, this person should be punished because they basically act as one of the main sources of the crime's motives. I mean, if I told you to kill someone of your family for money and incited you to do it infinitely, shouldn't I be punished in court if you end up doing it (Of course you would be punished as well)?

I'm not sure what "inciting to do it infinitely" might entail. You'll need to clarify that. In terms of contracting murder, certainly the payer should be prosecuted, not because they advocated murder, but because they provided material support for it.

I hold that outside of speech that materially aids in the loss of life (shouting "fire" in a theater, for instance), speech should not be regulated.

The best answer to obnoxious speech is not censorship, it is reasoned reply. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've known a few librarians over the years, and they all seemed liberal enough - until you don't pay your past due fines. 

Boru