Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
What is the most abhorrent ideology to you?
Mine would be social conservatism. It seeks to restrict liberty for no purpose other than legislating "morality" or maintaining traditions. In my opinion, unless some other liberty is at stake, the government - or any authority, church or business, or otherwise - has no right to restrict a liberty. Please inform me what liberty is at stake that we have to keep homosexuals separated and under "soft persecution."
Social conservatives can defend the pro-life stance on abortion pretty well, as a life is involved, but after that, their arguments tend to become pretty much stupid. The death penalty's morality is questionable, it's more expensive than life imprisonment, and there's always the chance that you might execute an innocent person, however slim. I've already mentioned how I see no benefit in restricting the right to gay marriage(other than to please some religious deities; whatever happened to separation of church and state?), and all you posters already know that if we aim to protect marriage, then we should logically ban divorce as well. Furthermore, provided we establish standards(such as STD tests), why should prostitution and gambling be illegal? The same goes for soft drugs. These are all controversial economic activities, but think of the tax revenue that could be generated if these were legalised, regulated and taxed, and how much money would be saved if we were to cut the enforcement of laws against them. As a small concession, we could at least decriminalise these activities( I see no reason to put a pothead in jail; if he wants to screw himself up, that's his choice).
For those who argue about the issues arising from legalising x(STDs from prostitutes, common high states with drugs, and bankruptcy from gambling), should we not pour the tax revenue into covering these problems them? Some may see it as defeating the point of taxing(to create revenue), but at the very least, we end up with more net liberty, even if all the taxes are drained for therapy and related activities.
That concludes my stance. I can appreciate the merits of interventionism vs. isolationism, universalism and imperialism vs. self-determination, democracy vs. autocracy, socialism vs. capitalism, and numerous others, but I cannot see any merit in social conservatism, other than restricting freedom for no reason other than "book x/culture x says it's bad."
Mine would be social conservatism. It seeks to restrict liberty for no purpose other than legislating "morality" or maintaining traditions. In my opinion, unless some other liberty is at stake, the government - or any authority, church or business, or otherwise - has no right to restrict a liberty. Please inform me what liberty is at stake that we have to keep homosexuals separated and under "soft persecution."
Social conservatives can defend the pro-life stance on abortion pretty well, as a life is involved, but after that, their arguments tend to become pretty much stupid. The death penalty's morality is questionable, it's more expensive than life imprisonment, and there's always the chance that you might execute an innocent person, however slim. I've already mentioned how I see no benefit in restricting the right to gay marriage(other than to please some religious deities; whatever happened to separation of church and state?), and all you posters already know that if we aim to protect marriage, then we should logically ban divorce as well. Furthermore, provided we establish standards(such as STD tests), why should prostitution and gambling be illegal? The same goes for soft drugs. These are all controversial economic activities, but think of the tax revenue that could be generated if these were legalised, regulated and taxed, and how much money would be saved if we were to cut the enforcement of laws against them. As a small concession, we could at least decriminalise these activities( I see no reason to put a pothead in jail; if he wants to screw himself up, that's his choice).
For those who argue about the issues arising from legalising x(STDs from prostitutes, common high states with drugs, and bankruptcy from gambling), should we not pour the tax revenue into covering these problems them? Some may see it as defeating the point of taxing(to create revenue), but at the very least, we end up with more net liberty, even if all the taxes are drained for therapy and related activities.
That concludes my stance. I can appreciate the merits of interventionism vs. isolationism, universalism and imperialism vs. self-determination, democracy vs. autocracy, socialism vs. capitalism, and numerous others, but I cannot see any merit in social conservatism, other than restricting freedom for no reason other than "book x/culture x says it's bad."
