Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 51. (Read 33901 times)

OK, for the rest of the class, those are:

Premise 5: An Objective Methodology Exists For Separating Truth From Falsehood
Premise 6: Truth Is Better Than Falsehood
Premise 7: Peaceful Debating is the Best Way to Resolve Disputes
Premise 8: Individuals are Responsible for their Actions

Did you even read the explanations of those premises? Especially the last one:

Too funny

So, first you say "It's your wifely duty," and if that doesn't convince her, you wait patiently for God to whisper in her ear, "Fuck your husband, Dana," Does that about cover it? 

Discussing the book again:
I do not agree with his premises 5,6,7,8.

It depends upon how you define natural rights. If you consider natural rights natural because they are "God given", then yes. It's a right, enforceability regardless. If you consider natural rights natural strictly because they're innate, then I suppose not. It's one of those areas where I don't particularly care why we agree, just that we do. Though when it comes to the nature of marriage, agreeing upon it isn't something I ever expect from a fellow libertarian in the first place, beyond agreeing that government aught to keep its nose out of it. Unless I'm marrying you. And you're nice and all, but I don't swing that way. (Even if I did, note the part earlier about it being a three party covenant. Without God's endorsement, it isn't a marriage as defined by scripture.)

The only recourse for mistreatment is reproof. If that doesn't work, then you wait. Very patiently. Being extra nice. Because if you really believe in a God that is active in this world (I know you don't, I'm speaking of the hypothetical) and you're doing what you're supposed to do in the relationship, and the other person really is at fault, and they're actually a Christian, (unless you married pre-conversion, I think that might be an exception) then God himself steps in to settle the dispute. Which as a concept is either amazing or absolutely terrifying, depending upon how you look at it.

Indeed they don't. And in an agreed-upon exclusive relationship, it's perfectly acceptable to feel bad, if the other party breaks that agreement. But jealousy is not the emotion one would expect from someone who values the other person as a person, and not a possession. Jealousy is a desire to control the other, to force them back into the relationship. Disappointment, depression, anger, all of these are valid and expected responses. Jealousy is the fear that you're going to "lose" the other person - typically to another. Accept that the other person is, in fact, a person, with a will of their own, and that they strayed because they were not happy. Be angry, or disappointed, or sad, that they chose to hide this unhappiness from you, and instead chose to seek happiness elsewhere without first breaking it off - or better yet, working out the problems - with you, but not jealous. They are not your possession to be held closely and guarded from others. They are a fellow human being, and if you do, indeed, love them, then their happiness should be a prerequisite for your own.

Ah, indeed, what most people who cheat call "jealousy" is in fact, righteous anger, and completely justified. When they cheated, they did indeed break that contract, and you would be entirely correct in considering it null and void. Anger at someone breaking an agreement like that is expected. But if you're yelling at them that they are "yours," then you are indeed exhibiting jealousy, and viewing them not as a person, but as a piece of property.

Well, this is the Politics and society board, so we tend to go pretty far afield from Bitcoin. Not much else to do, if you're just riding the roller-coaster until it stops.

I'm curious. Since enforcement of that "happytime right" is ruled out, what recourse does one party have, if the other party refuses? Can it truly be called a right, if it explicitly cannot be enforced?

Christianity addresses things far beyond the realms which libertarianism seeks to address. Breaching the three party covenant (wife/husband/God) is evil; but it's not criminal in the social sense.

In a libertarian sense, yeah. They don't own each other. But in reality? There is a legitimate sense of ownership, though it won't be enforced outside of the church. (The church being designed to function as a private governmental body, independent of any government.) For instance: husband has the right to the wife's body for happytime. The same is true for the wife's happytime needs. But can the husband take hold of her by force and have his way with her? Not unless she's into that kind of thing. Yet he has an objective basis upon which to point out that she aught to be getting jiggly with it. If she doesn't, then she's in the wrong, period, no contest.

Mind you, this concept extends waaaaaaaaay beyond just sex.

A mutually exclusive relationship doesn't necessarily imply ownership. A marriage, as defined by scripture, does. In very plain language. Though not in a human legal sense. We're dealing with a whole other ideological realm here.

I don't see anything disrespectful about expecting people in an exclusive relationship to be exclusive, nor about valueing the relationship highly enough that one feels badly if the other does not faithfully hold to that part of the deal.  And I don't see how that would imply ownership.  People may pertain to each other in an exclusive way and even use the word "my" without implying ownership, e.g., "My father," "My wife," "My boyfriend," "My teacher," "My friend."  None of those relationships grant someone a right to control another.

So, in an exclusive intimate relationship, if my partner is unfaithful and I feel awful about it (jealous), I think I am not the one with the problem.  And in such a case, I am likely to ignore any terms of the contract, exit clause or not, and exit, seeing as how the contract has already been violated.  And I am even more likely to do so if the person disrespectfully rakes me over the coals for feeling "jealous."

But now I am so amazingly far afield of Bitcoin that I think I better ignore the politics subforum before I continue to get sucked up in this forever!

One reason why I'll never marry, anyway.  Implies one belongs to the other.  I always figured, if you're really right for someone, it's completely unnecessary to make it "official".

On the contrary, it's not disrespectful at all. Indeed, quite the opposite. Claiming to own another person is the vilest disrespect you could show them.


But you do not own her, nor she you. There can be no such relationship between self-owners. Perhaps she is contractually obligated to stay with you, in which case cheating would be a breach of that contract, but a marriage founded on ownership instead of love is doomed to fail. For there to be true fidelity, the option to leave must always be open - which is why I have always considered contracts with no exit clause ('til death do us part) to be a poor choice.

I'd go back to the original language (the only thing that actually matters) and get a more accurate definition, but I'm a little occupied at the moment. But yeah, you get the idea.

Good point. lol I suppose God could be Satoshi?   

I don't think jealousy and covetousness are synonyms.

I didn't realize Heinlein had fallen victim to that kind of disrespectful thinking!

How would you know? Bitcoin addresses can be anonymous, remember?

The real reason God is jealous is because I have bitcoins and she doesn't.   

There are evil kinds of jealousy, and there are good kinds of jealousy. Covetousness might be a better term. For instance, it's generally not a good idea to hit on someone's wife. Coveting someone's wife would be bad.

But if my wife is cheating on me with you and I'm coveting her, then it's good that I'm jealous. She's rightfully mine, and I have every right to want to take her away from you. The bible outlines a sense of ownership between the wife and the husband. (It goes both ways, mutual ownership, not just one way.)

Which if you really know your stuff, then you know that biblically marriage is actually a "shadow" or "type" (analogue) of the relationship between Jesus and the (actual) church. The bride being the collective of all true believers, and Jesus being the groom. Therefore God has every reason to be jealous when his bride is cheating on him. Note that you'll never find him claiming jealousy over people outside of either Israel or the church. But again, that's another very long discussion.

 “Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy - in fact, they are almost incompatible; one emotion hardly leaves room for the other.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

He claims to be. Though it would be objectively evil for them not to be. The very behavior which is a moral evil for us is actually a moral necessity for them. Nevermind the whole unlimited being thing and all the implications that that entails.
[/quote]

Jealousy is a moral evil?  I would have to disagree.  I view jealousy as a positive character trait.  I would see the lack of it as, at best, indicating a very low-value relationship or, at worst, indicating a possible mental disorder.

Now, a lot of people do try to use "jealousy" as a disrespectful slur to try to pressure people to give in to what they want.  Example: a cheating husband's wife discovers his texts to his mistress.  She questions him about it, and he starts abusively branding her as "jealous," as if it is a problem for her to feel jealous (invested in their relationship) and not a problem for him to be playing the field.  Use of the word is a control tactic of shaming other people in order to get what we want at their expense.  Another great example of a word frequently used this way is "hoarding."  There is nothing morally wrong with saving, but some people would benefit if others did not save so much, and so they apply disrespectful emotional pressure and shaming to try to alter the behavior of others so they can get what they want at their expense.

But I'm now extremely far afield of both Bitcoin and politics, so I probably better go back to doing something productive.

the thread was mysteryminer's reaction to my jew thread, with the same content.