I've started to read the post, and then the quoting answering battle started, I'm kindda lazy to read it all. So, I'll try and be quick here.

I totally agree with Major's position in transgender people here. You need to be a hipocrite to claim yourself a defender of freedom, and then deny a minority's right to choose for the sake of the majority. THAT'S NOT HOW LIBERTY WORKS.

Conservatives are often hipocrites when it comes to many issues (the left isn't perfect either btw), but Liberty is hole a concept, you can't pick the parts of it you like and take away the ones you dislike.


========

Butler is starting to become a smart libertarian; one who doesn't aligns with conservatives for convenience when it comes to moral stances, a thing that happens too often, while remaining true to their concept of economic freedom. I don't agree with the libertarian position too much, but I like talking to smart people, who know their ideology rather than alienated morons who defend their position out of political ignorance.

Ah yes, Liberty. Let people do whatever they want! Let people with gender insecurities use whatever bathroom they wish!

Who cares if the majority of people don't feel comfortable with a grown man in the same bathroom as a young girl! They are all bigots!

Soon enough more insecure people will be unhappy with their race and they will be changing their skin colors too.

All these special snowflakes!

Edited 4/25/2016 13:31:33

but Liberty is hole a concept, you can't pick the parts of it you like and take away the ones you dislike.

So you're saying we either have to have total Liberty or none? That's BS. Complete liberty is anarchy. As with anything, freedom has to be balanced with other concerns. This argument of, "You have to support total freedom or support no freedom" is bunk.

Side note: I know English isn't your first language, and I feel like bit of a douche for being a grammar nazi here, but it's "Whole" not "hole". Common mistake I've noticed and it's been nagging at me.

It's not bunk at all, you either support real freedom or you support the enslavement of man by the state.

Be consistent or be truthful, but don't be dishonest and say you support freedom.

You either recognize transgender folk's bodies as property they own and property they can what they want with, or you are in favor of the government owning folk and their bodies.

It's not bunk at all, you either support real freedom or you support the enslavement of man by the state.

Be consistent or be truthful, but don't be dishonest and say you support freedom.

There has to be a sensible medium?

I respect their right to do whatever they want with their bodies. but businesses should not be required to let them use any bathroom they want. And the business shouldn't be shamed either.

There's no medium, liberty or death, freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody.

Businesses should be able to be shamed, it's the only way to morally regulate a business in a free market.

I don't defend total freedom, for this is only a return to the state of nature, where individual freedoms are taken away by the strong. I never said I supported that idea. My idea of freedom is:

One's liberty shall be total as long as his liberty doesn't take away other's; a state, independent from private purposes and just shall be the defender of the society's freedom.

This definition of freedom gives the right from transgender's to choose their bathroom, bc they aren't taking away anyone's freedom. Also, there were NO REPORTS of transgenders sexually assaulting women/children in public bathrooms. Now that this stupid law passed, men can enter women's bathroom claiming to be transgenders and commit sexual abuse, which is for me far more likely to me than transgenders doing it.

What about the businesses freedom to choose who uses which bathroom?

Oh, and you seem to have misinterpreted the law. It just made people use the bathroom suitable to their genitalia, as opposed to the one they "identify" as. No one is worried about trans people being sex offenders, they were worried about people saying they "felt" like a woman and then getting pictures of 10 years olds.

Omfg just let the trannies do their own thing.

Should government identify them as what they have changed it to? Yes

Is it a mental disorder? Maybe, but I'm not sure.

But let them do what they want. If they biologically changed it: more power to them, you should probably recognise them as the gender they have changed to. If they say they are a "man trapped in a woman's body" (or vice versa), then I disagree. This would simply enforce male and female stereotypes that such SJWs want to avoid, no? If a woman is into biking, tattoos, sex with other women, etc. that doesn't make her a "man", that makes her a lesbian with different opinions. I don't understand how emotions effect what sex someone is, because imo that is defined by science, not opinion. It's your choice if you want to call that person male or female.

Should people go into loos based on how they "feel"? No, you need the correct genitals to go into a loo. Feelings are even more irrelevant here: no women, when they sit on a loo thinks "Hm, I totally feel like a man right now!" (and vice versa); I've covered this before.

Who cares if the majority of people don't feel comfortable with a grown man in the same bathroom as a young girl!

Weak argument. <devil's_advocate>Who cares if the majority of people don't feel comfortable with a grown gay man in the same bathroom as a young boy?</devil's_advocate>

If you are opposed to attacks on liberty by other folk, then you should be against government. Mass theft of property and use of force is more anti-liberty than any Colt in a safe.

Businesses have the right to choose and folk have the right to protest that choice.

There's no medium, liberty or death, freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

This kind of black and white thinking gets us into trouble. You're trying to frame this as "Anarchy or Fascism" but the reality of the matter is that there's plenty of more reasonable options in between.

If you are opposed to attacks on liberty by other folk, then you should be against government

Government has its problems, but destroying it altogether will create more problems than it would fix. The government paves the roads you drive, stops criminals who try to harm you, and a plethora of other services. Stop acting as if any form of government is Satan incarnate.

The government doesn't stop criminals it does what they do more efficiently, folk can make roads without theft of property, and the government is satan. Started out as lucifer the light bringer then ends up being all that is evil, if you want to be poetic.

and a plethora of other services.

That will be removed soon. What's the point about defending the state if you are continuously in favour of cutting any expenditures (if you are conservative: excepted security and army). At least Libertarians and their ideals of a stateless system sound way more logical than Conservatives.

You can't make roads without collecting tax money, and most people won't pay tax money unless they're forced to in one manner or another.

I live in a private subdivision, which means the government has no control over our road. Guess what? The road is utter crap, because about half the people which live in this subdivision refuse to pay membership dues that are needed to maintain the road.

TL;DR: Government is necessary because people tend to be selfish and won't help maintain anything unless made to.

What's the point about defending the state if you are continuously in favour of cutting any expenditure

I'm not in favor of cutting any and every expenditure. In fact, I don't think I've ever advocated for that. Yeah, the government needs to cut down in some areas. But essential services such as infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc. should remain untouched.

Military expenditure should be cut down by removing all those pointless foreign bases we have running. Focus on defending the homeland and defense suddenly becomes a lot cheaper.

There are many different types of conservatives, it's a tad ignorant to put them all in one boat. Anyhow, I'm not even a full-on conservative, I just happen to agree with them 50-60% of the time.

Edited 4/25/2016 17:54:06

A pile of gravel can be laid down in line but has to be pain for by use of force, but a device can be made with parts and minerals throughout the world without force?

The point of the government envisioned by the Founders was one that protected the rights of man, and made sure individuals didn't infringe on others' rights. It has since strayed; however, no government is not the answer, and saying government is evil no matter what is just not true. A government for, of, and by the people will do more for freedom than anarchy. We just need another revolution so that our leaders are held accountable to the people. Or just adopt a direct democracy, since in today's technological world, it is quite feasible.

We have tried making a weak government answerable to the folk, and it's clear that even that has failed spectacularly. The folk vote for who will give them god or money, and they trample liberty in the process , while building fascism on the backs of folk who work. What is the most basic thing a government does? Protect liberty? They have failed in doing so, and will always fail in doing so because the entire organization of government is built upon the systematic attack on property rights. Protect life? The US government has killed around 50 million folk, let alone other governments in the 20th to 21st century.

Direct democracy is rule of the 51% over the 49%, still as bad as rule of the 1% or 10% or whatever percentage of folk there control the geographic area.

lets have total anarchy where i get to shoot u cus that my freedom to do so