Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:27 pm

Brenden,

Perhaps you are right that this problem would be simply so terrible, that the an-cap position must be abandoned. But where does this leave us, except to accept the necessity that a State must exist and that it must engage in wrongdoing for practical reasons? This alternative doesn't sound desirable to me, so it seems the outcome is to eliminate all possible options as being viable. If you disagree, perhaps you can offer a reply to the problems I raised in Romans 13 and secession, and explain how it is that rulers can be exempt from certain moral laws that only apply to everyone else who is ruled (for example, that taxation appears to be equivalent to theft, among other issues).
TheEditor wrote: Also, I do admit to finding it a bit amusing that you offer: "I would not rule out the possibility that the retribution could be voluntarily undertaken by another person or non-State organization". So, by your lights, if the avenging organization were "non-State", then it would be appropriate, but if it is a "State" avenging, it's not? It seems an awfully big stretch.
Its not the fact that the State takes vengance in and of itself that was my reason for making a distinction here, rather it is that the characteristics of the State are that (1) it asserts a monopoly on the enforcement of law, and (2) that it compels participation in whatever arbitrary standards of enforcement it chooses through taxation.
TheEditor wrote: Plus, you keep referenceing OT principles and the era of the Judges, etc. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Iraelites have a unique position with God?
Didn't they, in essence, say to God, "Okay, we'll live like you say, and You will bless us. If we don't, You can curse us"?
And, in that arrangment, doesn't that assume God will act when humans fail to? We don't have such luxuries today as being able to march around cities and have them fall down and go boom.
Yes, the Israelites had a unique position with God. I am assuming that, like in the days of the judges, that God may be late in exacting retribution for those who sin, and that He may never get around doing so at all until the final judgment. As far as I can tell, he seemed satisfied with this arrangement in the days of the judges, and I am making the presumption that he would be equally satisfied with that same arrangement now.

Peter

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by TheEditor » Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:21 pm

Hi Peter,

I am not all that certain that I can fully grasp what all the trade-offs would be under any given government. The choice between one and the other isn't really possible, as any transition from one to the other, unless by violent revolution, would be graduated, and would require satisfaction with half-measures, but such half-measures in themselves (based upon what history tells us) have their own unique contributions to the problem, as any quasi-government/private organization would still be a beurocracy in germ form. Try navigating through the rule books in any "club" or "organization", voluntary as they may be.

Perhaps we view the conversation diiferently. I propose that any conversation about this subject, is much like those participating in a converstaion about sports, without ever having played themselves. Also, I view the interchange as two people talking about the best possible way to beat ones wife. Any option or arrangement is still going to be abuse. And, as far as the participants in the conversation are concerned, nothing they would ever do.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by Tychicus » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:32 am

thrombomodulin wrote:
In the part that you quoted, I was speaking in the context of physical property and addressing the situation morbo3000 raised about whether discrimination should be allowed by a merchant who does not sell their flowers to a potential customer because of their sexual orientation. John Locke did not address the topic of the civil rights of children in his First and Second Treatise on Civil Government
I'll just observe here that John Locke lived in a world where it was clear that children had the "civil right" to be brought up decently by their biological parents, who were supposed to be married. There were exceptions, whether due to death or other misfortunes, or to irresponsible behavior of the parents. But it was not considered socially acceptable to purposefully create children for any purpose than to be raised by their biological parents (who were supposed to be married). It was the child's "civil right" to have a mother and a father, where at all possible. And if one parent died, the child at least had the honor of having had that parent, who would have been there for them if they hadn't died.

In that world people weren't supposed to "buy" children, unmarried people weren't supposed to have children, and sperm donors or surrogate mothers were not acceptable. You didn't need special laws or legal contracts to determine where the children belonged.
thrombomodulin wrote:, but I will express my thoughts about it in response to your question.

In my view the biological parents bear the responsibility for their children. They are accountable to God, rather than other men, for their actions and failure to act in raising a child.
I'll just note here that "other men" might well be concerned if their poor parenting leads to an irresponsible child, a burden to the rest of society.
thrombomodulin wrote:The parents may choose to delegate the upbringing of their child to someone else by contract (e.g. adoption). Thus, there is a way for someone else to assume the role of the parent, in part or whole, as per the wishes of the biological parents expressed through the terms they define in such a contract (e.g. the rich man in your example is constrained by the terms specified by the biological parents).
It would not be socially acceptable to do this except in cases of extreme need. In many cases the extended family would help out, or the parents (if at least one was alive) would find someone to help out.

Unfortunately the family was often broken, due to irresponsible behavior, extreme poverty, or illness leading to premature death of one or both parents. Nevertheless, it was always considered beneficial for the children to be raised by their (married) biological parents whenever possible; and this arrangement never needed a special law or legal contract to determine who the child's parents were.
thrombomodulin wrote:I am not convinced one way or the other whether the anarcho-capitalist or minarchist approach is the correct view of the State.
I don't have any expertise on this issue.
thrombomodulin wrote:For, one might recognize that parents do have a tendency to love their children, and would generally be inclined for this and other reasons to offer them up for adoption rather than murdering them should hard times arise.
Agreed. From the context I assume you mean (married) biological parents, though adoptive parents may also have a love equally as strong.

But I would also say that the wonder of childbirth is special; the child is created out of the two parents, not engineered by doctors and lawyers. In a traditional adoption, the child is born to another couple; due to a misfortune that couple cannot raise the child and so the new couple steps in to help, and thus raises the child as their own.

On the other hand any kind of surrogate birth or use of a sperm donor does require a medical expert and a lawyer, and in some way you, the new parent(s), have created that child. You chose the surrogate, out of suitable genetic stock, as you desired. I am not at all sure this leads to the same kind of love as there will be in a natural birth.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:30 am

Tychicus wrote: I'll just observe here that John Locke lived in a world where it was clear that children had the "civil right" to be brought up decently by their biological parents, who were supposed to be married. There were exceptions, whether due to death or other misfortunes, or to irresponsible behavior of the parents. But it was not considered socially acceptable to purposefully create children for any purpose than to be raised by their biological parents (who were supposed to be married). It was the child's "civil right" to have a mother and a father, where at all possible. And if one parent died, the child at least had the honor of having had that parent, who would have been there for them if they hadn't died.
Civil rights was placed in quotes here, which leaves me uncertain as to whether or not you are asserting that there is a legally enforcible positive right for the child, or whether you are commenting on what is normative. Can you please clarify?

As for the normative aspect, I would like to say that I share your opinion that it is best for children to be up by their biological parents, and I agree that parents should not delegate the task of raising their child to others unless the exceptions you have listed apply.
Tychicus wrote: You didn't need special laws or legal contracts to determine where the children belonged ... Unfortunately the family was often broken, due to irresponsible behavior, extreme poverty, or illness leading to premature death of one or both parents. Nevertheless, it was always considered beneficial for the children to be raised by their (married) biological parents whenever possible; and this arrangement never needed a special law or legal contract to determine who the child's parents were.
Law and contract are never needed so long as the place where the child belongs is undisputed. But whenever such is disputed, then there has always been a need for law or contract to settle disputes over who is entitled to keep and raise the child. An example of a contract would be an agreement between the parents of a child and another couple that states that this couple has the right to raise the child if they should both of his parents should die.
Tychicus wrote: I'll just note here that "other men" might well be concerned if their poor parenting leads to an irresponsible child, a burden to the rest of society.
I'll note in response that this does not necessarily establish that those who are so concerned have the right to violate the parents authority over their child.
Tychicus wrote:
thrombomodulin wrote:For, one might recognize that parents do have a tendency to love their children, and would generally be inclined for this and other reasons to offer them up for adoption rather than murdering them should hard times arise.
Agreed. From the context I assume you mean (married) biological parents, though adoptive parents may also have a love equally as strong.
You have assumed correctly.
Tychicus wrote: On the other hand any kind of surrogate birth or use of a sperm donor does require a medical expert and a lawyer, and in some way you, the new parent(s), have created that child. You chose the surrogate, out of suitable genetic stock, as you desired. I am not at all sure this leads to the same kind of love as there will be in a natural birth.
It would be my opinion that such methods are unethical, and the love such parents have may be less. The fact of undertaking the such extraordinary effort at least demonstrates they regard the child so obtained as valuable.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:17 am

Brenden,

I think we do see it differently, so I'll follow your example as a way to express how I'm looking at it:
TheEditor wrote: I propose that any conversation about this subject, is much like those participating in a conversation about sports, without ever having played themselves.
Although there are players with experience in one position or another, their experience, like ours, is quite limited. The fact they have played one kind of game does not put them in a better position to assess whether they are playing the right kind of game, let alone whether any game at all should be played.
TheEditor wrote: Also, I view the interchange as two people talking about the best possible way to beat ones wife. Any option or arrangement is still going to be abuse. And, as far as the participants in the conversation are concerned, nothing they would ever do.
To my dismay, we live in an evil world where it will always be true that some men will beat their wives. I see us as talking about whether we need to beat the men who have chosen not to beat their wife or anyone else.

I came across an interesting article while reading various material about the 1906 meat packing act, which is appealing to me as it is consistent with my expectations and biases. I would like to inquire if this information is in contradiction with any facts you know about this event.

Regards, Peter

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by TheEditor » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:23 pm

Hi Peter,

I must admit that I knew little of the book The Jungle. I would like to point out, however, that The Godfater was a novel as well. :lol:

The fairness and honesty of the article you cited, however, took a turn down for me when it's only reference to T. Roosevelt's involvement was his initial scathing mistrust of the author. There's a bit more to it than that. He seems to appeal to a logic I can't quite grasp. For instance, he seems to appeal to the ethics and honesty of Chicago political apperatia?? Hmmm. Either way, I belive man to be fallen. And I believe that if men find ways to skirt laws and regulations, what prevents them from doing as bad or worse without them? I know there has been in recent years a pendulum swing (in certain circles in recent years, at least) to think things during the Industrial Revolution were all apple pies and sunshine, but I think much of the excess in the behavior of industry during that time is well documented.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by Tychicus » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:17 am

thrombomodulin wrote:
Tychicus wrote: I'll just observe here that John Locke lived in a world where it was clear that children had the "civil right" to be brought up decently by their biological parents, who were supposed to be married.
Civil rights was placed in quotes here, which leaves me uncertain as to whether or not you are asserting that there is a legally enforcible positive right for the child, or whether you are commenting on what is normative. Can you please clarify?
I was using "civil right" as a concept; what society expected from the parents, whether or not it was legally enforced. My overall point was that in John Locke's day it was clear who had the responsibility to raise the child: the biological parents, who were married. You didn't need a contract and a lawyer to figure this out.
thrombomodulin wrote:As for the normative aspect, I would like to say that I share your opinion that it is best for children to be up by their biological parents, and I agree that parents should not delegate the task of raising their child to others unless the exceptions you have listed apply.
. . .
Law and contract are never needed so long as the place where the child belongs is undisputed. . . .
It seems we are generally in agreement on these points. Contracts should be necessary only for the exceptions.

The children born in a traditional marriage will normally not need any contract or lawyer. On the other hand, any child assigned to a same sex "marriage" will have to be done via a lawyer and contract. This is not an exception; it is a 100% rule for this kind of "marriage".
thrombomodulin wrote:
Tychicus wrote: On the other hand any kind of surrogate birth or use of a sperm donor does require a medical expert and a lawyer, and in some way you, the new parent(s), have created that child. You chose the surrogate, out of suitable genetic stock, as you desired. I am not at all sure this leads to the same kind of love as there will be in a natural birth.
It would be my opinion that such methods are unethical, and the love such parents have may be less. The fact of undertaking the such extraordinary effort at least demonstrates they regard the child so obtained as valuable.
I also consider those methods unethical, but they are legal, at least in some cases. There is no way to legally measure the amount of love such parents have, but it seems to be somewhat of a different sort than that of a child born in a traditional family, and even from a traditional adoption. Let me try to explain.

In a traditional marriage, the child comes out of the genetics of you and your spouse. You have no choice of the genetic stock, once you choose your life partner. The child is formed out of your spouse, and your love for both spouse and child has a common element. In addition, you and your spouse get to love, care for, and cherish the child during their whole life, including the development in the womb.

A traditional adoption would be needed for a broken family, either due to irresponsible behavior or illness or death. The child is not originally planned for the purpose of being adopted out. It is not the child's fault they could not be raised by their biological family. So the new adoptive family steps in to help out in the need. They do the best they can to raise the child as their own.

Using a surrogate or sperm donor, however, is a purposeful creation of a human being out of wedlock. The adoptive parents get to choose the genetic stock, presumably the best they can find given the amount of money they are willing to pay. The child is not the outgrowth of the parents' genetics, it is based at most on one parent's genetics, and the rest comes from the decision of who the donor(s) will be and the parents' ability and willingness to pay the price. It will also be dependent on what kinds of arrangements the government will allow.

It is not my point here to judge the motivations of people who do this, but only to suggest that, as this practice increases and becomes better accepted, our notion of the origin and worth of children will be altered. I am not at all convinced it will be for the better.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:11 pm

Tychicus,

I agree with everything you have said in your reply.

Thanks
Peter

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:13 pm

TheEditor wrote: He seems to appeal to a logic I can't quite grasp ... Either way, I believe man to be fallen ... And I believe that if men find ways to skirt laws and regulations, what prevents them from doing as bad or worse without them?
No problem. I'll make an effort to explain the logic. This author is coming from the point of view found in Austrian Economics, which is something that I am familiar with.

Yes, everyone agrees that man is fallen. What we disagree about is whether or not compulsory regulations provide something that is beneficial in countering the problems brought about by mans fallen state. If we were to limit the assessment of regulations to only examining whether the quality of the meat provided to consumers is somewhat higher or lower, then indeed your conclusion that regulations are good, because men can only do worse without them, is valid.

I would like to point out that such an analysis is flawed because it doesn't take into account the whole picture. Lawrence W. Reed had pointed out that regulations both increase the cost of production, and decrease the quantity entrepreneurs who choose to engage in meat processing business. This means that consumers will be paying a higher price for their meat than otherwise, and that there will be less meat available on the market to be purchased than otherwise (ceteris paribus). Consequently, the enforcement of a minimum standard brings about the final result that, although men obtain either equal or better product, they will have to settle for a smaller amount of it (or a smaller amount of something else). Consequently, it should not be assumed that consumers are better off with regulations than without them.

In an unregulated market, it is very true that a business can defraud its customers (e.g. by mislabeling its product), but the business that practices such impairs its prospects for survival. For consumers who are defrauded seek to buy elsewhere, and they may even go further by seeking retribution. The path to wealth for a businessman in an unregulated market is not found in harming his customers, but rather in fulfilling their desires. Businessmen who fail to act accordingly loose their share of the market to entrepreneurs that do.

Since it can be observed that consumers desire quality in the product they buy, and that they are willing to pay a certain premium for a marginally higher quality, I think it is quite reasonable to assert that entrepreneurs are aware of this and that they actually do provide a range of product quality levels on the market. Of course, those products are provided at a corresponding range of prices in keeping with the costs of production. The way I look at it is that the unregulated market provides a broader range of choices to consumers, and also at a lower cost than otherwise*. I am inclined to deduce that consumers are better of without compulsory regulation since they can each avail themselves of whichever of a multitude of options they deem best for themselves. When the State takes away choices it does not leave the one choosing better off.

*A private business is no less able than the State to monitor the production processes of meat producers if that is necessary, for example the likes of an underwriters laboratory.
TheEditor wrote: I know there has been in recent years a pendulum swing (in certain circles in recent years, at least) to think things during the Industrial Revolution were all apple pies and sunshine, but I think much of the excess in the behavior of industry during that time is well documented.
No, it wasn't all apples pies and sunshine, but as you might guess, I don't share the view that there were excesses deserving of condemnation that should be blamed upon an unregulated market.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by TheEditor » Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:51 pm

Hi Peter,

I have been quite ill so I will be brief. You may be correct in your statement that: "I don't share the view that there were excesses deserving of condemnation that should be blamed upon an unregulated market." If by this you mean that the human tendancy to sin and abuse of fellow man is the true culprit, then I agree. However, you seem to be of the notion that it's an "either/or" proposition. I'll use an analogy. The fact that there is a prostitute standing on a corner does NOT mean a man must solicit her. If he does, the fault lies with him, not the fact the State hasn't locked her up.

On the other hand, I would submit that there are such things as "impulse buying" (grocery stores appeal to this all the time. Note the large amount of candy bars at the checkout line). And, while there are SOME men who will seek prostitutes regardless of their illegality, and there are SOME men that would never do so, legal or not, there are a vast number of inbetweeners that will engage in an activity simply becuse it is legal, and will avoid it simply because it is illegal This is a fact that needs consideration.

The unethical business man will seek ways to defraud people. The ethical one will not. But there are your inbetweeners Peter, and its these I would hope to "help ot" on that road to honest choices.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Post Reply

Return to “Teachers, Authors, and Movements”