PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Once again, the market is better at solving social problems than government is...


Taco John
02-23-2011, 01:29 AM
Target agrees to stop funding anti-gay groups following Lady Gaga deal

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/21/target-agrees-to-stop-funding-anti-gay-groups-following-lady-gaga-deal/

ClevelandBronco
02-23-2011, 02:56 AM
What social problem?

alnorth
02-23-2011, 07:47 AM
What social problem?

I'd guess that he's referring to a likely desire by some to legally force companies not to donate money to anti-gay groups. Here we've got a company doing so voluntarily for their own economic interest.

Cave Johnson
02-23-2011, 08:21 AM
How is Target going to solve the problem of gays not being allowed to marry, TJ?

BucEyedPea
02-23-2011, 09:08 AM
How is Target going to solve the problem of gays not being allowed to marry, TJ?

Well, marriage is a public institution—not a social problem per se. So if they want the privileges of marriage then the govt will have to get out of the institution of marriage. From there the markeplace of ideas will govern whatever arrangements individuals want as opposed to the govt still regulating it.

That's the way you do it.

ClevelandBronco
02-23-2011, 10:04 AM
Then it's obvious. Target acted in the nick of time.

Cave Johnson
02-23-2011, 10:13 AM
TJ, I expect your post advocating market solutions to the availability of abortions any moment....

BucEyedPea
02-23-2011, 10:17 AM
TJ, I expect your post advocating market solutions to the availability of abortions any moment....

Except for the first reason any govt is formed is to protect life. So that is a legit govt function. Because if we put who shall live or die into the hands of the people it wouldn't make most of the people safe. There is a natural inalienable right to life which precedes most other rights. Remember it's a "right to life, liberty and property"....in that exact order. Marriage, serving in the military aren't natural inalienable rights.

Cave Johnson
02-23-2011, 10:29 AM
Except for the first reason any govt is formed is to protect life. So that is a legit govt function. Because if we put who shall live or die into the hands of the people it wouldn't make most of the people safe. There is a natural inalienable right to life which precedes most other rights. Remember it's a "right to life, liberty and property"....in that exact order. Marriage, serving in the military aren't natural inalienable rights.

Except, BEP, marriage has been considered an inalienable right. Loving v. Virginia (probably the best case name not involving Satan ever):

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men..."

ClevelandBronco
02-23-2011, 10:40 AM
The liberty to enter into a mutually beneficial and benign contract with another consenting party without governmental obstruction apparently isn't an inalienable right.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-23-2011, 10:42 AM
Signed, the 1870s.

Cave Johnson
02-23-2011, 10:43 AM
Signed, the 1870s.

A halcyon time in America.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-23-2011, 10:45 AM
A halcyon time in America.

I remember when Hoover let the market solve things. That was awesome.

Mr. Kotter
02-23-2011, 10:47 AM
Signed, the 1870s.

And the 1920s. And for blacks in the 1950s. Women in the 1960s. :toast:

Perhaps, in 2010 the American middle class?

Life for the privileged elite is grand when they have their boot on our throats.

Brock
02-23-2011, 10:48 AM
I guess you'll have to explain why the government would care if Target funds anti-gay groups/politicians.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-23-2011, 10:49 AM
And the 1920s. :toast:

Life for the privileged elite is grand when they have their boot on our throats.

If only we could go back to the time when Kotter's students were chimney sweeps, all would be right in America.

"He's stuck"

"Fuck it. Let him suffocate. The market will take care of his oxygen."

Mr. Kotter
02-23-2011, 10:53 AM
If only we could go back to the time when Kotter's students were chimney sweeps, all would be right in America.

"He's stuck"

"**** it. Let him suffocate. The market will take care of his oxygen."


Yup. Ah, to return to the good ole days. When aristocrats lived like the Great Gatsby, and the rest of us knew our place...as their servants!

BucEyedPea
02-23-2011, 11:01 AM
I remember when Hoover let the market solve things. That was awesome.

Hoover was an interventionist in marketsócontrary to socialist opinion.

Mr. Kotter
02-23-2011, 11:06 AM
Hoover was an interventionist in markets—contrary to socialist opinion.

In a 16th century meaning of the term? Okay, maybe. In any meaningful modern sense? Hell no.

Your ignorance is absolutely astounding. Then again, nothing from you ever astounds me anymore.

You insist on living in a world that has been dead for 300 years.

BucEyedPea
02-23-2011, 11:22 AM
Except, BEP, marriage has been considered an inalienable right. Loving v. Virginia (probably the best case name not involving Satan ever):

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men..."
That was subject to the 14th Amendment though, which was written for black people. That case was based soley on racial reasons—something the 14th Amendment was written for. That quote doesn't apply broadly as a right, as you think—not based on the context of that case.

If marriage has been "long recognized", it has been recognized as being between a man and a women. If it's been long recognized then why does every state require a license to marry in each state? Getting a license means one is seeking permission from the state to do something? If it's a right, then one does not have to seek permission from the state. Period. States place restrictions on marriage by age and relations. So they've still have some right to regulate under the Tenth Amendment's state police powers. Why didn't the Greeks and Romans recognize gay marriage if all marriage has long been recognized?

Regarding the state's rights the Loving v. Virgina court also said:

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Garcia Bronco
02-23-2011, 12:21 PM
Well, marriage is a public institutionónot a social problem per se. So if they want the privileges of marriage then the govt will have to get out of the institution of marriage. From there the markeplace of ideas will govern whatever arrangements individuals want as opposed to the govt still regulating it.

That's the way you do it.

this...this right here.

alnorth
02-23-2011, 12:43 PM
That was subject to the 14th Amendment though, which was written for black people. That case was based soley on racial reasons—something the 14th Amendment was written for. That quote doesn't apply broadly as a right, as you think—not based on the context of that case.

You are incorrect. It is true that they decided they needed the 14th amendment due to racial discrimination, but they did not narrowly write the amendment to limit the scope to equal protection and due process by race. They could have, but they did not. Since they were going through the hassle of passing a constitutional amendment anyway, they decided to write "all people".

All gay marriage bans in the country are constitutionally infirm due to the 14th.

Mr. Kotter
02-23-2011, 12:46 PM
You are incorrect. It is true that they decided they needed the 14th amendment due to racial discrimination, but they did not narrowly write the amendment to limit the scope to equal protection and due process by race. They could have, but they did not. Since they were going through the hassle of passing a constitutional amendment anyway, they decided to write "all people".

All gay marriage bans in the country are constitutionally infirm due to the 14th.

If homosexuality was akin to race or gender, and considered a suspect class subject to the strict scrutiny test....you'd have a point. Until the SC rules in case to accord homosexuals the same legal status and protection as other minority groups, you won't have a point. Nice try, though.

alnorth
02-23-2011, 07:00 PM
If homosexuality was akin to race or gender, and considered a suspect class subject to the strict scrutiny test....you'd have a point. Until the SC rules in case to accord homosexuals the same legal status and protection as other minority groups, you won't have a point. Nice try, though.

They don't even need the same class. Gay marriage bans likely fail under *ANY* standard of scrutiny, including heightened scrutiny and rational basis. (by the way, gender doesn't get strict scutiny either, that is heightened)

The government has no rational basis, whatsoever, to ban gay people from marriage. There is no governmental objective that is advanced at all. A law that is literally arbitrary against one group of people, without any reason behind it, is going to fall to the 14th. This is essentially like taxing people who have blue houses an extra 5% on their income taxes, for no stated reason at all except "we think blue houses are icky". People who live in blue houses also don't get strict scrutiny, but they don't need strict scrutiny.

The prop 8 case in CA could end gay marriage bans. The only shred of hope that the pro-ban people have is if the appeals courts decide that no one has standing to appeal. (The named defendants, the governor and AG of CA, are both fine with losing the ban and don't want to appeal. Some other group is trying to appeal to reinstate CA's ban)