tuscl

How many of you are child free?

Eve
Where there's a hole, there's a way. [HIATUS]
Saturday, November 11, 2017 7:29 PM
When I say that, I mean how many of you don't have kids nor the desire to have kids for whatever reason - be it for financial reasons, your present quality of life, or just simply no interest or intrigue in the thought of having them. For a multitude of reasons, I don't want any, and I want to eliminate the possibility completely. My 25th birthday is a week from tomorrow, and I've been told by a couple of locals that that is the minimum age to even be CONSIDERED for any type of sterilization in Jax (or Florida. Can't really verify prerequisites by location) for females. I already know it's an even further hassle to get approved for the operation even after you pass that part, but if there's any doctor or clinic that I could successfully convince that I want my tubes tied/blocked/whatever, I would go for it - and since I'll be of the legal age to possibly do so very soon, that will probably be one of my next bucket list things to cross off. I've been given a big amount of stories filled with frustration and constant rejection from girls with very varying lifestyles that said that getting approved to be sterilized was much more stressful than they originally thought it would be - saying that doctors told them no for shit like "You're too young to decide for now." "You already have 2 kids, so later down the line, you might want another." "Well, if your husband MIGHT want a child, wouldn't it be respectful to give him the open chance?" "I think you should wait until you're married to make a big decision like that.." You get the idea. I don't know if the process of getting sterile is the same for males, but the worst so far I've heard from a guy friend was just having to sit and ice his balls for however many days straight to aid with swelling. Well. Whether you're shooting blanks or not, how many of you choose not to have kids?

127 comments

  • Salty.Nutz
    •
    7 years ago
    I have kids, but it was mostly because my wife made that decision for me. Most of the sex I had before hand was girls telling me to not cum, in them, pull out and to wear a condom. Hopefully you will meet a man that you'll want to cum in you. I think the majority of girls are sterile due to birth control.
  • shadowcat
    •
    7 years ago
    My wife was pregnant with our second child when I decided that I did not want any more and asked my doc for a vasectomy . He wouldn't do it until after our baby was born just in case some thing bad might happen to the second. Well nothing happened and I got snipped about 2 months after my son was born. Although I hate my ex wife she did give me two great kids. I now have 2 grand children and they are a joy to me. I look forward to becoming a great grand father some day.
  • lopaw
    •
    7 years ago
    I'm childless by choice and I have NEVER regretted that decision.
  • Salty.Nutz
    •
    7 years ago
    Kids suck when you don't have them, but they are great when you do. It's good not being the center of attention, my kids are my center now. The only thing you're not replaceable in is being a parent to your kids, society will find the next doctor, lawyer, teacher, ect...however, two kids is enough for me. Snipp, snipp like the shadowcat
  • rh48hr
    •
    7 years ago
    My kids are the joy of my life. My ex-wife did not want kids at age 25 when we met as well. She is very glad she has kids now. They are her joy now even when they make mistakes. I will not tell sometime how to live their life, but I would highly suggest not making this decision just yet in your life. You are still extremely young and there are many things that can happen in your life you do not expect. Give it 10 years before you do it. My two cents.
  • shailynn
    •
    7 years ago
    Personally I think 25 is too young to change something in your body that may not be irreversible, but I can understand your desire to never have kids. When you’re 40 you may have different feelings. I’m in my late 30s and have been married for over 15 years, no kids. No regrets what so ever. My wife sometimes questions our decision but not much griping about it. My mom says “who is gonna take care of you when you’re old?” But I told her just because I have a kid doesn’t mean they’d look over me when I’m old. Luckily I have siblings that have kids so I don’t have to have the no grandkid guilt syndrome.
  • Eve
    •
    7 years ago
    I've been on the pill for a while, and sometimes I'd rather not have to halt my life for 10 seconds just to take it at an exact time - especially if I don't think I'm having sex that day. But let it slip your mind for a day or two, and your whole cycle gets all sorts of fucked up - and not in the fun way. I don't want to take it forever, and I'd prefer a permanent solution as opposed to a routine day-by-day one.
  • Rick999
    •
    7 years ago
    Child free right now and not expecting any but open to it if things change dramatically.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    My wife and I decided to limit our kids to two - basically, we replaced ourselves. Three months later I was snipped. My urologist asked a series of questions like, "Do both you and your wife agree?"and, "I can do this in a way that the operation can be reversed by microsurgery, or I can shorten and cauterize you sperm tubes. Which do you prefer?" Cut and cauterize away! The pill wasn't effective for us, and indeed, its effectiveness is about 98% per year. That said, our older daughter has been an unmitigated joy, as are her two kids. So has my younger daughter who was conceived just two weeks after my wife's IUD was removed. Her daughter is also a joy. You don't sound as if you have any doubts, Eve, but if you have any inkling that you might want kids some day, don't take any course that can't be reversed.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    You might want to consider an IUD. That's a system that you don't have to worry about daily and is effective.
  • Eve
    •
    7 years ago
    Had an IUD before (Paragard). Only lasted a year before I had some very frustrating complications and had to get it taken out. Spending around $700 on it turned out to be a bust after that.
  • EastCoaster
    •
    7 years ago
    I have no kids -- and I've never had any regrets about that. Nothin' against kids -- or those who have them -- but I never wanted them myself. For me, life's been good without them.
  • ButterMan
    •
    7 years ago
    i have no kids. I like them. I have 2 God daughters but none of my own and most likely never will.
  • jester214
    •
    7 years ago
    No kids and I go to great lengths to make sure it stays that way. That said, I'm not ready for the snip snip. If I've learned anything in my life it;s you don't know what the future holds.
  • Liwet
    •
    7 years ago
    Jacksonville: Chris Moore, M.D. (Vasectomy) He's listed as sympathetic to people who want to be childfree on the /r/childfree subreddit.
  • Liwet
    •
    7 years ago
    Personally, I'd love to get a vasectomy but the doctor refuses to give me one since I don't have transportation home. I said I could call a taxi but he said I actually need a person, not a taxi, to take me home. I have the $1,200 too.
  • Eve
    •
    7 years ago
    I'm subscribed to that subreddit, but if we're assuming that he only specializes in Vasectomy/male sterilization, then I'd be out of luck. There's also a doc listed on there that works in a women's health center in Ormond Beach, which is also good by me, because I go through there to Daytona Beach often.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    I'm completely child-free and I've never wanted to have children. I been telling people that I don't ever want to have kids ever since I was around 11 years old, and I never even came close to changing my mind since then. There are so many reasons: Having kids feels like an irreversible decision with limitless downside and very limited upside. It's illogical. If your child turns out to be a loser then people will think poorly of you and you'll have constant stress and heartache, but if your child turns out to be a winner... well, so what? What do you get, a trophy, a parade? No, of course not. If your child climbs Kilimanjaro, cures cancer, makes a billion dollars, is really good looking, has a killer smile, big biceps, nice tits, graduates at the top of the class from Harvard, wins an Academy Award, becomes the President, whatever, who fucking cares? That doesn't mean that YOU did any of those things, right? Your kid did them, not you. I've never understood the concept of pride in *someone else's* accomplishments. Yes, you helped to raise the kid, but how do we know it wasn't your great-great-grandfather's genes that contributed the most to the kid's success, whereas your meager contribution actually held him or her back? Every child is a total unknown quantity until it's far too late. Why would anyone want to bring someone into the world without knowing anything about that person? Seems illogical to me. And yet that's what we do every time we have a child. Well, you can count me out. Your kid could just as easily turn out to be an asshole as a saint, just as easily turn out to be a moron as a genius, just as easily turn out to be a serial killer as a charity worker. You're rolling the dice, but someone else gets the payoff if you win. Plus being a parent means endless worry that never really goes away. I'm a grown man, now in my 30s, and I'm well over 6 feet tall, and yet my parents still seem to worry about me (perhaps at times with good cause LOL). Well where's the upside to that? Some people will say that having kids is an insurance policy just in case you live to a very old age and need someone to help take care of you. What a shitty reason for having kids! First off, that's very selfish. And secondly, this isn't 15th century China. This is the 21st century, and we now have paid professionals to take care of me when I'm old, thank you very much. Oh, and kids are expensive. I must have cost my parents a million dollars, adjusted for inflation, from conception to the present day. What a lousy return on investment. I mean I'm really glad to be here, but I'm sure they could have found a good use for that money that didn't involve all the bullshit I put them through. Eve, quick question, how do you feel about abortion? I don't mean politically or morally. I mean, would you ever consider having one? Because having one's tubes tied sounds like a very invasive procedure, whereas just using the pullout method and having the occasional odd abortion just sounds less invasive to me. Also, how do you feel about birth control shots instead of pills?
  • jackslash
    •
    7 years ago
    I'm child free in that my kids are grown and live in other states. I'm glad I had children, but it's not for everybody.
  • Jascoi
    •
    7 years ago
    my ex wife had two young kids when i married her when i was 29. we had two more and i got snipped. they are all good kids each with kids of their own. personally... having kids should be a decision one needs to ponder. at least eve you are really thinking things out. having no kids keeps your life MUCH simpler.
  • twentyfive
    •
    7 years ago
    If you don’t want children you shouldn’t have them, but I agree with those that say 25 is too young to make an irreversible decision as you age and you could possibly meet someone that causes you to change your mind. Myself and I have said this before my children are my greatest source of pleasure.
  • Cashman1234
    •
    7 years ago
    I have kids - and I was married for several years before we had kids. I couldn’t imagine my life with kids (when I didn’t have them) - simply because babies turn your world upside down. Now I couldn’t imagine my life without kids. My kids are a true joy - they are great - and I’m very lucky they are in my life. That being said - kids aren’t for everyone. It’s 2017 - so we don’t need to have children to work the crops - and to help with the harvest. We also should be evolved so that we don’t need to have kids because that’s what folks do at a certain age. @EveHartley you are a smart woman - and you’ve devoted thought to this as well. You should proceed and do what you want. You should prepare yourself for the pointed and painful questions (that you mentioned in your post). You can be curt in your replies - as those questions are none of their business. This is a big undertaking - but you’ve thought it through. If you were in a committed relationship - and you came to the dr alone - that could be a red flag. But you aren’t in a long term serious relationship - so it’s your sole decision to do this. I wish you the best.
  • s275ironman
    •
    7 years ago
    I don't have any kids, and I don't plan on having any in the foreseeable future. However, I myself don't plan on getting a vasectomy. In the future, if a situation comes up where I change my mind and would like to have kids, I want the option to do so. Until then, I make sure I have a healthy supply of condoms available. My siblings are married and have kids. I also have several friends that are married and have kids. They can be a joy at times, especially if you play the role of uncle or aunt. However, taking care of a child is a lot of work. Sometimes one would wonder if the stress is really worth it. It doesn't bother me that I am single and have no children. When I do see close family and friends, I have a hard time dodging the questions about my bachelor lifestyle. I get asked all the time, especially from relatives I only see a maybe once a year. In the end, it doesn't matter since I am perfectly happy the way that I am.
  • bang69
    •
    7 years ago
    I have no kids. But I a neuph. For me that's good enough
  • Roadworrier
    •
    7 years ago
    I didn't have kids, a lot of issues with the wife (eating disorder, psych issues) for many years. Either way I would not sterilize at 25. You may have regrets at 30 or 35. Children are always the future, if we Americans don't have kids, others will and pretty soon no one will be speaking English.
  • Uprightcitizen
    •
    7 years ago
    No kids here...or as i say "I have one, me". But I would say Eve I would look at all options before making that choice. You are indeed young and things will change over your life that may change your outlook.
  • WillMunny
    •
    7 years ago
    No kids and no desire to have them anytime soon, but I figure there's plenty of time left (Tony Randall, anyone?). Statistically I figure if I ever end up getting married there's a better than even chance she'd already have at least one kid. For Eve, I'm sure it's frustrating to get all the runaround but I can see the logic - patriarchal though it may be - in making women wait to age 25, and counseling them clearly before making a permanent decision. You've got an awful lot of your life still ahead of you, and it may be better to deal with the hassles of conventional birth control than finding yourself 10 years down the road wanting a family and not having the (natural) option anymore.
  • skibum609
    •
    7 years ago
    In October of 1973 as I approached my 16th birthday; war raged in the middle east; Viet Nam was winding up; Russia was on the march and we were in year 2 of gas lines I made the prediction that in 40 years the world would be such an awful fucking place I could not justify bringing children into this world as I did not expect a successful America to exist. I am childless, except for a 42 year old step-daughter, and my lifetime total of second thoughts/regrets is zero. I am a great uncle and glad I never got the chance to be a neglectful, absentee Father.
  • Call.Me.Ishmael
    •
    7 years ago
    Me. No desire to have kids.
  • SirLapdancealot
    •
    7 years ago
    Count me (and my wife) in on the no kids club.
  • rh48hr
    •
    7 years ago
    BHF- You are entitled to your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of having children. The pessimism seems off the charts. I'm not going to argue, ridicule, or try to change your mind. We just haopen to have completely opposite beliefs on this subject. l will say this; chidren are not for everyone. That being said, there are parents who had no business having children in the first place (not responsible, selfish etc). And there are people who haven't had children (or don't want them) who would make excellent parents.
  • larryfisherman
    •
    7 years ago
    I will definitely have kids in the future. I just want two kids. I don’t there’s anything more humbling than bringing a human life into the world that you created. Of course when you have kids, you realize your world doesn’t revolve around you anymore, it revolves around your kids. I advise people to have their fun in their 20’s and establish themselves, then in your early 30’s hopefully you’ve got all the fun out of your system, and then you’ll be ready to settle down.
  • Daddillac
    •
    7 years ago
    I have kids and I love having them.... I wish my ex and I had worked out but that was just a mistake on both our parts. My girlfriend that turned out to be an escort claims she aborted my last child, I don't know if that is true or not and given her history of being a lying bitch whore, I doubt it is true
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @rh48hr, I'm not really a pessimistic person by nature, but I can understand how it may seem that way. I will say this though, my philosophy regarding having children does depend on most people NOT agreeing with me. After all, my life would be awful if everyone else stopped having kids: who's going to work at the strip clubs in 30 years if everyone stops having kids today? LOL But I'm not a pessimist: whether you think the world is wonderful or you think the world sucks, I believe it's clearly getting better every year. The nightmare of crime and nuclear weapons of the late 60s, 70s, and early 80s is a distant memory now. People made things better. And all people started out as children. But children are definitely not for me.
  • rh48hr
    •
    7 years ago
    Thanks for expanding on your thoughts BHF. I'm glad there can be differing opinions on this site without it always turning into a pissing contest. lol
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    I am child free. The sooner we can get the population down the better. I also see that not all of us serve in the same roles. I for one feel that we need to take apart the middle-class family, as it exists only to exploit children. SJG
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    Never had kids - not necessarily b/c I didn't like kids b/c I do and I have always gotten along great w/ them and enjoyed being around them; I just felt it was a responsibility that I did not want nor felt I was equipped for, besides the fact that I never really had a strong-urge/desire to have kids - growing-up I thought I would marry and have kids b/c "that is what one was supposed to do" - but the older I got I did not have an innate desire to marry nor have kids w/ the only/main desire being the societal/family expectations for me to do so. I think having kids is a good thing and in many ways makes better people (more responsible, and less-selfish) - for me not having kids was not a matter of it "cramping my style" per se or kids getting in the way of what I wanted to do; for me it was not having that innate desire and not wanting that responsibility b/c I felt I was not equipped for it (and in my case I was not equipped for it). But I do think having kids is important b/c we need to replenish ourselves, and have enough healthy young working people to contribute to society and the economy - I def commend those that took on the responsibility and took parenting seriously and thus added contributing members to our society. If I felt I had been in a better-place to take on the responsibility of a family I probably would have done so b/c I think strong/healthy families are a good thing and pretty-much the backbone of a good/healthy society. I'm in my late-40s and def don't see myself having nor wanting kids and as it stands now I don't have any regrets and it feels like it was the right decision for me personally, but I still think a strong/healthy famiyy is the way to go if it fits one's situation.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    w.r.t. the OP - as others have mentioned, 25 feels too-young to make a life-long decision b/c often we are not the same person at 35 - she does seem pretty-adamant about not wanting to have kids instead of being on the fence about-it, so perhaps it's unlikely that her mindset/feelings would change, but it seems too final a decision at this point in time - after-all AFAIK I know she hasn't met Juice yet and if she does her mindset may change
  • GoVikings
    •
    7 years ago
    ^ lol
  • Clubber
    •
    7 years ago
    "Child free" now, yes. Always, no. The kids are, and have been for some time, on their own. No "grands" in the future it seems, and I am happy with that. Often grandchildren become "yours" and I don't want that again. I dedicated most of my adult life to my children, now it's my time.
  • rickdugan
    •
    7 years ago
    BHF, if you had kids, you would understand why parents take pride in their accomplishments. Every bite of food they eat and every opportunity they have comes from me and my wife. If my kid becomes a world class gymnast, it will be because we put her in gymnastics at an early age and supported her through all the years. We also provided her with the nourishment and other care to make her strong. If she exceeds academically, it will be (in part) because we put her in a good school, helped her when she needed it, kept her on track when she faltered and otherwise gave her a home environment conducive to academic success. If she even simply grows up happy and healthy, it will be because of everything we did for her along the way in terms of teaching her values, feeding her for 18+ years, staying on top of her medical care and getting her help when she needed it. On the whole, the difference in outcomes between kids with good parents vs. those with bad ones is often vast. Yes there are exceptions to the norms and other things that can happen along the way, so being a good parent with resources is no guarantee of any particular outcome. But it is almost assured that being a horrible parent limits kids' life choices and almost always leads to under-performing children.
  • rickdugan
    •
    7 years ago
    Every opportunity and bite of food MY KIDS have comes from us, lol.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @rickdugan, I hear you. And I'm aware that most people feel that way. But for whatever reason, I lack the gene that makes people feel the way you do. It doesn't compute for me. Besides, what about the millions of kids who were in gymnastics at an early age and received support, but nonetheless didn't become world-class gymnasts? Your genes will dictate at least half the outcome. Anyway, I'm really glad that most of you don't feel the way I do. We need children or else society would collapse. Kind of reminds me of that movie, Children Of Men.
  • Cashman1234
    •
    7 years ago
    @BurlingtoHF - there are many kids who have assistance to become more involved in many sports and activities - and very few reach the very top level - and there’s nothing wrong with that. In truth - by being involved in sports - they learn and grow in ways well beyond just what is achieved on the playing field. They learn to compete - to support team mates - they learn to handle defeat - to be a good winner. It’s a huge education - and it produces better adults - regardless of whether they reach the peak of the sport. I tend to think that’s the most important aspect of sports. The actual top pro athletes can sometimes be assholes. There is a very small pool of top athletes - so one asshole can give the sport a bad reputation.
  • Cashman1234
    •
    7 years ago
    I take pride in their accomplishments because I’ve driven them to each practice - and I’ve seen their struggles - and felt their pain. So it’s not just a singular success.
  • rickdugan
    •
    7 years ago
    BHF, fair enough. I didn't really understand either until my first child was born. Then, when you have this little creature in your arms completely dependent upon you for absolutely everything, you start to grasp the power you have over this little life. From there, even as the child progresses through toddler and elementary education years, parents continue to make choices that will impact the trajectory of the child's life, including religion; schools; what behaviors and values they teach; activities children will be introduced to, what and when they eat; etc.,etc. It is a tremendous responsibility.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    ^^ It's like "we have to pass the bill first so that we can find out what's in it." LOL. I need to have kids first to understand why I would want to have kids. I don't know, folks. But I'm happy that you guys are happy with your children.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    Hey, @EveHartley, a little help? Any thoughts? I'm holding off all the breeders single handedly at this point LOL ;)
  • Cashman1234
    •
    7 years ago
    ^^ BHF - you don’t need Eve’s help. You have stated your feelings quite well. I’m not judging anyone regarding their decision to have or not have kids. In my opinion - if you don’t want kids - it’s best not have them. The last thing anyone needs is to have kids to appease a partner - or because others are having kids. Kids are lots of work - and if you aren’t “all in” - it can become a real sticking point. If you keep thinking “I didn’t want this kid in the first place! I did it for you!” That can add stress to an already stressful situation. Just my two cents.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @Cashman1234, Yeah, I was just kidding around. Things must have gotten busy at the jack-shack and she doesn't have time to tend to her thread LOL. Anyway, I totally agree with your perspective on not having kids just to please a partner. Probably the single worst idea in relationship history.
  • Cashman1234
    •
    7 years ago
    Jack-shack - lol! Very funny @BurlingtonHF! Her hands must have been too busy to type!
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    ATAC wrote, "The pill wasn't effective for us, and indeed, its effectiveness is about 98% per year." Comical that there is actually someone who believes that. And BHF, thanks for stating your opinions so well. Don't let people push you around, I know that you don't. Living consciously is very hard for some people to face. And the middle-class family only exists so that it can exploit children. SJG Heart, Little Queen [view link]
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy, Thanks for the encouragement, man. To be clear, I meant that I was only kidding about needing Eve's help. But I definitely wasn't kidding about how I feel about having kids. And actually, I'm only scratching the surface. There are lots of other good reasons for wanting to remain childless. For example: - Feeling inadequate to the task of giving your hypothetical child a really great life; - Being uncertain whether you can walk the tightrope of rewarding and punishing your prospective child; - Not wanting to take on the added responsibility and expense of a larger home; - And wanting to remain free and not tied down so that you can do awesome things like travel, take a class, start a risky business venture, and pay for sex with strippers ;) On the other hand, there are some arguments against having children that I totally reject and do not agree with, namely the argument that we are running out of space and natural resources. Or the argument that it's a shitty world and it's getting worse. Or the argument that the world is full of bullies, molesters, and poisoned Halloween candy. I don't agree with any of these arguments. They seem to ignore reality and statistics. I much prefer my arguments. Anyway, I do appreciate the thumbs up, but I would just remind you that I am one of the most doctrinaire libertarians here on TUSCL... and we know how you feel about us "Randoid" types LOL.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    ^^^^ Yes, a definite thumbs up from me. And also, I see even more dimensions to it as well. Mostly it is just a decision to live consciously, instead of by following the herd. A new world is upon us, and it depends upon people who are refusing to keep fueling the old. Thanks, SJG Northern California Shooting, Today [view link] AZTECA (FULL ALBUM) [view link] AZTECA~PYRAMID OF THE MOON 1973 FULL ALBUM [view link]
  • Cashman1234
    •
    7 years ago
    @BHF - you make valid points. You have thought out your decision to not have children - and you’ve explored the reasons for not having them. Well said.
  • dallas702
    •
    7 years ago
    EveHartley, If you are still following this - Consider the side effects before snipping, disconnecting anything. If you are not ovulating, or controlling your cycle with hormones/chemicals - there is a distinct risk your body will simply choose to go straight to menopause. As a guy, I cannot tell you what that is like for a woman, but I can tell you that no one with ears, feelings or a brain will want to be around you on your "haywire" days during menopause. Menopause is bad enough, EARLY menopause is insanely horrifying. I was on the receiving end of that when my 42 y/o wife had her ovaries removed because of cysts blocking both. Even with hormone treatments, she was extremely unpleasant to be around 3 days out of 5, for over six years. For all of those 6 years, and another 5 years after, her sex drive hovered around zero. Her temper was unpredictable. She would start sweating, without any discernible cause, at very inconvenient times. Often, even in the heat of summer, she would be cold. She dieted all the time, and gained weight. It was a crazy uncomfortable time for ME - and I had the opportunity to be away from her week days (and as often as I could find an excuse). Imagine how crazy it was for her! ASK a lot of questions before you have a procedure. Ask several places. If they tell you that they can "control" the symptoms of early menopause, they are lying! Know that when the way your body is producing hormones changes, it will change the way you think, it will change the way you feel, it will change how you experience the world around you, and it will likely cause you to gain weight. That's bad enough when it comes around in your mid to late 50s after your body has slowly reduced hormone production for a decade, it could be as bad as a personality transplant for 25 y/o!
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    ^ yeah - it would be a good idea if you (Eve) found a message-board on the subject and get info from those that have been thru it
  • JimGassagain
    •
    7 years ago
    SJG, why is it that being childless is living consciously? I would think that being responsible and raising children to be productive and caring citizens would be more conscious than a self absorbed person who can think of nothing but himself. A strong middle class is what built this nation, and without it we have a government ruling unconsciously over its people for the elite upper class that rules over its minions or poor people. Anyone who is against middle class is angling for a more selfish, unconscious life in desperation to compensate for a lack of humanity.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @JimGassagain, Ok, I'll take a crack at this. First, if it's selfish to not have kids, then it's also probably selfish to have kids, too. How do I know? Look at the answers that people gave above. When they talk about their children it's always about how good *the parents* feel. How the kids make them feel, their pride, their joy, their sense of accomplishment, etc. I mean, if the best argument you can come up with for having kids is that they make you feel good about yourself and the world, well, that seems selfish too, doesn't it? Anything done for oneself is done with selfish intent. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. But acknowledge it for what it is. You used words like 'responsible,' 'productive,' and 'caring,' but really you're just rolling the dice and you know it. Were Ted Bundy's parents being responsible when they had him? How about Charles Manson's parents? Or how about the guy who recently shot up a church, or the one who shot all those people in Vegas? They were each once someone's little bundle of joy. Were their parents being responsible by having them? Don't you wish their parents would have just used the pullout method or something? Some people show far more conscious responsibility by not procreating. Just remember, everyone you've ever loved, liked, disliked, or hated, started out as a baby. Every politician, thief, lying salesman, ROB stripper, bad neighbor, or asshole who cuts you off in traffic was someone's baby once. And as for the middle class, SJG seems to have a weird preoccupation with it and he hates them for reasons unknown. But that doesn't mean they "built this country." You're putting the cart before the horse. Freedom built this country. And when people are allowed to be free, some of them will pull themselves up from poverty into the a higher mode of existence, such as the middle class. Or the upper class. But seriously, I doubt that you or SJG or most of the people here can even define the middle class. You just know that you're not poor and you're not filthy rich, so therefore you must be "middle class." But, of course, that's not what it means.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    BHO, to be middle-class has always been a state of mind, a set of values, never about how much income people get. And so really it is middle-classes. And in the US, other than slaves, there really never has been anyone else but the middle-classes. The middle-class is the first large group which has choice in how it lives. Very different from traditional societies or primitive societies. But the middle-class does not what that choice, they don't want to admit that they have it. They want to believe that they are compelled to live how they live, and so that they have no responsibility for it. But they still believe people irresponsible if they do not comply with social expectations. To be middle-class is to adopt a reactionary identification system. The middle-class lives in Bad Faith, that is they don't live up to their own values, they don't admit that they are responsible for creating their own values. [view link] The ones who pay the costs of this every single day of their lives are the children. Middle-Classes [view link] And this Deridre McCloskey seems to have made defenes of the middle-classes her life's work. SJG
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy, You're correct that being middle class has little or nothing to do with income, but you're wrong that it's a "state of mind." The middle class is just another way to refer to the professional class: doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects, small business owners, government bureaucrats, teachers, administrators, financial industry workers, computer programmers, and managers. A teacher who earns $40,000 a year, a surgeon who earns $240,000 a year, a business person whose income fluctuates dramatically (and may even lose money sometimes)... they're all middle class. But a garbageman who earns $80,000 a year is a member of the Working Class, not the middle class. The difference is that middle class people earn a living off of their "mental capital," their labor is mostly mental rather than physical, and they usually have attained at least some higher education. That's what middle class means and has always meant. What most people mean when they say 'middle class,' is really just 'middle income.' They talk about the "vanishing middle class," and they usually demand that the government "do something" for the beleaguered, put-upon middle class. This usually translates as "let's extend welfare programs to cover more and more peoole and let's make the rich pay for it." Some, like Bernie Sanders, refer to 'the middle class,' when they really mean the poor and the working class. They'll say stupid things like "Unions built the middle class." What horseshit. If you are a member of a labor union, there's pretty good odds that you aren't middle class. By contrast, what you seem to be describing is merely the neo-Victorianism and conformity of the 1950s, and it has nothing to do with the middle class, per se.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    I do not agree. Most people, especially the poor and jobless, think in terms of middle-class values. It is not tied to education. A garbage collector, especially if he is in a union, than he may have working class consciousness. But you find less and less of this. SJG
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Like Marx said, what makes the lumpen proletariat different from the proletariat is a lack of class consciousness. Marx saw lumpens as drifters, alcoholics, and the only occasionally employed. We have lots of such people, and they, especially whites, always think and talk in middle-class, right wing, libertarianisms. Union members are a dying breed. But one thing the unions did was make their members into the middle-class, and this is why they went against their unions and voted for Reagan. In any even the ones who live in bad faith, are the middle-class, rich, poor, and middling income levels. SJG
  • twentyfive
    •
    7 years ago
    @SJG A typical working guy with two kids a wife doing the right thing by them educating them loving them is living in bad faith you really are both damaged goods, and a piece of work all rolled up into one rude opinionated jerk.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy, I fail to see how unions made their members into the middle class. Even by your definition, let alone mine. And I definitely don't see how libertarianism is rampant among the middle class or the working class or any other class, in this or any other country. Yes, libertarianism requires a strong defense of property rights. You seem to be aware of this much at least. But it's more than just economics. Libertarianism means support for free trade, free immigration, legalized prostitution, legalized drugs, legalized assisted suicide, gun rights, gay rights, trans rights, the right to eat whatever you want, burn the flag, and not wear your seatbelt, ending all welfare and entitlement programs, deregulation, and generally less war. Each of these is very controversial to say the least. I don't see how these "values" have taken America by storm. I would really appreciate it if you would use words as they were intended to be used. The word libertarianism doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    You guys hijacked Eve's thread Which may not matter since she seemingly dropped-out early-on
  • twentyfive
    •
    7 years ago
    @Papi stop patronizing Eve Hartley ;)
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    ^ I wanna patronize her b/w her legs :)
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Twentyfive, what makes the middle-class different is that it is the first large group of people which has choice in how it lives. So when a guy portrays himself as a "typical working guy", he is not being truthful with himself. He is instead trying to hide behind an antiquated identity adopted from pre-industrial society. The middle-class lives in bad faith, and the weight of this falls most heavily on children. [view link] BHO, During the glory days of trade unions, roughly the 1930's up 'till 1980, via collective bargaining, unions were able to increase the socio-economic standing of its members. But as a result of this, its members started thinking in more conservative ways, thinking like the middle-class. And so we have historically democratic voters going against their party and against the advice of their union leadership. And then in 1980, this was much more pronounced. Tony Schwartz trying to capture this in 1972: [view link] Libertarianism is nonsense, always was, always will be. It is just an excuse for lower taxes and helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is no other ethics behind it. "free immigration, legalized prostitution, legalized drugs, legalized assisted suicide, gun rights, gay rights, trans rights, the right to eat whatever you want, burn the flag, and not wear your seatbelt" Virtually no professed Libertarians want any of the above. They only want: "ending all welfare and entitlement programs, deregulation", and they also usually want more war. It is about making money, and about economic stratification. The word Libertarian is a con. So I refuse to support that con. It is dishonest because our society has never worked according to what they profess. No society has ever worked that way. And the people who profess Libertarianism have almost always benefited from the degree of taxation and collective benefits which our society does have. It is just talk, a kind of talk which sounds sexy, but is completely dishonest. SJG My candidate, George McGovern [view link] And he was actually the one who wanted what Libertarians profess, like legalized prostitution and homosexuality. [view link] It pretty much is like this today, due to the Reagan and Clinton Earned Income Tax Credit. 44% instead of 47%, according to Mitt Romney. The difference is that one has to have children to get anything from that. Weather Report - live [view link]
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy said (in addition to lots of other nonsense): "what makes the middle-class different is that it is the first large group of people which has choice in how it lives." Um... Isn't that a *good* thing? "And so we have historically democratic voters going against their party and against the advice of their union leadership. And then in 1980, this was much more pronounced." Yep, you're right, this happened. But it was mostly because of social and cultural issues, not because of "libertarianism" or middle class values. "Virtually no professed Libertarians want any of the above." Listen, I don't know who you've been talking to, but I am a libertarian and I do want all those things. Yes, there are a lot of people here on TUSCL who call themselves libertarians for some reason but they are really something else. Most of them are probably just standard-issue conservatives who just happen to want to legalize prostitution. A few are liberals or moderates. But I'm the real deal. And most of the libertarians I've met in my life seem to want those things, too. This philosophy is about more than just tax cuts. We can make common cause with some distasteful groups of people, on an issue by issue basis, but that doesn't mean that we are permanent allies. Libertarianism is not the same thing as liberalism, progressivism, conservatism, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, white nationalism, populism, or anything else. It means what it says. If you're going to keep insisting that I don't really believe in all the things that I do, in fact, believe in, then I'm going to simply ignore you. Can you point to one actual libertarian who can prove your point? "and they also usually want more war." Nope, actually most of us don't. Where did you get this from? "No society has ever worked that way." Right. So what? It's a theoretical ideal that we believe in. "My candidate, George McGovern...And he was actually the one who wanted what Libertarians profess, like legalized prostitution and homosexuality." I didn't know that McGovern supported legalized prostitution. That's interesting. But that doesn't make him a libertarian. It's only one piece of the platform.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    That the middle-class has choice in how it lives is most certainly a good thing. But, the middle-class does not want this, it wants reactionary identities to hide behind. So it talks about what is natural, or about hard work, and the heaviest part of this dishonesty is always born by children. Yes, Nixon and Reagan deployed social and cultural wedge issues. One example was that Roman Catholics have usually been swing voters. So Nixon pushed the abortion issue. And of course Reagan signed into law the 1969 bill which liberalized CA's abortion laws, but the religious right went with Reagan over Carter. Another was of course racism, and then getting voters out because they were against the anti-war movement. Libertarianism is a way of drawing in people that are conservative where it matters, economic issues, but by talking about social liberalism, which is just fluff. Libertarians are duped by the people who actually drive their movement, which is the Right. "Listen, I don't know who you've been talking to, but I am a libertarian and I do want all those things. " Yes, but your protestations get people elected, like for example Jeff Sessions, Republicans. It is like Portland's Tom Hartmann says, Republicans who want to smoke weed and get laid. Libertarianism is a cover for Reactionary Conservatism, and Neo-Liberalisim is a particularly deceptive example of such. You BHF do believe all that you profess to. But the Libertarian movement exists for entirely different reasons. Most libertarians are basically conservatives, even reactionaries, and so they are very easily emotionalized to want war. Our world is more and more interconnected, we are not just bands following war lords. More than ever there is need for regulation in many areas, like vehicles, fire arms, and about computer trouble making, and also in protecting the environment and in making sure that our economy works for all. George McGovern was a liberal, a real one, not like Hilary Clinton. SJG Libertarian Origins [view link] King Crimson, live 1982 [view link]
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy, This is like trying to prove a negative. Perhaps you would be correct if you replaced the word "libertarians" with the words "people who call themselves libertarians." I'm telling you, when you drill down on these people and scratch beneath the surface, you'll see that their views are all over the map and most of them aren't real libertarians. But I am. We are pretty rare. Thom Hartmann's video makes the case that the libertarian movement exists to roll back the New Deal. Yeah, that's pretty accurate. But so what? I'm against every part of the New Deal. That's a major part of our system of beliefs. So I don't get your point. We agree with conservatives on some things, with liberals on other things, with populists, with the establishment, with Steve Bannon, with Dennis Kucinich, with Ann Coulter, with Donald Trump, with Richard Nixon, with Ronald Reagan, with George McGovern, with Barack Obama, perhaps even with Hillary Clinton. It all depends on the issue. I don't know any libertarians who get emotionally excited and tribalized for war. I certainly don't. In fact, libertarianism is practically the antithesis of human emotion. We're basically just a bunch of Asperger's sufferers who geek out about politics. I would never vote for Jeff Sessions (or Roy Moore, for that matter). I fail to see how libertarians got Sessions elected. I couldn't even bring myself to vote for Donald Trump last year. Sure, lots of us voted for Trump, but many also voted for Hillary Clinton, and the largest group probably voted for Gary Johnson. So since we've now totally hijacked this thread, let me ask you one last thing. Given my views, since you seem to think that libertarianism means something other than what it actually means, what should I call myself if not a libertarian?
  • JimGassagain
    •
    7 years ago
    SJG says he's child free, but it's apparent he's not faggot free. He's got lots of faggits to keep after, fir that's what u do when playing identity politics, you tend to like faggots!
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    "people who call themselves libertarians." Okay, but there are very few around who are anything more than that. The movement tends to be white male dominated, and that is the group the most receptive to the arguments of the Right. "what should I call myself if not a libertarian?" A Reagan and Thatcher economic Right Winger, a Supply Sider. And remember that with these social wedge issues, they are usually being driven by an economic agenda, to demonize the poor. The people behind them are usually not really being straight. Also remember, our government, though instituted collectively, it was instituted voluntarily. And so to make things work, everyone has to have a fair place in our society. One of the central roles of government is to protect minorities and vulnerable groups from the majority. The majority does not need such protection, because it will always be able to protect itself. But racial, sexual, and religious minorities always need to be protected. If for any reason the government fails to do this, then people have to rise up and either fix it or take it down. Okay, but the same applies to poor people. If lots of people are poor below some basic minimum, then something is seriously wrong, and it is the job of the government to fix it. If it does not do this, then again people have to rise up and either force the government, or dissolve it and our nation. If it comes to this, then skillful and high volume use of lethal force will of course be mandated, otherwise the revolution will not be respected. Who is ever respected if they won't kill to protect themselves and their own? The government, when it is doing good, it protects people from the Herd. This really is the New Deal in a nutshell. When it is doing bad, like with people like Hitler or Trump heading it, then the government is hiding behind the Herd. Always one of the Herd positions is that poor people are bad. So the government has to protect poor people to the utmost. Keynesianism transfers wealth downwards and so it expands the economy and the number of people who get to participate in it. This is good; it worked for many decades. It drove what we have come to think of as postwar prosperity. But today there are other constraints, like environmental constraints, and more serious sociological issues coming from when people are locked out for long periods of time, and when more and more it is children who are the scapegoats of the middle-class family and the target for elements of the medical profession. In the days of Keynes, we could target full employment. Today we have to target a full economic safety net, but we need to be reducing employment levels, even deliberately. The best examples of where to look for this are Scandinavia, Ontario, and in the Universal Basic Income proposals. Gaffagain: [view link] SJG Yardbirds [view link]
  • Eve
    •
    7 years ago
    Jesus fucking Christ, this discussion is STILL active!? I had my laptop getting repaired for the last couple days, and this is what I come back to.
  • Eve
    •
    7 years ago
    Regardless, I've read all your opinions, and I'm not put off by those that are against the idea. But it is still something I want to consider down the line, maybe not within the first hour of my 25th, but after continued thorough research and gathering more experiences, and who knows how long that will take. To really put in perspective on why -exactly- I don't want to be a mother: I don't particularly like kids. Interacting with them actually makes me uncomfortable, and the idea of being responsible for the physical and mental well being of a child kind of unnerves me. Being pregnant is incredibly unappealing to me, I wouldn't want to scar my kids or screw them up with my potentially shitty parenting (Hell, my cats are hard enough to take care of sometimes). And it may sound selfish, but I don't want to have to organize my personal/professional lifestyle and finances around my children for 21+ years. But to put it very simply and in basic terms... I just don't want kids. I would never be mean to them, and I don't think any less of people that DO want them. This is how I felt even when I was a kid growing up, so while opinions can change, I've got doubts that this one will. @Papi I'm flattered, but I don't think I'm your type to want to do that. ):
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    Welcome back. "I'm flattered, but I don't think I'm your type to want to do that." Well, what do you look like?
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Not to senselessly further steer this off topic, but I just want to continue with BHO a bit if he is interested. "what should I call myself if not a libertarian?" You have to tell me if any of this fits or not, how about "Economic Dispensationalist"? Or how about just "Social Darwinist"? Party Platform: The Poor Deserve To Be Poor Party Motto: Let Them Eat Motivation Talking about freedoms is fine, but also understand that if you increase the freedoms of some, you are also likely reducing the freedoms, and even the safety of others. Our nation exists because states voted to give up some of their freedoms in the name of general welfare of all. If this were not enforced, this country would have long ago disintegrated into mass slaughter. The government has to do what ever it takes to make things work for all, even if it seems like it is imposing on the dominant majority and the wealthy. There has to be some modicum of social and economic equality, or democracy can never work. And for someone to say that they are Libertarian, doesn't that really just mean, "I am part of the Herd and so I don't need any special protection from the government, and so beyond that I don't care about anyone else"? Obviously a country is not going to stay a democracy or last very long at all, if lots of people think this way. SJG Buddy Guy - Knock On Wood [view link]
  • Bj99
    •
    7 years ago
    ^ yeah, let’s keep that talk where it belongs. [view link]
  • Uprightcitizen
    •
    7 years ago
    Wtf stop polluting this legitimate thread with your fked up bantering SJG! Jezzus you are such a sorry douchebag. Go back to your hole...
  • NinaBambina
    •
    7 years ago
    No kids. I plan to start when I'm 29/30ish.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    ".,. Papi I'm flattered, but I don't think I'm your type to want to do that ..." Do you have a pulse?
  • ppwh
    •
    7 years ago
    > Do you have a pulse? And now we get down to brass tacks!
  • vincemichaels
    •
    7 years ago
    I have never had kids, Eve, I would have had them had I gotten married. Your choice is fine with me, it's more than a 21 year committment. It's lifetime, children have problems as they grow older past 21. You will always be their mom, which can be very rewarding at times, aggravating at other. It's being what a parent is. On a side note, I pray that SJG never had children to further hurt the gene pool. He is quite mentally ill, obviously.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy said "A Reagan and Thatcher economic Right Winger, a Supply Sider." - From a libertarian perspective, Reagan and Thatcher were mixed bags. Reagan in particular kept almost the entirety of the New Deal and the Great Society completely intact. Spending increased. The War on Drugs went into overdrive. Very little deregulation was passed. And Reagan admitted privately that he didn't want to fight the unions. Yes, I would have voted for him, but he's not exactly my hero. And supply side economics is fine, but I don't really want the government to enact any policies that are intended to produce any outcome whatsoever in the economy. We should lower taxes because people deserve to keep more of their own money... not merely to encourage rich people to create jobs. They may indeed create jobs and make investments, and the economy may expand as a result, which would be great, but who can really predict it? The government should do what's morally right and not worry so much about the consequences. It's always the right time to do the right thing. @san_jose_guy also said "The government, when it is doing good, it protects people from the Herd." - Yes, that's a key aspect of libertarianism. We defend unpopular things all the time. We've been in favor of gay marriage since at least the 1950s. The first nominee of the Libertarian Party was a gay man, John Hospers in 1972. (His running mate was a woman, BTW.) We've always been in favor of legalized drugs, suicide, and prostitution. We supported interracial marriage and interracial sex at a time when public opinion was solidly against it. Later on, we stood against liberals and conservatives who wanted to sensor music lyrics and video games. Libertarians believe that you should have the right to sell your own internal organs. And the right to make unlimited anonymous political campaign contributions. We support completely free trade and immigration. We have always wanted to end social security, Medicare, WIC, Food Stamps, farm subsidies, and every other government transfer program. We're against disaster relief. And no one else will ever fight for your right to drink Four Loco and snort cocaine without wearing a shirt at a strip club at 5 in the morning. No one. Trust me, these are not popular positions. "The herd" is against almost all of it. And these aren't "middle class values" either, as you put it. @san_jose_guy also said "Obviously a country is not going to stay a democracy or last very long at all, if lots of people think this way." - I'm not especially thrilled with the idea of democracy. What matters are constitutional protections, how much freedom the individual has, and how the government treats individual rights. The form of government is irrelevant. A monarchy with a solid Bill of Rights that leaves people alone to live their own lives and taxes very lightly would be preferable to a democracy that does the opposite. san_jose_guy also said "The best examples of where to look for this are Scandinavia..." - I disagree. Read this article: [view link]
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    So BHO, you say that Libertarians defend unpopular things all the time. But isn't your political philosophy still centered on the idea that the poor deserve to be poor? Isn't that its unstated premise, and the rest just window dressing? Sweden is one of the finest examples of moderated socialism, established via the ballot box instead of via gun barrels. As such it shifts back and forth, though still far far to the left of most of Europe, of Bernie Sanders, and of the United States. People just seem to believe that everyone deserves a good life and social legitimacy, not just some people. And then that the benefits of industrialization should accrue to everyone. The US was generally on track with Sweden up through the mid-60's. Canada's first Universal Health Care was patterned after our Medicare. But Richard Nixon was already using divisive wedge issues, like abortion, to peel away swing voters, like Roman Catholics. And then he went into overdrive, unveiling his Southern Strategy. And so today we have it. In 1960, the first Presidential Election with 50 states, they said all 50 states were competitive. But by using racism and the conservatism and conformity entailed in Evangelical Christianity, we have this Red - Blue map, where a Democratic candidate's only chance is to win a certain pattern of states and not lose any. Ronald Reagan, in 1969 he signed into law California's bill named after it's author state senator Anthony Beilenson. This created pretty much a Roe v Wade situation, only just three years ahead of schedule. [view link] Reagan never could have been elected President without the Born Again Movement dumping their Southern Baptist Sunday School Teacher and going with the Hollywood Playboy divorcee. Reagan would promise them much, but with most of it he never really tried very hard to deliver. At the time Reagan was seen as the radical right. By today's standards he could almost be seen as a moderate. And then as the Planned Parenthood building in AZ is named after the wife of Barry Goldwater, the state Republican Party want to take Goldwater's name off of their own building. Fascinating book, gets into the heads of the activists on both sides: [view link] Why the Religious Right turned against Carter, and what they really want: True Origins of the Religious Right [view link] SJG Deirdre McCloskey, total bullshit! [view link] Joni Mitchell - Amelia [view link]
  • Eve
    •
    7 years ago
    Even though this debate is the main thing keeping this thread alive, I only read the first few sentences of each post to know that it's steered quite far from the main topic. "Do you have a pulse?" My clit pulsates sometimes if that counts.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    ^ that would suffice :)
  • vincemichaels
    •
    7 years ago
    Papi, that's a good one. I'd be delighted to meet this lovely woman, should I ever be in a club she is working.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    How one feels about The Family is going to be closely related to how one feels about Capitalism. Comrade Frederick Engels taught us this, along with Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx. [view link] So a discussion about being child free is naturally going to develop into a conversation about Capitalism. And then today: [view link] And though readily available on paper, this 1978 classic is now full text online: [view link] SJG
  • FTS
    •
    7 years ago
    I will likely remain child free until I retire... or until I accidentally get a girl pregnant.
  • twentyfive
    •
    7 years ago
    @ Eve Hartley Pulsating clits are more fun than those magic finger beds in the motel. Only problem is they make my tongue numb. ; )
  • NinaBambina
    •
    7 years ago
    LOL y'all kill me. Therefore I myself have no pulse.
  • twentyfive
    •
    7 years ago
    If you have no pulse you’re doing it rong ;)
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy said: "So BHO, you say that Libertarians defend unpopular things all the time." - Yeah. As a movement, we support both gay marriage and the right of Christian bakers to refuse to bake gay wedding cakes. We believe that people should have the right to own Uzis and machine guns and bazookas, with no background checks and no registration... but we also think that the police have too much power and too little accountability. These are unpopular positions that will please almost no one. "But isn't your political philosophy still centered on the idea that the poor deserve to be poor? Isn't that its unstated premise, and the rest just window dressing?" - No, it isn't. The poor are poor for a variety of reasons, and we can't do very much about it. We can take money from some people and give it to the poor, but that would be stealing. And stealing is wrong. "Sweden is one of the finest examples of moderated socialism, established via the ballot box instead of via gun barrels. As such it shifts back and forth, though still far far to the left of most of Europe, of Bernie Sanders, and of the United States." - You're living in the past. Sweden isn't like that anymore. Read the article I linked to. I think an actual guy from Sweden probably knows more about it than we do. "But Richard Nixon was already using divisive wedge issues, like abortion, to peel away swing voters, like Roman Catholics." - That's not accurate. So far as I know, abortion didn't really become an issue in presidential politics until 1972, but it was fellow *Democrats* who first used the issue against George McGovern in the primary. Nixon employed his Southern Strategy in 1968, but it failed. Most of the states that Goldwater had won in 1964 went to George Wallace in '68. Still, I understand what you're getting at: social issues as we understand them barely existed in presidential politics up until the 60s, and Nixon helped bring them to the fore. I would just caution you to reconsider the notion that the southerners were more anti-abortion than the northerners prior to Roe vs. Wade. Have a look at this map and tell me what you think: [view link] "...we have this Red - Blue map, where a Democratic candidate's only chance is to win a certain pattern of states and not lose any..." - Right. Works the same for a Republican candidate. "Comrade Frederick Engels taught us this..." - You're almost descending into self-parody here.
  • Bj99
    •
    7 years ago
    Ugh.. go back to the Hillary thread. I’ve lost the link. Now you guys are just being annoying on purpose.
  • Bj99
    •
    7 years ago
    “Posted” not lost. Post your inane political arguing there.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @Bj99, I don't think our discussion would apply to the Hillary thread any more than it applies here.
  • Bj99
    •
    7 years ago
    Nope. Come on now, off to the Hillar thread w that silliness.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Support gay marriage and support the right of Christian bakers to refuse to bake their wedding cakes. Well that right off shows how little you have really thought about any of this. First of all very few of those identifying as Libertarians could care less about gay marriage. And then, if you are going to defend the right of refusal for the Christian cake bakers, then how far does that go? Who is allowed to discriminate, and under what circumstances and in what ways. Back in the 60's in San Francisco, car dealers were saying that they would be happy to hire black salesmen, but that the problem was just that their customers would be offended. So students from UC Berkeley came over and protested. Suppose an apartment landlord says they would be happy to rent to blacks, or to gays, its just that their other perspective tenants would object. I know of an Episcopalian church with a gay rector. But they say that they want to approach homosexuality the way it will be seen decades in the future, instead of taking any positions or doing anything now which would make them a target for controversy. So they are unwilling to stand up publicly for any positions they claim to hold. And consider that for most gay people, they are the rejected and likely closeted family scapegoats. But there are gay people in most families, so these church members are saying it is okay to discriminate against their own and they aren't willing to stand up to defend any positions. So retail businesses don't discriminate anymore because the law prohibits it. If employers don't discriminate anymore, its because the law prohibits it. This country was founded by a Herd, and most of its doings still come down to the herd. At its worst, like with DJT or a Hitler, the government hides behind the herd. But at its best the government stands up for the marginalized, including with an economic safety net, in order to make our country work for everyone. "We believe that people should have the right to own Uzis and machine guns and bazookas, with no background checks and no registration.." That goes way beyond current law and practice. You know that that would mean more lone nut incidents. "- No, it isn't. The poor are poor for a variety of reasons, and we can't do very much about it. We can take money from some people and give it to the poor, but that would be stealing. And stealing is wrong." That is a ridiculous position. Anyone who has money has gotten it because they have operated according to the operative rules of our society, and those rules make it so that some people will be extremely rich and some will be extremely poor, and so these rules must be changed. Taxation is actually only a moderated form of redress. Welfare and public assistance actually exist only to regulate the poor, to curtail disruptive behavior and more. A democracy cannot exist when you have an extreme wealth gap. No one who has gotten money out of our society has any God given or natural law right to it. It is just circumstantial. The largest confiscation of property was the emancipation proclamation and the 13th amendment. Other than the land it self, slaves were the highest total value property in the country. Your Libertarian views are total bullshit. As it is today, so much of public policy is aimed at blocking the spread of democracy, as that would always entail some degree of wealth redistribution. That article about Sweden was so biased as to be worthless. Abortion did not become a huge issue until Roe v Wade, but for Roman Catholics it was an issue long before that, and Nixon was fanning the flames, as often Roman Catholics are swing voters. And Republicans have far more electoral votes completely locked down before Presidential Campaigns even start. This is mostly due to the sustained efforts of Republican strategists, often involving religion and racism, and also the promulgation of Libertarianism, a doctrine which is just a cooler sounding version of Republicanism, and as I now will say, Libertarianism is based first and foremost on Social Darwinism. SJG Cutting Crew - (I Just) Died in Your Arms Tonight [view link] Do people like the power ballad form? If it is slow enough it will often be in the Key of E, hence working with the lowest note on Bass and Guitar. [view link] How To Talk To Women & Spark Attraction [view link]
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy, I don't really know what else I can say to you, man. I've already acknowledged that you've probably encountered some people in your life who call themselves libertarians but who act just like run-of-the-mill conservative Republicans. It's a shame that these people don't simply crack open a book or log onto the internet and find out what libertarianism really means. It's also a shame that you don't do the same. This was somewhat more of a problem 8 years ago, in the aftermath of the wreckage of the George W. Bush presidency, when lots of people were almost embarrassed to admit to being Republicans or conservatives, so they started calling themselves libertarians instead: it was a word that had not yet been thoroughly debased by our country's political discourse. It's quite a bit easier to be a progressive or a conservative in America than it is to be a libertarian. This is because the progressives and conservatives have two major parties that already claim to represent their views, so all you really have to do in order to be a progressive or a conservative is to join one of the two major tribes and follow the leader. But it just seems to me that being a libertarian requires a bit more thought. A few quick hits: 1) Yes, libertarians have long supported gay marriage. Long before the Clintons, or Joe Biden, or Barack Obama, or even Donald Trump ever did. This is from 1975, published in the "house organ" of libertarianism, Reason Magazine: [view link] These two brief articles are much more recent: [view link] [view link] 2) I'm fine with anyone discriminating against anyone else they choose, except for the government. The government can't discriminate. But anyone else should be free to do so: churches, employers, employees, bakers, hotels, hospitals, landlords, literally, anyone else. That's what freedom means. That's the whole point. 3) You may be right, having more access to guns might mean more "lone nut incidents." But the price of living in a free society means that we have to accept some risk. Regardless of how easy it is to buy a gun, it would never be legal to kill people by any means. 4) You're right about slaves being the most valuable "asset class" in the antebellum period. I'm not sure what that has to do with libertarianism, though. The law at the time didn't recognize people's natural right to be free. Laws protecting slavery and slaveholders were not legitimate. It's as simple as that. Sadly, there are a few people today who pretend to be libertarians and who seem to support the Confederacy, perhaps because they view the Confederates as rebels against an oppressive federal government. It's certainly not a majority, but it's common enough that the Cato Institute itself felt the need to post this brief but fascinating video: [view link] To be clear, if someone supports the Confederacy or slavery, or if they think that the right to own slaves is an issue of States' Rights, then they're not a libertarian. Period. 5) Lastly, as for the thing about Republicans somehow having a lock on the Electoral College... that's just stupid and untrue. Prior to the 2016 election, it was common for pundits to talk about the Blue Wall of electoral votes that the Democrats start out with, which would make a victory by any Republican unlikely. Trump was able to peel away three of these "Blue Wall" states by appealing to their residents on issues of trade, immigration, and entitlements. Historically, if a Republican took the opposite position on these three issues (in other words, if the GOP candidate took the libertarian position, ironically enough), he would easily lose these states and the entire presidential election. The states I'm referring to in particular are Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. I'm not sure if you understood me: Trump was only able to crack the Blue Wall by specifically being the OPPOSITE of a libertarian on the issues of trade, immigration, and entitlements. That's how he won. Clearly, libertarianism and "Republicanism" are not the same thing, perhaps less so now than ever.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    So if private parties were still able to discriminate in matters of employment and housing, then we would still be living in the legacy of slavery. You interpret freedom as meaning protecting rights of the dominant majority. And what you are promoting is in direct violation of federal law. To me it still sounds like being a "Libertarian" is just a cooler way of being a Republican, wanting to be able to smoke weed and get laid, while at the same time claiming this 'survival of the fittest' doctrine. And it still sounds like what Libertarianism is based on is Social Darwinism. We did join together as one nation, and that means that it has to work for everyone, including racial and sexual minorities, and for those who for whatever reason are poor. So I continue to see Libertarianism as total bullshit, a sham, a fraud. SJG Yardbirds Tangerine [view link] Led Zeppelin - For Your Love - rare live tape [view link] Yardbirds, Train Kept A Rolling, 1968 French TV [view link] Dazed and Confused [view link] Rare early Stairway to Heaven, Led Zeppelin [view link]
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    We're living with the legacy of slavery regardless. The right to discriminate has nothing to do with it. After all, black people are able to discriminate against white people, too. Isn't discrimination fundamental to all human life? When you go to a strip club, don't you discriminate against this dancer or that dancer? Some of them are attractive to you, others aren't. So you discriminate when you choose to spend time with the attractive ones, right? But try to imagine what would happen if a large company in a major city in 2017 were found to be discriminating against black people. It would probably be hounded out of business. Racial discrimination is simply bad for business today. But I still believe in the right to discriminate even though most Republicans do not agree with me. Republicans in 2017 generally support anti-discrimination legislation. But I don't. That's one difference between a libertarian and a Republican. Need more examples? Most Republicans support "sensible regulations" on businesses. Most libertarians do not. Most Republicans support "common sense gun control measures" like registration and background checks. Most libertarians do not. Most Republicans want major restrictions on immigration. Most libertarians support amnesty and want far fewer restrictions on immigration. Most Republicans say that they want free trade, but then they support all kinds of protectionist measures anyway. Most libertarians want pure free trade. Period. Most Republicans think that you can balance the budget by cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse." Most libertarians want to balance the budge by totally eliminating 75% of the Federal Government's functions outright. Most Republicans think that being gay is an abomination and that marriage is between one man and one woman. Most libertarians think that the very idea of any government defining marriage is ridiculous, and most libertarians support gay marriage, gay adoption, polygamy, etc. Most Republicans are opposed to stem cell research, but the few Republicans who do support it also seem to want the government to actually pay for it. Most libertarians wholeheartedly support stem-cell research (and cloning, too) but they don't want the government to pay for it. Most Republicans support seemingly endless undeclared wars, warrantless domestic wiretapping, and hanging Edward Snowden upside down by his balls in public. Most libertarians want to close every overseas military base, end the wars, stop domestic spying, and they tend to regard Edward Snowden as a patriot, if not an actual hero. Most Republicans want to expand the War on Drugs and keep prostitution illegal. Most libertarians want to legalize drugs and prostitution. Most Republicans want to criminalize various forms of pornography. Most libertarians think porn is a form of constitutionally protected free expression. Most Republicans absolutely love the so-called middle class entitlement programs - Medicare and Social Security - and they want to enact reforms to "protect" them. Most libertarians are opposed to the very idea of the government running any form of retirement program, whatsoever, and they want to enact reforms to rein them in or totally end them. Most Republicans are obsessed with the police and the military, and believe that they can do no wrong. Most libertarians regard the police and the military as no different than any other government employees who frequently screw things up and abuse their power. Most Republicans believe that flag burning should be illegal. Most libertarians think that flag burning is an exercise in free speech. Most Republicans are pro-life to some degree. Two thirds of libertarians are pro-choice, according to most polls. Seriously, this list could go on and on and on. There are major differences. Are there any libertarians who are registered with the GOP? Yes, of course. I'm one of them. So are the Koch Brothers. And Grover Norquist. Plus Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jeff Flake, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Dana Rohrabacher, Mark Sanford, etc., all of these guys are vaguely "libertarianish" and they are all Republicans. But libertarianism is clearly NOT the dominant theme in the Republican party. And, speaking for myself, I definitely don't vote straight down the line for the GOP. I voted for a Democrat for mayor of my town in 2015. And I didn't vote for Trump. In 2004 I voted for Kerry. And although I voted for McCain in 2008, I happen to know that plenty of libertarians supported Obama that year. Here, read this: [view link]
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Race, Religion, and in Employment or Housing. Are you advocating that people should engage in such discrimination if they wish to today? SJG
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    I mean... if that's what floats their boats. I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm "advocating" it as a good thing. But, otherwise yes, I'm fine with it. It should be legal to discriminate in all cases, except for the government.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    So you want to go back to the way it was before the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Go back to Jim Crow. Hey Burlington, when you are getting all excited reading your Reason Magazine, does your mom come in and tell you that its time for lights out, and does she tuck you in? SJG
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Legal segregation means the gov't. But before 1964 there was also vast segregation in employment, housing, and retailing. This would still be going strong, if the law did not prohibit it. Clearly BHO, you have no experience in political matters or with anything of importance in life. SJG
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    "Legal segregation means the gov't." No it doesn't. It means people would be free to only associate with those they wish to associate with in their place of business. The point is that an individual or a group of individuals own the business - the government doesn't own it and neither does the community. The business wouldn't exist unless someone willingly invested his money and his time. So who are we to tell him or her whom to serve and whom to hire? Do you think it would be better if the business didn't exist at all? And for the record, Jim Crow didn't just allow segregation, it mandated it. Jim Crow laws were the essence of illegitimate government action. We needed a Federal law to put an end to Jim Crow and I'm glad that we got one. I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has 11 titles. Only Title 2 and Title 7 were bad. The other 9 titles were good and necessary. So I would have voted for the bill at the time if I had been in Congress. I also would have voted for all prior Civil Rights legislation. And lastly, I should point out that liberals claim that there is still "vast segregation in employment, housing, and retailing" to this day. So what did Title 2 and Title 7 accomplish?
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    ^^ Sorry, I thought you said "legal discrimination," not "legal segregation." My mistake. Legal segregation is, indeed, the government if it is mandatory. You're right about that.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    What I am saying is that we cannot allow racially based discrimination in employment, retailing, or housing. Some such discrimination is in the form of enforced segregation. Even if the government is not mandating it, we still cannot allow this. Are you suggesting otherwise, that discrimination based on race or religion in employment, retailing, schools, or housing should be okay? Are you saying that people should feel free to do this now? SJG
  • DoctorPhil
    •
    7 years ago
    i'd bet dollars to donuts that san_jose_guy's mother wishes she were child free
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy said "Are you suggesting otherwise, that discrimination based on race or religion in employment, retailing, schools, or housing should be okay? Are you saying that people should feel free to do this now?" Well, not in public schools or public housing, but otherwise yes and yes. And public housing shouldn't even exist anyway. I'm on the fence about whether public schools should exist, but as long as they do exist then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against a class of people. Otherwise, in all cases, yes.
  • Eve
    •
    7 years ago
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    So BHO, you are suggesting then that we go back to the time before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not government discrimination, but private discrimination is okay. You are a complete IDIOT! You understand nothing about the nature of this freedom you claim to support. EveHartley, is that picture you? I like it. SJG
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy, I always try to be nice to the mentally ill, and I don't need a law to force me to be nice (LOL) so I will accept the fact that you just called me an idiot (in all caps). But read what I wrote. Only 2 of the titles in the Civil Rights Act addressed private discrimination, while 9 of them addressed government discrimination (aka, Jim Crow). If I had been in Congress in 1964, I would have argued against Title 2 and Title 7, I probably would have lost the debate, and then I would have voted for the bill in the end. I don't agree with Barry Goldwater's view that the small wrong cancels out the large right. Some historians say that Johnson and the Democrats purposely inserted Title 2 and Title 7 in order to discourage Goldwater from supporting the legislation, so that they could paint him as a racist in the election. But I digress. Once again, I would have voted for it. And the world is a better place today because of that legislation. Not because hotels can't discriminate anymore - after all, why would you want to give any money to a racist? Wouldn't you rather know who the racists are so that you can avoid them? - but rather because the government can't discriminate anymore, and can no longer force local hotels to discriminate even against their will. And, as I said, that's one of many big differences between most modern conservative Republicans and most libertarians. If you exclude the actual racists (which exist in every movement), what you'll find is that most conservative Republicans support laws against private discrimination. But most libertarians continue to oppose laws against private discrimination to this day. We are simultaneously to the right of the Right-Wing and to the left of the Left-Wing.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    BHO, you want to allow private racial discrimination. I have nothing to say to you which is in any way 'nice'. SJG
  • dallas702
    •
    7 years ago
    SJO and BHO, you really need to get a room. Take this idiocy somewhere else!
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @dallas702, A little late to the party, eh? In his last post he specifically said that he has nothing nice to say to me. That's his way of saying that we'll have to agree to disagree LOL. I think our work is done here.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    People fought, were beaten, and some died to outlaw public and private racial discrimination. Were it not for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, people would still be fighting. If that act is attacked, then that would be a call to arms. This country was founded on racism, slavery, and idol worshiping. Any 'freedoms' created for one group, mean freedoms being removed for others. This is just how it is. SJG
  • Bj99
    •
    7 years ago
    They are supposed to keep this crap to the Hillary thread, and they know it.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    I thought I made it clear that I do support the Civil Rights Act. There are only two titles that I disapprove of, but I would have voted for it nonetheless. And those people who died weren't risking their lives just because some of their neighbors were racists or because some white people wouldn't hire black people. They risked their lives because the governments of southern states mandated racial segregation. The racism that the activists were protesting wasn't a private business decision, it was official government policy. And I don't even know what you mean about this country being founded on racism and idol worship. Yes, there were racists IN this country at the time of its founding just as there are today, but that doesn't mean that this country was founded ON racism itself. What does that even mean? And what do you mean by idol worship? Slavery has existed in some form in virtually every country on earth at one time or another. The US is far from unique in that regard. And, sadly, racism also seems to be a common human problem across the globe. But only in America did white people fight and die specifically to free black people from slavery. Can you name some other countries where that has ever happened?
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    The issue is racial discrimination in employment, housing, and retailing. Its not only government discrimination which is outlawed, its also private discrimination. That Act brought our country into the 20th Century . SJG
  • twentyfive
    •
    7 years ago
    @Bj99 tell them; “out out damn spot “
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    BHO wrote, "But only in America did white people fight and die specifically to free black people from slavery." This kind of line often comes from the Right, often from its Libertarian Stalking Horse. I think recently people were criticizing this Ron Paul or Rand Paul over it. The statement is a total distortion of why the Civil War occurred, and of what motivated people to pursue it. Why is the Civil War Important? David Blight [view link] SJG
  • Uprightcitizen
    •
    7 years ago
    Congratulations you two. You just convinced me there is a case to reintroduce mandatory sterilization (starting in San Jose).
  • twentyfive
    •
    7 years ago
    ^^^ The hell with mandatory sterilization haw about seizing anything those two have with a keyboard.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Marriage and The Family are inseparably intertwined with Capitalism, Friederike Engels showed us this, but I say it was Plato who first drew attention that way. People who are childfree by choice many not talk about it or even know how to talk about it, but it is always going to be tied to some sort of views. May have actually started with the Nazarites. [view link] SJG Jeff Beck ft/ Rosie Oddie [view link]
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion