[blackshoe]

Quote

The US is definitely NOT a libertarian country.

No. But imo we'd all be a lot better off if it were.

[helene_t]

barmar, on Oct 15 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 15 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

I certainly hope one can have a stable family and not be legally married or have an unstable family and be legally married. Again many kids if not yet most are born out of wedlock. Many kids if not yet most are raised by single parents.

But the presumption is that they would usually be better off being raised by two, loving parents in a stable relationship.
[......]These are all generalizations, but most laws are based on generalizations. For instance, we have drinking and voting ages based on generalizations of when most people are mature enough to participate in these activities, because it's too hard to judge every case individually.

I certainly hope I am misunderstanding you since if you mean to say that discriminating against single parents is defensible because the statistics have something bad to say about them (which I doubt is true anyway but that's besides my point) then I think it's disgusting.

It's like discriminating on the basis of skin color because the statistics have something bad to say about certain skin colors. It would be a rare coincidence if child neglect was 100% independent of skin color but that isn't an argument for anything.

Age limits for alcohol drinking is very different. First, age is one of the few things the government can use as a basis for legal discrimination without necessarily being a bigot. Second, IMHO it is quite acceptable for the government to restrict access to alcohol. Even if the restrictions may be unfair in some cases it is not a huge attack on liberty.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Oct 16 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

Age limits for alcohol drinking is very different. First, age is one of the few things the government can use as a basis for legal discrimination without necessarily being a bigot. Second, IMHO it is quite acceptable for the government to restrict access to alcohol. Even if the restrictions may be unfair in some cases it is not a huge attack on liberty.

When I was a kid growing up, the drinking age in New York State was 18. Surrounding states didn't like that - their law said 21, so their 18 year olds would drive over the border, get drunk, drive back over the board, and get in accidents. Now we have a uniform 21 across all the states. How did this happen? The same way in which the national 55 mph speed limit was imposed. The federal government passed a law that says "any state that doesn't do what we want will get less money from us than we would otherwise have given". This is blackmail. It was wrong for the speed limit, and it's wrong for the drinking age. It violates, in spirit at least, the Tenth Amendment.

Legal adulthood is a matter of judgement. We set an arbitrary age at which we expect most people will have acquired the judgement necessary to be treated as adults. In the US that age is 18 - except for drinking. We have arbitrarily decided that in that one aspect of life a person cannot have acquired the judgement expected of an adult. Maybe this is right and proper, but something doesn't feel right about it. I just can't put my finger on it.

"Not a huge attack on liberty" is a very dangerous view, IMO. Does it matter whether liberty is lost through one huge attack, or a thousand small ones? No. What matters is that liberty is lost.

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Oct 16 2008, 09:57 AM, said:

Legal adulthood is a matter of judgement. We set an arbitrary age at which we expect most people will have acquired the judgement necessary to be treated as adults. In the US that age is 18 - except for drinking. We have arbitrarily decided that in that one aspect of life a person cannot have acquired the judgement expected of an adult. Maybe this is right and proper, but something doesn't feel right about it. I just can't put my finger on it.

I don't understand how the government can ask someone to go kill and get killed in some far away land for them at 18, but not let them drink until 21.

I am sure there is a physical reason why people under a certain age shouldn't drink, I don't think I can cite any papers on this or anything, but common sense (see here) indicates that intoxicating substances have a negative effect on a brain, especially a developing one

[barmar]

helene_t, on Oct 16 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

barmar, on Oct 15 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 15 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

I certainly hope one can have a stable family and not be legally married or have an unstable family and be legally married. Again many kids if not yet most are born out of wedlock. Many kids if not yet most are raised by single parents.

But the presumption is that they would usually be better off being raised by two, loving parents in a stable relationship.
[......]These are all generalizations, but most laws are based on generalizations. For instance, we have drinking and voting ages based on generalizations of when most people are mature enough to participate in these activities, because it's too hard to judge every case individually.

I certainly hope I am misunderstanding you since if you mean to say that discriminating against single parents is defensible because the statistics have something bad to say about them (which I doubt is true anyway but that's besides my point) then I think it's disgusting.

No, I'm not condoning discrimination. I'm condoning efforts to encourage behavior that's better for society.

For example, efforts to reduce the unemployment rate doesn't equate to discrimination against unemployed people, does it?

[Lobowolf]

Proposition 8 now apparently leading in the California:

http://cbs5.com/loca...l.2.834082.html


If Proposition 8 passes in a close vote, gay marriage in California may be a curious byproduct of Hillary Clinton's loss in the primary. Gay marriage generally does poorly with the African American demographic, and a higher black vote is expected Obama on the ticket.

[pclayton]

Lobowolf, on Oct 22 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

Proposition 8 now apparently leading in the California:

Help me out here. Prop 8 is going to amend the State Constitution. Shouldn't this require a 'super majority' (usually 2/3) in order to pass?

[matmat]

pclayton, on Oct 22 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 22 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

Proposition 8 now apparently leading in the California:

Help me out here. Prop 8 is going to amend the State Constitution. Shouldn't this require a 'super majority' (usually 2/3) in order to pass?

http://en.wikipedia....sition_8_(2008)

apparently just needs a majority...

[Lobowolf]

pclayton, on Oct 22 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 22 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

Proposition 8 now apparently leading in the California:

Help me out here. Prop 8 is going to amend the State Constitution. Shouldn't this require a 'super majority' (usually 2/3) in order to pass?

Bizarrely, no. Section 4 of Article 18 of the California Constitution provides that a simple majority of voters suffices. It's considerably easier to change the state constitution than to raise taxes, when it comes to the California initiative process.