Free Talk Live 2017-11-02
Nov 2, 2017 at 22:08 · 2:12:42
Nurse Wubbels receives a $500,000 settlement :: Marine Brig. Gen. sentenced to 21 days incarceration & $1,000 fine for disobeying judge’s order :: Truck attack in NYC :: Caller with a question about terrorist attacks :: How Facebook outs sex workers :: Facebook’s algorithms control the world :: NYC has finally legalized dancing :: Should adultery be illegal? :: Legislating morality :: Marriage contracts :: crazy calls :: AFTERSHOW: Cliff Baltzley, Stash Wallet :: HOSTS - Darryl, Heather & Chris
web: freetalklive.com
link: https://soundcloud.com/freetalklive/free-talk-live-2017-11-02
I agree with everything Heather said absent State involvement. (Is she here? If so I’ll tag her for fairness.) But I’m an anarchist and she’s not. (I also think she was confusing criminal law with civil contract law.) One of the best ways to screw up the world is to have people randomly sleeping around as if there are no consequences.
I answered the question as the segment ended.
Because you’ve never held a call over before? Not saying you should have, just saying I found it amusing.
I’ve found Heather to be significantly more statist than “not anarchist.” IMO she shouldn’t even be on the show. It’s an embarrassment when she goes of on conservative, statist rants.
1 Like
I personally like having Heather on to bring up statist topics and remarks- so that way the other two host can rebuttle. You have to remember that statist don’t call in, so you won’t have the ability to break down liberty ideas if Heather doesn’t bring up the subject first. You feel me? Think of it more like devils advocate.
If anything, the host can deconstruct her statist ideas and work up with liberty ideas- but they already sorta do that.
4 Likes
Sadly, they let her get away with some really silly comments sometimes, even agreeing. For example, she came out and said everyone in Colorado must be liberal because they legalized pot (or something damned close to that.) Colorado, like most states, has liberal-impacted inner cities and conservative-controlled rural areas.
Up until the past 15 years or so, Colorado was remarkably libertarian, meaning the liberals weren’t socialist nut-jobs and the conservatives weren’t bigoted a-holes. National political trends and growth in population from other states means we now have more of both of those. It’s easy for outsiders to spot two or three people and collectivize. For Heather, it seems it was natural to call us all liberals.
In the case of this example, it was the remnants of Colorado’s libertarian-leaning history that allowed us, by referendum, to get any form of pot legalization.
Since I brought it up, I didn’t vote for (or against) the initiative. My reasoning, as an anarchist, was that I didn’t want to support taxing and legislating it, and I didn’t want to vote against legalizing it (there was a competing initiative that didn’t make the ballot, for which I would have voted.) So, I didn’t vote. I have both grown my own (before A64) and purchased it (paying both an enhanced sales tax more than other goods, and an excise tax.)
in regard to heather, i can’t speak as to whether or not i think she should be on the show. its pretty clear, like wtfk said, that she is much more than “not an anarchist.” a lot of her positions i wouldn’t even consider libertarian in the slightest.
when it comes to the discussion of adultry, i felt like heather didn’t even understand what chris and darryl were trying to say when it comes to state involvement and the difference between civil action for damages vs criminal proceedings based on laws focused around sexual activity between consenting adults(married or not). In the libertarian sense, if there some sort of contract of personal relationship which included consequences for certain breaches of contract, i feel like contract should be honored. marriage as it is now is not close enough to some serious contractual process. certainly not if you want to imply the government should have criminal law based on the breach of this contract
1 Like
I don’t think that the wedding vows are specific enough for all circumstances. But they explicitly forbid adultery.
1 Like
I agree that in a stateless society, explicit marriage contracts would probably be more common, and would be necessary if anyone hoped to have the arrangement mean anything to any outside party. On the flip side, I think a lot of people would still “shack up” without any agreement, but they would do so at their own peril, and some would “learn” from that experience.
My wife and I got married without any vows. We signed a piece of paper with the state for $35 saying we were married. We did this to please ICE.
1 Like
When the call is good and the topic isn’t radio hell, sure
2 Likes