News browsing

[tinyjo]

This, about the Sexual Orientation Regulations, made me really sad. All the examples the opponents of the bill gave, like hoteliers liable to prosecution for refusing a double room to a gay couple, were things that I thought "But that's what I would want to happen!". I think I may be a lefty pinko liberal.

On the other hand, this, about a new random radio station launching in Oxford, sounds quite interesting

Comments

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

Thanks, that makes your position clear.
I do, of course, completely disagree with all of what you said, but it is still very interesting to read.

Can you expand on why you disagree?

[jinty]

a bit, at least?

Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

OK, but my journal is really the proper place for that. I would rather restrict myself to questioning other people about their own views on their own journals than ramming mine down their throats if I can avoid it. ;-)
I will probably get around to posting on this soon, but meanwhile the political FAQ linked to on my userinfo explains exactly how much of a dastardly fellow I am...

Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

OK, but my journal is really the proper place for that.

Everyone else has responded to your questions here, and it would seem polite to answer their questions here, too.

Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

If there is no objection to me carrying on, please state your question and I will be happy to answer it.

Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

I'm OK with you expanding here - if I start to feel too uncomfortable, I'll let you know. I don't think I'm going to get involved in this branch of the discussion myself though.

Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

Thanks; I was worried that you might not like me to spout propaganda here.
There's not much more I can say other that what I've already mentioned. As I mentioned on another thread, where I would support a law preventing people from expressing their bigotry would be when it legislated against taking the bigotry to the target. For example, it should be fine to blackguard a particular religion in the privacy of one's own home, or on the internet, but to stand outside their place of worship and harangue believers would be unreasonable and grounds for arrest (breach of the peace). In this case there is no need to have a specific law naming favoured groups, one may simply say that hassling anyone is naughty.

Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Thanks; I was worried that you might not like me to spout propaganda here.

As long as it stays non-aggressive and respectful of other peoples positions then I'm OK.

Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?

[jinty]

I think the clarification that you are coming from a libertarian position rather than a purely conservative position (in which a straightforward economic explanation would have more force?) clarifies your position enough for me. Or to put it another way - it was the capitalism banner that confused me ;-)

Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

Thanks, and apologies for any confusion caused by the capitalism icon.
My position can indeed be summed up by this (http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#B2).