“What walks down stairs, alone or in pairs, and makes a slinkity sound? A spring, a spring, a marvelous thing! Everyone knows it’s Slinky. It’s Slinky, it’s Slinky, it’s fun, it’s a wonderful toy. It’s Slinky, it’s Slinky, it’s fun, it’s a wonderful toy. It’s fun for a girl or a boy.�

Of all the things to make me de-lurk, I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to share this takeoff on the slinky song:
The Dildo Song

Wow I’m late to return. Swordsbane, I’m not out to say no to polygamous relationships. I know people for whom is is a comfortable lifestyle and I condone it. I also don’t agree that fear of consequences (except where those consequences have been carefully measured) constitute a strong argument against an individual choice.

But I do think that this is a topic that isn’t as controversial or involved as homosexual relationship, and as a result, deserves more time and practical application. If we can only get so far as a hypothetical or an anecdote on how good or bad things can get, then we don’t know enough, IMO.

I don’t believe it is a question about knowing enough.  If you don’t think there should be any “tests” for the suitability of a man and a woman to get married, how can you stop at homosexuality or polygamy?  If the people who want to have these types of relationships really care about one another, who am I to stand in their way?  I think polygamy is a stupid arrangement, fraught with all kinds of personal landmines, but I also think it is personal.  The state has no business telling anyone what to do with their emotions as long as you make sure all involved are consenting adults.

And to those who say: Think of the children, the same argument.  It is perfectly legal to raise a child in any number of disadvantaged environments.  If you >could< make the case for a homosexual or polygamous relationship being disadvantaged (and I haven’t seen anyone who can) so what?  If you don’t make income a requirement for getting married or having children, your lifestyle choice isn’t going to bother me.

And before you start talking divorce rates and how messy things can get, realize that messy divorces span the entire spectrum of marriage, and until we can find a better way to handle the divorces in court (alimony, palimony and child support) don’t come to me and say “These people should not be allowed to get married because it is likely they will divorce” or “if they do divorce it will be bad” A divorce is, at best, a failed contract.. at worst the utter ruin of two (or more?) people.  There is NO good side.

If you get rid of these arguments, you’re left with the religious ones, and as far as I’m concerned, you know where you can stick THOSE.

I’ve got a dog in the fight for the upcoming primaries (yes I do more than just give unsolicited political advice to the readers here) so I have precious little time to write at length.  (No, Shelley I have not forgotten you and I promise to return to that thread after August 2nd.)

GM, I’ve missed you.  That said, I believe that you are the exception that proves the rule with respect to having a stable (Please take note of GM’s word choice here. I think it is telling. ) of husbands.

The state has no business telling anyone what to do with their emotions as long as you make sure all involved are consenting adults.

I disagree. It is in the state’s interest to do what is best for the welfare of all of it’s people. In the instance that polygamy (in this case) is found to be generally or specifically detrimental, and that empowering the state over that specific domain is an improvement over non-involvement, then I see no reason not to empower the state.

Knowing enough is the issue - the test is in giving people the freedom to do so until domain-specific issues arise. If some of these issues are forseeable, we have to be prepared for them. I’m not looking at talking philosophy; in writing the laws we need far more information than we’ve got. I can pose any finite number of bad arguments, have them ripped apart, and assume there are no more left while I don’t know any better. And I have good reason to believe I don’t know enough to make an informed decision as to the kinds of laws that ought (not) to be written, in specific. I feel certain I’m far from the only one.

I’m for the freedom to choose, but I’d err on the side of caution until the impacts of this are more well known. That’s the only barrier I see between polygamy and any other kind of marital arrangement that I condone.

It is in the state’s interest to do what is best for the welfare of all of it’s people.

Just to be disagreeable and callous, but that’s a bold and idealistic claim, assuming the state per se has any interests at all.

Of course it has.  Just like all living organisms and constructs of same, it is interested in its own survival and growth.  Everything else serves these two purposes.

I believe the whole point of our country was to put more weight on the interests of the people in direct competition to the interests of the state.  But those who elevate state interests may not see any difference.

Of course it has.

Prove it

Just like all living organisms and constructs of same, it is interested in its own survival and growth.  Everything else serves these two purposes.

Note the term all in the original quote. Does it indeed further the state’s survival and growth to do what’s “best for the welfare of all of it’s people”? Always assuming that the state should be in welfare business to begin with.

I don’t strictly disagree, Elwed. But the state sets the rules that we abide by because, in large part, people don’t lead themselves. I find the notion of democracy grossly idealistic. Helpful to me, yes, but in large part unused, as most people are far more concerned with their immediate lives - the fact that somebody cut them off on the road, or that they lost 20 minutes on the trip because someone was slow to get ready, or that the money’s not coming in fast enough to get lipo, or that gas prices are high.

Any issue that doesn’t fit in that realm, that can be easily ignored, will be. Democracy’s a great idea, but it doesn’t take much to see that the lay man has no place in it, atm. There’s no competitive drive and no insight. It’s just not important enough (somehow - don’t ask why, cause I don’t know either, although a couple decades of being pissed on in Canada has been enough to cause people to stop voting. The rationale seems to be that if they’re all liars, they’re all the same).

I’m all for giving people the freedom to pursue power, but the state decides where the people won’t. By and large, the people don’t. Maybe that’s for the better, where, as I’ve mentioned, the people making the decisions are not duly informed on the matter.

But the state sets the rules that we abide by because, in large part, people don’t lead themselves.

Interesting argument when applied to marriage.  Currently the ONLY legal impediment to marriage is the cash for the fee and that you must be a man marrying a woman or vice verse.  So it must be a heterosexual marriage and monogomous when homosexuality and polygamy have yet to be definitively established as BAD for the family unit, but you ARE allowed to marry if you are habitually abusive, a criminal or poor which HAVE been found to be bad for the family unit.

Wonderful priorities you got there.

How about we let people do what they want UNTIL someone can prove it’s a bad idea.  Seems to work for most other things that aren’t political chess pieces.

Well, obviously I can’t “prove it”.  Survival seems to me to be the fundamental interest, although I must admit to a shaky understanding of the term “interest,” especially with respect to “standing” and “rights”.  The state must exist, else it is no state.  Further, every state, as Machiavelli puts it (yeah, I know, that’s an appeal to authority [one which, by the way, I can’t stand] but I’m grasping at straws here, leave me be) every prince wishes to expand his sphere of influence.  I do not believe this to be absolutely required, but most states are implicitly interested in it.  It was not my intent to say what the state should do to pursue these interests.  That is determined by its power base, and is subject to the standard human error (or is that “standard human deviation”?)

There are many valid and useful models of governance, each of which seems to be suited to a particular society, and circumstance.  The laws of a given state should, ideally, reflect the society for which they are made.  If there is no ideal, perfect, right, or holy set of laws (and I believe there is), then the most useful set, it seems to me, should be that set of laws which leads to the highest function of the greatest number of people in that society.  Of course, what said “function” means is debatable with respect to quality and quantity, focus and derivation. For example, perhaps Saddam Hussein’s regime was actually necessary to keep all the various factions from killing each other off and seriously disrupting society.  It was harsh and cruel by “our” standards, and most societies would not tolerate it, but maybe it was necessary to provide maximal functionality for the majority.

Each society has its corporate mindset, with variation.  In the USA, there is a large portion of the population which pretends to respect a biblical viewpoint.  Do they ignore it in their personal lives?  Of course.  Will they persecute you if your practice is rare, but no more deviant from their purported standard?  Absolutely.  For instance, if I were invited to speak at First Random Church, Anytown USA, walked up to the podium, and told them the truth about Christmas, Easter, etc., I’d count myself blessed if I were’nt beaten to death with the nearest crucifix or musical instrument.  Is my position deviant?  Provably not.  Is it rare?  Certainly.  It may not be, therefore, the deviancy of homosexuality compared with that of any other sin which merits the vitriol of Churchianity but, rather, its rarity.  After all, if adulterers were abused like homosexuals, the Church would probably be small indeed.

Well, obviously I can’t “prove itâ€?.  Survival seems to me to be the fundamental interest,

My, you are an arch-conservative

If the survival and growth of the state are the primary interests, then the welfare of all citizens is not. It’s only a small step, if a step at all, to make welfare predicated on the future usefulness of the applicant. If there is no expectation that a potential welfare recipient can pay back the state with interest, it’s detrimental to the state’s survival and growth to waste resources on deadwood. And another little step will lead you to abandon welfare lock, stock, and barrel. It’s like selecting for fit citizens that can carry their own weight…

There are many valid and useful models of governance, each of which seems to be suited to a particular society, and circumstance.  The laws of a given state should, ideally, reflect the society for which they are made.

I’ll leave you to ponder this obscure quote (L.E. Modesitt Jr, The Ethos Effect):

A societal crises of faith occurs when the values that produced a particular incarnation of a society no longer correspond to the values held by the individuals and organizations holding economic, political, and social power in that society. Paradoxically, these value changes seem to occur first on a social level. In reality the changes are already far advanced by the time they appear, because in most societies social standing and mobility lag behind economic and political power. Those with economic power seldom with to flaunt values at variance with social norms, and those in the political arena prefer a protective coloration that in fact straddles the perceived range of values, while ostensibly preferring the most popular of values…

Hey, who’s to say that the interests of the state and the interests of its citizens need be identical.  A business’ interest is profit, while its clients’ interest is value.  Now, the business may achieve profit by cheating its customers of their value, but this will usually result in a long-term loss of profitability.  Does this prevent businesses worldwide cheating their customers?  Hardly.  In the same way, governments’ currency is power, and their citizens’ desire is security in its various forms.  Can governments increase their power by robbing their citizens of their security?  Certainly.  Is it in their long-term best interests to do so?  Probably not.  Abandonment of the weak robs the strong of their security as surely as a more direct approach, because we are all, at one time or another, weak.

As to the charge of my being an “arch-conservative,” I must plead guilty, with caveats.  Religiously, I am so conservative that I often joke about my annoyance, not that the RCC started holding services in the common tongues, but that they began holding them in Latin (as opposed to Greek) to begin with.  However, that does not make me a judgemental bigot.  We’re all broken, each in our “special” way.  Under the Mosaic Law, I’d have to die by stoning and/or burning on at least a dozen counts that I can think of off the top of my head.  In other words, I’ve no room to talk.  Does that mean I can’t say something is a sin?  No, but it does mean that I must show compassion rather than condemnation, warmth rather than heat, and gentleness rather than judgement.

As for fiscal conservatism, if that was your meaning, I’m actually about middle of the road.  Simply recognizing that the government’s interests are not necessarily those of its citizens does not mean I support the state versus the people.  The people, after all, are the very reason for the existence of the state.  If such is not the case, it lacks legitimacy.  The weak must be defended and supported.  The able should supply the lack of the unable.  To do otherwise is immoral and barbaric.

What an intriguing thread drift.

Let’s put the pieces together. If the state’s primary interest is survival and growth and the state’s and the citizens interests need not align, then the question of precedence arises. Depending on which interests prevail, you’ll arrive at fascism at one end of the spectrum and a state that is no more on the other.

How do you reconcile:

It is in the state’s interest to do what is best for the welfare of all of it’s people.

Just like all living organisms and constructs of same, it is interested in its own survival and growth.  Everything else serves these two purposes.

Hey, who’s to say that the interests of the state and the interests of its citizens need be identical.

The weak must be defended and supported.  The able should supply the lack of the unable.  To do otherwise is immoral and barbaric.

Just curious.

It seems to be a potential conflict between what isand what ought to be.  A state is a “living” thing, with its own needs.  It can have various notions about what ought to be the purpose of its existence.  Fulfilment of its needs is sufficient to ensure its statehood, but insufficient to ensure the fulfilment of its purpose.  The state which serves only its own interests may remain and function as a state as well as one which serves its citizens also.  But I write here of a higher purpose, the telos, if you will, for a state as well as a man.  If you have all your physical needs of air, water, shelter, food, sex, etc. met abundantly, will you be happy?  Will you not, rather, count your life wasted if that is all you accomplish?  A state’s needs are also different from its purpose.  When I write that

It is in the state’s interest to do what is best for the welfare of all of it’s people

and

The weak must be defended and supported.  The able should supply the lack of the unable.  To do otherwise is immoral and barbaric

, these are not in conflict with the needs of the state, but rather the highest purpose to which a state may be put.  Socrates would say that something which does not fulfill its purpose is not acting as that something, as he defines a painter as the art expressing itself through an individual rather than an individual who chooses to paint.  I would disagree, as a monkey remains a monkey, even if it hates bananas.

Curioser, you said that the state’s overriding interests are survival and growth. If the highest purpose the state is put to is the welfare of all citizens and the protection of the weak, I’m not sure that you can reconcile these claims.

There is a list of four claims on the table, three of them attributable to you and the remaining one to arc. It’s not terribly hard to reconcile subsets of these four claims, but reconciling them all seems difficult. Of course, you haven’t claimed that such is possible or even necessary.

What it boils down to: Does the state serve the people, do the people serve the state, or neither, or both?

All of this is really a nitpick on arc’s use of the term ‘all’, but whatever political philosophy one espouses has some bearing on the original topic of this thread.

There are instances of both in reality.  Is your question one of is or ought?

Perhaps, but the same conflict could have been aroused just as easily without the word “all” included. In fact, it seems as though we’ve avoided the notion that you can’t serve everyone - any two people with a conflict and someone’s welfare isn’t being served. Being that we’ve trailed away from that notion would suggest that the word “all” isn’t so important to the discussion after ... uh..So what am I missing?

The state’s decisions affect the welfare of the people. There are two ways in which the welfare of the people can find benefit - when the state decides in that collective favor, and when the people rise against those decisions not in that favor. The latter is more or less off of the table. I don’t see the matter of servitude entering, except where our people are willing slaves to the powers that be.

Curioser, I have stated my question often enough. There are four claims, objectives, interests that are seemingly at odds. How do you reconcile all four of them? Is there a state past or present that did? What kind of state would?

Arc, I’m just tweaking tails…

It’s interesting, though, how conservatives and liberals, social or political, approach these questions.

No, there is, to my pitiful knowledge, no state which has reconciled these forces.  The state and the citizenry are separate entities at odds with one-another.  Hopefully, they are at some form of balance.  If the state is too powerful, it’s called oppression.  If the people are too powerful, then they, individually exercising their inherent free will, produce what’s called anarchy.

I do not believe that it is possible for any kind of state to exist which can entirely take care of both itself and its citizens.  If two equal citizens (entities of the same type) cannot have the same interests, how is it possible for a state and a citizenry (entities of disparate types) to have the same interests?

Adding to the mess is the fact that the “state” is a temporary construct generally of much shorter duration than the family.  Where, then, should the loyalties lie?