They really had to twist the language to come up with this question: Do you think the majority of Americans are okay with this sort of ‘change’ — an expansion of special protections for federal employees based on their sexual behavior? I think what they really mean is, “Do most Americans think it is okay to treat people equally, and that they should disregard their private sexual preferences?”
Sadly, only 4.38% agree, and 93.69% think discrimination is hunky-dory.
What a convoluted question! Why didn’t they boil it down to brass-tacks: “Do you hate fags Y/N?”
Because we all know homosexuality is only about the act of sex.
Down to 4.01% when I voted. Hmmm…
No, no, it’s all about protecting the women. Cause icky men in dresses might be in their bathrooms…
I think that what the majority thinks about “special rights” or “special protections” is worth exactly two shits.
A textbook example of phrasing your poll/survey question to elicit the response you want!
Wait, am I supposed to be voting yes or no? God damn, that is confusing.
Why don’t they just ask “do most christians want to descriminate against federal employees based on their sexual orientation?” YES is actually a realistic answer because they do want to descriminate.
The poll is not asking an opinion really. It’s asking what they think the majority of americans think.
That site is all christian godbot spin on the news.
They christian right is stirring up the same shit they did when Clinton came into office and was going to keep the military from kicking out gay people.
Sexual orientation, not preference.
I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that some people are thinking, “Well, I’m okay with it, but most of America isn’t, and that’s what the question is asking.” It does ask about what you think the majority thinks, not what you think personally, so it’s possible. Homosexuality has a stigma, one that looks way bigger when you see it out of the mouths of conservative Christians.
Side note: As an American struggling with gender identity myself, I am thrilled to see that Obama is already taking steps in the right direction (i.e., the left) on our behalf. My vote was not cast in vain!
Because that’s not the question they’re asking. They’re asking the opposite. They’re asking “Are Americans comfortable with homosexuality”. This poll is actually quite accurate, since 3 states have banned gay marriage in the recent election, you can’t really argue against the position that most Americans are rather matter of factly homophobic bigots.
They must be going for the Most Loaded Question of The Year Award. Bestowed annually upon whoever can cram the greatest number of unwarranted assumptions and strawmen into a one-sentence question.
Best of luck, One News Now! You’ve got my vote.
Pharyngulate it
Yeah—rather than asking “do you approve of job protection due to sexual preference”, they’re asking “do you THINK MOST AMERICANS approve of job protection due to sexual preference.”
…just to clarify. I’m voting No. I’d vote yes had Prop 8 been defeated.
I often wonder (when reading this blog) if Americans* really are that afraid of homosexuality as it seems, or those who are afraid are just being very vocal about it.
Though I can see the point with what bathroom to use. Now I dont know what American bathrooms looks like or if they may be different than European, but dont you guys got stalls with doors that can be closed/locked?
*Yes I am an European, so I guess I am going straight to hell:D
I do not think this poll is asking people if THEY think that judgement based on sexual behaviour is acceptable, but rather what they think the rest of American citizens think. As such, it is not necessarily measuring the discriminatory tendencies of those that answer the poll, but rather those peoples views on the stand point of the rest of the US. To be honest, I would have to agree with this poll; I DO think most Americans think that dismissal/ judgement based on sexual behaviour/preferences is perfectly acceptable.
This is even MORE of a candidate for pharyngulating than most questions. The whole idea of pharyngulating an online poll is to show how useless they are: this one isn’t just poorly put together, it’s purposefully misleading.
Even though the realistic answer is likely “No”, I still voted “Yes” — I encourage you all to do the same.
This is from the story linked to the poll:
“What’s the Obama administration going to do to protect women in federal restrooms?” the activist asks. “Since men [wearing] dresses apparently are going to be protected under gender-identity provisions, what about the women in the restrooms in the White House and other federal buildings? What’s going to be done to protect their rights?”
Oh, see? They’re just really worried about protecting women. It’s a feminist issue for them. Women’s rights.
Say what? No, this concern is bizarre. Ladies’ rooms do not have urinals in them. Transexuals — either before or after operation — would be in closed stalls, so we wouldn’t have to see “anything.” And as long as they’re not sexually interested in women and hanging around for prurient reasons, why the heck would I care if they’re in the same restroom? Ooh, a gay man might see me buying a tampon. I would feel so violated.
What color is the sky in their world?
I get a good laugh from the hand wringing on that site though. They’re freaking out. I love it. Just look at the sidebar on the left.
Yup. Same shit different century.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/
FlameDuck @11
Yes, I understand what the question is. I also understand the subtext, which is an invitation to respondents to project their own prejudice onto “the majority of Americans” in order to avoid having to admit, even to themselves, that they’re bigoted against gays. I think that’s the intention of the poll and that, accordingly, the real question is pretty much what I said. The pollsters probably aren’t expecting respondents to untangle the question as critically as people here are doing.
Talk about push-polling. Did they hire Karl Rove for their copy writing?
What a ridiculous poll.
Let’s ramp it up a little bit:
“Do you believe most Americans are open to the conclusion that polling the majority of Americans about what they think the majority of Americans believe regarding a certain topic will have very negative results?”
Since over 55% of Americans support allowing civil unions, a Yes vote actually reflects reality, despite what happened with Prop 8– which will probably be overturned, btw. Putting civil rights to a popular vote is not only a really bad idea, it’s the opposite of what the framers intended. And let’s not even get started on polls!
I voted “No” on this question, even though I personally am okay with protections for federal employees based on sexual behavior. Most Americans are NOT comfortable with homosexuals and transsexuals. Since that’s what the question asked, I had to give what I thought was the truthful answer.
Nope, I disagree. The question is simple and straightforward. It’s a strange question but it’s unambiguous.
I’m not sure if people are not over interpreting this poll; I think most people are sick of ANY special treatment, being it labeled as equal rights, discrimination protection or affirmative action. There are so many examples where “the majority” feels disadvantaged due to “privileges” been given to one group or another based on some perceived former wrong that they are just fed up with it.
In addition, one interpretation of the high black “yes to 8” vote was that acceptance of gays as protected group would dilute their “victim” status. There’s only so much anti-discrimination money/jobs/programs to go around, and they don’t want to share it. So gay rights are under fire from both sides.
Whoever wrote this question obviously has an ax to grind when it comes to homosexuals. Note that the question is not “What do you think about…” but rather, essentially “What do you think the majority thinks….”
Of course, even if you support anti-discrimination protections for gays and lesbian, a lot of people would have to say the “majority” does not… This is a nice attempt to skew a dumb poll with a dumb question..
I voted “Yes”.
1. The success of Proposition H8 was, by the percentages, sufficiently close to lend credence to the idea that America is basically split on the issue. “Most Americans” is, to my ear, far too loaded an expression to describe a situation where 55% of the people go one way and 45% the other.
2. It’ll do the fanatical homophobes good to get fucked with, anyway.
The rationale behind the convoluted wording is probably a veiled editorial reference to the populist belief that a constitutional democracy means “majority rules.” If the majority of Americans want something, then that’s that (and there goes Virginia vs. Loving and Brown vs. Board of Education.) And by “Americans” they mean real Americans, who know that our rights and freedoms come from God, and were derived out of the Bible.
I just love the way they always refer to equal rights as “special rights.” As if the norm was inequality. Which, in the Bible, it is.
The Y/N question should have been:
Are you a ‘eunuch’? (That’s a prick with no balls.)
As some people have already pointed out, this poll isn’t asking the respondent their direct opinion but what they think what the rest of America thinks…(Sigh)Mirrors within mirrors. What a stupid way to hide behind a poll question.
Do the majority of Pharyngulites think that the majority of Americans are okay and in agreeance with the expansion of the special protections granted to federal employees regarding their sexual behavior?
Honestly guys, though I (and the rest of you here on Pharyngula) are in favor of civil unions, equal rights, etc., the numbers really do suggest that the majority of Americans are not. Sure, Proposition 8 just barely passed…*in California*. This shows that the most liberal state in the union is still slightly homophobic. I think it’s fair to assume that if Proposition 8 can pass in CA, its equivalents can (and in many cases do) pass in other states. Thus, the correct answer to this poll is “no.”
#19- I hate to tell all those homophobic assholes but there are already gay people in the military. It’s just the don’t ask don’t tell policy that covers up this fact. Geez what a bunch of morons.
The way that I see the poll in my mind is:
Do you think that the majority of Americans are bigots? If you do, then vote no.
But, I have a head cold, and I’m self medicating. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the survey will be cited by wackaloons of all stripes.
Jesus Died For You PZ:
Lies – Evanescence – Passion Of Christ
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=44e0c9ccc25eee05fd22
#34
That video is terrifying and counter productive if the idea is to sway people to your side.
Keep refreshing the page. It give the current vote count. When I was looking at it, it was gaining about a vote a second and “Yes” was gaining a percent every minute or so.
Jesus Died For You PZ:
Looks like he died to convert young emo kids in that piece of propaganda.
To Mu @25: Equal treatment under the law isn’t “special treatment,” “special rights,” or creating “victim status.”
It’s bigotry and unjust discrimination that’s the “special” treatment, which creates “victim status.”
The “special” right gays want is to be treated equally under the law. What’s so special about that?
People, people, please. This is an Internet poll. The point is not to bring its numbers into line with those found by more scientific methods; rather, the point is to educate those who see its results. Often, the latter aim is in parallel with the former, say if the poll asks, “Is evolution true?” In this case, the goals of (a) showing people that not everybody in this country is a homophobe and (b) illustrating the flaws in unscientific poll methodology outweigh competing concerns.
Yea, the language is typical right wingnut homophobia. Those gays want “special rights” language. These rights are “special” when you don’t have them!
On a good note, the yeses are up to 16%.
Jeeves (#35):
Didn’t Evanescence give up the whole “Christian” schtick after they discovered drugs, anyway? Wikipedia quotes Amy Lee, the only remaining member of the original lineup, as saying, “Can we please skip the Christian thing? I’m so over it. It’s the lamest thing. I fought that from the beginning; I never wanted to be associated with it. It was a Ben [Moody] thing. It’s over.” (With all their lineup changes, they’re almost the Band of Theseus.) Anyway, they could never hold a candle to the Dresden Dolls, who explained to us why God made “escort agencies (one life to live) and mace and GHB“.
Just read the article that goes with the poll and poor old Peter LaBarbera is afraid that male to female transgendered employees might frighten REAL women in federal buildings when the transgendered use a women’s restroom. Scary, kids, scary!!! Run! Hide! The liberals are coming! The liberals are coming! *makes gagging noise*
#34
To paraphrase Hank Hill, you’re not making Christianity better, you’re just making rock and roll worse!
The baby Jesus died for PZ!!
He really should have asked first.
It’s kinda like getting an ugly sweater for christmas.
Didn’t want it. Don’t need it. Not particularly thankful.
Interesting thoughts from FiveThirtyEight:
…Basically they’re asking you what other people think?
How the hell would I know?! I’m no psychic!
How the hell would I know?! I’m no psychic!
I knew you’d say that.
Philip, when I watch the video that you posted, I am disgusted not only by man’s inhumanity to his fellow man, but by the willingness of Christians to reenact and display scenes of torture and execution. That video you posted makes me wonder if your religion is very different from that of the Aztecs, who gruesomely killed human beings in the hope that the sun would rise the next day. It glorifies in violence most nonreligious people would find unimaginable, had they not been exposed to media made by Christians. Philip, how does this video indicate to the atheists who frequent this site that Christianity has more validity than any other belief system? How does it show that a god exists? How does it convince people that Christianity is anything more than a religion based on the glorification of the gruesome, legendary murder of Jesus?
I know that’s there’s more to Christianity than that. But you’ve only presented the worst of your religion. You’ve presented a glorification of violence invented to cause agony of a greater level than any an atheist sees as necessary. What’s the point of that?
Taking the question itself, I’d have to say “yes” the majority of Americans do judge people in such a way that they think said people should be punished for their sexual activity.
Damn my honest streak, the best I could answer was “unsure”.
It is so wonderful that airplanes have separate toilets for straight females, for straight males and more toilets for gay males, for lesbian females and then a special place for those who are unsure of their tender parts; it has a big question mark on the door.
How many do you count? Maybe five or six.
Just as a clarifier of the source: the website states that it is sponsored by the American Family News Network, (“exists to present todays [sic] stories from a biblical perspective”). I’d say that about sums up the reliability of anything on that site.
it’s up to 17% yes now, i think considering it’s audience (the unforgiving christian right) that is pretty good.
Foolishly, they try to prevent voting multiple times by giving you a cookie. I recommend Ccleaner.
It’s One News Now people. However it’s worded, their mistake or not it is intended to find out how many real americans (aka.. Anti-gay bigots) there are
It’s 20-77 now
And were they 99 percent, they would still be wrong. Public opinion validates nothing, devalidates nothing.
Oh dear, the story that they link to was written by none other than Peter Labarbera! He’s a total loon who runs “Americans” for “Truth” About Homosexuality out of his house in Naperville, IL. He’s so concerned about getting his message right that he needs to go to the Folsom Street Fair and to the International Mr. Leather every year, plus he apparently collects a lot of gay porn. Apparently he “left” the Illinois Family Institute so that he could spend more time on fighting teh gay and doing research. There were rumors that his office was filled with gay porn and he didn’t leave on his own accord and the name “Porno Pete” started being used on the Web.
He is fighting gay marriage because if gays are allowed to marry, apparently there will be more HIV infections. I have no idea if he thinks that it will spontaneously generate in a monogamous couple if they are allowed to be, as he puts it, sodomites. He doesn’t seem to know that lesbians exist. He’s a “specialist”, wink wink…
I think the actual answer is probably “no,” but I voted “yes” rather than give those bastards the satisfaction.
#41 Blake -Can you please tell me in what section of the wiki Amy Lee said those things because I can’t find it and I’ve spent about 30 minutes already going through links.
If someone were to block cookies for that site, one could most likely vote lots of times. At least I expect one could. Somebody ought to try it, just to see if it works.
These people live in a strange and different world than mine.
Incidentally, since when is California “the most liberal state in the union”? You never heard of Vermont, or Massachusetts? There are some substantial and sometimes vivid shades of red in California. Incidentally, Massachusetts voters even managed to keep a marriage amendment OFF THE BALLOT a couple of years ago.
Your point is otherwise well-taken. It’s pretty obvious that the country, as a whole, isn’t yet ready to embrace marriage equality – even in states that are liberal by reputation.
seamaiden75 @59, the trick is to use the quote (or a sizable portion of it) as the search term for that site.
Try this search in Google, for example:
— begin search term —
site:http://en.wikipedia.org “Can we please skip the Christian thing? I’m so over it. It’s the lamest thing. I fought that from the beginning; I never wanted to be associated with it. It was a Ben [Moody] thing. It’s over”
— end search term —
@Sastra #18
Yeah, it’s completely bizarre to me how hung up people are about restrooms. I guess it’s not such a big deal to me because I frequent gay bars and no one cares who uses what bathroom – VERY convenient, I must say. For me, this mentality has carried over into some of the other places I go. If the line is too long in the women’s bathroom I often hop over to the men’s (usually when it is of the single toilet variety, but I have been known to say “fuck it” and go in a more open bathroom as long as there is a locked stall and a friendly environment). This has only been cause for a problem once at a Bangladeshi restaurant when the guy waiting outside started yelling at me when I exited.
Anyway, as to the trans issue in the article, I really don’t see the problem. The vast majority of people of any gender or persuasion keep their eyes and everything else to themselves. We all know bathroom etiquette.
I wonder if the women who would feel uncomfortable having a trans woman who is attracted to men in the bathroom with them feel that lesbians should have separate bathrooms as well? I mean, it makes sense, no?
A classically broken piece of website design. In my browser, the only way I can refresh the results is by voting again. Oh well, if they insist …
The US will have same-sex marriage in all 50 states well before the world has a majority of competent web-site designers.
seamaiden75 (#59):
It’s in the “Christian controversy” section of the “Evanescence” article. The original source is a 2006 interview with Billboard magazine.
The bit about “after they discovered drugs” was a tasteless joke on my part, probably inspired by the remarks made the last time the subject came up.
I had to say “unsure” because I have no idea what the question is asking. But for the record, the question seems to be asking if respondents think a particular change is popular. It is not asking if the respondents themselves agree with a particular change. However, the question is worded in such a way that I can’t figure out what change it is referring to.
Okay, PZ, I have to disagree with you on this one. There are already protections in place for gay/lesbian federal employees. That is NOT what is being proposed, or what the poll seems to me to be asking about. It seeks to redefine “transgender” as a protected group, in addition to the existing protections for g/l folks. To me, this raises the interesting question of, What situation would be covered by calling for transgender protection that is NOT already covered?
I also think we should try the more basic approach of protecting individual rights, rather than creating a laundry list of minute minorities for special protection. Similar to this specific case, I think we don’t need to specify “ADD/ADHD” individuals as a protected class; we just need to enforce that if it doesn’t affect your job performance, a learning disability is not grounds for firing because it’s “odd” or “different.”
Every time a new protected group is created, we the taxpayers get to pay for a bunch of lawsuits, and sometimes awards from lawsuits, over things that would not be issues if people on both sides acted like adults. I am NOT in favor of discrimination against any sexual preference or worldview. I DO think that one’s sexual preference or worldview should not be ‘on display’ at one’s place of work.
Living in the Greater Seattle area–where we have trangender men screaming “discrimination” because a fertility doctor doesn’t want to help the man (who still has uncorrected female reproductive anatomy)become pregnant, because the couple’s wife can’t conceive–I have seen a lot of over-sensitive people reading homophobia into all kinds of situations. I’ve watched the local governments deal with the lawsuits. And I don’t care to finance any more.
I wish to forecast that there will be at least a couple of people who don’t bother to read carefully and rant about my “blatant hatred of gays”, etc etc. I’m so tired of this. There are–and should be, in many cases–nuances to political thought. If you have an argument to make, please make it: I’m interested in discussion. But I’m not into name-calling or personal animosity as a substitute for discourse.
I’d have to vote ‘No’, based on their wording.
I’m quite sure a majority of Americans would see no problem whatsoever in discriminating against people based on their sexual preferences.
I’m with Hugo (#70) on this one. have no problem whatsoever discriminating against people who are/behave/act differently than they do themselves.
Wishful thinking aside, I’m also quite sure the majority of
Wishful thinking aside, I’m also quite sure the majority of ‘ insert any country you’d like here’ have no problem whatsoever discriminating against people who are/behave/act differently than they do themselves.
Sorry for the double post, seems I shouldn’t have used a , whatever you call the symbols above the , and .
Do I think the majority of USAnians want to bash fags? Yes – resoundingly so. Just look at Prop H8.
Do I think that’s a good thing? FUCK no!!
Actually I favor discrimination against federal employees in general. These folks are soaking up huge amounts of my tzxes supporting the intrusive state machine. I actually am inherently suspicious when I meet someone who is a government lifer. Their worldview is often at odds with mine.
As a man, I already have to share a restroom with men who are sexually interested in me, and yet somehow I have managed to relieve myself just fine in countless public facilities. Does the article author propose we have 4-6 restrooms so everybody knows exactly what goes on in your bedroom any time you have to take a leak? What about the narcissists? They get violated every time they look at their reflection in the urinal piping.
Also, I’m pretty sure unisex bathrooms don’t violate anybody’s rights. Maybe that’s the solution right there. If such a right is enumerated somewhere, I’d like to know how it is worded.
The “Nos” are way ahead. Get out there and vote yes for tolerance. I have no problem with gays, lesbians, trans, bi, etc. It’s simple: they don’t tell me what to do in my bedroom, I don’t tell them what to do in theirs. (I’m SWM, married with kids.)
Gay marriage does not threaten my marriage. How could some one else’s marriage threaten mine?! It’s absurd. I think it’s a couple of things (Prop 8 in CA, et al):
1. We [fundies] can’t say we hate gays in public, so let’s stick it to them legally (marriage benes, hospital access, etc., etc.).
2. Greed: they don’t want any small slice of their tax benefits going to gay people (if the gay married folk could take advantage of the tax benefits, etc.)
I’ve always had a number of gay friends. It enrages me that they can’t (yet!!) be full citizens in the US. The religious right thinks they are CHOOSING to be gay and that they are immoral. This is exactly the same as them thinking atheists are immoral (except we really do choose to be atheists.)
I encourage you all to visit the anti-gay sites: They are pretty whacko.
At least we can say: PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA!!
Up to 23.91% when I voted, apparently the poll is getting crashed by us….
You just don’t get it Civilized man. Everything you have, or will ever have, you have and/or get to keep because of Government. Including the Internet on which you bash them. The interstates which transport your goods. The waterways and ports maintained by the Government. The airports. Oh, and the DoJ when it’s actually bothering to go after cartels and anti-competitive practices of our Corporate Oligopolies.
When there is no government, there is no civilization. You don’t believe me, go to Somalia. You won’t have to pay taxes there. Nobody will be “intrusive.”
They may rape your daughter then kill her for being unchaste. You probably won’t make it year.
But, hey, no taxes. No intrusion.
Jesus, I can’t stand this kind of whining. Fucking narrow-minded people sponging up all the indirect benefits of the government and the civilization it protects, yet each and everyone of them pretending the Government does nothing for them while wrecking their lives and stealing their money. Fuck!
@ Miss Kitt #69
Actually, the poll seems to have little to do with the article. Trans people are not so much defined by their “sexual behavior,” as by their gender identity issues. Any designation of homo or hetero or what not is usually more secondary. But that’s beside the point.
Can you really not answer this question for yourself? What existing laws would cover trans people if, say, they were fired for being trans? This is not what the article is about, either, but that was a wide open question and I’m interested to hear your answer.
Well, people do not “act like adults.” Why do you think we and every other civilization on this planet have a judicial system in the first place? Did you think that was just to annoy you?
So, heterosexuals should not have photos of their spouses/families on their desks? Or wear crosses or other religious jewelry? Or is it just the minority sexual preferences and worldviews you have a problem with and think should be kept hidden?
Do you think it would be fair for a transgendered boss to fire a heterosexual employee because s/he “flaunted” their heterosexuality? Do you think that the heterosexual employee should have some sort of recourse for that? If there is no protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity then what would the person claim? See…how it works right now is that even if an employee has an untarnished record, they can get fired simply for being gay, transgendered or even (and people don’t usually think about this) straight! There doesn’t need to be another reason.
Leaving aside the issue of the rights of private employers to discriminate, how is the situation you describe not homophobia? Or, transphobia, I suppose. I’m sure there could be another explanation (personal vendetta, couple didn’t have the money, etc), but it is not unreasonable to “read” homophobia into that situation.
How much do you think you actually pay in taxes to cover discrimination lawsuits? I think there are much worse things for the gov’t to be spending your tax money on that equal treatment in employment, but that’s just me.
Miss Kitt-
You asked what situation for transgender employees is not covered by existing law. Policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (e.g. gay or lesbian) typically are not interpreted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity (e.g. transgender, genderqueer). So if a supervisor fires an employee because s/he finds out that the employee is homosexual, the employee has some recourse, whereas at most jobs, the same is simply not true in the case of transgender employees.
Like you said, of course the problem would be solved if people on both sides acted like adults. But we can’t always count on people to act like adults and not discriminate, and so we didn’t take that as a reason not to legislate against racial discrimination.
In regards to another part of your comment, I don’t think that you hate gays, but it seems disingenuous to complain about people putting their sexual preference on display at work when our society is absolutely saturated with heterosexual preference. You didn’t elaborate on what you meant, but I’ve heard that argument from other people many times used to say that gays can be gay as long as they keep it secret. Married people can wear their wedding rings to work and have pictures of their families on their desks, so I don’t see why gay, lesbian, and transgender people should be asked to hide their sexuality. Yes there are limits on what should be displayed at work- e.g. I don’t think that anybody, gay or straight, is entitled to bring in homemade porn. But simply joining in a workplace conversation about summer vacation plans with “my partner and the kids and I are going to visit Grandma” is totally legit, in my view.
Moses @ 78:
YESSSSS! You got it brother. For the same reason, I prefer government to the tender mercies of the market, too.
Anti-Govt folks seem to believe they’d live more than 5 minutes under the regime they espouse, absent the constraints and protections that a “state” provides, under the motif of electoral accountability.
Am I really the only one who’s noticed this?
It’s obvious that the poll is asking about the majority of Americans. That’s not the point. The point is that they worded it so tortuously to ask (essentially) “do you think the majority of Americans support discrimination?” without actually admitting that discrimination is involved. They’re hunting for support for their bigotry, and they know you don’t get that by admitting you’re a bigot, so they twisted the words beyond all meaning.
#78 Moses
What he said.
#78. Spot-on, Moses. Why don’t you start a blog of your own, and give it to pillocks like ‘jayh #74’ straight up the jacksie – each and every day.
Moses #78:
As a libertarian/fiscal conservative, I would be the first to agree with you that some government is necessary for a civilised society. The primary duty of government is to protect the security of persons and property, and to develop and enforce a rational, consistent system of law. Without this, a free society, based on mutual voluntary transactions free from force or fraud, cannot exist. In the end, if my neighbour is able to attack me or steal my property at will with impunity, I am not free in any meaningful sense. So when you say “Everything you have, or will ever have, you have and/or get to keep because of Government”, you are in one sense absolutely right.
But I disagree with much of the rest of your post. Infrastructure does not need to be in government hands in order to function. If, say, transport or communication facilities are needed, then there will be a demand for them and hence a market, and so the private sector will provide them. If there is insufficient demand to make this profitable, then there is no good reason for the facilities to exist at all.
A good example is the postal service. Here in Britain, like most countries, we have a state-owned (though corporatised) postal service; and, by law, there is a standard rate for posting a letter anywhere within the UK, regardless of distance. This means that our postal service makes a substantial profit on, say, deliveries within London – but a massive loss on deliveries to the remote Outer Hebrides, where the actual cost of delivering the letter is something like £5. This would balance out, if not for the fact that private couriers take a substantial section of the market within the more profitable areas, leaving the postal service to serve the unprofitable routes. Hence the rest of us are effectively subsidising those who wish to send letters to the Outer Hebrides. And why should we? Being able to send and receive letters at a fixed rate is not a “right” that must be provided to everyone at public expense. In a free market, postal carriers would be free to set their own charges – subject, of course, to the normal price mechanisms of the market – and this problem would go away.
Similarly, it makes my blood boil when people talk about “broadband poverty” and the “need” to supply communications infrastructure to remote rural areas at public expense; or where they whine about fewer rural bus and train services. In the end, these things are not entitlements. They are consumer services; and if it isn’t profitable to provide them to a particular area, they shouldn’t be provided. People who want such services ought to move somewhere where they can get them. Why should I subsidise the people who choose to live in remote areas?
(This goes back, in fact, to what I was saying earlier about “rural electrification”.)
So your examples – waterways, ports, airports – could all perfectly well be privatised (and have been in some countries). If they’re used sufficiently to justify keeping them open, then they will be profitable and the private sector will maintain them. And I don’t understand on what basis you describe the Internet as a government service; it simply isn’t. ISPs are part of the private sector, and always have been.
Walton the endlessly ignorant:
The Internet grew from ARPANET, created by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Part of the United States Department of Defense. Which, need I remind you, is a GOVERNMENT agency. Without which the net would not exist. So every time you rant about the evils of government on the Internet, remember that the Internet owes its very existence to government projects.
Just out of curiousity, does Walton EVER know what he’s talking about?
What I find interesting is that the link to the article disappeared from the poll results. My husband wanted to see it when he got home from work. I’ve found it now, but guess what–all comments except those from people against gays and all upset at the thought of sharing their bathrooms have been blanked out.
Why am I surprised? I shouldn’t be surprised. Hmm.
@86,
I don’t know if that would be the best example, friend, as I’m fairly certain most libertarians hold that the government should continue to provide defense services. Sorry to nitpick.
@the actual topic,
It won’t let me vote! Why can’t I vote? Is the poll closed?
Walton refused to grasp how the Internet could be in any way connected to the government, so I pointed out that it was CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT!
It was Walton who tried to use a government project as an example of the triumph of private enterprise, not my fault he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.