Many libertarians (conservatives) in some cases reject religion altogether. Some attribute the concept of the Sabbath or Blue laws as religious and in accordance with denying the notion of separation of church and state. — christian2017

A single-concern argument is not the same as a complete moral system.

Outside the context of a complete system, it is easy, peasy to argue whatever you want, and you will always be right.

Instead, try to reason within a system or about a system. You will understand that it is not that easy to do.

Atheists always seem to propose single-concern, system-less bullshit. That is not critical thinking!

Take something complex and non-trivial instead, and then try to detect an inconsistency. That is hard and intelligent work. That is something that we can respect!

what exactly are you in disagreement with. The whole point of the OP was current events and helping the poor. I'm not sure what your issue with the OP was? Can you clarify? I understand Liberarians have a whole set of beliefs. My OP was in relation to what they view the problem with what is traditionally called blue laws. That is why i believe sub blue laws are the answer.

Sub Blue laws are based on practicality. Everyone needs a set day off and also a consistent day off every X days. People who work 2 or 3 jobs very often will work 8 days one week and 15 the next before having a day off. Sub Blue Laws are based on some state or federal paper work being filled out after 3 or so months of employment and then some minor coordination is forced on the employers of the employee. Its not completely simple but most laws aren't. I've met people who worked 300 days in a row. We can argue about welfare but the rejection of the sabbath concept has gone too far in America. Even the revolting French Revolutionists accepted a 10 day work week. 3, 7, 14, 21, 28 these are all acceptable numbers. The reason for multiples of 7 or less than 7 is due to government workers work on a 5 days of work and then 2 days off schedule and thus the rest of society would have to follow suit to the 7 day standard. Many of the problems of the poor can be solved through practical low impact legislation without imposing on the tax payer. — christian2017

I'm not entirely against opponents of Libertarians who are sometimes called liberals, i guess the problem with fully embracing the liberal's view of fixing economic problems is, Libertarians are noted to threaten departure from certain conservative values with violence. Now do you see what i'm saying?

Liberals very often see the solution to be what would commonly be called socialism such as the concept of "universal basic income". Universal Basic income is being tried in certain european countries.

Libertarians are noted to threaten departure from certain conservative values with violence. Now do you see what i'm saying? — christian2017

Ok. I thought that it just some baseless criticism on having a seven-day week with one day of rest. Sorry for that.

oh

I'm confused . . . and the first thing I'm confused about is this: what the heck is a "sub" blue law?

It looks like you're simply arguing in favor of a law requiring a day off of work so that people working multiple jobs have some time off without having to take sick days, without having to worry about losing their job by insisting on a particular schedule, etc.?

Many libertarians (conservatives) — christian2017

:rofl:
Libertarians aren't conservatives. They are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. That would be like someone saying, "Many libertarians (liberals)" because libertarians are socially liberal, while ignoring their other views that aren't liberal.

What a libertarian would want is for the government (whether it be a theocracy or authoritarian socialism) to get out of the decision between me and my employer about which days I can take off or not. If an employer wants to run their employees into the ground then they won't be able to keep their employees for very long, or be able to produce as well as employees that are able to take time off. It's a decision in which two consenting adults can come to, without someone coming in that has nothing to do with it, making decisions for us.

Even a libertarian would have to understand some minor concessions would have to be made to their basic philosophy in order to keep their taxes low. Any member of a democracy or reprensentative democracy would have to accept this fact.

As for the fiscally conservative thing you are right, but that being said, i can promise you the number one issue for most libertarians in my area is fiscal conservatism.

Have you ever met someone who has consistently over a substantial period of time worked 2 or 3 jobs in order to stay afloat or remain what many in society would deem financially responsible? If you don't understand these situations then there is not much i could say to convince you of the need for sub blue laws. Its certainly not about religion, its a basic need for just about everybody's emotional health as well as it helps build strong family's. Strong family's are important even to those who don't believe in religion.

Yeah, I'm familiar with that. I'm asking you about the word "sub" in this context. I'm not familiar with "sub" here. Where does that come from and what does it refer to, exactly?

well traditionally blue laws are associated with a 7 day cycle in American history. The sub part implies that the cycle would involve less days off then there would be in a 7 day cycle. If that person had a 14 day cycle they are experiencing a 50% drop over a course in time of having a day off. The sub implies less than typical or in this case less than "blue law" or sub blue law.

Hmm, okay--is this your own term, or is it a common term?

unfortunately its my term. That being said, is your problem with the name of the concept or is your problem with the concept?

I proposed this concept to two active politicians in my area (one conservative and one liberal) and they both for whatever reason told me it was a good idea. My local delegate doesn't meet until January and their session is only 2 or 3 months.

the liberal politician that i told also happens to be my local delegate.

Even a libertarian would have to understand some minor concessions would have to be made to their basic philosophy in order to keep their taxes low. Any member of a democracy or reprensentative democracy would have to accept this fact. — christian2017

Nonsense. The way you keep taxes low is keeping the government small - which is a fundamental tenant of libertarianism, not a concession a libertarian would have to make.

As for the fiscally conservative thing you are right, but that being said, i can promise you the number one issue for most libertarians in my area is fiscal conservatism. — christian2017

I can see that being the case as the country is already pretty socially liberal. Religion is on the decline and out of our public school system, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc., but our economic freedoms are being threatened with the government overreach and expansion. It doesn't matter what party is in power either. This is why we need to either incorporate a third or more parties, or just abandon the party system altogether (I'd be more in favor of the latter). We should vote for ideas, not people or party.

Even a libertarian would have to understand some minor concessions would have to be made to their basic philosophy in order to keep their taxes low. Any member of a democracy or reprensentative democracy would have to accept this fact.
— christian2017
Nonsense. The way you keep taxes low is keeping the government small - which is a fundamental tenant of libertarianism, not a concession a libertarian would have to make. — Harry Hindu

Nonsense, In any democracy or representative government all citizens are going to be somewhat effected by other people in the society. I'm not sure how you can argue with this. Do you know how democracy works?

Believe it or not roads mainly help people who cars, but that being said roads should still be paid for by the government. Im not sure there is any point in argueing with you because you seem content with just assuming the poor are just lazy. Politicians can come up with creative ideas without imposing on the tax payer.

Most laws (even laws that don't impose on the tax payer) are complicated, if there is a way to increase comfort of a worker without imposing on the tax payer then that is what the government should do. Modern governments are going to be somewhat complicated whether people want to accept it or not. We shouldn't just assume everything has to be so simple. Simplistic thought very often leads to stupid decisions. Or we can just continue to assume the poor have a bad work ethic. Globalism, international investors and automation have had a very negative effect on the lives of Americans.

How do you feel about restrictive zoning laws? Feel free to ignore my other posts for various reasons.

Some attribute the concept of the Sabbath or Blue laws as religious and in accordance with denying the notion of separation of church and state. — christian2017

I think I agree with your overall point (assuming it is an economic one), but blue laws ARE religious (the fact that you also refer to them as Sabbath Laws highlights this). I think using these terms only adds confusion.

Why not propose a "labor law" that requires a day off for every ten worked (or whatever you think is best), even if you have 2 (or 9) jobs?

If you had just said, "there is a new trend in labor. Due to the gig economy and people holding multiple jobs, some people are working 7, 14, 21 or 100 days in a row without a day off. This is an atrocity. Surely there should be a law that guarantees these people an occasional day off", I think there would be less confusion and you would get a more direct discussion. Although Harry Hindu and any free market min-archists would still be arguing, haha.

Yeah. I don't know if you agree with the following but there is a difference between having a day off after 8 days and the next week or so working 14 days in a row. Having a set schedule (every 10 days as you said) is important for the psychology of a person. Being at the whim of all of your employers in terms of days off really messes with a poor person's emotional health. Government workers get saturday and sundays off every week, i'm not sure why a poor person can't consistently get every 10th day off. I like to do it in multiples of 7 because (14, 21, 28) it would be less cumbersome considering that is what government workers are on (7 days).

Perhaps this is what you were getting at. I just wanted to clarify the need for consistency.

Yeah. I don't know if you agree with the following but there is a difference between having a day off after 8 days and the next week or so working 14 days in a row. Having a set schedule (every 10 days as you said) is important for the psychology of a person. Being at the whim of all of your employers in terms of days off really messes with a poor person's emotional health. Government workers get saturday and sundays off every week, i'm not sure why a poor person can't consistently get every 10th day off. I like to do it in multiples of 7 because (14, 21, 28) it would be less cumbersome considering that is what government workers are on (7 days).

Perhaps this is what you were getting at. I just wanted to clarify the need for consistency. — christian2017

Yep, that seems all good to me. I was really just saying, "don't call it blue laws because that will confuse people as to your true goal". I think other than that, I largely agreed.

cool

Nonsense, In any democracy or representative government all citizens are going to be somewhat effected by other people in the society. I'm not sure how you can argue with this. Do you know how democracy works? — christian2017

Sure. Majority rule, right?

I don't see how what I said has anything to do with understanding that I am a social animal. Interacting with others is how I make a living. It's also interesting. You can learn things from other people. Libertarians aren't necessarily hermits, if that is your anti-libertarian talking point.

The basic philosophical view of a Libertarian is skepticism. I don't know what is best for you, or how you should live your life. I have a basic assumption that you are similar to me in that you don't get your kicks off of hurting others or stealing from them and that most people are like that. We only need protection from those that do, and a libertarian can understand the logic in having law enforcement (with oversight) keep the peace so economic freedom can flourish and be free of corruption.

Believe it or not roads mainly help people who cars, but that being said roads should still be paid for by the government. Im not sure there is any point in argueing with you because you seem content with just assuming the poor are just lazy. Politicians can come up with creative ideas without imposing on the tax payer — christian2017

Sure, libertarians can see the benefit in supporting our infrastructure that enables more economic freedom. You seem to be confusing libertarians with anarchists. Libertarians are for limited government, not no government, and I don't know how you came to the idea that I assume poor people are lazy from anything that I have said. You must be getting this stuff from some authoritarian socialist handbook, or something. People can be poor for various reasons and support nets are fine, but need to be more strictly monitored.

Most laws (even laws that don't impose on the tax payer) are complicated... — christian2017

...unnecessarily so.

if there is a way to increase comfort of a worker without imposing on the tax payer then that is what the government should do. Modern governments are going to be somewhat complicated whether people want to accept it or not. We shouldn't just assume everything has to be so simple. Simplistic thought very often leads to stupid decisions. Or we can just continue to assume the poor have a bad work ethic. Globalism, international investors and automation have had a very negative effect on the lives of Americans. — christian2017

Why does the government need to step in when there are so many other options? Why is the answer to all social problems more government? Can you provide an example of a worker being uncomfortable at work? I don't understand what you mean - making the worker "comfortable". Should the company hire massage therapists for the workers? You know that the price of the goods or service you purchase from that company would go up, right? What is the problem and what is your proposed solution?

How do you feel about restrictive zoning laws? Feel free to ignore my other posts for various reasons. — christian2017

I feel that local communities should be deciding how their land is used for the local community.

How do you feel about restrictive zoning laws? Feel free to ignore my other posts for various reasons.
— christian2017
I feel that local communities should be deciding how their land is used for the local community. — Harry Hindu

A free market is a two way street. Local laws (just like federal laws) can also impose unnecessarily on the poor. Less government and more freedoms can also benefit the poor sometimes. Fiscal conservatism if done in a fair way can also benefit the poor.

_________________________________________________________________________

As to the rest of what you said, i feel you deliberately tried to make it as though you didn't understand what is said. There is nothing unethical about a law if it doesn't impose on the tax payer. I'm sure you would agree some environmental laws are ethical. You can't just assume in every case that a new law is unethical. Sub Blue laws put no burden on the tax payer.

When pastors say "work harder, spend less, and give more to the church that isn't advice. In any given situation, working harder or overclocking the cpu or pumping more blood to your brain will produce temporary better results. Trying harder or working harder isn't really advice that people haven't heard before. If you want to people to respect your incites, you need more creative solutions then just working harder.

Nonsense, In any democracy or representative government all citizens are going to be somewhat effected by other people in the society. I'm not sure how you can argue with this. Do you know how democracy works?
— christian2017
Sure. Majority rule, right? — Harry Hindu

Well to expect the government to conform 100% to your beliefs is unreasonable. The important thing is that the laws that are in place provide a level playing field for all individuals to make a living. Zoning laws very often hinder a free market.