A Clever Example of Tax Avoidance, but a Quandary for Leftists and Social Conservatives

Townhall.com ^ | July 1, 2013 | Daniel J. Mitchell

[Kaslin]

I generally believe that social conservatives and libertarians are natural allies. As I wrote last year, this is “because there is wide and deep agreement on the principle of individual responsibility. They may focus on different ill effects, but both camps understand that big government is a threat to a virtuous and productive citizenry.”

I even promoted a “Fusionist” principle based on a very good column by Tim Carney, and I suspect a large majority of libertarians and social conservatives would agree with the statement.

But that doesn’t mean social conservatives and libertarians are the same. There’s some fascinating research on the underlying differences between people of different ideologies, and I suspect the following story might be an example of where the two camps might diverge.

But notice I wrote “might” rather than “will.” I’ll be very curious to see how various readers react to this story about a gay couple that is taking an unusual step to minimize an unfair and punitive tax imposed by the government of Pennsylvania.

[ansel12]

you’re a fascist who believes in ultimate govt control that’s just a fact

Another pro-gay marriage freeper who labels opposition to it as "facist", although the founders would have lynched you for your views, while I merely oppose you politically.

Well you don't understand that I am not a republican, and never have been, so you sure missed that.

The GOP has a long ways to go before it is as left as the libertarians though, since they are about as leftwing as it gets on social issues.

The founders, aside form complying with marriage law themselves for their own marriages, (Jefferson even dealt in marriage law as an attorney) also legislated on federal recognition of marriage when they passed the first widow pensions law in 1780 and enlarged in in 1794 and 1798, and 1802, so you just keep making things up.

[sten]

im confused... now you’re saying you’re not in favor of govt dictating interpersonal relationships?

and you’re not a republican or a libertarian... but you believe in govt control of personal relationships?

so... you’re a progressive democrat. got it

[ansel12]

You don’t seem to “got” anything, you just keep slip sliding around and throwing out all kinds of made up nonsense.

You refused to answer post 29, and you are none responsive to post 41.

Since today’s topic is homosexuality, tell us where libertarianism is in opposition to this libertarian position.

1.3 Personal Relationships (libertarian)

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

[sten]

i have answered you, numerous times. you’re just a little too obsessed with other peoples sexuality to comprehend what you’re being told

ANYONE that believes in small govt CANNOT be in favor of the fedgov having ANY say in the personal relationships of its citizens.

personally, i’m appalled by homosexuality... but that doesn’t mean i want my government to get into the business of dictating my designs of interpersonal relationships onto other people.

you, on the other hand, seem to want a fedgov that has control over the personal lives of all Americans to the point of dictating who they are allowed to date. how you claim to be on the right side of the political spectrum is beyond me.

i’m pretty sure you’re a progressive democrat

[ansel12]

So you support the creation of homosexual marriage and polygamy in America, homosexual marriage in the military and in spousal immigration and in adoption, in the name of libertarianism.

You support the libertarian agenda, which is what I was saying all along.

[21twelve]

It is too bad that it couldn’t have been some log cabin, conservative gay types that brought this to the Supreme Court. And press the issue not that “we want to be married, so we can avoid the inheritance tax”, but as a “it’s not fair that the married can avoid it, but the unmarried can’t. So strike down the entire Inheritance Tax theft”.

Seriously - what with the “equal protection” stuff, how come the unmarried don’t get the same deal as the married?

[fwdude]

...attempting to balkanize into social fiscal governmental etc. is a rino power stunt.

Absolutely correct. No one balkanizes conservatism unless they despise a portion of it - the "social" component.

[sten]

I support no such thing enforced by the govt as that would expand govt control and power far beyond anything ever imagined by the founders

you, on the other hand, want intrusion in our daily lives by massive govt control.

you say you’re not a libertarian or a republican. conservatives aren’t in favor of massive govt either. neither are anarchists. there isn’t much left on the right side of the political spectrum... and since you’re about massive govt control, that leaves you on the left.

please, head back to DU

[ansel12]

If I understand you correctly, you agree with this, which is the libertarian position.

“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”

[sten]

I’m not in favor of homosexuality at all. but I’m also not in favor of massive big govt.

You seem to want the govt so big, it has control over your personal relationships

you’re either on the wrong site, a DU mole being outed, or are delusional about what a small govt means.

[ansel12]

Like I said, you agree with the libertarian position, why are you so ashamed of it that you keep twisting and wriggling around so, just support what you support.

You agree with this and I don’t, why does that tie you up in knots so, why do you keep moving in and fading out, coming on strong and then backpedaling, as timid as a school girl?
“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”

[sten]

I’ve said it numerous times but you seem to have a mental block, which was obvious from the start

I am PERSONALLY against homo anything.. BUT I’m also against massive govt

I’m less concerned about how other people behave in their personal lives then I am about massive govt control in my own. letting fedgov have a say, one way or the other, on personal relationships is giving them more govt control then they ever had (even 0bamacare isn’t that intrusive)

you, on the other hand, seem to be homo obsessed and want massive big govt. this was not uncommon in 1935 Germany

out of curiosity, how would you describe yourself politically? I ask only to see the depth of your delusion as your political leanings towards massive state intrusion is obvious

[ansel12]

If you believe this, then why won’t you just admit that you do? If you don’t, then tell me where you disagree with it.

“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”

[jboot]

I'm reading this thread in disbelief. Let me get this straight:

Defending traditional marriage, and desiring that the definition of it be ensconced in law is "fascist" and "like Nazi Germany"?

Really?

I think someone else needs to consider "going back to DU." FR is most emphatically not a pro-SSM website.

[sten]

if you believe the federal government should be ALLOWED to dictate something as basic as your personal relationships, then you’re pushing for MASSIVE government intervention in your lives, which would border on totalitarianism

if you’re ok with that, then you must also be ok with 0bamacare as it’s just another massive government intrusion dictating how you get your healthcare

i can be against something personally... and wholly opposed to having the government enforce that thinking as it gives them massive new powers they’ve never had before.

you think the fedgov defines marriage?? that’s hilarious. by thinking they ever have, you’ve granted them power they never had.

really, you both need to wake up and learn to separate your personal desires and feelings from what a govt body should be allowed to do

and yes, expecting your govt to dictate how people live their personal lives is fascism. if you’re unsure, go read the definition

[ansel12]

As a libertarian, your position applies to all government, I assume that you support libertarianism in all your voting and politics.

You don’t merely support the homosexual agenda in federal issues like the military, federal employment, and immigration, you support it at the state level as well don’t you?

By the way, did you read the last paragraph of post 41?

[sten]

as i stated when we started delving into your delusion, i do not vote for big ‘L’ Libertarians normally, as they are most often drug addled nits. it is possible to have a libertarian in the Libertarian party, but that would be on a case by case basis

kind of like voting GOP and thinking you’re getting a small govt conservative (ROFLMAO !)

meanwhile, you’ve failed to answer the question:

which political party do you align with? come on... you can do it...

[ansel12]

That isn’t what post 56 said.

I pointed out that as a libertarian, that your philosophy would apply to all your political thinking and would be reflected in all your voting and politics.

You don’t merely support the homosexual agenda in federal issues like the military, federal employment, and immigration, you support it at the state level as well don’t you?

Did you read the last paragraph of post 41?

[jboot]

Defending traditional marriage dictates to no one. No one is telling anyone what they can and cannot do in their bedrooms.

But establishing SSM as "the law of the land" dictates to the conscience of individuals, and worse to the doctrine and practice of churches and religious businessmen. It is an affront to religious freedom.

People who support SSM don't belong on FR.

[sten]

you’re allowing them the power to decide ... a power they’ve never had

the libs are positioning for more power and bigger govt. they’re also angling to collapse the church by the govt removing tax free status

the issue isn’t whether or not SSM shoud be allowed... it’s whether or not the fedgov has the power to dictate either way... which they don’t.

SSM shouldn’t be a question for govt. it’s an issue for states and organizations.