Posted on 08/03/2013 6:35:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The very first bit of anti-libertarian humor I ever posted was this clever video about the anarcho-capitalist paradise of Somalia.
I then shared two cartoons, one on libertarian ice fishing and the other showinglibertarian lifeguards.
That was followed by a very funny list of the 24 types of libertarians.
But I haven’t shared anything making fun of people like me since this “think I do” montage last year.
Thanks to Buzzfeed, however, we now have something new for our collection. They came up with “23 Libertarian Problems” and here are two of my favorites from the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
“It should have been left a Religious issue. Once they got the State to sanction marriage, they ceded control over the definition.”
Read Reynolds. Not so. Reynolds argues very explicitly that the federal government has the right to regulate marriage, it cannot redefine, just like it cannot redefine habeaus corpus or trial by jury, instances of the English Common Law that predate the establishment of the Constitution in America.
You accuse me of lying and now all you can do is split hairs.
The answer should be the same as mine which is that you aren't to discriminate against them. If they don't give the answer of "equality under the law" then they need to go back to re-read their Catechism once again.
Herein is the problem and it is multifaceted.
First off, as human beings, even homosexuals have rights and the right to be treated equally under the law.
Secondly, if they are to be treated equally under the law, that means you don't get to treat them as second-class citizens.
That doesn't mean, however, you get to legitimize the homosexual act. That is precisely why I have asked you before, "What does sexuality have to do with the Military? It is not a social club."
Think of it as an expression of the Golden Rule. If you want to be treated as an "equal under the law" then you have to treat others the same way.
You do not have to legitimize their sin. You do not have to acknowledge their sin as being proper. You do not have to accord them any sort of special status. But you do have to treat them as human beings.
Otherwise, you run into the problem where the Golden Rule works in reverse. "As you do unto others, so shall they do unto you."
That sort of society where people are constantly at each others' throats and designating each other as second-class citizens depending on who is in charge at the time is not one that I would want to live in nor is it one that I want anyone else to have to live in.
Importation of substances is part of the constitutional powers of the federal government. What is controlled is negotiable.
As for the rest, you’re arguing with the wrong man if you think I support these things. I agree with you here. However, arguing that substances cannot be controlled by the federal government would remove their constitutional powers to tax them and enact tariffs on imported goods. That they have the power to enact tariffs also gives them the authority to inspect anything that comes in.
For instance the military, employment, immigration, and much more.
The problem with your argument is that you are arguing that marriage is a constitutional right. It is not.
Depriving someone of marriage, is not the same as treating them as less of a person. No one has the right to get married to whomever they want. Not you. Not me. Nobody.
Positive discrimination is permitted. That the state regulates marriage as one man and one woman isn’t discrimination against those who do not get married. It IS recognition of their bond and provides legal protections encouraging the formation of families and children.
That’s really the core of the argument here. The state has an interest in healthy families, and the best way to get there is through marriage.
You think judges historically were of necessity religious elders?
Although, religious elders may sometimes make good judges.
Surely you agree that a devout Christian might make a good judge, do you not?
This is de-facto federal government recognition of gay marriage.
I told libertarians just like yourself that this was a reason why marriage is a federal issue. None of your compatriots addressed this point. Now, just a few months later, we see it happen.
Again, marriage has never been left up to the states. It’s always been a federal issue. Leaving it up to the states will not work, and the groundwork is going to be laid for the federal marriage bill to establish gay marriage in all 50 states.
So, we can count on your earnest opposition to such an attempt (which is coming, and coming soon?)
__________________________________________________
Just because the corporateist fascist leftists have it this way now doesn’t mean that it is the libertarian belief.
Why don’t you discuss the aspects of libertarianism rather than murk up the waters with what leftists do? Look up Maybury’s work. Many homeschoolers use his books.
I see you still can’t name one, so you are trying to get me to reveal something in common with the DU crowd. That’s just sad. I think my first trip to The Dump had to do with the Supreme Court Ruling in Bush v. Gore. They don’t understand Scalia or Thomas, so I tried to help. Others have included such wide-ranging topics as supposed Republican voter fraud in 2004, whether or not John McCain is “rightwing”, and Trayvon Martin. I never said I was to proselytize for libertarianism, that was your invention. I just said I never lasted very long there.
Let me throw out this possibility to you. It’s possible I don’t have a problem or even much of a disagreement with social conservatism. In fact, I have asked you several times to identify even a single leftist social position I have promoted. You have gone to great lengths to avoid that question for very obvious reasons; yet you can’t admit it. Sad. The next obvious question would be for you to identify a single issue on which I have attacked social conservatism.
Name one of either.
It should have been left a Religious issue. Once they got the State to sanction marriage, they ceded control over the definition.
______________________
Agreeed
Labelling him a ‘libertarian’ is inaccurate when he opposes the libertarian position on abortion, gay marriage and the military, and espouses the conservative position on all three.
I would argue that his actual positions are closer to conservativism than libertarianism.
Should personhood be dependent upon which side of a state line you live on, or should it be dependent upon general principles (as is the rest of the 14th?)
_______________________________________
Yes.
I asked you a question.
Can we rely on your earnest opposition to the federal gay marriage bill?
One or the other?
The federal government must be involved in marriage to the extent that much of it’s own laws and policies have to do with married people and families.
__________________________
perhaps it is time not to
Finally, a straight answer, you are wrong about a (good) Catholic supporting homosexuals in the military and gay marriage in the military, but it is refreshing to see you admit to it.
It was only 1994 when Clinton made it legal for a homosexual to try to pass in the military for as long as he could until caught, it was only this year that Obama made it legal for them to serve, and then fully equal with “marriage”.
So you are a part of this new world for the American military, you reject all that was before in regard to homosexuals in the military.
Reynolds was wrong if that is what it says.
Even if not for the explicit limits in Art 1 Sec 8, there are further limits in art 6 para 2, the 1st Amn, and the 14th.
The Courts can exceed their legal authority as easily as Congress.
Just what in the hell do you think we are trying to “conserve”?
I don’t know how you manage not to know this, but the federal government has always had to be involved with marriage and family, because it has no choice.
Do you really think the military can operate with no definition of wife or widow for example?
Please show me evidence that marriage has ever been defined in the Constitution as something other than as one man and one woman. Any other definition will suffice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.