Libertarians issue warning to Tea Partiers Which do the tea partiers hate more ?

[dross]

And you don't think there are fights over heterosexual couples or even bachelors under similar circumstances? Anytime there are sufficient money or possessions to be had people will fight over them.

In most states, however, if you leave everything to your spouse the only people who are going to be able to fight you over it is your children. If you're gay, in some states you could have brothers and sisters and parents involved as well.

You should be able to dispose of your possessions to whomever you damn well please, including your cat.

BTW, if any of you leave your assets to your cat, I love cats and would be happy to be your trustee.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I can almost get behind that, as long as there is a guarantee that the State will respect the rights of ALL and see that everyone is treated equally before the law. Otherwise we could have have a return to miscegenation laws and a host of other state sponsored inequalities. That's why we have, and are having, litigation and discussion of marriage equality now. And why the 14th Amendment is coming into play. Just saying "make it local" doesn't guarantee fairness or equality.

Guarantee fairness and equality? Is Libertarian another word for libtard?

I'm suprised that you of all people want government to guarantee anything. Not a personal attack, just seems very strange. How do you balance anarchy with fairness?

There is a guarantee of opportunity. Nothing else. you have to overcome your circumstances, whatever they are, if you want to succeed. If you're white you probably have little chance of being the Director of the NAACP. If you're 5'0" tall you probably have no chance of playing center in the NBA. If you are blind you will probably never be a NASCAR driver. Should any of these disqualify you from your chosen profession? Yes, absolutely every one of them. But your are still free to try.

States don't sponsor inequities. They are already present in one form or another.

 

[mrjarrell]

Guarantee fairness and equality? Is Libertarian another word for libtard?

I'm suprised that you of all people want government to guarantee anything. Not a personal attack, just seems very strange. How do you balance anarchy with fairness?

There is a guarantee of opportunity. Nothing else. you have to overcome your circumstances, whatever they are, if you want to succeed. If you're white you probably have little chance of being the Director of the NAACP. If you're 5'0" tall you probably have no chance of playing center in the NBA. If you are blind you will probably never be a NASCAR driver. Should any of these disqualify you from your chosen profession? Yes, absolutely every one of them. But your are still free to try.

States don't sponsor inequities. They are already present in one form or another.

It's called equality before the law and it's a cornerstone of this countries legal system. Fairness goes hand in hand with it, as well.

 

[dross]

Guarantee fairness and equality? Is Libertarian another word for libtard?

I'm suprised that you of all people want government to guarantee anything. Not a personal attack, just seems very strange. How do you balance anarchy with fairness?

There is a guarantee of opportunity. Nothing else. you have to overcome your circumstances, whatever they are, if you want to succeed. If you're white you probably have little chance of being the Director of the NAACP. If you're 5'0" tall you probably have no chance of playing center in the NBA. If you are blind you will probably never be a NASCAR driver. Should any of these disqualify you from your chosen profession? Yes, absolutely every one of them. But your are still free to try.

States don't sponsor inequities. They are already present in one form or another.

Government does exist to prevent and/or punish others trampling on our rights. In fact, it's the only legitimate function of government.

And, governments sponsor inequities if everyone isn't equal UNDER THE LAW. If a law gives one group of people more or less freedoms as citizens than another, the government is using it's only power - force - to create the unfairness.

That said, I agree that the government cannot and should not try to guarantee equality of outcome. Just make the playing field level. The players walk on the field with unequal abilities.

 

[Fletch]

Hello,

Until it's happened to you it's very hard to understand. Imagine if you were gay and you and your partner spent a very long time together building up this business or life together and they died of cancer. The legal wills, and all of that have very well known limitations. Even death bed rights come into question. The next thing you know someone is trying to take everything away from you. Sometimes they win... Documentaries, famous stories, and articles have been written about how often these wills fail in legal battles. When someone tries to take everything from you.. something you bled, sweated, and worked years for... well you will fight for it.

And if you get government out of that sort of law, then it can all be resolved through the civil courts without confusing the issue through codified rights of inheritance. It would work that way for any marriage, gay, straight, group, line, whatever.

I would not say it's "happened to me", but I've seen the feeding frenzy on the part of some more distant relatives when someone died, and frankly I'd rather they just dueled over it.

 

[awatarius]

Marriage is a legal fiction, run by government, as it stands right now. As such all people who stand before the law must be treated equally. That's what this nation was founded upon. Until government is no longer involved in marriage, (which will be no time soon) it will remain a legal matter with government oversight. Therefor all people who engage in it MUST be treated equally.

Hello,

Thank you sir! And well said!

 

[awatarius]

And if you get government out of that sort of law, then it can all be resolved through the civil courts without confusing the issue through codified rights of inheritance. It would work that way for any marriage, gay, straight, group, line, whatever.

I would not say it's "happened to me", but I've seen the feeding frenzy on the part of some more distant relatives when someone died, and frankly I'd rather they just dueled over it.

i am all for taking off the glove, slapping someone, and then sword fighting to the death.. builds character. I am not for someone losing something because a child or step child want's it. The duel may no be fair. It shouldn't even go to court. Things like this should just be known. OH they are under some form of contract as partners.. then that's what it is. PERIOD. But other then that I love your post!

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

It's called equality before the law and it's a cornerstone of this countries legal system. Fairness goes hand in hand with it, as well.

Government does exist to prevent and/or punish others trampling on our rights. In fact, it's the only legitimate function of government.

And, governments sponsor inequities if everyone isn't equal UNDER THE LAW. If a law gives one group of people more or less freedoms as citizens than another, the government is using it's only power - force - to create the unfairness.

That said, I agree that the government cannot and should not try to guarantee equality of outcome. Just make the playing field level. The players walk on the field with unequal abilities.

I absolutely disagree dross. When has government ever provided quality under the law?

The government has laws against descriminating based on age. Really what the law does is protect older employees to the exclusion of younger ones. Same with race or religion. If you are calling out one group for preferential treatment you by simple balance provide degraded treatment to those who do not fit into the defined groups.

Is it fair that my competitors are bigger, better known, and have more money? That my product is better but no one knows about it because I've spent money on R&D and not marketing? Yes, absolutely. I don't want or need the government to try to interfere to level anything.

There is no such thing as a level playing field, and government has no business trying to create one. If I am short fat and slow I will never be a running back in the NFL. Government can't make everyone else accomodate my lack of ability. If I am a white male I will never be Miss Black USA, as hard as I may try and regardless of any law that could be passed. If I as a person hate Jews (I don't) I as an employer won't likely hire someone wearing a star of David. If I decide I don't want a 70 year old delivering shingles that should be my decision. Government shouldn't get involved in those decisions. As soon as you cede ground to protect different classes of people you build a dependance on government and start the sprint down the road to the nanny state.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I hate big Government, Democrats and Republicans. Let me rephrase that: I hate anyone who is not willing to abide by and defend the Constitution.

I hate dead beats, liars, thieves and traitors, oh, I'm sorry. That's redundant.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Let's also be realistic and admit that we spend "Defense" money on a lot more than just defense, and the structure has become VERY top heavy.

It would be naive to say there is nothing that can possibly be cut from the defense budget.

Or better used.

 

[Jack Ryan]

... There is no moral obligation to help those people, but should we choose do so, we have also violated no moral principle.

Wealth redistribution on the grandest scale.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I absolutely disagree dross. When has government ever provided quality under the law?

The government has laws against descriminating based on age. Really what the law does is protect older employees to the exclusion of younger ones. Same with race or religion. If you are calling out one group for preferential treatment you by simple balance provide degraded treatment to those who do not fit into the defined groups.

Is it fair that my competitors are bigger, better known, and have more money? That my product is better but no one knows about it because I've spent money on R&D and not marketing? Yes, absolutely. I don't want or need the government to try to interfere to level anything.

There is no such thing as a level playing field, and government has no business trying to create one. If I am short fat and slow I will never be a running back in the NFL. Government can't make everyone else accomodate my lack of ability. If I am a white male I will never be Miss Black USA, as hard as I may try and regardless of any law that could be passed. If I as a person hate Jews (I don't) I as an employer won't likely hire someone wearing a star of David. If I decide I don't want a 70 year old delivering shingles that should be my decision. Government shouldn't get involved in those decisions. As soon as you cede ground to protect different classes of people you build a dependance on government and start the sprint down the road to the nanny state.

He's saying that everyone should be equal under the law, that's all. I think we all recognize that is not the case though.

 

[ATOMonkey]

And if you get government out of that sort of law, then it can all be resolved through the civil courts without confusing the issue through codified rights of inheritance. It would work that way for any marriage, gay, straight, group, line, whatever.

I would not say it's "happened to me", but I've seen the feeding frenzy on the part of some more distant relatives when someone died, and frankly I'd rather they just dueled over it.

Pistols! 10 paces a dawn!

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Holy crap guys... talk about nit-picking every little issue.

You're either:

For a large, controlling government (LCG)
--OR--
For a small, restrained government (SRG)

I'm pretty sure SRG is where individual liberty can flourish. Those of you who would vote to even continue state-sponsored marriage, let alone restrict it to particular couplings, are voting for LCG. Those of you who would vote to continue costly foreign wars against guerrilla forces are voting for LCG. Those who would vote to continue the war on drugs are voting for LCG.

I can honestly say that I'm much more afraid of our current government than any foreign government(s). Hell, if the firing pin in my SKS gums up & sticks forward, or if I get a few soft 7.62x39mm primers, I can find myself in federal prison. If I stray onto Fort Wayne city park land while OCing, I can be fined $2400. I can be branded a felon for using mouthwash right before I head out the door in an evening. For pissing in an alleyway or with one false accusation, I can be put onto the sex-offender registry & prohibited from living near parks, schools, or other places where children congregate. It's awfully hard to remain a law-abiding-citizen when more & more overbearing laws are being created at such a brisk pace.

 

[dross]

I absolutely disagree dross. When has government ever provided quality under the law?

The government has laws against descriminating based on age. Really what the law does is protect older employees to the exclusion of younger ones. Same with race or religion. If you are calling out one group for preferential treatment you by simple balance provide degraded treatment to those who do not fit into the defined groups.

Is it fair that my competitors are bigger, better known, and have more money? That my product is better but no one knows about it because I've spent money on R&D and not marketing? Yes, absolutely. I don't want or need the government to try to interfere to level anything.

There is no such thing as a level playing field, and government has no business trying to create one. If I am short fat and slow I will never be a running back in the NFL. Government can't make everyone else accomodate my lack of ability. If I am a white male I will never be Miss Black USA, as hard as I may try and regardless of any law that could be passed. If I as a person hate Jews (I don't) I as an employer won't likely hire someone wearing a star of David. If I decide I don't want a 70 year old delivering shingles that should be my decision. Government shouldn't get involved in those decisions. As soon as you cede ground to protect different classes of people you build a dependance on government and start the sprint down the road to the nanny state.

The fact that the law has been misused historically is not justification to misuse it further.

I specifically said that the players come with different abilities to the playing field. The refs should throw the flag or not throw the flag regardles of those differing abilities.

Equality under the law just means that if you're black, or a jew, or gay, you still get three strikes. If straight people get three strikes before they're out and gay people get two, that's inequality under the law and we should do away with it, even though we have a long history of creating such inequal laws.

 

[dross]

Holy crap guys... talk about nit-picking every little issue.

You're either:

For a large, controlling government (LCG)
--OR--
For a small, restrained government (SRG)

I'm pretty sure SRG is where individual liberty can flourish. Those of you who would vote to even continue state-sponsored marriage, let alone restrict it to particular couplings, are voting for LCG. Those of you who would vote to continue costly foreign wars against guerrilla forces are voting for LCG. Those who would vote to continue the war on drugs are voting for LCG.

I can honestly say that I'm much more afraid of our current government than any foreign government(s). Hell, if the firing pin in my SKS gums up & sticks forward, or if I get a few soft 7.62x39mm primers, I can find myself in federal prison. If I stray onto Fort Wayne city park land while OCing, I can be fined $2400. I can be branded a felon for using mouthwash right before I head out the door in an evening. For pissing in an alleyway or with one false accusation, I can be put onto the sex-offender registry & prohibited from living near parks, schools, or other places where children congregate. It's awfully hard to remain a law-abiding-citizen when more & more overbearing laws are being created at such a brisk pace.

False dilemna. Not every issue fits neatly into the smaller government larger government linear scale.

I can reasonably be for smaller or no government in some areas, and still say we need an effective government in others. Those are not necessarily contradictory positions.

I suggest that you see everything through that particular prism because that's your most important measure. Fine for you, help yourself to whatever you hold dear, but I won't be held to your for/against model when I see other factors that are also important.

Marvel at the subtle colors of my nuance.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

False dilemna. Not every issue fits neatly into the smaller government larger government linear scale.

I can reasonably be for smaller or no government in some areas, and still say we need an effective government in others. Those are not necessarily contradictory positions.

I suggest that you see everything through that particular prism because that's your most important measure. Fine for you, help yourself to whatever you hold dear, but I won't be held to your for/against model when I see other factors that are also important.

Marvel at the subtle colors of my nuance.

It seems that you don't believe a small, restrained government can be "effective". In what areas do you believe we need a large, controlling government?

Edit: I don't ask to be contrary. I ask because I usually come into your way of thinking once you've explained your thoughts.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

i am all for taking off the glove, slapping someone, and then sword fighting to the death.. builds character. I am not for someone losing something because a child or step child want's it. The duel may no be fair. It shouldn't even go to court. Things like this should just be known. OH they are under some form of contract as partners.. then that's what it is. PERIOD. But other then that I love your post!

Thanks,
Matthew

This is not a dig at you, Matthew, but I think the most stupid, destructive laws imaginable have come about in an effort to be "fair" to someone. It always ends up being at someone elses' expense.

 

[dross]

It seems that you don't believe a small, restrained government can be "effective". In what areas do you believe we need a large, controlling government?

Edit: I don't ask to be contrary. I ask because I usually come into your way of thinking once you've explained your thoughts.

I don't ever believe in a large controlling government, but your two choices implied that if I believe in one or more of the wars we're waging - which I do - then I must therefore be supporting larger government. I think the wars we're fighting are just and necessary so if they are indeed larger government - a point I do not concede - then so be it.

Hence the false dilemna. Given the two choices, I have indeed stopped beating my wife, even though I never did.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I don't ever believe in a large controlling government, but your two choices implied that if I believe in one or more of the wars we're waging - which I do - then I must therefore be supporting larger government. I think the wars we're fighting are just and necessary so if they are indeed larger government - a point I do not concede - then so be it.

Hence the false dilemna. Given the two choices, I have indeed stopped beating my wife, even though I never did.

I said, "Those of you who would vote to continue costly foreign wars against guerrilla forces are voting for LCG." I didn't specify which wars. Though in the ones of which you speak, we're trading essential liberty for temporary & illusory security, IMO. Something I believe to be rather unwise.

If you truly believe that our government has not grown in both wasteful girth & controlling power because of Iraqistan, then I'm not even sure how to continue the discussion.