TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Politics
Reload this Page Questions for Libertarians
Politics Current Events, Abortion, homosexuality, gun control, public schools, welfare, taxes, government etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#16) Old
Quincy Quincy is offline
Over 6000 post club
 Quincy's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Quincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peers
Quincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 07:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by organiccornflake View Post
To Quincy; why should incest be illegal if both parties consent and are of legal age? If it is a matter of possible child deformities, then I promise you I would rather risk being born deformed, than being aborted from the belly of a prostitute.
Hey, if the kid's parents were responsible enough to find a mate without consanguinity and mature enough to reproduce when they are ready, the kid wouldn't have to worry about either . Making that a legal matter promotes the public sector as opposed to just letting it implode on itself.





But I'll tell you what hermits realize. If you go off into a far, far forest and get very quiet, you'll come to understand that you're connected with everything. - Alan Watts
   
Reply With Quote
  (#17) Old
Quincy Quincy is offline
Over 6000 post club
 Quincy's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Quincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peers
Quincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 07:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Well said m_d. Can there be any "demonstratable harm" shown with public nudity? I mean, like with pornographic movies or television, you can "change the channel" by looking the other way.

I see you have some "Puritan Libertarians" in here m_d, telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies.



Excellent point, especially the "consent to eat them" part. But in fairness to all of those "Bestial Libertarians" out there, wouldn't attempting to run away, biting, scratching or kicking be a sign of non-consent? In other words, if "coercion" is not used, it would be consensual.



Thank you for including "Incestuous Libertarians" in this post as well. Of course bigots that speak out against consensual incestuous relationships will use birth defects as their lame excuse for making consensual incestous relationships illegal. While it should be encouraged to be responsible while having family sex (in fact, there should be a worldwide "Use a condom when you're having sex with your mother/sister/daugther" campaign) does the chances of a birth defect override an Incestuous Libertarians right to do with his body as he or she pleases, as long as it's done consensually?

Heterosexuals who become pregnant later in life are more apt to have a child afflicted with Down Syndrome, why isn't there a law against them procreating?

I'll look forward to the responses from our resident "Bestialphobe" and "Incestualphobe" bigots; in other words those "Puritan Libertarians" that are trying to tell people what they can and can't do with their own body.
You do realize we are talking about severe inbreeding? Sibling sibling, parent to child......... and you promote that of course.

You must be getting desperate because you went so far out of your way, you just made yourself look worse than any of us. It's kind of comical really, how hard you are trying.

We've been trying to explain this to you for how long? Libertarianism is a movement to preserve the individual freedom and liberty against centralized overreach. Lawlessness is not the goal of libertarianism. A return to State/local (private read: no national overreach) laws and state sovereignty is the goal. I suppose you think the only government that should matter is the federal government? Do you worship the federal government?





But I'll tell you what hermits realize. If you go off into a far, far forest and get very quiet, you'll come to understand that you're connected with everything. - Alan Watts
   
Reply With Quote
  (#18) Old
aCultureWarrior aCultureWarrior is online now
LIFETIME MEMBER
 aCultureWarrior's Avatar

 


Reputation:
aCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy View Post
You do realize we are talking about severe inbreeding? Sibling sibling, parent to child......... and you promote that of course.
It couldn't be worse than this could it?


My point (again) is that you don't prohibit heterosexual couples that are older from having sex and possibly reproducing offspring that have retardation, why would you prohibit consensual adults that want to have an incestuous relationship?

Besides, they could give the child up for adoption (I would say have him or her aborted, but there wasn't "consent" used there).

Quote:
You must be getting desperate because you went so far out of your way, you just made yourself look worse than any of us. It's kind of comical really, how hard you are trying.

Noooo, noooo Quincy. I'm Mocking you Libertarians (note the capital M), and none of you are able to refute my posts.

Quote:
We've been trying to explain this to you for how long? Libertarianism is a movement to preserve the individual freedom and liberty against centralized overreach. Lawlessness is not the goal of libertarianism. A return to State/local (private read: no national overreach) laws and state sovereignty is the goal. I suppose you think the only government that should matter is the federal government? Do you worship the federal government?
Yet I was the one that came out on topic in the long long "No Libetarian Option?" thread (and believe me, putting up with Ralphie's psychotic rants wasn't easy).

In my initial post I've pointed out that there is no "demonstratable harm" when it comes to public nudity.

I've also pointed out that bestiality can be consensual; yet no one has come forward to show the harm that it would cause to the subjects involved, nor to society.

Your only argument against incest is "severe inbreeding", yet condoms can be used, as well as having vasectomies.

I made my case for Judeo Christian laws and culture in the "No Libertarian Option?" thread, now you make your case for a society run by Libertarians.





"Make no mistake: Children are the target of what I call the “sexual anarchy movement.” Whether it’s the movement’s pedophile wing that seeks to literally rape children, or its radical pro-abortion, homosexualist and feminist wings, which seek to rape the minds of children, the larger sexual anarchy movement has a shared goal: Attack, corrupt and destroy God’s design for human sexuality. Children are just collateral damage."

Matt Barber from his article "Sexual Anarchy"
   
Reply With Quote
  (#19) Old
Granite Granite is online now
Resident Gadfly.
 Granite's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Granite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peers
Granite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peersGranite is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 09:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy View Post
You do realize we are talking about severe inbreeding? Sibling sibling, parent to child......... and you promote that of course.

You must be getting desperate because you went so far out of your way, you just made yourself look worse than any of us. It's kind of comical really, how hard you are trying.

We've been trying to explain this to you for how long? Libertarianism is a movement to preserve the individual freedom and liberty against centralized overreach. Lawlessness is not the goal of libertarianism. A return to State/local (private read: no national overreach) laws and state sovereignty is the goal. I suppose you think the only government that should matter is the federal government? Do you worship the federal government?
Critics of libertarianism confuse personal liberty with hedonism. Their claim to "love freedom" is a complete lie--what they want is a government big enough to enforce their own pet projects.





Theocrats are Social Darwinists.




He isn't there, which is why he's silent.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#20) Old
Tinark Tinark is offline
Over 1500 post club
 Tinark's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Tinark is well respectedTinark is well respectedTinark is well respectedTinark is well respectedTinark is well respectedTinark is well respectedTinark is well respectedTinark is well respectedTinark is well respectedTinark is well respected
March 28th, 2012, 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
Small sample size so far, but I'd like some clarification from a libertarian POV for the following things you agree should be illegal.

Nudity.
While it is true that others don't consent to seeing someone nude, they are not really getting hurt either. Why are we criminalizing behavior that is merely offensive to some? How is this significantly different from, say, wearing a swastika in public?
I'm fine with regulating what people can or can not do in the public space. Since everyone effectively owns the public space, it seems proper that the people can vote on what may or may not occur there.

Like I said, private property is a different matter. However, even then, I'm fine with having a system in place to regulate private pollution since you affect others without their consent. Nudity would be a form of light pollution.

Also, who is to say what level of subjective unpleasantness some people incur at the sight of a nude person?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
Bestiality.
You cited the reason being the animals can't consent. But animals can't really consent to anything. In the range of the things we do to animals without asking, from eating them, performing medical experiments, labor, sport hunting, chaining them down so they don't leave us etc. This seems pretty low in the cruelty scale. This argument doesn't seem to hold water from a Libertarian POV.
Like I said, it should fall under animal cruelty laws. If someone wants to try it and argue that the animal didn't suffer in the process, they are welcome to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
Private WMD's.
Most libertarians are very pro-gun, but where does our right to weaponry stop, and why?
It stops when you recklessly endanger others. Also, intentions matter as well. If someone is purchasing a machine gun with the intent to commit a crime, this should be illegal as well.





The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.
Albert Einstein
   
Reply With Quote
  (#21) Old
aCultureWarrior aCultureWarrior is online now
LIFETIME MEMBER
 aCultureWarrior's Avatar

 


Reputation:
aCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite View Post
Critics of libertarianism confuse personal liberty with hedonism. Their claim to "love freedom" is a complete lie--what they want is a government big enough to enforce their own pet projects.
With a couple of exceptions here (I could make the case for consent between child and adult, homosexuals make their case all of the time), Tinark is spot on when it comes to Libertarianism. He makes sense with his argument against public nudity, but then again, it's done all of the time in public gay pride parades and public events like San Francisco's Folsom Street Parade (attendance is around 400,000).

Other than that, Tinark has the Libertarian mindset down pretty good.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...93&postcount=5

Consent and coercion are the key words in the "if it feels good do it" world of the Libertarian.





"Make no mistake: Children are the target of what I call the “sexual anarchy movement.” Whether it’s the movement’s pedophile wing that seeks to literally rape children, or its radical pro-abortion, homosexualist and feminist wings, which seek to rape the minds of children, the larger sexual anarchy movement has a shared goal: Attack, corrupt and destroy God’s design for human sexuality. Children are just collateral damage."

Matt Barber from his article "Sexual Anarchy"
   
Reply With Quote
  (#22) Old
Newman Newman is offline
Over 1500 post club
 Newman's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Newman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
I'm not familiar with the term "private law" Newman. Could you explain that?

I'm sensing that it means that what you do on your own property is "private" and subject to your own set of laws?
http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf





   
Reply With Quote
  (#23) Old
Quincy Quincy is offline
Over 6000 post club
 Quincy's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Quincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peers
Quincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peersQuincy is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 02:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Noooo, noooo Quincy. I'm Mocking you Libertarians (note the capital M), and none of you are able to refute my posts.
I think we refute your claims that libertarianism = anarchism, or hedonism as Granite mentioned, quite well. Libertarianism =/= anarchism. Making most laws a matter of statehood is what should make this country great and better than all the rest. If California wants to allow homosexuals to marry, and people to be free to use herbal drugs then it is on the state of California and it's citizens. The federal government shouldn't be involved.

It's reciprocal acw. If a state like Alabama doesn't want homosexuals to marry, abortion to be legal or any drug use then they should have the right to decide those laws for themselves. This is meant to be a nation of united states, not governed districts.

If you have the federal government enforcing one point of view on all states, it is not fair, it violates the constitution and to be quite frank it's fascism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acw
In my initial post I've pointed out that there is no "demonstratable harm" when it comes to public nudity.
Oh but in the public there are children and there are people of differing degrees of sensitivity also. It can cause deep emotional harm or mental scarring to see a 400 lb man walk down the street in the nude.

Quote:
Your only argument against incest is "severe inbreeding", yet condoms can be used, as well as having vasectomies.
It doesn't matter, you can't divide it up like that. That's too relativistic. All things being equal sex is about reproduction and should be treated like it. That is why it is legal for infertile folks to also marry even though they can't reproduce, all things being equal they would be able to. This is why beastiality should also be illegal. Different species can't reproduce and there is language and intellectual barriers. It's cruelty/rape of another creature. We are talking about legality here with incest though, which would mean we are talking about parent/child or sibling marriage. Being a far right libertarian, I am opposed to promiscuity and aren't talking about that.

Quote:
I made my case for Judeo Christian laws and culture in the "No Libertarian Option?" thread, now you make your case for a society run by Libertarians.
I have made my case in both posts to you in this thread. This is meant to be a union of individual states, not a group of districts governed by one monolithic entity. Sovereign statehood will allow a state to have it's law reflect judo-christian values without a centralized entity interfering. If your state was sovereign, you could work with other folks inside it to pass laws against things like abortion. You wouldn't need the supreme court to decide if the federal government can enforce a mandate to make you buy healthcare, because they wouldn't be allowed to do it in the first place. You do like most in this country, so I have to be honest. I believe you think too macro, acw. You could accomplish what you want to do on a micro level much easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite View Post
Critics of libertarianism confuse personal liberty with hedonism. Their claim to "love freedom" is a complete lie--what they want is a government big enough to enforce their own pet projects.
That is exactly what it is, there is almost no point to even having states anymore because the feds are mandating/regulating everything. People are thinking too big Granite, far too big. The liberals and conservatives are both engaging in borderline fascism. You know, forget it, I'll say it. It's fascism if one party controls Washington, or a stalemate if neither control it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinark View Post
It stops when you recklessly endanger others. Also, intentions matter as well. If someone is purchasing a machine gun with the intent to commit a crime, this should be illegal as well.
There is something else to consider also. Equal force. If guns are the primary means of self defense, then anyone should have the opportunity to legally possess one. Some people will argue that if a person can have a gun, why can't they have a bomb to protect their self? A private/small wmd is excessive force and not on equal grounds.





But I'll tell you what hermits realize. If you go off into a far, far forest and get very quiet, you'll come to understand that you're connected with everything. - Alan Watts
   
Reply With Quote
  (#24) Old
aCultureWarrior aCultureWarrior is online now
LIFETIME MEMBER
 aCultureWarrior's Avatar

 


Reputation:
aCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 02:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newman View Post
You supplied your source, make your case without me having to read the entire file (if you're feeling extremely lazy today, give me a page and paragraph to look for).

We've already seen the chaos that pornography, abortion and homosexuality has brought by decriminalizing those sinful behaviors. What else do we need to decrimnalize so that you'll finally see my point Newman?





"Make no mistake: Children are the target of what I call the “sexual anarchy movement.” Whether it’s the movement’s pedophile wing that seeks to literally rape children, or its radical pro-abortion, homosexualist and feminist wings, which seek to rape the minds of children, the larger sexual anarchy movement has a shared goal: Attack, corrupt and destroy God’s design for human sexuality. Children are just collateral damage."

Matt Barber from his article "Sexual Anarchy"
   
Reply With Quote
  (#25) Old
woopah woopah is offline
Old Timer

 


Reputation:
woopah has been getting noticedwoopah has been getting noticedwoopah has been getting noticedwoopah has been getting noticedwoopah has been getting noticedwoopah has been getting noticed
March 28th, 2012, 02:23 PM

It seems that much of Libertarianism revolves around different states having different laws.

So how would that ideology apply to countries that are no divided into states?



   
Reply With Quote
  (#26) Old
aCultureWarrior aCultureWarrior is online now
LIFETIME MEMBER
 aCultureWarrior's Avatar

 


Reputation:
aCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Noooo, noooo Quincy. I'm Mocking you Libertarians (note the capital M), and none of you are able to refute my posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy View Post
I think we refute your claims that libertarianism = anarchism, or hedonism as Granite mentioned, quite well. Libertarianism =/= anarchism. Making most laws a matter of statehood is what should make this country great and better than all the rest. If California wants to allow homosexuals to marry, and people to be free to use herbal drugs then it is on the state of California and it's citizens. The federal government shouldn't be involved.
I haven't heard it put that way before: "If you legalize sodomy and dope, our country will be great and better than all of the rest."

We live in a day of technology, marketing and interstate commerce. What's "in" in California will soon be popular in other states as well.

"Our constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

If you would like to have our "57 states" (mocking President Obama here) do their own thing, so be it, but don't try to call them "United" anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acw
In my initial post I've pointed out that there is no "demonstratable harm" when it comes to public nudity.

Quote:
Oh but in the public there are children and there are people of differing degrees of sensitivity also. It can cause deep emotional harm or mental scarring to see a 400 lb man walk down the street in the nude.
Why are your kind always silent when it comes to children at gay pride parades?



You don't want me to show you what really goes on at those parades Quincy (this pic is PG rated)


Quote:
Your only argument against incest is "severe inbreeding", yet condoms can be used, as well as having vasectomies.

Quote:
It doesn't matter, you can't divide it up like that. That's too relativistic. All things being equal sex is about reproduction and should be treated like it. That is why it is legal for infertile folks to also marry even though they can't reproduce, all things being equal they would be able to. This is why beastiality should also be illegal. Different species can't reproduce and there is language and intellectual barriers. It's cruelty/rape of another creature. We are talking about legality here with incest though, which would mean we are talking about parent/child or sibling marriage. Being a far right libertarian, I am opposed to promiscuity and aren't talking about that.
Then homosexuality should be illegal as well.

Quote:
I made my case for Judeo Christian laws and culture in the "No Libertarian Option?" thread, now you make your case for a society run by Libertarians.

Quote:
I have made my case in both posts to you in this thread. This is meant to be a union of individual states, not a group of districts governed by one monolithic entity. Sovereign statehood will allow a state to have it's law reflect judo-christian values without a centralized entity interfering. If your state was sovereign, you could work with other folks inside it to pass laws against things like abortion. You wouldn't need the supreme court to decide if the federal government can enforce a mandate to make you buy healthcare, because they wouldn't be allowed to do it in the first place. You do like most in this country, so I have to be honest. I believe you think too macro, acw. You could accomplish what you want to do on a micro level much easier.
Funny how you're tying in socialism (mandated healthcare) with sodomous acts. I'm against both. Do the respective states have a right to impose socialized healthcare on it's citizens? I doubt that they had that in mind when the Founding Fathers wrote the founding documents. Do the respective states have a right to decide if incest, bestiality, abortion, pornography and homosexuality should be legal?
Again, I doubt (and can prove) that the Founding Fathers didn't have those things in mind when they established our Christian nation.





"Make no mistake: Children are the target of what I call the “sexual anarchy movement.” Whether it’s the movement’s pedophile wing that seeks to literally rape children, or its radical pro-abortion, homosexualist and feminist wings, which seek to rape the minds of children, the larger sexual anarchy movement has a shared goal: Attack, corrupt and destroy God’s design for human sexuality. Children are just collateral damage."

Matt Barber from his article "Sexual Anarchy"
   
Reply With Quote
  (#27) Old
mighty_duck mighty_duck is online now
Over 3000 post club
 mighty_duck's Avatar

 


Reputation:
mighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 02:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy View Post
We all want the right to express our feelings about something, but we don't all want to see someone's business. It becomes a matter of establishing what should be a right. It's different in a private setting like a nudist colony where everyone is ok with it. We might not all be ok with the KKK burning crosses or nazi emblems but those are just opinion/ideals instead of a physical action against another person directly.
You don't really set out a guideline, only mention what you like or dislike.

Public nudity is not "a physical action against another person directly", as you put it. How is it different then forcing you to wear a sombrero, or banning you from wearing white after Labor Day? If I convince the majority to enforce those laws, would you not feel your personal liberty has been assaulted?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy View Post
Taking sexual pleasure for one's self from any creature, whether human or not without it's consent and understanding is just plain wrong.
While I agree, you again failed to give an argument. Why is it wrong?

There is also a distinction between what you feel is wrong, and you feel should be legislated against. For example, I feel that adultery is wrong on many levels, but don't want the government involved in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy View Post
It stops when it becomes a public safety concern on a mass scale. If a person has a gun, has the necessary training and is competent to use it they should be allowed to have it. Plenty of reason to that because of self-protection. It doesn't make sense that an individual would have some kind of engineered weapon that can kill on a large scale. There is nothing protective about that.
If I am a billionaire and wanted to protect myself against armed gangs, lynch mobs, drug cartels, Ocean's 14 etc. what are the limits on how well armed I can be? If not tactical nukes, Can I at least get a few tanks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy View Post
I live in Kentucky. As much as I love the fresh air and the beautiful southern belles, there are those few select folks that are the products of severe inbreeding. They're complications alone are reason enough to want to curb incest.
But here's the rub. There is a clash between personal liberty and assumed risk. Why should the government tell it's citizens what risks they can and can't take?

As ACW mentioned, how is this different from other risky forms of sexual encounters?





"What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

"The best things in life aren't things"
   
Reply With Quote
  (#28) Old
Newman Newman is offline
Over 1500 post club
 Newman's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Newman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peersNewman is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
You supplied your source, make your case without me having to read the entire file (if you're feeling extremely lazy today, give me a page and paragraph to look for).

We've already seen the chaos that pornography, abortion and homosexuality has brought by decriminalizing those sinful behaviors. What else do we need to decrimnalize so that you'll finally see my point Newman?
Legal standards of behavior would be set by contracts with other people through arbitration agencies is the gist of it. And, yes, I am feeling pretty lazy today.

You and I are against the same behaviors, namely, sinful ones. We depart on how those behaviors should be minimized. We can either do it your way, with guns, force, bureaucracy, and socialized/monopolized government takeover, or we can charge Christians, churches, voluntary agreements, mutually beneficial contracts, and private property with the task.

So the question "What else do we need to decriminalize for you to get my point?" is really missing the entire debate. We already live in a system where sins and vices and whatnot are prohibited by arbitrary public law and inefficiently enforced by public police and funded by illegitimate tax/theft money. To suggest that society is remotely in my direction in this debate really shows that you don't really understand my side of this debate and really your own side as well.





   
Reply With Quote
  (#29) Old
mighty_duck mighty_duck is online now
Over 3000 post club
 mighty_duck's Avatar

 


Reputation:
mighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 02:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinark View Post
I'm fine with regulating what people can or can not do in the public space. Since everyone effectively owns the public space, it seems proper that the people can vote on what may or may not occur there.

Like I said, private property is a different matter. However, even then, I'm fine with having a system in place to regulate private pollution since you affect others without their consent. Nudity would be a form of light pollution.

Also, who is to say what level of subjective unpleasantness some people incur at the sight of a nude person?
So you are fine with any imposition the majority places on public places, under the guise of "light pollution"?

I would imagine not. It seems almost the antithesis of liberty. Where are the limits? Why are they there?
How is a gay pride parade, a nudist parade, and a Hoodie solidarity parade significantly different?

On a related note, can the majority ban a minority religious garb?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinark View Post
Like I said, it should fall under animal cruelty laws. If someone wants to try it and argue that the animal didn't suffer in the process, they are welcome to do that.
Under innocent until proven guilty, it would be up to the state to demonstrate that bestiality does cause suffering in animals. Looks like a difficult proposition...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinark View Post
It stops when you recklessly endanger others. Also, intentions matter as well. If someone is purchasing a machine gun with the intent to commit a crime, this should be illegal as well.
How can you convict a person based on perceived intent?
I thought it was Scientologists, not Libertarians, that had access to mind reading devices

Would intruding on personal liberties to find people intending to do harm be acceptable (AKA The Patriot Act, bane of liberty)





"What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

"The best things in life aren't things"
   
Reply With Quote
  (#30) Old
aCultureWarrior aCultureWarrior is online now
LIFETIME MEMBER
 aCultureWarrior's Avatar

 


Reputation:
aCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peers
March 28th, 2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newman View Post
Legal standards of behavior would be set by contracts with other people through arbitration agencies is the gist of it. And, yes, I am feeling pretty lazy today.

You and I are against the same behaviors, namely, sinful ones. We depart on how those behaviors should be minimized. We can either do it your way, with guns, force, bureaucracy, and socialized/monopolized government takeover, or we can charge Christians, churches, voluntary agreements, mutually beneficial contracts, and private property with the task.
You don't pay attention Newman; as I've mentioned more times that I can remember, the 3 institutions that God ordained for the governance of men (family, church and the civil magistrate) are to work as one to govern man. All 3 have failed, it will take all 3 to bring back a country that at one time was truly blessed by God.

Quote:
So the question "What else do we need to decriminalize for you to get my point?" is really missing the entire debate. We already live in a system where sins and vices and whatnot are prohibited by arbitrary public law
Really? We have laws against sins and vices such as abortion, homosexuality, and pornography? Send me the statutes, I'm not aware of them.

Quote:
and inefficiently enforced by public police and funded by illegitimate tax/theft money. To suggest that society is remotely in my direction in this debate really shows that you don't really understand my side of this debate and really your own side as well.
You're confusing economics (illegitimate tax/theft money) with social policy. You're preaching to the choir when you're talking about government abuse in economic affairs.

I have an idea (actually, rich Libertarians beat me to it): Why don't you guys see how this "experiment" works before you unleash your Godless behavior on the rest of society?

Aug 16, 2011

Silicon Valley billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands

Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons..."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...140840896.html

I'd think of it more like "a kind of floating toilet bowl", but hey, that's my humble opinion.

The things rich people do with their money and time. It'll be interesting to see who the survivors in this Darwinian experiment would be, and to hear his/their story about their life on "fantasy island".





"Make no mistake: Children are the target of what I call the “sexual anarchy movement.” Whether it’s the movement’s pedophile wing that seeks to literally rape children, or its radical pro-abortion, homosexualist and feminist wings, which seek to rape the minds of children, the larger sexual anarchy movement has a shared goal: Attack, corrupt and destroy God’s design for human sexuality. Children are just collateral damage."

Matt Barber from his article "Sexual Anarchy"
   
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.