- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Keep hearing ”Voting Libertarian because Trump is passing laws to end gay marriage”
Posted on 9/22/20 at 5:52 pm to Robin Masters
Posted on 9/22/20 at 5:52 pm to Robin Masters
Well I’m a Libertarian and Trump gets my vote. Actually voting for my party is a waste. Trump is way closer to Libertarian beliefs than Biden.
1
Posted on 9/22/20 at 7:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Even if you remove all laws and go to complete anarchy, you're now imposing lawlessness on others who expect the government to preserve their rights and protect justice.
What gives you the idea I want to eliminate all laws? I am a libertarian, not an anarchist. The very basis of a just legal system is to protect people and property from the transgressive acts of others. I simply believe that fundamental principle should apply equally to government as well as citizens.
“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” Thomas Jefferson.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 7:36 pm to Shoney
quote:
Well I’m a Libertarian and Trump gets my vote.
You certainly will get little flack from me for making that choice. I operate from the belief that it is axiomatic that libertarians would tend to align with those entities that do not seek to burn things down. This is why I am confused with cosmotarians who seek to ally with BLM.
This post was edited on 9/22/20 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 9/22/20 at 8:00 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
You realized we had unfettered immigration for over a hundred years right?
Yes. After 100 years, we’ve had enough. We are not the worlds homeless shelter.
quote:
I find it odd that Republicans are willing to expand the police power of the state through immigration controls, but don't want to do ANYTHING about welfare elimination because it's "impractical". Just one of the many moral inconsistencies of their current platform.
Ok. I think most republicans would be ok with eliminating welfare.
I understand that open borders plus a welfare state don’t work. I just don’t know why it’d be a one or the other proposition.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 8:26 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:I didn't indicate that you want that. I was making a point that no matter what type of philosophy you hold to, governing authorities will push a perspective that governs the actions of others, even in the extreme example of anarchy. You can't escape it.
What gives you the idea I want to eliminate all laws? I am a libertarian, not an anarchist. The very basis of a just legal system is to protect people and property from the transgressive acts of others. I simply believe that fundamental principle should apply equally to government as well as citizens.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 6:51 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I didn't indicate that you want that. I was making a point that no matter what type of philosophy you hold to, governing authorities will push a perspective that governs the actions of others, even in the extreme example of anarchy.
That is why as a libertarian, I support the governing principle of subsidiary. The larger and more centralized the governing power, the greater the threat to individual liberty.
I certainly do not think the predominate cultural values of Alabama should be imposed upon the citizens of say, San Francisco’s Castro district. Yet that philosophy of “live and let live” should be likewise reciprocated.
What I am primarily opposed to is this top-down, winner-take-all ruling apparatus of the Feral Government of the United States. The UniParty® exists to perpetuate this tyrannical governing apparatus.
This ruling apparatus would be practically unrecognizable to our nation’s founders. This is not what was intended.
The Subsidiarity Principle....
quote:
....Devolving political power is the first step toward making government smaller and less powerful in our lives. Your local city council may be dumb as a box of rocks or even evil, but at the very least it is far more accessible to you. Its damage is likely to be contained, and your ability to flee its jurisdiction may require nothing more than a cross-town U-Haul rental.
Subsidiarity is the most realistic and pragmatic approach to creating more freedom in our lifetimes. Winning 51% support for supposedly universalist political principles is a daunting challenge, especially for minority libertarians. We would do well instead to consider the Swiss Federal Model , which champions the subsidiarity principle:
Powers are allocated to the Confederation, the cantons and the communes in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
The Confederation only undertakes tasks that the cantons are unable to perform or which require uniform regulation by the Confederation.
Under the principle of subsidiarity, nothing that can be done at a lower political level should be done at a higher level.
Imagine Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump campaigning on this idea in 2016: “I can’t claim to know what’s best for Des Moines or Bangor or Anchorage or Phoenix in every situation. I'm not omnipotent, and neither are 500-odd members of Congress. We should leave most things up to the people who actually live in those towns. Vote for me if you agree.”
Subsidiarity is not perfect, just better. Freedom, in the political sense of the word, means the ability to live without government coercion (anarchists and minarchists debate whether all government is inherently coercive). It does not mean the ability to live under broadly agreed-upon liberal norms, simply because truly universalist political norms are so elusive. Free societies don’t attempt to impose themselves politically on electoral minorities any more than they attempt to impose themselves militarily on neighboring countries. Politically unyoking different constituencies in America makes far more sense than attempting to contain the hatred and division created by mass majority outcomes.
The world is moving toward decentralization, flattening itself and replacing hierarchies with networks. Libertarians should work to move politics and government in the same direction. Subsidiary is real diversity in practice.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 7:07 am to Ramblin Wreck
Trump is pro gay marriage and has no moral conviction against homosexuality. It was one of the biggest reasons why so many on the religious right resisted him in 2015-2016.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 7:12 am to Ramblin Wreck
quote:Wut Trump has done no such thing
Trump is passing laws to end gay marriage”
Posted on 9/23/20 at 7:22 am to Seldom Seen
quote:
Gay marriage was never voted on in the first place. Just something the courts imposed on us.
1.) Good, you shouldn't be able to vote in discriminatory laws (see bans on interracial marriage).
2.) Nobody imposed a gay marriage on you.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 7:55 am to Ramblin Wreck
These people are not conservative nor are they voting Libertarian. I have a friend from the Army from LA and though he is a good little Democrat he is pushing that he is voting Jo Jorgenson, but it is an act.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 9:20 am to FreddieMac
quote:
Trump supports gay marriage. I think he really does not care like most of us on the right.
I think as long as you are not forcing churches and pastors to permit and perform ceremonies, then it’s fine. They want to be legally recognized as “married”, go for it. You can’t legislate morality.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 9:32 am to jlovel7
quote:
I’ve heard the same thing too. I was glad that people who are gay were able to get married. They’re consenting adults for god sake.
I don’t know anybody in real life today who really cares that two people can legally get married regardless of gender. I think we’re past that now.
Then based on your logic, three people should be able to marry. Or even four.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong...I'm just saying that every argument used to support gay marriage applies to polygamy. Every. Single. One.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 9:34 am to S1C EM
quote:
I think as long as you are not forcing churches and pastors to permit and perform ceremonies, then it’s fine. They want to be legally recognized as “married”, go for it. You can’t legislate morality
Add bakeries, flower shops, etc and I totally agree.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 9:47 am to S1C EM
quote:
You can’t legislate morality.
You absolutely can.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 9:59 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Then based on your logic, three people should be able to marry. Or even four.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong...I'm just saying that every argument used to support gay marriage applies to polygamy. Every. Single. One.
Not really. No. Two people have always been allowed to be married in this country. Whether they’re both men or women really isn’t the same as inviting an entire group of people. Not to mention the way our laws are written there are legal benefits of marriage between two people. Again, we don’t need to extend that to 3 or 4 people. But why limit which two consenting adults can benefit?
Such a shite argument
Posted on 9/23/20 at 10:10 am to jlovel7
quote:
Two people have always been allowed to be married in this country.
Yes, one man and one woman.
quote:
Whether they’re both men or women really isn’t the same as inviting an entire group of people.
Why not. You just decided on a whim to change hundreds of years of precedent. Why not extend it further?
quote:
Such a shite argument
Yes, it is.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 10:10 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Then based on your logic, three people should be able to marry. Or even four.
Don’t stop the argument there, what if somebody wanted to marry their little brother or their daughter? if a 12 year old can decide they want a sex change, can they decide they want to marry their mother? This all has nothing to do with the topic, but the whole expanding marriage argument opened a door that should be left shut.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 10:13 am to BamaGradinTn
If marriage confers no legal advantages or disadvantages, and is a purely cultural or religious ceremony, why would polygamy be a problem?
As for marrying children, that would not be okay in a libertarian world because libertarianism is all about consent. Children (i.e. persons below the age of majority who have not emancipated themselves) are not legally capable of giving consent. So, marriage to children and statutory rape would still be illegal. Granted, if a wedding isn’t a contract, but just a ceremony/social gathering (like a birthday party), and marriage not a legal union but purely a state of mind or a self-imposed identity, then I guess the state could not stop a child marriage because the child isn’t consenting to a contract. However, consummating said marriage with sexual activity would still be illegal and prosecutable.
As for marrying children, that would not be okay in a libertarian world because libertarianism is all about consent. Children (i.e. persons below the age of majority who have not emancipated themselves) are not legally capable of giving consent. So, marriage to children and statutory rape would still be illegal. Granted, if a wedding isn’t a contract, but just a ceremony/social gathering (like a birthday party), and marriage not a legal union but purely a state of mind or a self-imposed identity, then I guess the state could not stop a child marriage because the child isn’t consenting to a contract. However, consummating said marriage with sexual activity would still be illegal and prosecutable.
This post was edited on 9/23/20 at 10:17 am
Posted on 9/23/20 at 10:16 am to kingbob
quote:
As for marrying children, that would not be okay in a libertarian world because libertarianism is all about consent.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 10:38 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
quote:
Two people have always been allowed to be married in this country.
Yes, one man and one woman.
quote:
Whether they’re both men or women really isn’t the same as inviting an entire group of people.
Why not. You just decided on a whim to change hundreds of years of precedent. Why not extend it further?
quote:
Such a shite argument
Yes, it is.
There’s no reason to extend the tax benefit to a huge group of people like that. That’s the legal argument. You aren’t hurting anyone extending that benefit to two consenting adults but you are oppressing individuals unfairly by not extending it. It’s still two people.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News