Libertarians are Liberals

Do you believe in a right to consensual incest or not tpaine?

He won't say it in those words, but he already admits that he does. The same logic that he extends would extend to polyamory, polygamy and a host of other perversions.

Hey Tpaine, here is one for you, you say "Consenting adult". What exactly should the age of consent be? Be specific in your definition please. For example, should there be a magic cutoff age (18), or something else? Please give justification on why you set your age at whatever level you do.

Libertarians have no problems with judicial activist decisions like Lawrence, Roe, and other's provided it's their atheistic worldview that is legislated.

Another perfect example would be the fact that Libertarians are wholeheartly in favor of redefining the institution of marriage.

They swoon over the idea of letting a Federal Court, Federalize an area that has ALWAYS been the sole authority of the individual States. They have no problem running roughshod over the rights of a supermajority of people in States like Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ect... Just to support an extremly radical superminority, who most likely suffers from some sort of mental illness.

Under no circumstances can the Constitution or any of it's amendments be read to allow the redefinition of marriage nationwide. It's solely left up to the individual states.

Yes, that does mean that States like MA can make whatever mockery of marriage that they want, however, it also means that normal folks in normal states can defend marriage and protect it in their law and Constitutions.

Yet Libertarians support the homosexual mafia's attempt to invent a new right and destroy the institution of marriage.

Which goes back to the political systems grid. Libertarians are in the same box as Democrat Liberals on that issue.

BTW: I'll be far, not all libertarians support the destruction and wholesale redefinition of marriage. But the majority of them do, and their Political Platform does.

Here is an example of a libertarian who opposes the redefinition of marriage:

http://www.calicocat.com/gay_marriage.htm

Marriage is primarily a religious ceremony. Normal humans pair bond for life without requiring a slip of paper to allow them to do so.

The definition for what entails a marriage should be between you, your intended consenting spouse, and your priest. Government should never factor in to it unless consent to the marriage has not been given (forced marriage) or the persons being wed are of a condition whereby they cannot give consent(under age or mental retardation).

For example, I am not a Christian. The closest religion to my personal beliefs is Nordic Asatru. Under thier rules, I can have as many wives and kids as I can feed and protect. For me, this means one wife and a couple of kids. It could be different for others, but that is their concern and none of mine. Since the old writtings explicitly state that the purpose of marriage is for the lineage of the offspring, gay marriage would be impossible as there could never be children. Adopted kids don't count nor would artificial insemination of a lesbian. Marrying within a family was considerd a corruption of blood and the long term genetic effects of inbreeding are irrefutable.

Christian tenets are different. As are Muslim, Judaic, Shinto, and Buddhist. It isn't my Right to tell them thier beliefs are right or wrong.

Do you believe in a right to consensual incest or not tpaine?

g-monkey opines:

He won't say it in those words, but he already admits that he does.

How clever that you actually read my answer to that question, but can't really understand its logic.

The same logic that he extends would extend to polyamory, polygamy and a host of other perversions.

You see them as "perversions", whereas millions, if not billions, of people see nothing wrong with such marriages. -- Just as our Constitution rightly ignores such issues.

Hey Tpaine, here is one for you, you say "Consenting adult". What exactly should the age of consent be? Be specific in your definition please. For example, should there be a magic cutoff age (18), or something else?

I like 18, -- it seems to be a reasonable age for entering service, voting, etc.

Please give justification on why you set your age at whatever level you do.

Why should I 'justify' that to you? You have a problem with 18? -- Spit it out..

Libertarians have no problems with judicial activist decisions like Lawrence, Roe, and other's provided it's their atheistic worldview that is legislated.

Wrong; -- libertarians have diverse 'problems' with all sorts of world-views.. Your trolling generalizations are ludicrous.

Another perfect example would be the fact that Libertarians are wholeheartly in favor of redefining the institution of marriage. They swoon over the idea of letting a Federal Court, Federalize an area that has ALWAYS been the sole authority of the individual States. They have no problem running roughshod over the rights of a supermajority of people in States like Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ect... Just to support an extremly radical superminority, who most likely suffers from some sort of mental illness. Under no circumstances can the Constitution or any of it's amendments be read to allow the redefinition of marriage nationwide. It's solely left up to the individual states. Yes, that does mean that States like MA can make whatever mockery of marriage that they want, however, it also means that normal folks in normal states can defend marriage and protect it in their law and Constitutions. Yet Libertarians support the homosexual mafia's attempt to invent a new right and destroy the institution of marriage. Which goes back to the political systems grid. Libertarians are in the same box as Democrat Liberals on that issue.

BTW: I'll be fair, not all libertarians support the destruction and wholesale redefinition of marriage.

But the majority of them do, and their Political Platform does.

Here is an example of a libertarian who opposes the redefinition of marriage: http://www.calicocat.com/gay_marriage.htm

Weird rant my boyo.. -- What do you think you've proved?

You see them as "perversions", whereas millions, if not billions, of people see nothing wrong with such marriages. -- Just as our Constitution rightly ignores such issues.

The Constitution leaves marriage law squarely up to the Individual States, it's been that way Since (And preceeding) that Constitution.

Libertarians now want to strip that power away from the States and FORCE all States to support their mocking view of marriage.

I like 18, -- it seems to be a reasonable age for entering service, voting, etc.

Since 18 is your limit do you support or oppose laws that criminalize sexual conduct for those under the age of 18.

Wrong; -- libertarians have diverse 'problems' with all sorts of world-views.. Your trolling generalizations are ludicrous.

Why don't you spell it out for us from your perspective. Do you support the premise of the federal judiciary stripping away a power that has aways been within the realm of the individual states?

Weird rant my boyo.. -- What do you think you've proved?

That the overwhelming majority of libertarians (libertines) support running roughshod over the Constitution when it suits their agenda. (Roe V Wade, the Redefinition of marriage ect...)

" Libertarians now want to strip that power away from the States and FORCE all States to support their mocking view of marriage."

Wrong again, as with your other unfounded accusations. You're getting your examples from the characters in Libertarian, rat parties, not from libertarians. The Libertarian party does not contain conservatives, nor is it a place where you'll find many logical thinkers.

Marriage is a word with an ancient definition. Libertarians know damn well that the meaning of words is essential. Just like you're mounting an assault on the meaning of the word libertarian, leftists and other illogal morons are mounting an assault on the meaning of marriage.

"That the overwhelming majority of libertarians (libertines) support running roughshod over the Constitution when it suits their agenda. (Roe V Wade, the Redefinition of marriage ect...)"

Libertarians are not libertines. The Constitution says what it does in plain English. The meaning of words to libertarians is essential, they are rational folks.

In the case of Roe, the SCOTUS made a bogus ruling. The State laws were in fact proper under both the Constitution and under libertarian theory. They were properly enacted laws, that protected the right to life. You obviously missed my previous posts. I explicitly said, that under libertarian theory, the only justification for govm't is to protect life and individual rights. The baby is an individual life. No one else has the right to kill it, including ma.

SCOTUS justified it's action by redefining words. The 4th Amend protects the right to privacy by requiring a specific procedure for searches. The right to privacy does not negate law. Should a proper warrant be issued and evidence for a crime be uncovered, the evidence can be used to prosecute. The fact that the right to privacy existed and was subject to due process violation does not mean that the law was, or could be invalidated.

The SCOTUS redefined the word "privacy", so that it now means "willed behavior", instead of simply "the right to keep matters hidden". They created an open set of behaviors which now can not be restricted by legislation. The first behavior was abortion, the hiring of a professional to kill and dispose of the unborn. Sodomy now acompanies abortion in that set. Hell will freeze over before they add income tax evasion to the set.

The other step they made was to give their own arbitrary definition and conditions for when life begins. That is legislation, which under the Constitution is left to the people, under the 9th and 10th and the States under the 10th and to the feds by Amendment, not to the fed courts. The libertarian recognizes this as plain as day.

You see them as "perversions", whereas millions, if not billions, of people see nothing wrong with such marriages. -- Just as our Constitution rightly ignores such issues.

The Constitution leaves marriage law squarely up to the Individual States, it's been that way Since (And preceeding) that Constitution.

Not true. The Constitution & its Bill of Rights "prohibited" some of the powers of States. [see the 10th]
Unenumerated rights [like marriage] could be reasonably regulated under common law police powers, tempered by the 'Law of the Land', -- IE, - bearing in mind Constitutional protections of individual rights.

Libertarians now want to strip that power away from the States and FORCE all States to support their mocking view of marriage.

Bull. -- You've simply invented a 'libertarian boogie man'. Get a grip.

I like 18, -- it seems to be a reasonable age for entering service, voting, etc.

Since 18 is your limit do you support or oppose laws that criminalize sexual conduct for those under the age of 18.

See the above about State 'police powers'. Reasonable laws can be written in these areas by reasonable people, laws that protect the young without intruding on individual liberty. Trial by jury is essential in enforcing this type of law.

-- libertarians have diverse 'problems' with all sorts of world-views.. Your trolling generalizations are ludicrous.

Why don't you spell it out for us from your perspective.
Do you support the premise of the federal judiciary stripping away a power that has aways been within the realm of the individual states?

You have an exaggerated view of "State powers", inho. -- States were bound by Article VI to support the "Law of the Land", --- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"

Weird rant on marriage my boyo..
-- What do you think you've proved?

That the overwhelming majority of libertarians (libertines) support running roughshod over the Constitution when it suits their agenda. (Roe V Wade, the Redefinition of marriage ect...)

Dream on. I only see your empty rhetoric about tar baby 'libertines'.

"We've been arguing about a political test based on Dungeons and Dragons. Note the implication: libertarians are "chaotic evil" and Reaganites are "lawful evil"."

If the plots are just superimposed, Reaganites end up neutral evil, Nazis end up lawful good, and commies are the ultimate good. Of course both of these schemes have purely arbitrary "definitions" of the terms they use. I know that Lakoff's objective is to destroy the established meaning of words. His purpose is to force communication in terms of feelings, and at the same time abolish rational thought. The same probably goes for deconstructionists like Derrida.

Here's a quote from bozo Lakoff, "The institute offers its expertise and research on a nonpartisan basis to help progressives understand how best to get their messages across." Now the "institute" is Rockridge inst., formed in 2000, by UC Davis and Bezerkly leftists(progressives). The word "nonpartisan" is in there for the touchy feely effect. Since they're disseminating info, that part of the comm needs to be rational and portray truth, like his literary contract. Like gay marriage, they need to destroy the meaning of words and replace it with feelings/emotions. This link contains Lakoff elaborating on the importance of BS. The man is a professor of con, the art of fraud and lies.

"Anarchy, State, Utopia by Robert Nozick"

Yes, that was written in response to Rawl's Theory of Justice. I haven't read it.

Wrong again, as with your other unfounded accusations. You're getting your examples from the characters in Libertarian, rat parties, not from libertarians. The Libertarian party does not contain conservatives, nor is it a place where you'll find many logical thinkers.Marriage is a word with an ancient definition. Libertarians know damn well that the meaning of words is essential. Just like you're mounting an assault on the meaning of the word libertarian, leftists and other illogal morons are mounting an assault on the meaning of marriage.

I can only go by what I've seen from Libertarians on a few other boards, and by their party platform, which reads to me as an open endorsement of the homosexual agenda's UnConstitutional plan to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation via Judicial fiat.

Libertarians are not libertines. The Constitution says what it does in plain English. The meaning of words to libertarians is essential, they are rational folks.

Maybe libertines are coopting the Libertarian label then?

In the case of Roe, the SCOTUS made a bogus ruling. The State laws were in fact proper under both the Constitution and under libertarian theory. They were properly enacted laws, that protected the right to life. You obviously missed my previous posts. I explicitly said, that under libertarian theory, the only justification for govm't is to protect life and individual rights. The baby is an individual life. No one else has the right to kill it, including ma. SCOTUS justified it's action by redefining words. The 4th Amend protects the right to privacy by requiring a specific procedure for searches. The right to privacy does not negate law. Should a proper warrant be issued and evidence for a crime be uncovered, the evidence can be used to prosecute. The fact that the right to privacy existed and was subject to due process violation does not mean that the law was, or could be invalidated. The SCOTUS redefined the word "privacy", so that it now means "willed behavior", instead of simply "the right to keep matters hidden". They created an open set of behaviors which now can not be restricted by legislation. The first behavior was abortion, the hiring of a professional to kill and dispose of the unborn. Sodomy now acompanies abortion in that set. Hell will freeze over before they add income tax evasion to the set. The other step they made was to give their own arbitrary definition and conditions for when life begins. That is legislation, which under the Constitution is left to the people, under the 9th and 10th and the States under the 10th and to the feds by Amendment, not to the fed courts. The libertarian recognizes this as plain as day.

I agree with what you are saying. Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Roe was the proper Constitutional opinion. Social issues were not ment to be dictated by an all-powerful centralized authority, be it the Judiciary or the Federal Government. Back to the marriage issue however, I've seen libertarians support the judicial redefinition of marriage, despite the fact that it is entirely a usurpation of Constitutional authority. No reading of the Constitution could support SCOTUS inventing a new right to redefine marriage.

Yah they are... Sometimes it's an honest mistake, Most often I think it's a ploy, -they are simply playing the "not a liberal game"... It bugs me. Try calling someone on it and they go apoplectic.

Not true. The Constitution & its Bill of Rights "prohibited" some of the powers of States. [see the 10th] Unenumerated rights [like marriage] could be reasonably regulated under common law police powers, tempered by the 'Law of the Land', -- IE, - bearing in mind Constitutional protections of individual rights.

No reading of the Constitution can be logically sustained that invents a new right to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation by judicial fiat.

Bull. -- You've simply invented a 'libertarian boogie man'. Get a grip.

I've seen libertarians on other boards do this. The LP platform does it as well. It's not a "boogie man".

See the above about State 'police powers'. Reasonable laws can be written in these areas by reasonable people, laws that protect the young without intruding on individual liberty. Trial by jury is essential in enforcing this type of law.

Since 18 is your limit, let's say that a State wanted to make any sexual act committed by or with someone under the age of 18 a crime. Is that permissable?

You have an exaggerated view of "State powers", inho. -- States were bound by Article VI to support the "Law of the Land", --- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"

Nothing in article VI creates a right to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation by fiat.

Dream on. I only see your empty rhetoric about tar baby 'libertines'.

Read the LP platform.

" Maybe libertines are coopting the Libertarian label then?"

The Libertarian party is a political party, it is open to anyone. It's impact is zilch. Bill Maher, the famous democrat claimed to be a libertarian. He is not a libertarian. Goldwater was a libertarian and he was a Repulican.

"Back to the marriage issue however, I've seen libertarians support the judicial redefinition of marriage, despite the fact that it is entirely a usurpation of Constitutional authority.

Was his name Bill Maher? Only artists and con men redefine words.

"Social issues were not ment to be dictated by an all-powerful centralized authority, be it the Judiciary or the Federal Government."

"Social Issues" is a rather broad and concept. In the case of marriage, the meaning has been well defined for thousands of years. I realize that polygamy exists elsewhere, but it was rejected here by the people. All 50 states use the conventional meaning. Congress and the feds do also. It's only particular judges within the court system that refuse to recognize this. Notice that they are D, or RINO. The courts however, don't have the power to redefine words the people use. Only the people can do that, and that's why the NEA schools fail to teach logic and obliterate the meaning of words.

Take a look at the link I gave to oblomov, that links to Prof. Lakoff. Screwing up the meaning of words is important to the left. The leaders of the left abhor rational thought, they communicate to the masses in feeling/emotion. There is no rationality in feeling. Once the people's mind is gone, they can keep them happy with sex and other entertainment. That's not libertarian action, that's leftist action-the D party.

You see them as "perversions", whereas millions, if not billions, of people see nothing wrong with such marriages. -- Just as our Constitution rightly ignores such issues.

The Constitution leaves marriage law squarely up to the Individual States, it's been that way Since (And preceeding) that Constitution.

Not true. The Constitution & its Bill of Rights "prohibited" some of the powers of States. [see the 10th]
Unenumerated rights [like marriage] could be reasonably regulated under common law police powers, tempered by the 'Law of the Land', -- IE, - bearing in mind Constitutional protections of individual rights.

No reading of the Constitution can be logically sustained that invents a new right to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation by judicial fiat.

Irrational reply, since no one is inventing "a new right".

Libertarians now want to strip that power away from the States and FORCE all States to support their mocking view of marriage.

Bull. -- You've simply invented a 'libertarian boogy man'. Get a grip.

I've seen libertarians on other boards do this. The LP platform does it as well. It's not a "boogie man".

Your anecdotes and the 'platform' add up to nothing in actual "force" being applied. Get real.

I like 18, -- it seems to be a reasonable age for entering service, voting, etc.

Since 18 is your limit do you support or oppose laws that criminalize sexual conduct for those under the age of 18.

See the above about State 'police powers'. Reasonable laws can be written in these areas by reasonable people, laws that protect the young without intruding on individual liberty. Trial by jury is essential in enforcing this type of law.

. Since 18 is your limit, let's say that a State wanted to make any sexual act committed by or with someone under the age of 18 a crime. Is that permissable?

"Any" act? -- Due process of law does not allow fiat criminalization [prohibitions] to be written & enforced. -- Governments simply lack the dictatorial power to prohibit non-violent acts under our constitutional system.

-- libertarians have diverse 'problems' with all sorts of world-views.. Your trolling generalizations are ludicrous.

Why don't you spell it out for us from your perspective.
Do you support the premise of the federal judiciary stripping away a power that has aways been within the realm of the individual states?

You have an exaggerated view of "State powers", inho. -- States were bound by Article VI to support the "Law of the Land", --- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"

Nothing in article VI creates a right to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation by fiat.

Nothing in my comment said it did.

Weird rant on marriage my boyo..
-- What do you think you've proved?

That the overwhelming majority of libertarians (libertines) support running roughshod over the Constitution when it suits their agenda. (Roe V Wade, the Redefinition of marriage ect...)

Dream on. I only see your empty rhetoric about tar baby 'libertines'.

Read the LP platform.

Get lost till you come up with some new lines.

Irrational reply, since no one is inventing "a new right".

Retreating to ad hominem (a trademark of you I hear) will not help you. There is no irrational reply, because someone is inventing a new "right". The new "right" is redefinition of marriage. A "right" that does not exist in the Constitution.

"Any" act? -- Due process of law does not allow fiat criminalization [prohibitions] to be written & enforced. -- Governments simply lack the dictatorial power to prohibit non-violent acts under our constitutional system.

Your talking in circles now. You pulled out the "consenting adults" line. When called on that, you set 18 as the limit. Now, when pressed, you want to invent more restrictions. If what other libertarians on this thread are telling me is true, then perhaps you are one of the libertines that has co-opted the libertarian label??

Nothing in my comment said it did.

Well then, I'm not sure exactly what your comment was in response to.

Get lost till you come up with some new lines.

Sorry bud, I ain't goin nowhere. Read the LP platform. It clearly supports the Homosexual Agenda's attempt to usurp the Constitution.

Unenumerated rights [like marriage] can be reasonably regulated under common law police powers, tempered by the 'Law of the Land', -- IE, - bearing in mind Constitutional protections of individual rights.

No reading of the Constitution can be logically sustained that invents a new right to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation by judicial fiat.

Irrational reply, since no one is inventing "a new right".

Retreating to ad hominem

Terming your reply 'irrational' is a fact not an attack. None of my comments 'impose a mockery'.

(a trademark of you I hear)

Personal comment, no?

will not help you. There is no irrational reply, because someone is inventing a new "right". The new "right" is redefinition of marriage. A "right" that does not exist in the Constitution.

-- I don't see any 'new right' that our Constitution will force us to acknowledge. How odd that you seem to think I do.

"Any" act? -- Due process of law does not allow fiat criminalization [prohibitions] to be written & enforced. -- Governments simply lack the dictatorial power to prohibit non-violent acts under our constitutional system.

Your talking in circles now.

Irrational circles? Ad hominem circles perhaps? how droll.

You pulled out the "consenting adults" line. When called on that,

You've "called" [rationally debated] nothing.

you set 18 as the limit. Now, when pressed, you want to invent more restrictions. If what other libertarians on this thread are telling me is true, then perhaps you are one of the libertines that has co-opted the libertarian label??

No "perhaps" about it, you are now making the 'ad hominem' remarks, not I.

Nothing in my comment said it did.

Well then, I'm not sure exactly what your comment was in response to.

We've been discussing State powers to prohibit 'sinful acts', a power you insist -- "has aways been within the realm of the individual states --".

You have an exaggerated view of "State powers", imho. -- States are bound by Article VI to support the "Law of the Land", --- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"

Read the LP platform.

Get lost till you come up with some new lines.

Sorry bud, I ain't goin nowhere. Read the LP platform. It clearly supports the Homosexual Agenda's attempt to usurp the Constitution.

What the queers and the LP rant about marriage doesn't bother me, as nothing they say on the subject can "usurp the Constitution". -- You're all hyped up about virtually nothing.
Find a new fetish.

'Ghostmonkey is a liberal.'

There it is, plain as day, in black & white.

Small government to the point of anarchy and a liberal social embrace of vice, especially their precious drugs.

I consider myself libertarian, do not use drugs, and avoid people who do.

Terming your reply 'irrational' is a fact not an attack. None of my comments 'impose a mockery'.

I didn't say your comments did. I said the Homosexual Agenda's plan, one that the LP goes along with does however.

Personal comment, no?

Only going by what I'm told.

-- I don't see any 'new right' that our Constitution will force us to acknowledge. How odd that you seem to think I do.

Redefining marriage isn't in the Constitution, so that's why you don't see it. However, The ACLU, LPers and Homos see that right in there, they just need a sympathetic judge to divine it to the surface for them.

We've been discussing State powers to prohibit 'sinful acts', a power you insist -- "has aways been within the realm of the individual states --".

That's quite incorrect. I stated that MARRIAGE LAW has aways been within the realm of the individual states. I'd suggest that you re-read Post 201, 205, & 209 for starters.

What the queers and the LP rant about marriage doesn't bother me, as nothing they say on the subject can "usurp the Constitution". -- You're all hyped up about virtually nothing.

A Federal Judge sympathetic to them CAN however.

I don't see any 'new right' that our Constitution will force us to acknowledge. How odd that you seem to think I do.

Redefining marriage isn't in the Constitution, so that's why you don't see it.

There you go again, oddly insisting I'm not aware of what is in the Constitution.

We've been discussing State powers to prohibit 'sinful acts', a power you insist -- "has aways been within the realm of the individual states --".

That's quite incorrect. I stated that MARRIAGE LAW has aways been within the realm of the individual states.

And initially, -- I stated to you that:
Unenumerated rights [like marriage] can be reasonably regulated under common law police powers, tempered by the 'Law of the Land', -- IE, - bearing in mind Constitutional protections of individual rights.

-- Read it this time. -- "MARRIAGE LAW" can be reasonably regulated by States. -- As long as they do not violate Constitutional due process.

What the queers and the LP rant about marriage doesn't bother me, as nothing they say on the subject can "usurp the Constitution". -- You're all hyped up about virtually nothing.

A Federal Judge sympathetic to them CAN however.

Listen to yourself, claiming that a 'Federal judge' can in effect "usurp the Constitution". - Hype.

States can ignore, - & fight, - irrational judicial opinions. --- Checks & balances of power, remember?

Since 18 is your limit, let's say that a State wanted to make any sexual act committed by or with someone under the age of 18 a crime. Is that permissable?
-g-monkey-

Boy, 9, cuffed over grope rap
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627351/posts