Replies

How is your right to live in a community of straight people being violated?

If I must accept gay people in my straight community then my right of free association has been violated.

If you want to start your own little private club that doesn’t allow gay members, that’s your right.

No, I want my little private State, which I used to have before an activist SCOTUS decided to shove 14th Amendment "selective incorporation" down my throat. Maryland could be Catholic, Pennsylvania could be Quaker, the northeast was Protestant and all was fine with the world because those communities were FREE and AT LIBERTY to pass laws that respected the values of their communities. Those communities were moderated by natural law competition, as I stated in my very first post to you, a concept that you clearly do not understand. Natural law competition means that my community is at LIBERTY to fail by its exclusive nature, just as your libertine community would succeed (which isn't what would happen sirrah). That is what the Constitution guaranteed when it limited only the Congress to laws respecting an establishment of religion. This is why you "libertarians" would enforce a secular uniformity because you haven't a clue what liberty is or where it originates and don't want the public to find out that such "freedoms" as licentious behavior don't work, even in private. The people who are pushing that idea know it.

You hate that kind of FREEDOM. Got it? And yes, I trapped you into this.

You don’t have to associate with anybody you don’t want to. I’ve never said anything to the contrary.

Your admitted cluelessness becomes you. You have bought an ephemeral dream of a libertarian society where people supposedly respect each other's values to live as they please. Such cannot exist because there are always externalities to individual behavior that infringe the opportunities of others to live as they please. If I want to live in a town where people don't boff each other in the park, it can't be a place where people do. Thus, it is essential to liberty that people have the freedom to assemble in communities that respect their preferences while excluding those who choose not to abide by their social contract, an idea you find repugnant. I am perfectly happy with nudies running buggering on the sidewalk in a San Fransicko as long as they leave me the option of living in a city where people would be expelled even for private homosexuality. The simple fact is that private behavior ends up manifesting in public.

This is Liberty 101, kiddo.

You can have whoever you want in a private community. I think it's very questionable that a state can ban homosexuals from living with it's borders, but let's say it could. If this amendment fails to pass, that says that a majority of Californians are not in favor of banning gay marriage, suggesting a gay-friendly consensus. You live in California by choice, so if you're that uncomfortable, you can move.

Your admitted cluelessness becomes you. You have bought an ephemeral dream of a libertarian society where people supposedly respect each other's values to live as they please. Such cannot exist because there are always externalities to individual behavior that infringe the opportunities of others to live as they please. If I want to live in a town where people don't boff each other in the park, it can't be a place where people do. Thus, it is essential to liberty that people have the freedom to assemble in communities that respect their preferences while excluding those who choose not to abide by their social contract, an idea you find repugnant. I am perfectly happy with nudies running buggering on the sidewalk in a San Fransicko as long as they leave me the option of living in a city where people would be expelled even for private homosexuality. The simple fact is that private behavior ends up manifesting in public.

Ouch. Spot on, Carry.

Liberaltarianism only seems like a legitimate ideology in a society where people don't commonly cr@p on each other's front lawn. Ironically, as soon as such a system is implemented, there would be nothing to stop people from cr@pping on someone else's front lawn. And the behavior would proliferate.

I'd be pefectly content to see a state like Vermont or New Hampshire turn into Libertaristan. Then we could watch the abysmal failure of that ideology in action and not have to listen to these pathetic ninnies anymore.