Republicans Vs. Republican TEA Partiers

[88GT]

Libertarians are looking for the American ideal of equality before the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Not a "Damn the torpedos" make up law. If that's not obvious from what's been written by libertarians and others then someone has missed the point entirely or is stuck in a rut.

Aside from the fact that it'll never happen, I thought the libertarian ideal was non-aggression in the law. Equality in the law doesn't mean it'll be okay with you guys.

And where does the Constitution control the local governments? I keep raising this argument, but at some point libertarians have to acknowledge the fact that they would be guilty of hypocrisy if they prohibited the people from true self-governance. If a town wants to ban liquor sales on Sunday, can you honestly say that it's wrong for them to do it? Do you allow them the freedom to self-govern, or do you impose your own moral code on them by preventing them from passing legislation that is antithetical to the libertarian ideal?

 

[rambone]

Aside from the fact that it'll never happen, I thought the libertarian ideal was non-aggression in the law. Equality in the law doesn't mean it'll be okay with you guys.

And where does the Constitution control the local governments? I keep raising this argument, but at some point libertarians have to acknowledge the fact that they would be guilty of hypocrisy if they prohibited the people from true self-governance. If a town wants to ban liquor sales on Sunday, can you honestly say that it's wrong for them to do it? Do you allow them the freedom to self-govern, or do you impose your own moral code on them by preventing them from passing legislation that is antithetical to the libertarian ideal?

We had a conversation about it here. Remember?

I said this:

A collective group of people could have "self-governance" without any semblance of "individual liberty." The two concepts are important, but don't necessarily follow each other.

The majority could demand an emperor... that doesn't mean they are a free people, but they got what the majority demanded. And the minority, who didn't agree with the masses, are oppressed and did not consent.

And I think all of that is truth. "Self-governance" is a good ideal, but alone it will not make you free.

 

[Liberty1911]

We had a conversation about it here. Remember?

I said this:

And I think all of that is truth. "Self-governance" is a good ideal, but alone it will not make you free.

Because I think we may have a different definition as to what makes us free.

Personally, I think the right to marry your sodomy partner and demand the civil authorities recognize your "marriage" has nothing to do with "freedom", and everything to do with official sanction of their immorality. Libertarians differ however.

As I've said in other threads, people nowadays only want the "freedom" to be immoral. They don't care if property rights are violated, or other rights, as long as they get to marry their sodomy partner and smoke pot, they think they're free.

Here's a quick test to see where libertarians are really at, one that I mentioned a few posts above - Which "right" do libertarians value most, property rights or the "right" to marry your sodomy partner?

Since we know for a fact that granting "marriage" rights to sodomy partners will absolutely diminish individual property rights, Libertarians are now faced with a choice. Which one do we advocate for?

The answer Libertarians have is: Full speed ahead, damn the property rights. We will sacrifice your individual property rights to grant the "freedom" to marry your sodomy partner.

So, I have to conclude that Libertarians are really anti-freedom, or maybe a-freedom, since they are willing to take freedom from one group, in order to give it to another.

 

[rambone]

As I've said in other threads, people nowadays only want the "freedom" to be immoral.

Society just needs more "Liberty1911s" bossing them around, crusading for state-imposed morality laws. Government is such a great source of morality, after all. With enough laws, surely everyone will get to Heaven. Personal freedom be damned, along with the torpedoes.

 

[steveh_131]

Here's a quick test to see where libertarians are really at, one that I mentioned a few posts above - Which "right" do libertarians value most, property rights or the "right" to marry your sodomy partner?

Both.

I value both.

I would vote to remove all government involvement in marriage, and any 'public sanctioning' thereof, and let people do whatever they choose to do.

Question answered?

 

[steveh_131]

Society just needs more "Liberty1911s" bossing them around, crusading for state-imposed morality laws. Government is such a great source of morality, after all. With enough laws, surely everyone will get to Heaven. Personal freedom be damned, along with the torpedoes.

You need to understand that the solution to tyranny is more tyranny.

It just makes sense.

 

[Liberty1911]

You need to understand that the solution to tyranny is more tyranny.

It just makes sense.

This is why we can rarely have an honest debate, and frankly, I have to conclude Libertarians aren't really interested in an honest debate.

Libertarians, on INGO anyway, are far more interested in making sure they get in a few snarky comments, with a heavy dose of perceived moral superiority. That's hardly the stuff honest debates are made of.

Libertarians have a moral code, just like the rest of us, and are just as willing to use the force of government to impose that code, as they accuse others of doing.

Here's the proof: Libertarians aren't advocating for government to get "out of marriage" as you said above. They are advocating for government sanctioned homosexual marriage. Big difference.

Here's the other intellectual dishonesty you're engaging in - advocating the government not sanction homosexual marriage is not "imposing my moral code". Quite the contrary, and the dirty little secret is that homosexuals can get "married" in any state, anytime they choose. Nothing is stopping them, and no one is proposing they be arrested for doing so.

That's not good enough though. They, and Libertarians, demand the force of government be used to sanction the marriage, and force the rest of society to officially recognize it, which will diminish the rights of others who may not agree with their immorality.

If anyone is forcing a moral code on the rest of us, it's Libertarians.

So then, your solution to tyranny, is apparently to impose more tyranny.

 

[steveh_131]

This is why we can rarely have an honest debate, and frankly, I have to conclude Libertarians aren't really interested in an honest debate.

Libertarians, on INGO anyway, are far more interested in making sure they get in a few snarky comments, with a heavy dose of perceived moral superiority. That's hardly the stuff honest debates are made of.

I could go back and quote dozens of 'snarky quotes' of your own about libertarians, but I really don't have the time or interest. Suffice it to say that you are being rather hypocritical on this front.

Libertarians have a moral code, just like the rest of us, and are just as willing to use the force of government to impose that code, as they accuse others of doing.

Here's the proof: Libertarians aren't advocating for government to get "out of marriage" as you said above. They are advocating for government sanctioned homosexual marriage. Big difference.

I don't know any libertarians who think that the government ought to be involved in defining the word 'marriage'. Every one that I know thinks that the government should do nothing more than enforce consensual contracts between two partners, and leave the 'marriage' idea out altogether. They certainly wouldn't advocate that the government force private parties (insurance companies, for example) to recognize this partnership or provide any sort of services by force.

Here's the other intellectual dishonesty you're engaging in - advocating the government not sanction homosexual marriage is not "imposing my moral code". Quite the contrary, and the dirty little secret is that homosexuals can get "married" in any state, anytime they choose. Nothing is stopping them, and no one is proposing they be arrested for doing so.

That's not good enough though. They, and Libertarians, demand the force of government be used to sanction the marriage, and force the rest of society to officially recognize it, which will diminish the rights of others who may not agree with their immorality.

Again, most libertarians' first solution would be to abolish all government involvement in marriage. If it is not abolished, some would argue that it should apply equally to all.

You claim to advocate property rights completely? What about the property rights of a person who believes heterosexual marriage is evil? Should they be forced to sanction your marriage? Why do you think we should violate their property rights, but not yours?

If anyone is forcing a moral code on the rest of us, it's Libertarians.

So then, your solution to tyranny, is apparently to impose more tyranny.

For me, it's not a moral code. It is a code that, in my opinion, works the best as a system of government. My moral code is quite separate.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't know any libertarians who think that the government ought to be involved in defining the word 'marriage'. Every one that I know thinks that the government should do nothing more than enforce consensual contracts between two partners, and leave the 'marriage' idea out altogether. They certainly wouldn't advocate that the government force private parties (insurance companies, for example) to recognize this partnership or provide any sort of services by force.



Again, most libertarians' first solution would be to abolish all government involvement in marriage. If it is not abolished, some would argue that it should apply equally to all.
.

You do know Gary Johnson, the guy I presume you voted for for president, claims that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right and that he would have supported using the 14th amendment to force its acception by the country?

I heard him say as much on one of the few TV shows I could find him on last fall.

 

[steveh_131]

I didn't get to comment on these earlier, but they're too hard for me to resist.

That leaves room for me to personally vote at the state level against what I consider to be immoral.

I guess that's where I differ with Libertarians. I'm generally in favor of letting people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect me, but Libertarians want to use the force of law, regardless of enumerated constitutional rights, to impose "freedom" and all the consequences that entails, on the entire society. In my view, that crosses the line to pro-immorality.

For a guy with the word 'liberty' in his name, you seem to be awfully terrified of it and more than happy to vote against it.

 

[steveh_131]

You do know Gary Johnson, the guy I presume you voted for for president, claims that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right and that he would have supported using the 14th amendment to force its acception by the country?

I heard him say as much on one of the few TV shows I could find him on last fall.

Yes, I do know that.

Here is the libertarian party platform statement on it:

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

Two important points. First of all, the government should not be licensing or defining marriage to begin with. But since it already does in 'current' marriage laws, citizens should be treated equally under that law.

That is what I said, as well.

 

[Liberty1911]

I didn't get to comment on these earlier, but they're too hard for me to resist.

For a guy with the word 'liberty' in his name, you seem to be awfully terrified of it and more than happy to vote against it.

Not at all. Like I said, if two people want to walk into a church and get "married", I'm not stopping them.

The difference is, as I mentioned above, and you seem unwilling to understand, is that, that isn't good enough. They, and you, advocate using the force of government to sanction that "marriage", which forces me to recognize it. I will vote against that every time.

Between the two of us, I'm not the one afraid of liberty, and I'm not the one advocating the use of government force to impose my moral beliefs.

 

[Liberty1911]

Yes, I do know that.

Here is the libertarian party platform statement on it:

Two important points. First of all, the government should not be licensing or defining marriage to begin with. But since it already does in 'current' marriage laws, citizens should be treated equally under that law.

That is what I said, as well.

Right, and the law says marriage is one man and one woman. So, people are treated equally under the law.

Recognizing the law means recognizing the government has the ability to define what the law means.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, I do know that.

Here is the libertarian party platform statement on it:



Two important points. First of all, the government should not be licensing or defining marriage to begin with. But since it already does in 'current' marriage laws, citizens should be treated equally under that law.

That is what I said, as well.

Just so you see the streak of tyranny, even in the Libertarian presidential nominee. When we misuse the 14th amendment, like it has been for much of the 20th century, to impose somebody else's morals onto the citizens of a state, that too is tyranny. To be free, people must retain the rights to choose the laws they wish to be governed under...it is their liberty they're loaning to the government of their choosing. The 14th amendment was originally written to ensure that anybody in a given state would have equal protection of the laws of that state. If all the states are forced to be all exactly equal, as dictated by the federal government, SCOTUS, etc. then where do free people go that want to live under a different kind of government? That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

 

[steveh_131]

Not at all. Like I said, if two people want to walk into a church and get "married", I'm not stopping them.

The difference is, as I mentioned above, and you seem unwilling to understand, is that, that isn't good enough. They, and you, advocate using the force of government to sanction that "marriage", which forces me to recognize it. I will vote against that every time.

I can see your point in this. But here is my question: Why should you be entitled to these tax breaks and insurance benefits? Why shouldn't they be equally available, if they must be available?

Between the two of us, I'm not the one afraid of liberty, and I'm not the one advocating the use of government force to impose my moral beliefs.

You're the one who said you would vote for bans of immoral acts at a state level. Doesn't sound like liberty to me.

 

[steveh_131]

Just so you see the streak of tyranny, even in the Libertarian presidential nominee. When we misuse the 14th amendment, like it has been for much of the 20th century, to impose somebody else's morals onto the citizens of a state, that too is tyranny. To be free, people must retain the rights to choose the laws they wish to be governed under...it is their liberty they're loaning to the government of their choosing. The 14th amendment was originally written to ensure that anybody in a given state would have equal protection of the laws of that state. If all the states are forced to be all exactly equal, as dictated by the federal government, SCOTUS, etc. then where do free people go that want to live under a different kind of government? That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

I don't think I disagree with any of this. Just not certain why you're bringing it up. Do you know some libertarians who are against state's rights?

 

[Liberty1911]

I can see your point in this. But here is my question: Why should you be entitled to these tax breaks and insurance benefits? Why shouldn't they be equally available, if they must be available?

There's actually a marriage penalty in the tax structure.

You're the one who said you would vote for bans of immoral acts at a state level. Doesn't sound like liberty to me.

Exactly. However, I've never advocated voting against someone's rights. Immorality and rights are two different things.

If you think they're not, then give me an example of something immoral, then explain how that is a Constitutional right.

 

[steveh_131]

Exactly. However, I've never advocated voting against someone's rights. Immorality and rights are two different things.

If you think they're not, then give me an example of something immoral, then explain how that is a Constitutional right.

No. I'm not letting you turn this debate in circles.

You said that libertarians are 'pro immorality'.

I pointed out that I am not 'pro immorality' simply because I don't want the government involved in morality, and I used 'homosexuality' as an example.

You responded that 'turning my back' on morality does not make me 'amoral', therefore implying that my belief that the government should not intervene in homosexual acts makes me inherently 'immoral'.

Then you said that you would vote against 'immorality' at a state level.

What sorts of immorality would you support bans against, since you're now trying to squirrel your way out of all of this?

 

[hornadylnl]

No. I'm not letting you turn this debate in circles.

You said that libertarians are 'pro immorality'.

I pointed out that I am not 'pro immorality' simply because I don't want the government involved in morality, and I used 'homosexuality' as an example.

You responded that 'turning my back' on morality does not make me 'amoral', therefore implying that my belief that the government should not intervene in homosexual acts makes me inherently 'immoral'.

Then you said that you would vote against 'immorality' at a state level.

What sorts of immorality would you support bans against, since you're now trying to squirrel your way out of all of this?

The problem with those who want their church in government is they don't understand that they're inviting the government in their church.

 

[Liberty1911]

No. I'm not letting you turn this debate in circles.

You said that libertarians are 'pro immorality'.

I pointed out that I am not 'pro immorality' simply because I don't want the government involved in morality, and I used 'homosexuality' as an example.

You responded that 'turning my back' on morality does not make me 'amoral', therefore implying that my belief that the government should not intervene in homosexual acts makes me inherently 'immoral'.

You're advocating state sanctioned homosexual marriage. That's pro-immorality.

Then you said that you would vote against 'immorality' at a state level.

What sorts of immorality would you support bans against, since you're now trying to squirrel your way out of all of this?

Homosexual marriage.