Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Search

  • Re: My dad's case against "marriage equality"

    I agree that extending government largesse is aggression. My point is, once the government extends benefits - of any kind, be it tax cuts or assistance - that those benefits be accessible to all individuals within that state. That is not an expansion of aggression, it is simply an expansion of a the nominal amount of benefits, but it is not an expansion
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by cubfan296 on Thu, Nov 8 2012
  • Re: My dad's case against "marriage equality"

    "I do support people taking advantage of existing rules, but I do not support expanding those rules." Then we are in agreement... What am I missing here?
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by cubfan296 on Wed, Nov 7 2012
  • Re: My dad's case against "marriage equality"

    How am I not substantiating it? Discrimination and segregation are tools used by those who control the state. And, by supporting such tools, you are, in fact, supporting state aggression against minority positions within a democracy. You are supporting a religious right wing position, that only holds such power because of the size of its electorate
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by cubfan296 on Wed, Nov 7 2012
  • Re: My dad's case against "marriage equality"

    I am almost a pure pacifist, I just understand what reality is. Again, the state exists, it is a powerful apparatus, and those who wield its power are, in general, shit-heads. Advocacy for the rule of law within that state, to minimize the aggression against those with less power is much more in line with the NAP. Supporting discrimination within the
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by cubfan296 on Wed, Nov 7 2012
  • Re: My dad's case against "marriage equality"

    I think you are having a problem with understanding what discrimination is, and it's relevance when discussing the rule of law. If a state wants to design a contract for two people, then any two people need to have access to that contract, lest it be discrimantory and segregationist. The same applies for any state privilige or function, the wording
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by cubfan296 on Wed, Nov 7 2012
  • Re: My dad's case against "marriage equality"

    I'm not in favor of expanding state privilege, I'm in favor of the state not aggressing against people based on sex, race, religion, or creed. If the state, especially democratic states are to be the reality, then it stands to reason that the rule of law be used to limit the state's ability to aggress. You can fight the state all you want
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by cubfan296 on Wed, Nov 7 2012
  • Re: My dad's case against "marriage equality"

    You guys are truly ridiculous. Allowing the state, nay advocating, that the state agress against people under the law is not lofty nor is it principled. State marriage contracts exist, they are contracts designed for two people. Denying any two people the rights conferred by that contract is discriminatory and segregationist. The language of a man and
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by cubfan296 on Wed, Nov 7 2012
  • Re: My dad's case against "marriage equality"

    Are you in favor of public schooling segregation in the deep south? Should blacks not have been allowed equal access to public schooling? Are you in favor of apartheid? Should woman not have had the right to vote? Under your definition of expansion of the state, it's quite clear that you would support these types of arrangements. As they would pull
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by cubfan296 on Wed, Nov 7 2012
  • Re: My dad's case against "marriage equality"

    I don't think you are reading what I'm writing. I'm not advocating that the state do things. I'm simply making an argument; if the state already has established a law or privilige, that acces to that privilige be attainable by all citizens no matter of sex, religion, race, or creed. This is a simple concept of equality under the law
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by cubfan296 on Wed, Nov 7 2012
  • Re: My dad's case against "marriage equality"

    If two staright men want to get married, they should have access to existing laws allowing two people of the opposite sex to do the same - same goes for siblings. It is certainly discriminatory for them not to have the same access to state largesse based on sex alone. Again, we aren't talkling about expansion of law or power. We are talking about
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by cubfan296 on Wed, Nov 7 2012
Page 1 of 7 (62 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last ยป | More Search Options