Previous 21 - 30 Next
As for 5000 year old traditions, I suppose we shouldn't have dropped burning heretics at the stake? Enslaving people of other races or religions? Primogeniture? Monarchy? Royal infallibility? Get serious. Be honest. Even if you and your religion hate gays as offenders of God, consider that the LAW should be different from your religious standards. Or you are just Shariah in another form. And by the way, if you would be intellectually honest about the lack of harm from gay marriage, you MIGHT have a chance to tear down big government, which IS ruining the country and the family.
The problem isn't gay marriage, the problem is the total government control over the individual and his property. The problem is redistributive theft at the point of a government gun. So yes, extending this theft to the gay community is not desirable. It shouldn't exist for heterosexual couples either. Extending stolen goods to anyone in the monicker of 'entitlements' is theft. But the problem is NOT that the gays are married, the problem is the existence of the total state control over the individual and his property.
Case in point: who is the DEMONSTRABLE victim of gay marriage? Who is harmed physically or financially by it? Show me the crime that merits illegality by showing me the VICTIM and PRECISELY defining the damages. Liberals make all sorts of stupid claims about vague victimhood and the gay marriage gripes are the exact same nonsense. The only legitimate complaint is the DIRECT COST to taxpayers. But the reason for that cost isn't the gay marriage, it is the redistributiive theft that already occurs which will be extended to gays.
annfan, time to wake up from your world of false dichotomy. The statists who want to use force to impose their ideas exist in the modern political left AND right. It's not one of the other. The people who don't want to use guns to impose their wills are the libertarians. They espouse LIVE AND LET LIVE. No harm, no foul.
Real freedom means doing whatever one wants unless it directly harms or directly threatens harm to others. Liberty means using violence and threats only to repel violence and threats. With gay marriage, consider Jefferson's test: does it break your arm or pick your pocket? It certainly does not break your arm. And it only breaks your pocket because it extends to gays certain redistributive priveleges that NOBODY should have. The social programs that will become available to married gays shouldn't exist in the first place. The justifiable complaint is not with gay marriage, but with confiscatory taxation and redistribution.
If you believe that your presumed "indirect users" should pay for the roads, you don't accept free markets at all. The way markets work is costs are paid by WILLING, DIRECT USERS. And thus all indirect costs are built in. The people who bring goods to market pay for the roads they use just as the farmers pay for the fertilizer and diesel to raise the crops. These costs are passed along to their customers in the price of the food they buy. Should every farmer get free diesel and fertilizer (and a truck) from the taxpayer? Of course not. Start playing the "pay the indirect cost" game and you are immediately muddling the math, making costs based on the lousy or crooked work of central planners, rather than natural free-market forces
In response to:

Gay Activists’ Double Standard

JustMC Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 7:31 AM
If you really believe in liberty, you agree that gay marriage as a LEGAL construct (and the rights and priveleges that it confers on a person's CHOSEN trustee) should be no different from heterosexual marriage, correct? For after all, heterosexual couples who are physically capable of reproduction but choose not to have children fit the exact same definition of "freaks" you cite above. That freakishness, because it causes no HARM to anyone else's life, liberty, or property, should not be made illegal and prohibited under threat of violence from the government. Agreed?
before the road privatization issue makes sense as a PRIORITY.
Mr. Scribner's dismissive reference to the "double-taxation crowd" is not helpful. Objecting to this very real double-taxation is a fair thing to consider. If he were to argue the PATH toward privatization by gradually making the electorate MAD about double-taxation, that would be one thing. But to act as if the double-taxation doesn't exist is disingenuous. Last, let's also mention that TRULY private roads would be free from government regulation. Speed limits, and other rules, would be whatever the owners dictated and NOT subject to governmental intrusions and skimming of monies. In short, there is a LOT to talk about with the proper, laudable privatization of roads. And frankly, there are far too many battles to fight...
Put another way, we collect PLENTY of money already to pay for the roads. I'm all for FULL privatization of operations with ZERO government access to monies and ZERO access to data on the movement of private citizens. And it's certainly reasonable to ask what POSSIBLE PATHS exist toward privatization and fee-for-service. Perhaps the author is correct on that. But this one is tricky. Much of the tolling that has been proposed recently is nothing more than a tax increase. That doesn't mean more tolling isn't a good idea in principle, but the devil is in the details.
As for the notion of "transportation trust funds" being bailed out by general funds, that's EXACTLY backwards in my state. Where I live, the so-called transportation trust fund has been pillaged. So, while I agree that FULL privatization is a good thing, don't be fooled by government-private "partnerships." Unless the entire enterprise is riding on true profit and loss, ANY avenue back to the taxpayer is an IDEAL means to steal from him.
Previous 21 - 30 Next