Poll for Libertarians | |
Manu-Koelbren User ID: 1312616 Spain 01/30/2013 10:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I agree. Believe me, I have long searched for logical consistency in this matter. Quoting: simultaneous_final It's possible that we can settle this once and for all. Let's try to break it down: 1. Ability to imply or express consent is not inherent to all conscious beings at all times. example: trees, non-humans, infants, the mentally unsound LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION: What do the above examples have in common that make them unable to render consent? They don't possess a self or a fully developed self? A child doesn't have a fully developed self, it's on process of becoming. Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 13477489 United States 01/30/2013 10:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I am a God fearing libertarian in that I personally believe that marriage is between1 man and 1 woman but I also believe people may worship and practice their religious beliefs how they choose and I will defend their right to do so as if it were my belief. I will not judge your lifestyle, thats not why I'm here. I will defend anyone against the use force, thats what makes me a libertarian. |
OICU812 User ID: 17896994 United States 01/30/2013 10:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What you do as an adult that does not infringe on any right of another nor cause harm to another nor harm society as a whole is none of my fucking business. What I do as an adult that does not infringe on any right of another nor cause harm to another or society as a whole is none of your fucking business. For all the people who cannot "condone" this or that based on religious grounds: what part of "judge not lest ye be judged" do you not understand???? "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice. |
Ralph--a house dog User ID: 25802009 United States 01/30/2013 10:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I agree. Believe me, I have long searched for logical consistency in this matter. Quoting: simultaneous_final It's possible that we can settle this once and for all. Let's try to break it down: 1. Ability to imply or express consent is not inherent to all conscious beings at all times. example: trees, non-humans, infants, the mentally unsound LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION: What do the above examples have in common that make them unable to render consent? They don't possess the mental capacity or emotional stability--either temporarily due to other factors or permanently-- to be self-directed enough to make decisions in their own best interest. "Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night.....Rage, rage against the dying of the light"-----Dylan Thomas HIS NAME IS SETH RICH [link to biblicalselfdefense.com] [link to forum.1111ers.blog] Always remember that "for the greater good" will not include YOU. "Who decides?" ---Robert A. Heinlein -'Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.'—Benjamin Franklin [link to www.westcoasttruth.com] The only thing worth paying full retail for is pantyhose. You cannot do all of the good the world needs, but the world needs all of the good you can do. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25128934 United States 01/30/2013 10:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As a libertarian, I can see no wrong in ANYTHING that does not: Quoting: simultaneous_final 1. Breach the consent of another adult. 2. Breach a contract made of sound mind. OP this poll / thread is totally bogus. There is no inherent "right" to marry. No one has a "right" to marry. Legal marriage requires a license. A license denotes a "priviledge", not a "right". |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28590539 United States 01/30/2013 10:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | A GOD fearing libertarian can not support gay marriage. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33328238 A GOD fearing anything can not support gay marriage. or anything else gay for that matter. IT IS AN ABOMINATION. Sound like an Islamist to me. A libertarian supports LIBERTY, NOT A SINGLE IDEOLOGY OR RELIGION. And boom goes the dynamite. Like your style. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1326366 United States 01/30/2013 10:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Manu-Koelbren User ID: 1312616 Spain 01/30/2013 10:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I agree. Believe me, I have long searched for logical consistency in this matter. Quoting: simultaneous_final It's possible that we can settle this once and for all. Let's try to break it down: 1. Ability to imply or express consent is not inherent to all conscious beings at all times. example: trees, non-humans, infants, the mentally unsound LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION: What do the above examples have in common that make them unable to render consent? They don't possess the mental capacity or emotional stability--either temporarily due to other factors or permanently-- to be self-directed enough to make decisions in their own best interest. Well phrased. Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25128934 United States 01/30/2013 10:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
chowan User ID: 33359762 United States 01/30/2013 10:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25128934 United States 01/30/2013 10:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Manu-Koelbren User ID: 1312616 Spain 01/30/2013 10:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I think as a libertarion the correct answer would be that Quoting: chowan government has no business in any marriage to begin with NONE but you did not have that in your poll So would it be OK for a brother to marry a sister or father marry a daughter? As long as it's a consensual contract between two adults I don't see what kind of argument can be successfully utilized against it. However if they then have deficient children they'd be on their own as in a libertarian paradigm, no one would be obliged to help them fund their bad decision making. Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
chowan User ID: 33359762 United States 01/30/2013 10:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I think as a libertarion the correct answer would be that Quoting: chowan government has no business in any marriage to begin with NONE but you did not have that in your poll So would it be OK for a brother to marry a sister or father marry a daughter? Its not ok to FK like that that has been taboo since we became civalised and no church i know of would marry under those circumstances so why do we need laws about marriage? ANSWER because the GOV has provided benefits to married people take away those benefits and let the churches do what they want. personally i think marriage is between a man and a woman with the idea they are going to raise childern together but GOV has no business in it sheell be right mate |
simultaneous_final (OP) User ID: 33292391 United States 01/30/2013 10:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I agree. Believe me, I have long searched for logical consistency in this matter. Quoting: simultaneous_final It's possible that we can settle this once and for all. Let's try to break it down: 1. Ability to imply or express consent is not inherent to all conscious beings at all times. example: trees, non-humans, infants, the mentally unsound LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION: What do the above examples have in common that make them unable to render consent? They don't possess the mental capacity or emotional stability--either temporarily due to other factors or permanently-- to be self-directed enough to make decisions in their own best interest. Well phrased. I disagree. The phrasing is too ambiguous. I would rephrase it as: They lack due diligence in decision making. I think I've hit the nail on the head here. Ability to consent is a matter of due diligence in the strictest sense. A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum. |
simultaneous_final (OP) User ID: 33292391 United States 01/30/2013 10:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I think as a libertarion the correct answer would be that Quoting: chowan government has no business in any marriage to begin with NONE but you did not have that in your poll Rights and government are concepts which are independent of one another. The poll does not ask for your thoughts on the LEGALITY or government endorsement of marriage. A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum. |
Manu-Koelbren User ID: 1312616 Spain 01/30/2013 10:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I agree. Believe me, I have long searched for logical consistency in this matter. Quoting: simultaneous_final It's possible that we can settle this once and for all. Let's try to break it down: 1. Ability to imply or express consent is not inherent to all conscious beings at all times. example: trees, non-humans, infants, the mentally unsound LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION: What do the above examples have in common that make them unable to render consent? They don't possess the mental capacity or emotional stability--either temporarily due to other factors or permanently-- to be self-directed enough to make decisions in their own best interest. Well phrased. I disagree. The phrasing is too ambiguous. I would rephrase it as: They lack due diligence in decision making. I think I've hit the nail on the head here. Ability to consent is a matter of due diligence in the strictest sense. But we're still plagued with the problem of how to decide at what precise point a human being gains this due diligence to make decisions. Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
chowan User ID: 33359762 United States 01/30/2013 10:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I think as a libertarion the correct answer would be that Quoting: chowan government has no business in any marriage to begin with NONE but you did not have that in your poll Rights and government are concepts which are independent of one another. The poll does not ask for your thoughts on the LEGALITY or government endorsement of marriage. cant be to independent of one another since we apparently adopted government to protect our rights? sheell be right mate |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25128934 United States 01/30/2013 10:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I think as a libertarion the correct answer would be that Quoting: chowan government has no business in any marriage to begin with NONE but you did not have that in your poll So would it be OK for a brother to marry a sister or father marry a daughter? Its not ok to FK like that that has been taboo since we became civalised and no church i know of would marry under those circumstances so why do we need laws about marriage? ANSWER because the GOV has provided benefits to married people take away those benefits and let the churches do what they want. personally i think marriage is between a man and a woman with the idea they are going to raise childern together but GOV has no business in it But it is a representative government, is it not. Government has created that legal institution (contract) to reflect society's belief that it is societally beneficial. Societies have been recognizing the joining of man and wife in marriage for thousands of years. Additionally government, through the representative process, has set boundaries to prohibit the privilege of marriage to couplings that serve no societal benefit, such as a brother / sister or father / daughter. Could you imagine the generational inbreeding in isolated rural areas if such laws did not exist and the societal consequences of such inbreeding? Societies do have the ability to set boundaries for themselves in situations of self-governance. |
simultaneous_final (OP) User ID: 33292391 United States 01/30/2013 10:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Ralph--a house dog They don't possess the mental capacity or emotional stability--either temporarily due to other factors or permanently-- to be self-directed enough to make decisions in their own best interest. Well phrased. I disagree. The phrasing is too ambiguous. I would rephrase it as: They lack due diligence in decision making. I think I've hit the nail on the head here. Ability to consent is a matter of due diligence in the strictest sense. But we're still plagued with the problem of how to decide at what precise point a human being gains this due diligence to make decisions. Due diligence is not something that is gained but rather PERFORMED on a case-to-case basis. A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum. |
simultaneous_final (OP) User ID: 33292391 United States 01/30/2013 10:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I think as a libertarion the correct answer would be that Quoting: chowan government has no business in any marriage to begin with NONE but you did not have that in your poll Rights and government are concepts which are independent of one another. The poll does not ask for your thoughts on the LEGALITY or government endorsement of marriage. cant be to independent of one another since we apparently adopted government to protect our rights? You can adopt mustard to enhance your sandwich but sandwiches are fine without it. A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum. |
Manu-Koelbren User ID: 1312616 Spain 01/30/2013 10:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I think as a libertarion the correct answer would be that Quoting: chowan government has no business in any marriage to begin with NONE but you did not have that in your poll So would it be OK for a brother to marry a sister or father marry a daughter? Its not ok to FK like that that has been taboo since we became civalised and no church i know of would marry under those circumstances so why do we need laws about marriage? ANSWER because the GOV has provided benefits to married people take away those benefits and let the churches do what they want. personally i think marriage is between a man and a woman with the idea they are going to raise childern together but GOV has no business in it But it is a representative government, is it not. Government has created that legal institution (contract) to reflect society's belief that it is societally beneficial. Societies have been recognizing the joining of man and wife in marriage for thousands of years. Additionally government, through the representative process, has set boundaries to prohibit the privilege of marriage to couplings that serve no societal benefit, such as a brother / sister or father / daughter. Could you imagine the generational inbreeding in isolated rural areas if such laws did not exist and the societal consequences of such inbreeding? Societies do have the ability to set boundaries for themselves in situations of self-governance. You can't base laws on what serves societal benefit, people are no obliged to exist to serve society, but they don't have a right to expect society to mend their mistakes either. Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
Manu-Koelbren User ID: 1312616 Spain 01/30/2013 10:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I disagree. The phrasing is too ambiguous. I would rephrase it as: They lack due diligence in decision making. I think I've hit the nail on the head here. Ability to consent is a matter of due diligence in the strictest sense. But we're still plagued with the problem of how to decide at what precise point a human being gains this due diligence to make decisions. Due diligence is not something that is gained but rather PERFORMED on a case-to-case basis. That still serves us for nothing in our pedophile agenda example. A pedo will ask, how can you assess unequivocally when a minor is ready or not to have consensual sex? What do you answer him? Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
simultaneous_final (OP) User ID: 33292391 United States 01/30/2013 10:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I disagree. The phrasing is too ambiguous. I would rephrase it as: They lack due diligence in decision making. I think I've hit the nail on the head here. Ability to consent is a matter of due diligence in the strictest sense. But we're still plagued with the problem of how to decide at what precise point a human being gains this due diligence to make decisions. Due diligence is not something that is gained but rather PERFORMED on a case-to-case basis. But with that said, we're back to the same problem. Due Diligence can lead to "informed consent" but it's still pretty difficult for me to say a twelve year old can give informed consent--even if they provide proof of due diligence. Seriously, man--this is a tough and interesting problem. But I'm not ready to concede to the pedos yet. We have to be missing something. I'm determined to figure this out. Last Edited by simultaneous_final on 01/30/2013 11:06 PM A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum. |
chowan User ID: 33359762 United States 01/30/2013 11:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I think as a libertarion the correct answer would be that Quoting: chowan government has no business in any marriage to begin with NONE but you did not have that in your poll So would it be OK for a brother to marry a sister or father marry a daughter? Its not ok to FK like that that has been taboo since we became civalised and no church i know of would marry under those circumstances so why do we need laws about marriage? ANSWER because the GOV has provided benefits to married people take away those benefits and let the churches do what they want. personally i think marriage is between a man and a woman with the idea they are going to raise childern together but GOV has no business in it But it is a representative government, is it not. Government has created that legal institution (contract) to reflect society's belief that it is societally beneficial. Societies have been recognizing the joining of man and wife in marriage for thousands of years. Additionally government, through the representative process, has set boundaries to prohibit the privilege of marriage to couplings that serve no societal benefit, such as a brother / sister or father / daughter. Could you imagine the generational inbreeding in isolated rural areas if such laws did not exist and the societal consequences of such inbreeding? Societies do have the ability to set boundaries for themselves in situations of self-governance. At best its a states rights issue let them set these boundries do what they want if they want to it should not be a federal GOV issue. The fed GOV was instituted to protect our basic rights and freedoms not to provide benefits to what is deemed to be of societal benefit just look back at prohabition and how well that went.It was for societal benefit as well. sheell be right mate |
Manu-Koelbren User ID: 1312616 Spain 01/30/2013 11:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: simultaneous_final I disagree. The phrasing is too ambiguous. I would rephrase it as: They lack due diligence in decision making. I think I've hit the nail on the head here. Ability to consent is a matter of due diligence in the strictest sense. But we're still plagued with the problem of how to decide at what precise point a human being gains this due diligence to make decisions. Due diligence is not something that is gained but rather PERFORMED on a case-to-case basis. But with that said, we're back to the same problem. Due Diligence can lead to "informed consent" but it's still pretty difficult for me to say a twelve year old can give informed consent--even if they provide proof of due diligence. Seriously, man--this is a tough and interesting problem. But I'm not ready to concede to the pesos yet. We have to be missing something. I'm determined to figure this out. Yeah, it's nice to team with someone else to brainstorm about it. Still the definitive moment is when you're faced by one of these smart ass pedos who drive you to the point of becoming mad like a religious minded freak. Those who have made me feel the most impotent regarding my arguments have been pedos arguing for their right of molesting children. I've ended up calling them degenerate pieces of shit and dropped the argument with the consequent feeling of having been a bigot with no valid argument. Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
simultaneous_final (OP) User ID: 33292391 United States 01/30/2013 11:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Manu-Koelbren But we're still plagued with the problem of how to decide at what precise point a human being gains this due diligence to make decisions. Due diligence is not something that is gained but rather PERFORMED on a case-to-case basis. But with that said, we're back to the same problem. Due Diligence can lead to "informed consent" but it's still pretty difficult for me to say a twelve year old can give informed consent--even if they provide proof of due diligence. Seriously, man--this is a tough and interesting problem. But I'm not ready to concede to the pesos yet. We have to be missing something. I'm determined to figure this out. Yeah, it's nice to team with someone else to brainstorm about it. Still the definitive moment is when you're faced by one of these smart ass pedos who drive you to the point of becoming mad like a religious minded freak. Those who have made me feel the most impotent regarding my arguments have been pedos arguing for their right of molesting children. I've ended up calling them degenerate pieces of shit and dropped the argument with the consequent feeling of having been a bigot with no valid argument. Dude, I have been there! To make arguments based on rhetoric is not an option for intellectually-honest people. It sounds like you strive for that goal as much as I do. We don't want to caught using bias (easily falsifiable) to "support" our arguments. I'm still not ready to give up on this. Give me some time. I think that I'm missing something very fundamental. I will certainly PM you when I get this sorted (or on the right track, at least). A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum. |
Manu-Koelbren User ID: 1312616 Spain 01/30/2013 11:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: simultaneous_final Due diligence is not something that is gained but rather PERFORMED on a case-to-case basis. But with that said, we're back to the same problem. Due Diligence can lead to "informed consent" but it's still pretty difficult for me to say a twelve year old can give informed consent--even if they provide proof of due diligence. Seriously, man--this is a tough and interesting problem. But I'm not ready to concede to the pesos yet. We have to be missing something. I'm determined to figure this out. Yeah, it's nice to team with someone else to brainstorm about it. Still the definitive moment is when you're faced by one of these smart ass pedos who drive you to the point of becoming mad like a religious minded freak. Those who have made me feel the most impotent regarding my arguments have been pedos arguing for their right of molesting children. I've ended up calling them degenerate pieces of shit and dropped the argument with the consequent feeling of having been a bigot with no valid argument. Dude, I have been there! To make arguments based on rhetoric is not an option for intellectually-honest people. It sounds like you strive for that goal as much as I do. We don't want to caught using bias (easily falsifiable) to "support" our arguments. I'm still not ready to give up on this. Give me some time. I think that I'm missing something very fundamental. I will certainly PM you when I get this sorted (or on the right track, at least). Yeah let me know definitely, I will make my best effort to detect any flaws in whatever you present until perchance we may arrive to the goal ;) Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
Puffs User ID: 33305956 United States 01/30/2013 11:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
simultaneous_final (OP) User ID: 33292391 United States 01/30/2013 11:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | A Libertarian would never agree that the government has any business in marriage of any sort, that a license to marry is just another excuse to collect tax and exert control. The question is really for people who are not libertarian. Quoting: Puffs Again, this poll does not imply ANYTHING about the government or its endorsement of right. It asks about RIGHTS. Nothing more or less. A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum. |
AdamCanFly User ID: 15844838 United States 01/30/2013 11:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |