What laws supported by libertarians would forbid your loving another person?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Democrate part is communist
- Thread starter Jollybear
- Start date
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Right. No real libertarian by definition would oppose liberties for LGBTs.
Jollybear
Hey
Ya.......less regulation, less taxes = more liberty. Pretty dam simple equation, isnt it?
And all that equals LESS "authofitarianism" and less fascism.
More regulations and more taxes = "authoritarianism" and that = fascism and communism.
Your defying pure common sense, logic, meaning of words. Its mind blowing.
I just gave you the equation.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I did. It nodded in agreement.
No, the point remains. Republicans have always opposed rights, liberty, equality, and justice for LGBTs.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Jollybear
Hey
How can you say republicans opposed rights and liberty?
How? Tell me how your looking at this and how you see that?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Are you not aware that most that opposed marriage equality were Republicans?
Jollybear
Hey
Republicans gave states rights on it. But, yes, most believe its between a man and woman due to children having a ballence of a mother and father figure. But, they still gave states rights on the issue.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There is no excuse to give state rights over a human rights issue. By saying that you already admitted that Republicans opposed the rights of others. And then you added to that admission.
I was hoping that you would deny the obvious since I was ready to support my claims.
So, now you have admitted that Republicans opposed the rights of others. Tell me, when did the Democrats do so?
Shad
Veteran Member
What is common good exactly? There are people in Ontario claiming internet access and paid vacations are human rights which government must provide if an individual can not.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Actually I was thinking of pork barrel and special interest lobbys replacing the constituency.
I'm defending neither. I consider myself to be a classical Liberal. Capitalism is a part of that political ideology, but so is the realization (which libertarians ignore) that there are personal and social values in the world other than individual liberty. People also value “the pursuit of social justice, equity, community, virtue … pluralism, material well-being, or any number of concerns that animate people,” besides unrestrained personal freedom. Your only value seems to be personal freedom, with no concern for anything or anyone else.
Jollybear
Hey
I dont believe in "social justice" i believe in JUSTICE.
The world is unfair, but WE should personally be fair.
Community should be voluntary between similar people forming groups. It should not be forced.
If people want to be compassionat and generious, they can, voluntarily. If not, they should be free to be.
I believe we should be free and that means we take personal responsibility for the concern of other people. Government should not be forcing us to be concerned for others.
Jollybear
Hey
Your looking at this in a oversimplified way. You got to think deeper then this.
The reality is, the LBGT has a right to work, get healthcare, get social security, be with any sex they want. That was always there, just like for the others.
What those specific republicans (because, yep, not all republicans believed the same) wanted to insure is states rights, as in, to make sure same sex marriege laws for example would not infringe on the right of priests, ministers or pastors to say no to marrying them.
Thats a real issue.
Peoples beliefs, as well as there practices must be free.
And you asked about democrats taking rights? Yea, they wer the party of slavery.
Most of them voted against the civil rights act as well.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You really are quite unaware of history. And pastors still do not need to marry gay people. But it was the Republicans that largely opposed marriage equality. And historically it was the Republicans that were in opposition to gay rights.
Jollybear
Hey
O’Rourke says churches against gay marriage should lose tax benefits, draws backlash
A democrate that proposes churches be forced to marry gays or lose tax excemption. Good thing he quit the race, lol.
Most repubs may have opposed the marriege, but, obviously gays could still live together and have sex.
Prometheus85
Active Member
Did it ever occur to you that any regulations were enacted to protect the public, or that such regulations do protect the public? Your deregulation equals liberty argument also proves a grievous error in the case of quacks and hucksters who are just out to swindle people. Just like how regulation can be counter-productive to fairness and competition, wanton deregulation can also lead to economic ills. The most productive countries in the world also have the shortest work-hours, and when Sweden implemented a six-hour workday worker productivity, satisfaction, and revenue increased, while turnover and absenteeism decreased. Similarly, rent control is deemed necessary in New York State to keep key workers from leaving particular areas, while it has also been argued that rent regulation incentivizes tenants to upgrade and maintain their homes as opposed to keeping them squalid so landlords can't claim the added value for themselves. Completely ripping apart good regulations can then blow up in the face of free marketers! You’re a proponent of the free-market right Jollybear? at best, workers become sluggish, strike more often, and end up trashing their apartments as they move out of viable city sectors; at worst, you can end up getting a financial apocalypse! You remember the rescission of 2007?
and as far as taxes go, what’s your ethical position on taxes besides something as vague as liberty? Because you do know the government has the LEGAL right to tax
Prometheus85
Active Member
all those democrats that voted against civil rights were southern conservatives (right wing) and it was a democratic president (LBJ New dealer liberal) that sign the bill into law.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He was on the right track.but he used the wrong reasoning. But thanks for admitting that Republicans have been against equal rights for gays.
