@Earl-of-Trumps
One thing you all forget is some laws are actually in the interest of the common man, like preventing shytebrain companies from dumping caustic poisons into our rivers which happened daily in century 19 and 20 and some even now.
A lot of laws deal with companies who want to cut corners and dump in the woods and the like.
Some of those kind of laws are incredibly important to enforce otherwise our air, our water, our food, will all be more contaminated than they are right now.
You dudes want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
@sonhouse saidNo, I do not want all those laws thrown out.
@Earl-of-Trumps
One thing you all forget is some laws are actually in the interest of the common man, like preventing shytebrain companies from dumping caustic poisons into our rivers which happened daily in century 19 and 20 and some even now.
A lot of laws deal with companies who want to cut corners and dump in the woods and the like.
Some of those kind of laws are ...[text shortened]... re contaminated than they are right now.
You dudes want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Destroying the water/air can easily be construed as a crime under Libertarian view.
@earl-of-trumps saidSo the libertarian would oppose any law that interfered with the relations, commercial and private, between individuals or individuals and commercial entities?
No, I do not want all those laws thrown out.
Destroying the water/air can easily be construed as a crime under Libertarian view.
So you would oppose employment laws ( other than H & S standards ) and you would support the Christian baker on the gay wedding cake issue but you would oppose marital law if it disbarred same sex couples?
@kevcvs57 said - So the libertarian would oppose any law that interfered with the relations, commercial and private, between individuals or individuals and commercial entities?
Just about, yes. As long as those aforementioned were not doing harm to people
and/or their property. But obviously, the laws you refer to would have to be examined on a separate basis.
So you would oppose employment laws ( other than H & S standards ) and you would support the Christian baker on the gay wedding cake issue but you would oppose marital law if it disbarred same sex couples?
Correct. We must remember that the right to run a business is not always exercised
to make a profit or to make other people happy. It is about freedom. Yes, the Christian
baker is not a SLAVE. He has a right to determine what work he does, much like
anyone else.
The government should not be involved with marriage at all. Marriage is a ceremony
determined by societal norms.
@earl-of-trumps said"The government should not be involved with marriage at all."
@kevcvs57 said - So the libertarian would oppose any law that interfered with the relations, commercial and private, between individuals or individuals and commercial entities?
[b]Just about, yes. As long as those aforementioned were not doing harm to people
and/or their property. But obviously, the laws you refer to would have to be examined on a separate ba ...[text shortened]... t should not be involved with marriage at all. Marriage is a ceremony
determined by societal norms.
How do you feel about two brothers/sisters/mother/daughter/father marrying?
@mott-the-hoople saidI think humanity does a pretty good job of sorting that out.
"The government should not be involved with marriage at all."
How do you feel about two brothers/sisters/mother/daughter marrying?
But that doesn't really happen, does it.
What is your real target ? In terms of who can marry who ?
While we're at it, we can have a conversation about keeping separation of church and state intact.
What say you ?
@mghrn55 saidwhy did you dodge the question?
I think humanity does a pretty good job of sorting that out.
But that doesn't really happen, does it.
What is your real target ? In terms of who can marry who ?
While we're at it, we can have a conversation about keeping separation of church and state intact.
What say you ?
@sonhouse saidso neither of you will answer my question?
@Mott-The-Hoople
He didn't dodge the question, his answer was above your mental pay grade.
@mott-the-hoople saidIt was a stupid question.
why did you dodge the question?
I didn’t dodge it. It was a dud question that landed at my feet like a dead fish.
I just didn’t bother to pick it up.
@mott-the-hoople saidLogical to you. That bar is set pretty low.
its a very logical question. you want the govt to tell them no but tell you yes. your hypocrisy is showing
@mott-the-hoople saidIt's a civil ceremony.
"The government should not be involved with marriage at all."
How do you feel about two brothers/sisters/mother/daughter/father marrying?
If you can find a minister to marry two brother, then fine. No skin off my nose.
There is a problem, however, with incest. Surely that can be construed as child abuse
if a retarded or deformed child is birthed this way.
Also, if two women want to marry each other, no problem! And if some people will
not recognize the "marriage"...? Still no problem. Tough. It is not a criminal offense
as to what one recognizes or does not. Marriage has never been a federally governed
rite and it should never have started such governance with gay marriage
Sticky situation but the less big gov has to do with it the better.
@mott-the-hoople saidThere are specific harmful outcomes from close relatives having children but if your talking about a platonic relationship formalised and recognised by law and the wider community then no I dint think the govt should tell them not to, why should anyone have an issue with that.
its a very logical question. you want the govt to tell them no but tell you yes. your hypocrisy is showing