Yeah… ok. So living in American now is “tyranny” because gay people can get married. Got it.
On another but related note, Ayn Rand is probably the worst thing that ever happened to America (yes I’m being hyperbolic here, but not entirely).
Oh yeah, this guy also thinks global warming is a “hoax”, same as Trump believes.
Lol.
Libertarians typically are for gay marriage and even a disregard of marriage. If your against it, your against the freedom of making your own choices Libertarians espouse. Only thing they are opposed to is high taxes and bad roads and a weak military.
I’m not a Libertarian, but was hired to guard several of their rallies, and knew a lot from the military. They aren’t quite Paleo-Conservative, but your Patrick Henry quote does show they have occasional awareness of the classics. Just, they sit far too much on Alexander Hamilton’s way of thinking, ally too closely and dogmatically with Austrian Economics to suggest they are thinking strategically, they are within the confines of a system, not outside of them.
Besides, Patrick Henry was the first US Governor where I live currently, I’ve done a lot of research on h, he was no libertarian. None of the founding fathers were. It is Avery American ideology, of all the mainstream ways of thinking it is perhaps the closest to how we once were, but it is too business minded. Jeffersonian Democracy lost out (farmers republic, where landowners voted, but most everyone was a small landowner) to Hamilton, we became far more federalized (look up the Federalist, Anti-Federalist debates) ironically after the Anti-Federalists (they are the Democratic Party) won, which is rather ironic.
Just, the founding fathers largely stuck to the classic western tradition of marriage, as it is the only system that reliably worked long term. You veer from it, the population starts breaking down, as it is in Canada and Western Europe. It has a lot of similarities with the Confucian system of Filial family patterns. Romulus, founder of Rome, set up the basics of our system. If was further solidified when the Romans rebeled against the Tarwuins when Lucretia was raped for her devotion to her husband. Emperor Augustus further solidified it, and it matured under feudalism, with it’s emphasis on avoiding close marriage, and preserving the population (was plague prone).
There is no such thing as gay rights, there isn’t inherently anything essential in gay marriage essential to the survival of the human race, no way to argue otherwise through crazy, shaky syllogisms, that’s the obvious proof- gay guys can’t make babies. It is in a Dawkings-Farwinian sense, a potentially expensive luxury. If there is a selfish gene, and if convergent evolution does exist, even if you completely stamp out docalked anti-gay bigotry, it will return rather fast, as it is a bigotry healthy to the gene pool, if so called “gay genes” do exist and are inheritable. We would expect it to arise again and again in our species even if we select for this bigotry to cease, and alien species that reproduce sexually on other planets somewhat similar to us, with emotions, would likely follow this pattern.
Now, stating it as a luxury, not a right, it is absolutely no right, as a luxury, some societies can tolerate it better than others.
Imagine if there was a plague, and for whatever bizarre reason, only the militantly, most obvious as fuck gay people survived, the kind that absolutely refuse to have kids, just want to fuck and do drugs in sterile, irresponsible bliss. There are just a few hundred left, hurdled together by what remained of the CDC, before those doctors died.
That is a society that couldn’t tolerate pure homosexuality anymore, nobody would have a “right” to be gay. Bisexual perhaps, but not outright gay. They would have to have hereosexual sex, and make babies, and all that could, would have to do it to ensure the most genes possible could enter the now very limited genrpool. Gay Marriage isn’t a right, only Heterosexual Sex is, or Extinction. If some crack head gays tried to refuse it, the rest of the humans would be completely in their rights, as humans trying to survive extinction- a very real extinction, by chasing them down and raping them, forcing pregnancies under guard.
There would be no right to gay, no right to abortions, or castration or condoms, or any other Nietzschean antic.
You hit the other end of the spectrum- Chine with way too many fucking people, or Nigeria, expected to have over a billion people before the century is out… Fuck, it is a luxury society could indulge in. They grew out of societies that repeatedly collapsed until a stable marriage system was incorporated into the ideology of the state in ancient and medieval times. They don’t want gays, but they are in a position to benifit from this voluntary population reduction the most.
States that shouldn’t be gay:
Massive population decline, your liberal areas, where people like you are the majority. Canada needs to immediately ban it, Scandinavia needs to ban it, Western Europe , Russia, and Central Asia.
States that really should be more gay:
China, India, Pakistan, Half of Africa, big chunk of the Middle East, Brazil, Indonesia.
Fucking notice the Irony, only a handful of states are doing the right thing. In Russia, it is banned, they went do far ad to justly imprison people like you Would who spread gay propaganda. India doesn’t give a fuck about gay people either, they don’t blink in the eyes of gay people in society. Rest on those lists, they take a very unhealthy path, making their situation worst.
Goal isn’t done academic figment of a made up, unnatural right that doesn’t exist, but the health and balance of entire societies, so we don’t have to force abortions and make second class citizens of second child’s like China had to for so long, or get to the point if mandating baby making like Russia did. You don’t encourage baby making like Hitler or Mao did for the successful future of the fatherland, they is a delicate ratio between the population and your national tactical synthesis, if you go under or over, you get weak troops, or far worst, too many, and either invite wars from weakness, or embark on reckless wars from overconfidence, leading inevitably to defeat with weaker troop deployments and lower levels of insight in your massive officer corps. In history, we’ve lost men on one side upwards to a million men in one battle alone, it isn’t uncommon in the ancient or modern world to see such waste and disregard for life.
You don’t want a system of national infanticide, like Carthage had with child sacrifice, or as the west now does similarly with abortions, it really cheapens human life and the family into commodities, and not essential bonds. A mother and a father is all we have in common, it is better to strengthen it. Patents shouldn’t kill their children anymore than children kill their elderly parents. Both are equally abhorrent, and contribute greatly to the ills of society.
That is not a libertarian position. Someone like Mr. Reasonable is closer to the Libertarian position. Founding fathers suck to the traditional Christian conceptions, and Christians stuck to the pagan system inherited from the Romans, because that worked best then and now. Similar successful systems have a lot of parallel traits. It is rare to find a traditional society fully accepting of homosexuality. We all cone from traditional societies. And no, Wyld, your not a genius who knows better. You really are not.
I can tolerate gay marriage because we have just under 300 million living in the US. What I can’t tolerate is the unconstitutional way it came about, bring illegally forced on everyone without a national law passed in the US. It remains illegal, and will eventually be accidentally made illegal once again when the court reassets that only Congress, not the Supreme Court, has legislative supremacy UNDER the constitution, that judged are not ABOVE the constitution, as per the constitution that dictates the forms and functions of the various modes of government. Eventually, a crisis will emerge, this will be asserted, and then gay marriage will be repealed, only some of the country has legal laws passed legalizing it. It will remain legal there, but not in the rest. Why? Literally no right to marriage to begin with, even for straight people, both in reality, and de jure. It only exists nationally on a forced, defacto level, outside the scope of the law, not in any legal national law code. It isn’t anywhere in the constitution either. It can evaporate in a instant, and so many supreme court decision do in later courts when they realize another set of principles override former rulings. Mist you can hope for is that most of the US will then legalize gay marriage.
But even then, even in a De Jure sense, it won’t be a inherent human right. If society is on the fast population decline, it is natural for it to be suppressed, and every effort placed on reproduction, to be fruitful and multiply. Some societies right now have to do this, others have the luxury to indulge, yet don’t. This leads to wars, like in Rwanda’s explosive genocide. I will take a society full of cocksuckers over a society of swinging machetes any day.
If you disagree, you hate humanity, and are evil.
Turd, currently, libertarians are people who are funded by the koch brothers. They want corporations to have the liberty to do whatever they can with their money and for the government not to stand in the way, even if it hurts the people of the country. The deregulation types fall into that category. The small government types fall into that category.
It sounds great the whole idea of you not hurting anyone and no one hurting you. But they kinda just do the whole you don’t hurt them and it’s ok if they hurt you.
Like what do you think of nestle taking all the water from the national parks and selling it to people who’s wells have run dry downstream in the town?
The fucking Swiss, man. I dont know what got into them, or when, but they come up with the insanest ambitions.
I’m not a libertarian. I’m not even firmly in the capitalist camp. It’s the best system, but I’m not thrilled with some ways of justified thinking.
Ad to the Swiss, seriously, fuck them. If it is true Nestle is working on making a replicator like in Star Trek, good for them, but I seriously have my douts they can pull it off.
I’m not scared of the Koch Brothers. They got billions, I got breach gear. It’s only a fear for guys like you because you watch far left media. Still, you literally are the closest example on this forum to a Libertarian (not me). Your arguments for selling drugs, being a worthless crack head going on voyeur tourism of the haunts of the rich only makes sense in a libertarian mindset. In mine, a judge would take pity on you and chop your dick off. In Libertarianism, your a hero. Your like a little Koch Brother, a dingleberry hanging off one of their chodes. You are the Choden One, the one the prophecies for told.
Wrong.
I know you are but what am I?
All of you political junkies of all different stripes are idiots. Just saying…
This is what I call concise philosophy.
You can say this in Turds presence at any time, and it will be an aphorism. It applies in all directions.
That’s the number 1 lesson that they try and teach students in English 101. Then you get good at is and a bunch of assholes on a forum get upset that you wont humor them with a long winded stupid response.
Generally speaking, the more words you have to use to make your point, the more likely that you’re full of shit.
This is also exactly why Libertarianism; fewer laws give the state a smaller chance of being full of shit.
I’m all about having the simplest explanation possible, but sometimes even the simplest ones, to be adequate, must be complex.