PDA

View Full Version : Huntsman declares GOP needs a "a strong dose of libertarianism", then ignores Rand Paul




compromise
01-03-2013, 08:00 AM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/jon-huntsman-gop-is-devoid-of-a-soul-needs-strong-dose-of-libertarianism/

Former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman took a critical look at his own party, asserting that it is “devoid of a soul.” In a lengthy interview with the UK’s Daily Telegraph, Huntsman elaborated on what he viewed as missteps, and offered some advice going forward.

It’s “troubling” that the party currently doesn’t have a leader or a “defined agenda.” But the good news, he said, is “that will come in time” through the “reformation process.” The GOP must “return the system to the people,” Huntsman argued.

In particular, he noted that the party would do well to embrace a “strong dose of libertarianism.” On social issues specifically, Huntsman said state governments should “absolutely” be able to implement gay marriage.

Recalling the Republican primary race, during which he was a candidate, Huntsman said the process didn’t favor “long-term competitive candidates,” who would have fared better against Democrats.

“The party right now is a holding company that’s devoid of a soul and it will be filled up with ideas over time and leaders will take their proper place,” he said. “We can’t be known as a party that’s fear-based and doesn’t believe in math.”

“In the end it will come down to a party that believes in opportunity for all our people, economic competitiveness and a strong dose of libertarianism,” he said.

Speaking of the future, Huntsman refused to name names when it came to which rising Republican stars he supports. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Mitt Romney‘s former running mate Congressman Paul Ryan “all deserve high marks individually,” he said — but the GOP must go through “a very competitive process in terms of ideas.”

Kinda weird to say the GOP needs a dose of libertarianism, then mention every 2016 candidate other than the libertarian.

FrankRep
01-03-2013, 08:18 AM
On social issues specifically, Huntsman said state governments should “absolutely” be able to implement gay marriage.


Rand Paul doesn't support gay marriage. The government doesn't have the power or authority to redefine the definition of "marriage."

Ron Paul agrees.


Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

Brett85
01-03-2013, 08:19 AM
Huntsman probably thinks that the GOP should support "gay marriage" but still support the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the war on drugs and every other big government policy that they currently support.

FrankRep
01-03-2013, 08:25 AM
Technically, the "libertarian" solution is to get the Federal Government out of the marriage business.

Jon Huntsman is an idiot.

juleswin
01-03-2013, 08:37 AM
Technically, the "libertarian" solution is to get the Federal Government out of the marriage business.

Jon Huntsman is an idiot.

Yup and Rand is wrong on this issue too. You see him fighting for tax cuts for everyone because that is the fair thing to do, he knows that the privilege of getting your taxes cut should be extended to ALL Americans because it is good and fair. In that same manner, you extend the marriage privilege to everyone who wants it until govt decided to exit the business.

Just like my idea with taxes, you want to make it as painful and uncomfortable to those that do not support gay marriage so they push their elected officials to get the govt out of the marriage business.

FrankRep
01-03-2013, 08:42 AM
Yup and Rand is wrong on this issue too.
I support Rand Paul and Ron Paul on this issue.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
01-03-2013, 08:44 AM
Government sanctioned "gay marriage" isn't "libertarian".

Allowing free association without government "approval" is libertarian.

July
01-03-2013, 08:53 AM
Chris Christie....yes just the name that comes to mind when I think "libertarianism". :rolleyes:

Ok I get how Rubio and Ryan could be seen as sort of faux libertarian types...but Christie? Uh no. Unless, he meant to say that while these were good candidates...there needs to be more libertarianism in the GOP. But if that isn't Rubio, Ryan, or Christie, then...

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 09:02 AM
Rand Paul doesn't support gay marriage. The government doesn't have the power or authority to redefine the definition of "marriage."

Ron Paul agrees.


Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

Being wrong and having the last name Paul isn't any different than being wrong and not having the name Paul. Do you let other people define your positions?

seraphson
01-03-2013, 09:18 AM
Wasn't Huntsmen that guy that made the really dumb Kurt Cobain "joke/reference" during the debates?

jtstellar
01-03-2013, 11:33 AM
fuck, hello? there's a social wing of libertarianism, do you forget? why do you always forget? huntsman is for federally force-accepted gay marriage across all states and he thinks that makes him special, and he (like many others) call that libertarianism and thinks that alone means libertarianism. when do you idiots stop being naive? how do you gloss over social libertarianism? you miss LP? idiots

trey4sports
01-03-2013, 11:36 AM
Huntsman wasn't great but still much better than santorum and his ilk.

thoughtomator
01-03-2013, 12:11 PM
Maybe a false flag video at a key moment in the primaries would help to advance the cause of libertarianism, Mr. Huntsman.

Romulus
01-03-2013, 12:13 PM
Huntsman is an idiot... doest get libertarianism.

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 12:17 PM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/jon-huntsman-gop-is-devoid-of-a-soul-needs-strong-dose-of-libertarianism/


Kinda weird to say the GOP needs a dose of libertarianism, then mention every 2016 candidate other than the libertarian.

C-O-O-P-T, that's how we undermine ideology

acptulsa
01-03-2013, 12:20 PM
C-O-O-P-T, that's how we undermine ideology


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgIvRgv6bAk

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 12:20 PM
Government sanctioned "gay marriage" isn't "libertarian".

Allowing free association without government "approval" is libertarian.

This is Judge Napalitano's view, and is the constitutional and (IMO) correct view.

Though it was a case of interracial marriage, it was ruled that the government cannot forbid individuals from forming a union on the basis of discrimination.

twomp
01-03-2013, 12:37 PM
fuck, hello? there's a social wing of libertarianism, do you forget? why do you always forget? huntsman is for federally force-accepted gay marriage across all states and he thinks that makes him special, and he (like many others) call that libertarianism and thinks that alone means libertarianism. when do you idiots stop being naive? how do you gloss over social libertarianism? you miss LP? idiots

Federally force-accepted gay marriage?? So if you feel that the government should give that piece of paper that says your married to gay couples, it is somehow forcing YOU to accept it? Get real.

The government SHOULD NOT have the power to issue marriage licenses and if it does, they should be able to give it to gay couples as well. Please tell me how giving a gay couple a marriage license affects your life in any way?

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 12:39 PM
Federally force-accepted gay marriage?? So if you feel that the government should give that piece of paper that says your married to gay couples, it is somehow forcing YOU to accept it? Get real.

The government SHOULD NOT have the power to issue marriage licenses and if it does, they should be able to give it to gay couples as well. Please tell me how giving a gay couple a marriage license affects your life in any way?

It doesn't and it's very simple. Leave it up to the churches who they wish to marry, get the government out of defining marriage and go back to it's legitimate purpose of enforcing civil union contracts (even jsut call them all civil unions, so nothing is being defined as marriage, just enforcing a union contract between the two). Then everybody wins and I can stop hearing about what some Christian guy who makes chicken sandwiches thinks about it.

ninepointfive
01-03-2013, 12:46 PM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/jon-huntsman-gop-is-devoid-of-a-soul-needs-strong-dose-of-libertarianism/


Kinda weird to say the GOP needs a dose of libertarianism, then mention every 2016 candidate other than the libertarian.

yeah, it's because they are actively wanting to redefine the term libertarian in the mind of the general public.

Brett85
01-03-2013, 12:50 PM
Yup and Rand is wrong on this issue too. You see him fighting for tax cuts for everyone because that is the fair thing to do, he knows that the privilege of getting your taxes cut should be extended to ALL Americans because it is good and fair.

I don't think that Rand would vote against a tax cut just because it didn't include all Americans.

oyarde
01-03-2013, 12:53 PM
Huntsman cannot fool me , he is really a Democrat.

Dr.3D
01-03-2013, 12:58 PM
I agree, the GOP does need a strong dose of something, I'm guessing it needs a strong dose of Ex-lax.

Spikender
01-03-2013, 01:00 PM
It's always golden when the irrelevant try to become relevant again. Unfortunately for Huntsman, he said nothing of value and obviously doesn't understand libertarianism, which is why this particular little moment in the spotlight won't last very long. Then again, I guess the point of this little statement was to poison the well and make people associate libertarians with the likes of Rubio and Ryan. The very thought of either of those two being libertarian is a real knee-slapper, and don't even get me started on Huntsman associating Christie with libertarians.

juleswin
01-03-2013, 01:10 PM
I don't think that Rand would vote against a tax cut just because it didn't include all Americans.

True, but he will passionately speak up for the ones not receiving the tax cut. This is not the 1st time that govt has forced a new definition of marriage on the people, interracial marriages used to be illegal just like gay marriages until fed and state govts started recognizing them. If they can do it for interracial couples, they can do the same for gay marriages.

One more question, will it be OK with you if Rand was against interracial marriages between consenting adults? We all have to bend our libertarian ideology to fit the reality of our time and that means supporting gay marriage until govt is completely out of the marriage business

Brett85
01-03-2013, 01:14 PM
One more question, will it be OK with you if Rand was against interracial marriages between consenting adults?

I certainly wouldn't be ok with Rand having the position that the police should imprison an interracial couple for having their own private marriage ceremony, and I wouldn't be ok with Rand having the position that the police should imprison a gay couple for having their own private marriage ceremony. However, that isn't Rand's position, and gay marriage is already decriminalized nationwide.

juleswin
01-03-2013, 01:21 PM
I certainly wouldn't be ok with Rand having the position that the police should imprison an interracial couple for having their own private marriage ceremony, and I wouldn't be ok with Rand having the position that the police should imprison a gay couple for having their own private marriage ceremony. However, that isn't Rand's position, and gay marriage is already decriminalized nationwide.

How about Rand being in opposition of the federal govt accepting union contracts between 2 people from different races and granting them all the govt privileges that come with marriage? Would that be OK with you?

juleswin
01-03-2013, 01:21 PM
I certainly wouldn't be ok with Rand having the position that the police should imprison an interracial couple for having their own private marriage ceremony, and I wouldn't be ok with Rand having the position that the police should imprison a gay couple for having their own private marriage ceremony. However, that isn't Rand's position, and gay marriage is already decriminalized nationwide.

How about Rand being in opposition of the federal govt accepting union contracts between 2 people from different races and granting them all the govt privileges that come with marriage? Would that be OK with you?

Brett85
01-03-2013, 01:24 PM
How about Rand being in opposition of the federal govt accepting union contracts between 2 people from different races and granting them all the govt privileges that come with marriage? Would that be OK with you?

Well, first of all I don't see why the federal government should be involved in giving out benefits to married couples. It should be up to the states to determine that. But I don't view interracial marriage to be the same as gay marriage, since your race is simply something you're born with, while homosexuality is a behavior.

Tod
01-03-2013, 01:33 PM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/jon-huntsman-gop-is-devoid-of-a-soul-needs-strong-dose-of-libertarianism/


Kinda weird to say the GOP needs a dose of libertarianism, then mention every 2016 candidate other than the libertarian.

It is not weird at all when you remember that they don't want any libertarianism in government. What they want is more power and are willing to use the libertarian meme as a tool to gain that power.

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 01:36 PM
Well, first of all I don't see why the federal government should be involved in giving out benefits to married couples. It should be up to the states to determine that. But I don't view interracial marriage to be the same as gay marriage, since your race is simply something you're born with, while homosexuality is a behavior.

Two hundred years ago this same logic could have been used to deny slaves rights, since them being property is "something their born into", whereas indentured servants could have rights because it was voluntary behavior... And this is assuming you even have anything scientific to back up that homosexuality is merely a choice (even if it's not hereditary, is still the product of experience and environment, and thus is not necessarily a voluntary choice).

Further, it is absolutely not a states rights issue, as the Supreme Court case involving interracial marriage said that a state cannot deny an individual's choice of marriage partner on the basis of discrimination. Applying it here is somewhat contreversial, but it is a very weak argument to say that race is not acceptable to deny partnership, but other classifications are. That's entirely hypocritical, discriminatory, and souds remarkably like the same arguments used against interracial marriage. I hope that in 50 more years we can realize that forbidding unions of gays is equal in bigotry to prohibiting interracial marriages.

Again, the government should not be in the business of defining marriage (seperation of church and state), their job is to enforce contracts between two willing parties, which is exactly how marriage is viewed by the government, as a marriage of assets essentially. Why you would want to deny someone else the perks (and burdens) you enjoy by being able to marry who you choose is just a twisted view of the role of government, and using it for your own interests (that frankly aren't any of your business, nor does it affect you). That jsut spits in the face of libertarianism to do what you please and be treated equally if you're not affecting others.

brooks009
01-03-2013, 01:49 PM
Two hundred years ago this same logic could have been used to deny slaves rights, since them being property is "something their born into", whereas indentured servants could have rights because it was voluntary behavior... And this is assuming you even have anything scientific to back up that homosexuality is merely a choice (even if it's not hereditary, is still the product of experience and environment, and thus is not necessarily a voluntary choice).

Further, it is absolutely not a states rights issue, as the Supreme Court case involving interracial marriage said that a state cannot deny an individual's choice of marriage partner on the basis of discrimination. Applying it here is somewhat contreversial, but it is a very weak argument to say that race is not acceptable to deny partnership, but other classifications are. That's entirely hypocritical, discriminatory, and souds remarkably like the same arguments used against interracial marriage. I hope that in 50 more years we can realize that forbidding unions of gays is equal in bigotry to prohibiting interracial marriages.

Again, the government should not be in the business of defining marriage (seperation of church and state), their job is to enforce contracts between two willing parties, which is exactly how marriage is viewed by the government, as a marriage of assets essentially. Why you would want to deny someone else the perks (and burdens) you enjoy by being able to marry who you choose is just a twisted view of the role of government, and using it for your own interests (that frankly aren't any of your business, nor does it affect you). That jsut spits in the face of libertarianism to do what you please and be treated equally if you're not affecting others.

Nice post TheGrinchWhoStoleDC. I don't understand why so many libertarians here are OK with denying others freedoms they enjoy.

juleswin
01-03-2013, 01:51 PM
Well, first of all I don't see why the federal government should be involved in giving out benefits to married couples. It should be up to the states to determine that. But I don't view interracial marriage to be the same as gay marriage, since your race is simply something you're born with, while homosexuality is a behavior.

This is the point where we are going to agree to disagree. One, I do not believe homosexuality is entirely a choosen behavior so these people cannot just snap out of it. Secondly, comparing it to interracial marriage is the most apt analogy there is, for one, it is something many people used to find unnatural and unacceptable. But I do understand where you are coming from but I will politely disagree with you on it.

In this case I believe making gay marriage legal unlike interracial marriage will cause a blow back instead of acceptance that could finally separate govt from marriage and that is a win for liberty :)

juleswin
01-03-2013, 01:54 PM
Nice post TheGrinchWhoStoleDC. I don't understand why so many libertarians here are OK with denying others freedoms they enjoy.

I know what it is and its religion getting in the way.

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 02:02 PM
I know what it is and its religion getting in the way.

And ironically, we support the right of his church to not recognize it, while he wishes to enforce his will on 40+% of North Carolinians who are subject to the views of the small majority on a matter that doesn't affect them personally.

Hell, honestly I find homosexuality to be unnatural, but I'm not going to go denying them rights over somethnig I don't understand...

erowe1
01-03-2013, 02:11 PM
Secondly, comparing it to interracial marriage is the most apt analogy there is

But it's really not apt. Interracial marriages were actually banned. Same-sex marriages aren't.

jmdrake
01-03-2013, 02:21 PM
Huntsman probably thinks that the GOP should support "gay marriage" but still support the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the war on drugs and every other big government policy that they currently support.

+rep! The "republicans need to give up on social conservatives...and keep their neocon ways" has been pervading the media since Romney lost. Even when Ron Paul is interviewed the idiot commentators only focus on things like gay marriage and immigration.

jmdrake
01-03-2013, 02:23 PM
It doesn't and it's very simple. Leave it up to the churches who they wish to marry, get the government out of defining marriage and go back to it's legitimate purpose of enforcing civil union contracts (even jsut call them all civil unions, so nothing is being defined as marriage, just enforcing a union contract between the two). Then everybody wins and I can stop hearing about what some Christian guy who makes chicken sandwiches thinks about it.

+rep

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 02:36 PM
But it's really not apt. Interracial marriages were actually banned. Same-sex marriages aren't.

Been to North Carolina lately?

And the ruling didn't say that the federal government couldn't deny unions based on discrimination, it said states couldn't either. This is only a states rights issue in how they enforce the contracts, it's not supposed to be their job to decide who can enter into a marriage contract (or rather civil union contract, since I think this issue is much more clearcut if you remove the religious institution of marriage, as seperation of chuch and state is supposed to, and reduce it to what it's supposed to be as far as the government is concerned, a contract between two consenting individuals)

erowe1
01-03-2013, 02:40 PM
Been to North Carolina lately?


Not for a few years. But I bet that if I checked, I could find lots of same-sex couples there who had weddings, said vows, live together, have sex, share everything, and do whatever else they think it means to be married. And I bet the state of North Carolina never prevented any of them from doing those things in that state or punished them for it.

Brett85
01-03-2013, 02:49 PM
I never said that homosexuality is a "choice." I just said that it's different from race since homosexuality is a behavior, while race isn't. I just don't agree with that comparision.

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 02:55 PM
Not for a few years. But I bet that if I checked, I could find lots of same-sex couple there who had weddings, said vows, live together, have sex, share everything, and do whatever else they think it means to be married. And I bet the state of North Carolina never prevented any of them from doing those things in that state or punished them for it.

Except acknowledge the contract as it relates to taxes and government, ya know the only part that's relevant to and affects them.

Really taxes is another area you wish they'd get of marriage/unions too, but if two people want to enter into a contract to be able to enjoy the perks (which I know can also be burdensome for some's income situation, but point being that you're afforded the choice of having it sanctioned by the state, along with the subsequent perks/penalties, whilst forbidding these same gay couples from doing the same).

I believe it also makes it to where gay couples can't be on each other's insurance plans, and so frankly, even if it's a fraudulent marriage, then I'm not even that outraged that two people are entering into a contract sanctioned by the state that affords them perks for sharing their assets. I mean, cmon, you all know you were shedding a tear for Chuck's situation in Chuck and Larry.

erowe1
01-03-2013, 03:00 PM
Except acknowledge the contract as it relates to taxes and government, ya know the only part that's relevant to and affects them.

So all the parts that involve more, not less, government.

I get why people support the gay agenda. I just wish they wouldn't pretend there was anything libertarian about it.

None of these so-called "marriage bans" limit anyone's freedom.

Antischism
01-03-2013, 03:01 PM
Two hundred years ago this same logic could have been used to deny slaves rights, since them being property is "something their born into", whereas indentured servants could have rights because it was voluntary behavior... And this is assuming you even have anything scientific to back up that homosexuality is merely a choice (even if it's not hereditary, is still the product of experience and environment, and thus is not necessarily a voluntary choice).

Further, it is absolutely not a states rights issue, as the Supreme Court case involving interracial marriage said that a state cannot deny an individual's choice of marriage partner on the basis of discrimination. Applying it here is somewhat contreversial, but it is a very weak argument to say that race is not acceptable to deny partnership, but other classifications are. That's entirely hypocritical, discriminatory, and souds remarkably like the same arguments used against interracial marriage. I hope that in 50 more years we can realize that forbidding unions of gays is equal in bigotry to prohibiting interracial marriages.

Again, the government should not be in the business of defining marriage (seperation of church and state), their job is to enforce contracts between two willing parties, which is exactly how marriage is viewed by the government, as a marriage of assets essentially. Why you would want to deny someone else the perks (and burdens) you enjoy by being able to marry who you choose is just a twisted view of the role of government, and using it for your own interests (that frankly aren't any of your business, nor does it affect you). That jsut spits in the face of libertarianism to do what you please and be treated equally if you're not affecting others.

+ Rep.

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 03:01 PM
Nothing in the real world is binary. There is no dichotomy that says you must either be for getting the government out of marriage or for equal enforcement of the law. I have noticed a strong correlation (100%) between people in the liberty movement who do not favor equal enforcement of a law, a bad one in this case, and who believe homosexuality to be immoral.

Thus, it is my hypothesis that they are trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with their political ones rather than objectively approaching this issue. You have the freedom of conscience to believe in whatever moral code you so choose. You do not, however, have the right nor a logical foundation to assert that the government should ever engage in unequal enforcement of any law.

erowe1
01-03-2013, 03:05 PM
I have noticed a strong correlation (100%) between people in the liberty movement who do not favor equal enforcement of a law, a bad one in this case, and who believe homosexuality to be immoral.

Thus, it is my hypothesis that they are trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with their political ones rather than objectively approaching this issue.

Similarly, I have noticed a strong correlation (100%) between people in the liberty movement who do favor state-support for gay marriage and who do not believe homosexuality to be immoral.

Thus, it is my hypothesis that they are trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with their political ones rather than objectively approaching this issue.

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 03:07 PM
So all the parts that involve more, not less, government.

I get why people support the gay agenda. I just wish they wouldn't pretend there was anything libertarian about it.

None of these so-called "marriage bans" limit anyone's freedom.

Nonsense, there are something like 1600 laws that are applied to the benefit or detriment of married couples that are not extended to gay people under the current system. It's about equal enforcement of the law and not believing that government's are allowed to discriminate on the basis of any adjective. That is a very libertarian idea. Especially since many of us who support equal enforcement do so on the grounds that we don't believe sexual orientation to be any less innate than race.

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 03:07 PM
So all the parts that involve more, not less, government.

I get why people support the gay agenda. I just wish they wouldn't pretend there was anything libertarian about it.

None of these so-called "marriage bans" limit anyone's freedom.

I said that that part is a problem as well, but divorces are messy and even messier if the state doesn't recognize it, and since we have the current system where it might allow you to pay less in taxes and insurance to do so, then who are you to say that they can't do what normal married couples do?

That's my point, not hypothetically whether it should be this way or not. These people have to live in a real world where marriage provides really real perks that they're not allowed to enjoy.

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 03:09 PM
Similarly, I have noticed a strong correlation (100%) between people in the liberty movement who do favor state-support for gay marriage and who do not believe homosexuality to be immoral.

Thus, it is my hypothesis that they are trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with their political ones rather than objectively approaching this issue.

It's not state-support for gay marriage. There is only marriage. Government should not be in the adjective business. Ideally, there would be no marriage laws, but short of that the government can't pick and choose upon who it will confer special privileges based on any characteristic. That is ugly discrimination.

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 03:10 PM
So all the parts that involve more, not less, government.

I get why people support the gay agenda. I just wish they wouldn't pretend there was anything libertarian about it.

None of these so-called "marriage bans" limit anyone's freedom.

Oh and please explain how issuing extra marriage licenses is more government? There are no new laws. Just equal enforcement of laws that already exist.

erowe1
01-03-2013, 03:11 PM
It's not state-support for gay marriage. There is only marriage. Government should not be in the adjective business. Ideally, there would be no marriage laws, but short of that the government can't pick and choose upon who it will confer special privileges based on any characteristic. That is ugly discrimination.

How is what you just described not state support for gay marriage?

As for conferring special privileges, all state-based marriage does that, whether it includes gay couples or not. It creates a category of people (the married) who have something that people who don't fit that category don't have. Taking gay couples out of the unmarried category and putting them in the married category wouldn't change the fact that those categories still exist, it will only move around their boundaries.

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 03:13 PM
How is what you just described not state support for gay marriage?

Are you really going to be intentionally obtuse again, you're jsut playing gotcha now. If I add "just" to his quote, does it make a little more sense?

"It's not just state-support for gay marriage. There is only marriage."

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 03:14 PM
How is what you just described not state support for gay marriage?

I thought I just did. As far as the government is concerned there is no such thing as "gay" marriage. There is either state sponsored marriage or no state sponsored marriage. Adjectives whether innate or not are never acceptable means for promoting selective enforcement of a law. A libertarian understands that the government must always be blind to adjectives. It must only see a citizen. It should have no knowledge of their gender, race, sexual preference, eye color, etc, etc.

erowe1
01-03-2013, 03:16 PM
Are you really going to be intentionally obtuse again, you're jsut playing gotcha now. If I add "just" to his quote, does it make a little more sense?

"It's not just state-support for gay marriage. There is only marriage."

Nope, that doesn't make any more sense. Does it really to you?

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 03:17 PM
I never said that homosexuality is a "choice." I just said that it's different from race since homosexuality is a behavior, while race isn't. I just don't agree with that comparision.

And their direct comparability makes either trait more or less worth acknowledging, why?

People are different. They like different things. That doesn't make them second-class citizens that the government won't recognize with the same perks or enforce their contract of a union. How is that at all fair or relevant that you think it's a choice? What's wrong with choosing to live with someone, share your assets, enjoy perks you can't otherwise, or even just simply have their formal union acknowledged, no matter who that may be?

erowe1
01-03-2013, 03:18 PM
Adjectives whether innate or not are never acceptable means for promoting selective enforcement of a law.

But all marriage laws are selectively enforced according to adjectives, the adjectives "married" and "unmarried." State support for gay marriage wouldn't do anything to ameliorate that.

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 03:19 PM
Nope, that doesn't make any more sense. Does it really to you?

Yes, a support for gay marriage would be collectivist, whereas as an individualist and libertarian, it's better to view it as equal rights for all. That's the point.

Occam's Banana
01-03-2013, 03:19 PM
Kinda weird to say the GOP needs a dose of libertarianism, then mention every 2016 candidate other than the libertarian.

Only if you take what Huntsman says at face value. (Hint: you shouldn't do that.)

The fact that he so absurdly tries to associate the likes of Christie et alias with libertarianism ought to tell you that there is an agenda in play here.


Jon Huntsman is an idiot.

Huntsman is an idiot... doest get libertarianism.

Huntsman is NOT an idiot. Nor is he a stupid man. He knows perfectly well that he's talking bullshit.

He also knows perfectly well that most of the people who encounter this bullshit will know little or nothing about libertarianism.

His intention (and the intention of all those who engage in this sort of deceitful ploy) is that peoples' ignorance will result in them being duped by this bullshit.


they [actively want] to redefine define the term libertarian in the mind of the general public.

/thread

erowe1
01-03-2013, 03:20 PM
Yes, a support for gay marriage would be collectivist, whereas as an individualist and libertarian, it's better to view it as equal rights for all. That's the point.

I see some irony in the fact that this jumble of words is supposedly talking about how something else you said supposedly made sense.

I can't even tell what the subject and verb of this sentence are.

Pisces
01-03-2013, 03:20 PM
It's not state-support for gay marriage. There is only marriage. Government should not be in the adjective business. Ideally, there would be no marriage laws, but short of that the government can't pick and choose upon who it will confer special privileges based on any characteristic. That is ugly discrimination.

I think what people are forgetting is that the so-called "special privileges" accorded to marriage were not just awarded on a whim or because the government prefers straight couples. These benefits are given to marriage in recognition of the sacrifice and expenses entailed in giving birth to and raising the next generation. All of society benefits from the work that parents do, especially since we have a social security system like ours. It is true that not every married couple has children but childless couples are generally the exception.

Same-sex relationships, on the other hand, are sterile. That is why even societies that were very tolerant of homosexuality, like ancient Greece, had no concept of gay marriage. Men had relationships with other men, but they were never considered the same thing as marriage between a man and a woman.

People can disagree with this, but they should at least understand the reasoning behind the traditional marriage laws.

Besides, it's not just married couples that get favorable tax treatment. Single parents do as well; they can file as "head of household".

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 03:21 PM
But all marriage laws are selectively enforced according to adjectives, the adjectives "married" and "unmarried." State support for gay marriage wouldn't do anything to ameliorate that.

No there should be no consideration of married or unmarried. Only whether they are party to a contract. Party and contract are both nouns, fyi.

And as I have said, repeatedly, the ideal solution is to get the government out of the marriage game, of course.

erowe1
01-03-2013, 03:23 PM
No there should be no consideration of married or unmarried. Only whether they are party to a contract. Party and contract are both nouns, fyi.

And as I have said, repeatedly, the ideal solution is to get the government out of the marriage game, of course.

Of course. Government should get out of marriage.

As long as government is involved in marriage, that very fact will require that they discriminate, or else declare everyone in the world to be married. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples wouldn't do a thing to fix that.

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 03:24 PM
I think what people are forgetting is that the so-called "special privileges" accorded to marriage were not just awarded on a whim or because the government prefers straight couples. These benefits are given to marriage in recognition of the sacrifice and expenses entailed in giving birth to and raising the next generation. All of society benefits from the work that parents do, especially since we have a social security system like ours. It is true that not every married couple has children but childless couples are generally the exception.

Same-sex relationships, on the other hand, are sterile. That is why even societies that were very tolerant of homosexuality, like ancient Greece, had no concept of gay marriage. Men had relationships with other men, but they were never considered the same thing as marriage between a man and a woman.

People can disagree with this, but they should at least understand the reasoning behind the traditional marriage laws.

If this were the case, the government would reward, endorse, and allow polygamous unions since they are so much more fruitful. Do not try to pretend like it is based on something other than the Judeo-Christian ethic being forced down people's throats.

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 03:30 PM
But all marriage laws are selectively enforced according to adjectives, the adjectives "married" and "unmarried." State support for gay marriage wouldn't do anything to ameliorate that.

Actually, married can be used as a noun, adjective or adverb


I see some irony in the fact that this jumble of words is supposedly talking about how something else you said supposedly made sense.

I can't even tell what the subject and verb of this sentence are.

Conjunctions are hard. You'll get it one day.

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 03:37 PM
Of course. Government should get out of marriage.

As long as government is involved in marriage, that very fact will require that they discriminate, or else declare everyone in the world to be married. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples wouldn't do a thing to fix that.

Come on, man. I just explained this. If they want to be involved in marriage, which we both firmly disagree with, they must recognize parties to a contract. This involves no recognition of anything but the individual. They don't even need to know who is married to whom, just that a contract was entered into by the individual they are conferring the benefits on. And you almost got it; they have to recognize anyone who declares themselves married as such. They are not declaring anything, just recognizing a contract.

Pisces
01-03-2013, 03:39 PM
If this were the case, the government would reward, endorse, and allow polygamous unions since they are so much more fruitful. Do not try to pretend like it is based on something other than the Judeo-Christian ethic being forced down people's throats.

It's not a matter of the unions being fruitful - it is what society considers the best environment for raising a child. Religion has something to do with why polygamy is illegal. It's possible that it would still be illegal in most of the country even if every American converted to atheism, though. Feminists hate polygamy.

I don't believe that the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is solely about religion, though. Whether monogamous or not, the norm in every society throughout history has been marriage between opposite sexes, regardless of differing religions. As I said earlier, even societies that had no taboo against homosexuality had no concept of gay marriage as an institution equivalent to marriage between a man and a woman. Until today, that is. This is because in the past marriage as an institution was all about procreation.

sailingaway
01-03-2013, 03:39 PM
Huntsman is a fraud.

Our memories are longer than that.

acptulsa
01-03-2013, 03:42 PM
As I said earlier, even societies that had no taboo against homosexuality had no concept of gay marriage as an institution equivalent to marriage between a man and a woman. Until today, that is. This is because in the past marriage as an institution was all about procreation.

And now it's about tax breaks and medical insurance. Or, to put it another way, getting the government to give you a (small) break.

And don't dare ask me what the government has to do with health care insurance. Welcome to 2013, peeps.

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 03:48 PM
And now it's about tax breaks and medical insurance. Or, to put it another way, getting the government to give you a (small) break.

And don't dare ask me what the government has to do with health care insurance. Welcome to 2013, peeps.

It isn't the way it should be, but I'd hope that most here would support anyone trying to keep the government and insurance companies from taking more of their hard-earned money, when others are afforded this privilege.

If this was an exclusion of non-millionaires or something like that, we'd be outraged like we are about the tax exemptions recently, but I guess it's a lot easier to have no sympathy when you can justify it with your own disdain for their choices, or rather the way they are.

Pisces
01-03-2013, 03:49 PM
And now it's about tax breaks and medical insurance. Or, to put it another way, getting the government to give you a (small) break.

And don't dare ask me what the government has to do with health care insurance. Welcome to 2013, peeps.

I don't have a problem with tax breaks for parents. Ideally, there would be no income tax at all. Everyone's retirement is dependant to some extent on there being a new generation of workers to replace those that are retiring. (Even if you are not reliant on SS, most other investments would lose their value if there are no new workers.) The parents bear most of the costs of raising children. Why shouldn't they get a tax break? Would people feel better if tax benefits were restricted to couples with children?

Medical insurance is a whole other issue. I wish government and employers would both get out of the medical insurance business.

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 03:54 PM
It's not a matter of the unions being fruitful - it is what society considers the best environment for raising a child. Religion has something to do with why polygamy is illegal. It's possible that it would still be illegal in most of the country even if every American converted to atheism, though. Feminists hate polygamy.

I don't believe that the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is solely about religion, though. Whether monogamous or not, the norm in every society throughout history has been marriage between opposite sexes, regardless of differing religions. As I said earlier, even societies that had no taboo against homosexuality had no concept of gay marriage as an institution equivalent to marriage between a man and a woman. Until today, that is. This is because in the past marriage as an institution was all about procreation.

You are employing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Tradition is not a good thing per se. It's another form of dogma, and slapping the label tradition on something does not exempt something from critical thought. Procreation is actually a negative thing in terms of benefit to society. More so than any other factor, decreasing birth rates correlate to economic prosperity. Didn't you see the "ideas having sex" Stossel?

Also, if we intend to collectivize, we should note that gay people and communities are more prosperous and have much lower rates of crime. If procreation is, in fact, the reason, then it's time we throw out this outdated dogma and embrace common sense. If anything, we should be incentivizing people to NOT procreate.

TheGrinch
01-03-2013, 03:54 PM
I don't have a problem with tax breaks for parents. Ideally, there would be no income tax at all. Everyone's retirement is dependant to some extent on there being a new generation of workers to replace those that are retiring. (Even if you are not reliant on SS, most other investments would lose their value if there are no new workers.) The parents bear most of the costs of raising children. Why shouldn't they get a tax break? Would people feel better if tax benefits were restricted to couples with children?

Medical insurance is a whole other issue. I wish government and employers would both get out of the medical insurance business.

Ideally, there are many things we would change and remove as it relates to government, that much is obvious, but with the current system the way it is, then sorry if the "norm" used to be strictly for procreation, as it stands now the system is being used to only attribute these priveleges to those who can procreate, no matter whether they do or not.

So yes, we can talk ideally all day, but it changes very little about why the current system is a blatant double-standard to only afford priveledges and acknowledgements of some.

Divorce is also rising and is something that has to be sorted out between the parties. It is much more difficult for this to be done fairly (if that's even possible, but a different discussion) without acknowledgement of the union and sharing of assets.

shane77m
01-03-2013, 03:55 PM
The GOP needs to go ahead and join the Dems so they can create a "super party" under one name but that might break the mundanes belief of a choice.

Pisces
01-03-2013, 03:57 PM
You are employing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Tradition is not a good thing per se. It's another form of dogma, and slapping the label tradition on something does not exempt something from critical thought. Procreation is actually a negative thing in terms of benefit to society. More so than any other factor, decreasing birth rates correlate to economic prosperity. Didn't you see the "ideas having sex" Stossel?

Also, if we intend to collectivize, we should note that gay people and communities are more prosperous and have much lower rates of crime. If procreation is, in fact, the reason, then it's time we throw out this outdated dogma and embrace common sense. If anything, we should be incentivizing people to NOT procreate.

I didn't say that tradition is automatically a good thing. If you are going to think critically, though, you need to understand why our laws are what they are. It doesn't mean that they can't be changed. It helps to understand what you propose to change, though, if you expect to convince people that change is needed.

How was I employing the No True Scotsman fallacy? I don't see that at all.

Pisces
01-03-2013, 04:03 PM
You are employing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Tradition is not a good thing per se. It's another form of dogma, and slapping the label tradition on something does not exempt something from critical thought. Procreation is actually a negative thing in terms of benefit to society. More so than any other factor, decreasing birth rates correlate to economic prosperity. Didn't you see the "ideas having sex" Stossel?

Also, if we intend to collectivize, we should note that gay people and communities are more prosperous and have much lower rates of crime. If procreation is, in fact, the reason, then it's time we throw out this outdated dogma and embrace common sense. If anything, we should be incentivizing people to NOT procreate.

Correlation is not causation. There are economic problems caused by declining population as well. Just ask Russia and Japan.

satchelmcqueen
01-03-2013, 04:04 PM
from the man whos daughters made a negative vid about huntsman but yet blamed it on paul supporters. yep the gop has no soul. i agree with him. must have been speaking of himself.

Brett85
01-03-2013, 04:04 PM
Who is John Galt?

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 04:09 PM
I didn't say that tradition is automatically a good thing. If you are going to think critically, though, you need to understand why our laws are what they are. It doesn't mean that they can't be changed. It helps to understand what you propose to change, though, if you expect to convince people that change is needed.

How was I employing the No True Scotsman fallacy? I don't see that at all.

You said it was the "norm of every society in history". You are ignoring examples that don't fit your narrative by making a blanket statement. Egypt and Rome were two world powers that legally recognized same sex unions. Greater antiquity encouraged it and it was not seen as perverse, at all (Greece and Macedonia notably). In Papa New Guinea they believe in four genders and consider masculine-masculine with masculine-feminine or feminine-masculine with feminine-feminine to be a natural union. Your statement just does not have a historical foundation.

Either you are unaware of these historical examples or you are omitting them because they don't support your point.

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 04:14 PM
Correlation is not causation. There are economic problems caused by declining population as well. Just ask Russia and Japan.

Said problems stem from government intervention as they need more young people to tax to pay for the old who can't work. Their declining population is not the result of homosexual activity. And our rate of population growth has continually decreased since procreation was given an incentive, so it doesn't seem to be working very well. Also, homosexuals will not procreate regardless of whether or not it is incentivized.

Lastly, if you think that 5% of a population being gay will have any noticeable effect on population growth, we need to address some basic math. Japan's issues are lack of space and economic conditions. Russia's are weather and economic conditions.

Spikender
01-03-2013, 04:18 PM
from the man whos daughters made a negative vid about huntsman but yet blamed it on paul supporters. yep the gop has no soul. i agree with him. must have been speaking of himself.

Almost forgot about that whole ordeal, thanks for refreshing my memory. And now that you mention it, he didn't really exclude himself in his statements, so I'm forced to assume that he also meant himself as well.

Pisces
01-03-2013, 04:28 PM
Said problems stem from government intervention as they need more young people to tax to pay for the old who can't work. Their declining population is not the result of homosexual activity. And our rate of population growth has continually decreased since procreation was given an incentive, so it doesn't seem to be working very well. Also, homosexuals will not procreate regardless of whether or not it is incentivized.

Lastly, if you think that 5% of a population being gay will have any noticeable effect on population growth, we need to address some basic math. Japan's issues are lack of space and economic conditions. Russia's are weather and economic conditions.

The tax benefits are not really an incentive. They are simply a recognition that parents bear the costs of an activity that benefits everyone. Whether population growth or decline is better isn't the point. If there were no parents or children, all economic activity would completely stop as older generations die off and are not replaced. Whether homosexuality affects population growth is not the point either. Gay couples without children are just not engaging in a costly activity like parenting that benefits society as a whole. It's not about punishing homosexuals, it's about recognizing reality in the tax code.

You said earlier that gay communities tend to be more prosperous. That is to be expected of a community where the majority don't have to spend money on kids. Why do these prosperous gays begrudge parents a small tax benefit then? I do think gay couples that adopt should get similar tax breaks.

whoisjohngalt
01-03-2013, 04:43 PM
The tax benefits are not really an incentive. They are simply a recognition that parents bear the costs of an activity that benefits everyone. Whether population growth or decline is better isn't the point. If there were no parents or children, all economic activity would completely stop as older generations die off and are not replaced. Whether homosexuality affects population growth is not the point either. Gay couples without children are just not engaging in a costly activity like parenting that benefits society as a whole. It's not about punishing homosexuals, it's about recognizing reality in the tax code.

You said earlier that gay communities tend to be more prosperous. That is to be expected of a community where the majority don't have to spend money on kids. Why do these prosperous gays begrudge parents a small tax benefit then? I do think gay couples that adopt should get similar tax breaks.

I don't accept the proposition that it is a great benefit to society. I think it depends on the situation, but a lot of children are a drag on society. The evidence I cited earlier, that decreases in birth rates correlate to increased prosperity, help support this idea. More importantly, the parents have children because of the personal benefit; it has little and less to do with the benefit to society. Therefore, a tax benefit accomplishes nothing except to burden those who do not, for want or ability, have children. Ideally, there would be no income taxes that would allow such a write off. But I disagree that they should be rewarded, much less given incentive, to do something that more often than not harms society. In the industrial age, labor supply is becoming increasingly unnecessary. As I said, the benefit is in providing a bigger base for the government to rob to give the old people their entitlements. There is just no evidence that population growth is desirable, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Pisces
01-03-2013, 04:45 PM
I don't accept the proposition that it is a great benefit to society. I think it depends on the situation, but a lot of children are a drag on society. The evidence I cited earlier, that decreases in birth rates correlate to increased prosperity, help support this idea. More importantly, the parents have children because of the personal benefit; it has little and less to do with the benefit to society. Therefore, a tax benefit accomplishes nothing except to burden those who do not, for want or ability, have children. Ideally, there would be no income taxes that would allow such a write off. But I disagree that they should be rewarded, much less given incentive, to do something that more often than not harms society. In the industrial age, labor supply is becoming increasingly unnecessary. As I said, the benefit is in providing a bigger base for the government to rob to give the old people their entitlements. There is just no evidence that population growth is desirable, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.