George Takei weighs in on the Republican Party (Paul mention)
I wasn't sure where to post this, but I thought you might like to read it.
http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blo...la-their-midst
I definitely agree with his conclusion....
"Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul
"Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden
Yup.
He has a powerful Facebook and Twitter presence. Knowing the amount of people who follow him that will likely read this is super cool. Ron Paul is the good kind of Republican. I like that.The comments on his post of this on Facebook are overwhelmingly positive.
GT posts the funniest $#@! on Fb. I saw this in my news feed, and skipped it because I really don't give a $#@! about his political views. I'm glad I read it now. Shared.
What I simply can’t understand is why the GOP ignores the gorilla in their tent when it comes to social issues. For a party that prides itself on less government intrusion, it sure seems busy these days telling women and LGBT persons what they can and cannot do. This is not only inconsistent, it is a poor strategy for keeping the party strong, growing, and current. If religious fundamentalists want to push their extremist agendas, they should do it in some other party, so that I don’t have sit there in awkward conversations with my Republican friends, secretly wondering how they can continue to pander to such drivel.
The idea that the GOP positions on abortion and marriage are anti-liberty is totally nonsensical.
First, most minarchists would agree that if there's one job that should be left to the state is to protect individuals self-ownership of their own life from aggression. If one believes human life begins before birth, than being pro-life is the right position to have. I'm pro-life for the same reason I'm in favour of laws that punish robbery and the existence of a law enforcement and judicial apparatus to apply them, not due to my religious beliefs.
As long as, for some reason, government decides to keep meddling with marriage contracts, there will be the need to trace the line somewhere. As a conservative, I prefer to err on the side of inaction and tradition. It's bad enough politicians get to be part of marriages between a man and a woman, we don't need to add more marriages to the conversation. If the GOP defended that same sex marriages should be illegal, I'd concede that was an anti-liberty stance. I But it doesn't. I find proponents of government recognition of same sex marriage who then oppose extending that recognition to polygamous or incestuous marriages way more inconsistent.
I don't see what's the inconsistency with the GOP's small government message in other areas. Maybe if the GOP was an anarchist party or something.
I'm pro-life as well, but I don't hold out any hope of the current situation changing. So it's become a bit of a non-issue in the current climate. Conservative judges appointed by Republicans passed Roe v. Wade. Education is more important at this point that trying to force a change in a Supreme Court decision.
As for gay marriage, having this statement in the 2012 GOP Platform: "We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman." pretty much declares their intent to make it illegal. I don't see any erring on the side of caution when opposite sex couples get married multiple times and/or for the wrong reasons. The institution of marriage has been destroyed by the likes of them over what a loving gay couple might have. I have friends who have been together for 19 years, since they were like 20. Their relationship is more stable than a good many other people I know. Not allowing them to marry and, in fact, making it illegal is pretty darn disgusting to me. I didn't used to think this way until I started looking at marriage as a legal/financial issue rather than a religious one. Legally if two adults of the opposite sex can enter into this type of contract, those of the same sex should be able to too.
I think Takei's point was to quit being extreme on social issues (no abortion under any circumstance, ninja vaginas that can destroy rape sperm, etc.) and focus more on small government which they don't. Republicans made it bigger and bigger and bigger. They have become hypocrites.
Last edited by LBennett76; 09-05-2012 at 04:44 PM.
He would make a scary LP Candidate.It’s no surprise that I’m a Democrat. I’m a gay man, I got married to my husband Brad, and I don’t particularly like being told my marriage should be invalidated because I don’t have the same rights as other people. But mind you, I don’t forget that it was a Democratic President (FDR) who abused his power 70 years ago and put my family and me in an internment camp without charge, trial or cause. Now that was Big Government at its very worst. So I am leery of excessive government power or control of any kind.
That is like McCain level suffering combined with actual star power.
How many other candidates have been interned for their race?
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
"Now get off our lawn." What a perfect ending.
"Perfect safety is not the purpose of government." - Ron Paul
Originally Posted by brushfire
George Takai is right. People complain about gay marriage and abortion when this was George's biggest mistake:
Government has taken over nearly every facet of health care and Obamacare is another step - of similar magnitude to the others. I say it is of less relevance than the AMA (state licensing), FDA/DEA, employer-tax favoritism, and Medicare, but of more relvance than Cobra (Reagan), Medicaid, and Medicare part D. Mandatory insurance is inherently communistic ('from each according to ability...').It would be as if the Democrats suddenly had their ranked filled by hard-core Communists who steadily called upon the total abolishment of private business. (And no, that’s not what Obamacare does, notwithstanding the rhetoric. You may disagree with the individual mandate, but it’s not a government take-over, it’s a tax–as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself concluded.) If someone like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez showed up at a Democratic Party function and waved Mao’s little red book around, I would say, “Sorry, I know Democrats. I’ve worked for years with Democrats. You’re no Democrat. And you can’t sit with us.”
Regardless, it is sad that people needlessly glob on to government to defend their view of marriage or spy on a woman's uterus. You can be personally against gay marriage and abortion while still supporting a government without enough power to influence these issues. Edge cases might get government's attention. E.g., assaulting a pregnant lady or divorce disputes are matters for criminal and civil courts respectively.
A minarchist government ought not have the power for social engineering.
More so, with few exceptions, the anti-abortion people - the so-called pro-lifers - absolutely fail at prosecuting those most responsible for abortions: the would-be mothers. There is little appetite to punish the "murderers". Where is support for abortion criminal charges the strongest?: "The greatest support for criminal penalties came from Muslims (31 percent).". It had the least support among Christians despite Christian overwhelmingly wanting the government involved. What do they think gubblemint can do aside from destroy? Maybe they just want the abortionists' dogs to get shot.
Anti-abortion laws will lead to regulations, oversight, paperwork. Prosecutions will be few and focus on the promoters (free speech?), the unlicensed (competition of the AMA), halting travel, and whenever some man* or lesbian assists a pregnant woman desiring an abortion.
If the so-called pro-life crowd gets its wish, the woman that kill or have killed their fetuses will get a slap on the wrist in comparison to any man involved.
* It is no coincidence most people in prison are men. It is due in part to our violent nature but now how you might think. It is largely due to the alpha males taking out and locking up competition (e.g., tree pulp versus hemp - tree pulp won).
I don't agree with a Constitutional amendment on marriage; however I don't think such an amendment would make other types of marriage illegal.
The idea that same-sex marriage is illegal is a fantasy. What it isn't is recognized by the government. If it was illegal, entering a private marriage ceremony and contract would put you in jail. It doesn't.
What happens now is that the state lends recognition to one type of marriage - that between one man and a woman as long as it complies with certain conditions - and not to others - those between people of the same sex or multiple people or brothers and sisters.
I fail to see how any libertarian or conservative would want to see government involvement on marriage increasing. It puzzles my mind.
Your last paragraph is a strawman. Since when "ninja vaginas that can destroy rape sperm" is a republican position? The guy who claimed that was sunned by the rest of the party. That's nothing but brute political dishonesty. It may make a good talking point, but there's no seriousness in it.
If the GOP was in fact extreme on social issues, you wouldn't need to pick a statement from a guy with which 95% of the GOP disagreed with to justify your assertion.
You guys should link the thread in the comments section on his website and see if he responds.
"Your mother's dead, before long I'll be dead, and you...and your brother and your sister and all of her children, all of us dead, all of us..rotting in the ground. It's the family name that lives on. It's all that lives on. Not your personal glory, not your honor, but family." - Tywin Lannister
Btw, I agree with Ron Paul 100% on the marriage issue and close to it on the abortion issue.
"Christians are against abortions AND they're against homosexuals. Well, who has less abortions than homosexuals? Leave those people alone! Homosexuals are an entire class of people guaranteed to never have an abortion, yet the Christians are just tossing them aside. You would think they'd make natural allies. Is there ever any consistency in organized religion?"
- George Carlin
The abortion stance is easy to get. Regardless of which side someone comes down on, it's easy to see that since it's about human life, and the question comes down to when human life begins, it can't just be easily passed off as inherently pro- or anti-liberty.
The GOP position on gay marriage is inherently anti-liberty, though, and to suggest otherwise is completely nonsensical. It is impossible to justify such a stance from a libertarian, non-aggression principle perspective.
If the status quo for the past several decades was that marriages involving non-white people were not recognized by law, would you take the same stance of "we don't need to add more marriages to the conversation"? There's absolutely no difference between the two scenarios other than the group being discriminated against. The only reason why this seems like an extreme comparison is because it's now socially taboo to be racist, but it's not quite entirely taboo to be homophobic yet. Different flavor, same bigotry.It's bad enough politicians get to be part of marriages between a man and a woman, we don't need to add more marriages to the conversation.
The government should not discriminate. Private individuals can, but not the government.
They will meddle with marriage contracts for as long as they meddle with contracts, i.e., for as long as they are in existence. It is too intertwined in everything else they do to ever be completely separated. Since you would quite like them to stay in existence, in reality the stance you take offers no end in sight to the discriminatory fashion in which marriage is handled.As long as, for some reason, government decides to keep meddling with marriage contracts, there will be the need to trace the line somewhere.
So, do you have no problem with restricting legal benefits based on sexual preference? Do you have no problem forcing same-sex couples to pay higher taxes as a result of not having access to the tax benefits which come with marriage? Do you have no problem disallowing them from making medical decisions for one another if one becomes unable to? Etc.If the GOP defended that same sex marriages should be illegal, I'd concede that was an anti-liberty stance. I But it doesn't.
Who falls in this category, exactly? Mr. John Q. Strawman? The common leftist? Certainly not a thinking libertarian. A principled person who follows the non-aggression principle does not seek to restrict polygamous or incestuous marriages, regardless of their personal feelings about such relationships. The reason why you don't hear a comparatively large outcry for recognition of such relationships should be obvious.I find proponents of government recognition of same sex marriage who then oppose extending that recognition to polygamous or incestuous marriages way more inconsistent.
I don't want the government involved in the issue of marriage. George Takei does - he actually wants the govenrment to become more involved than it already is. It's laughable to see his position passed as the small government one and mine as some sort of social engineering.
I fully support a government with enough power to punish aggressions against fellow humans - including those of mothers against their children, born or unborn. How on earth is this social engineering? If I'm a minarchist and not an anarchist is because I believe the government must play a role on this issue.
"If the GOP was in fact extreme on social issues, you wouldn't need to pick a statement from a guy with which 95% of the GOP disagreed with to justify your assertion."
I happen to personally know a quite a few Rs who had no problem with his statement. Some actually defended it. But, the main point was that his statement and a lot of the other views on abortion (no abortion under any circumstance) scare away a lot of potential voters. It angers quite a few who could be brought to our side otherwise.
I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. But they are and if they are going to provide benefits to those engaged in such... it should be fair. If a same-sex couple is together for 50 years and one of them dies, why should they not get the same benefits as every other couple? Why shouldn't they receive death benefits? What if a family member didn't approve and challenges the will or challenges letting them into the hospital? Why should they not be able to file joint tax returns? From a Christian standpoint I find homosexuality to be immoral. But I also find all the other abusers of marriage immoral. Plus I'm no saint. So legally they should be allowed to get married. However, no church should be forced to perform ceremonies nor should they be punished for preaching against homosexuality or gay marriage for that matter. They preach against porn and gambling but those aren't illegal. They're just immoral. The same could be done with gay marriage.
The main thing is the Rs are too busy shouting about the culture war and giving enough bad soundbites to push independents/on the fencers away when we could have them on the issues that matter in keeping this country afloat and our liberties in tact.
Wanna bet that George Takei?
I don't have any use for the proposition that the problems created by statism ought to be solved by more statism - which basically sums up your entire post.
Of course it does: just don't handle it.They will meddle with marriage contracts for as long as they meddle with contracts, i.e., for as long as they are in existence. It is too intertwined in everything else they do to ever be completely separated. Since you would quite like them to stay in existence, in reality the stance you take offers no end in sight to the discriminatory fashion in which marriage is handled.
Nope. I have a problem with the existence of any legal benefits to married people.So, do you have no problem with restricting legal benefits based on sexual preference? Do you have no problem forcing same-sex couples to pay higher taxes as a result of not having access to the tax benefits which come with marriage? Do you have no problem disallowing them from making medical decisions for one another if one becomes unable to? Etc.
Ron Paul agrees with you on life and so do I. Not everyone does. Ron Paul's view of marriage, that it is a sacrament and a voluntary association, and government has no business meddling, suits this guy, who doesn't take a principled approach to WHY Ron feels that way or he wouldn't like the 'gay marriage' requirement. He just likes the result, which is fine, but sort of accidental.
"Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul
"Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden
There are people capable of believing in everything: the fact of the matter is that the large majority of the party doesn't agree with Akin's positions and shunned him. If there's a party that makes a big deal of social issues is the Democrat party, not the GOP. Compare the role issues like abortion and marriage played on both conventions. The idea that the GOP is the party of social extremism or the one that emphasizes social issues is nothing more than a democrat talking point. The GOP is more focused on economic issues than any major party at any point of my life time.
Again, I don't think gay marriage should be illegal. Nobody defends that. Do you need a government license to watch porn? So you shouldn't need one to marry. People should be able to marry whoever they wanted. They can't force other people to be part of their marriage: and that's exactly what state recognition of marriage does.
People need to stop conflating non-intervention of the state with prohibition. It's just silly. To carry on with the comparison to pornography, it's as if the government was giving heterosexual pornography some subsidy and gay porn producers were asking for the same subsidy. I'm sorry, but I'm not forced to agree with them. I'd rather just end with the subsidies to porn alltogether.
Which sounds like more statism:
An infinitesimal increase in the number of marriages they handle
Decrease in their tax revenue
vs.
State discrimination based on sexual preference
Increase in their tax revenue
The fact that someone can even make the argument that discriminatory legal restrictions are examples of less statism amazes me. The mental gymnastics you had to pull off to get there must have been exhausting.
No kidding. That would be the best option. It completely ignores most of the section you quoted, though: "They will meddle with marriage contracts for as long as they meddle with contracts, i.e., for as long as they are in existence. It is too intertwined in everything else they do to ever be completely separated."Of course it does: just don't handle it.
You have a problem with tax breaks...?Nope. I have a problem with the existence of any legal benefits to married people.
I'm opposed to taxes existing in the first place, but they're there, and I'm certainly not going to oppose decreases in them, which is exactly what you're doing.
Last edited by king_nothing_; 09-05-2012 at 07:23 PM.
I'm going to use that in the future.“Actually, WE’RE the real Republicans. Now get off our lawn.”
Yeah, I'm opposed to any sort of selective tax expenditures.
You claim to be against them existing but then you want to extend them to more subjects, making it even more difficult to reverse their existence.
Again, you want to solve the problems caused by statism (tax expenditures and illegitimate legal benefits warranted to a parcel of the population) with even more statism (to extend those special benefits to other special interest groups).
That has never worked - in the sense of promoting liberty. It's basically the raison d'etre of modern socialism.
This is an absurd way of looking at it. Yes, great, we all want gov't out of marriage entirely. But as a stepping stone, at least letting everyone get married is the liberty solution. Using anarchist principles to defend keeping us locked at a anti-liberty point is backasswards.
We're not getting the gov't out of marriage anytime soon. So in that meantime, at least let everyone get married.
And yes, not allowing people to get married based on gender is most definitely anti-liberty.
"Ron Paul, not going anywhere. Ideologically pure and tough as nails!"
ABO + NOBP = Ron Paul
Romney - NOBP = Obama
Post Election Addendum -
We warned you. You insulted and cheated us. You lost. Your fault.
jerry doyle from BABYLON FIVE has a net radio show
and george takei is very libertarian on today's issues.
i'm glad he's being very public + blunt about the GOP.
.....
Last edited by evilfunnystuff; 09-05-2012 at 08:59 PM.
I heart BTC! - 1AesnP1c7wyjzJhaKZajkixo9tthZRQzjB
First, I have no idea why big government types on marriage insist in the claim that people aren't allowed to marry based on gender. They are. They just want to force the rest of the political community, via state, to participate in their marriage and get special benefits that are denied to other groups.
Secondly, I don't defend keeping us locked at an anti-liberty point. You do. You actually want to make the situation worse.
This is the typical socialist modus operandis: statism creates a problem and then they argue that the solution to the problem is more statism to correct the injustices statism created.
I wonder if these supposedly libertarian who defend the statization of same sex marriage also apply the same principle to other issues. As long as there are special interest groups reaping benefits from the government, we should expand those benefits to everyone? To me that sounds more like full-fledged socialism, radically opposed to any sort of small government philosophy.
Plus, I never imagined that there'd be so much dissent about my opinion on a Ron Paul website.
He's giving a specific shutout to Ron paul and I bet his readers will be none the wiser
THE SQUAD of RPF
1. enhanced_deficit - Paid Troll / John Bolton book promoter
2. Devil21 - LARPing Wizard, fake magical script reader
3. Firestarter - Tax Troll; anti-tax = "criminal behavior"
4. TheCount - Comet Pizza Pedo Denier <-- sick
@Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF =troll:
Who spends this much time copy/pasting the same recycled links, photos/talking points.
7 yrs/25k posts later RPF'ers still respond to this troll
Haven't seen it posted, so here's the Ron Paul mention. The whole piece is a good read, though.
It’s time for true Republicans to regain control of their party. For Republicans who believe in a woman’s right to choose not to have to pretend that they don’t. For those who believe that two people who love each other should be allowed to get married, who the hell cares, to say so. And for those who would like to see more Ron Pauls and fewer Mike Huckabees to stand up and say, “Actually, WE’RE the real Republicans. Now get off our lawn.”
Wouldn’t that be a Grand Old time again?
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
What are the "benefits from the government" of marriage? It is not your (Uncle Sam's) money (estate taxes or buying health care with pretax dollars)! Ron Paul is against the estate tax and he wants us all to be able to buy health care or insurance with pretax dollars.
And yes, we should extend this to everyone: no estate tax, more spending with pretax dollars (or just end the income tax).
Do married people get a check cut to them? Stop trying to take other people's money.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us