Morality enforcing Left-Wingers who insist they are morally superior to a small business owner as they ruin their lives for not baking a cake.
Last edited by Paulbot99; 11-17-2014 at 05:55 PM.
There were people in the liberty movement saying that we should not support the Colorado and Washington amendments because they included all of those regulations and taxes. I agree with them that those stipulations were unjust just like I agree the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. But those people aren't going to accomplish anything any time soon. Instead I support measurable movement toward liberty because it actually accomplishes something.Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
Another ideology (though it's probably philosophical rather than political) that is extremely annoying is the "voting is a sin" anarchist. I don't mind it if that's their own choice. It's when they try to denigrate others that even agree with their philosophies while still voting for minarchists. They, their children, their grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will probably be dead before their utopia is realized and that change won't be due to any of their actions.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
I've been opposed to the gov in marriage and pretty vocal about it, since before I was old enough to drive.
There is no spoon.
What medium should he/she have been paying attention to in order to hear about it? You have to admit it's next to nothing when compared with the numbers of people that want govt involve in marriage.
It accomplishes keeping a somewhat considerable number of people out of the jails (while working to imprison others) but that is it.
In a hundred years it will practically be the same established monopoly as alcohol production/selling is. That is, people will still be going to a cage for transacting in it "unlawfully."
It isn't that many oppose the incremental increases in freedom, it's that "legalizing" marijuana at the expense of opening up a can of worms (the roadside checks, increased police presence and all that that encompasses, etc.) isn't exactly something to jump for joy over. The bills aren't a consequential step towards freedom when it legitimizes (within a large segment of the population) many of the actions that the police have been lobbying for.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
I agree that the CO & WA marijuana amendments are net positives. The "regulations and taxes" side of the issue is not essentially any different from the "regulation and taxes" aspect that applies to any other "widget" (such as cars or food or what-have-you). Thus, the "regulations and taxes" element is not IMO a sufficient reason to oppose the CO & WA initiatives. (It may be that the "regulations and taxes" that accompany marijuana initiatives are excessive and/or punitive relative to other such things, but that would still be an improvement over the antecedent state of affairs.)
The difference between this and the marriage issue is that people were/are being felonized, imprisoned, etc. over marijuana. The State granting privileges to some people (such as straight marrieds) while withholding those favors from others is in no way analogous to the State's pro-active ruination of peoples' lives (by locking them up in rape-cages, for example).
The government is not giving gays (or singles of any sexual orientation, or polygamists, or etc,) the special considerations that it grants to straight marrieds. That is unfair and unjust - but the unfairness and injustice arise from the granting of the privileges in the first place. The proper answer is not to expand the number of people who end up on the "plus side" of the injustice (thereby increasing the number of people with a vested interest in preserving and maintaining the injustice) - it is to eliminate the injustice altogether (i.e., to abolish State licensure of marriages). Whether this is (currently) politically feasible or not is irrelevant - what is right and proper is not contingent upon what is popular or politically feasible at any given moment.
But any "measurable movement toward liberty [that] actually accomplishes something" - such as the WA & CO marijuana initiatives - is made possible by those who agitated against the status quo long before there was any feasible chance of actually accomplishing those things. The necessary preliminary groundwork was laid by people who were not "going to accomplish anything any time soon." Should they have decamped and "gone home" instead? Should they be dismissed as having been "head in the clouds" utopians?
When and if they ever happen, things like ending the War on Drugs (or even just putting a stop to locking people up in cages over marijuana) - or abolishing the Fed, or ending the State marriage franchise, or secession, or [fill-in-the-blank] - do not just suddenly spring up out of nowhere. They are not opportunities that are just fortuitously stumbled upon. They start out as infeasible (or even "utopian") efforts. If they did not, then they would be much easier to accomplish and none of us would be here - we'd all be out enjoying our easily-won liberty.
If we restrict our agitations solely to things that we are "going to accomplish ... any time soon" - that is, only to "non-utopian" things that are already sufficiently popular or politically feasible - then in the end we aren't going to accomplish much of anything at all ...
I agree. I am an "anti-voting agnostic." I find the (often strident and sometimes offensive) arguments of "militant anti-voting atheists" to be flawed and unpersuasive for a variety of reasons ...
... however, statements like this are equally flawed and unpersuasive. For just one thing, it "non-sequitur-ishly" denies that "any of their actions" can possibly be efficacious, merely because they are also vehemently opposed to voting - thereby implicitly suggesting that change can only be effected by voting (which is a notion that I reject as categorically and emphatically as I do the notion that "voting is an act of violence").
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 11-17-2014 at 08:43 AM.
Wow, where oh were to begin, progressivism, liberalism, ochlocracy, kleptocracy, oligarchy, theocracy, demagogy, corporatocracy...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius
“They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020
Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber
Exactly-
My answer to the whole thread is: None of the above.
There is no spoon.
Uh......Ron Paul?
There is no spoon.
It's analogous based upon feasibility. I know below in this post and above in other comments you reject the feasibility argument but my only reason in bringing up the mj legalization comparison is due to how politics works. Until we can convince others to oppose coercive taxation and regulation I feel it is best to still put up with those if we can legalize a product that consumers want to purchase. Until we can convince others that the marriage privilege should not exist, it's best to offer that privilege to all consenting parties.
But you are drawing arbitrary lines here just like most of us do. If ending injustice is the only goal that you can support, then supporting an amendment that increases tax revenue should not be acceptable to you as with the marijuana amendments because it creates more tax cattle.The government is not giving gays (or singles of any sexual orientation, or polygamists, or etc,) the special considerations that it grants to straight marrieds. That is unfair and unjust - but the unfairness and injustice arise from the granting of the privileges in the first place. The proper answer is not to expand the number of people who end up on the "plus side" of the injustice (thereby increasing the number of people with a vested interest in preserving and maintaining the injustice) - it is to eliminate the injustice altogether (i.e., to abolish State licensure of marriages).
Feasibility is not irrelevant if one values what one can actually accomplish. For example; gay marriage may very likely be one of the nails in the coffin of the Republican party if they do not change their tune. Just listen to the people around you and around the country and not just the people on websites or meetups like this one. From my experience the "get govt out of marriage" is maybe 10% (probably less) and the other 90% is continue govt involvement.Whether this is (currently) politically feasible or not is irrelevant - what is right and proper is not contingent upon what is popular or politically feasible at any given moment.
Why audit the federal reserve when we want to abolish it? Because abolishing it isn't going to happen any time soon (if you're honest with yourself). Auditing is probably off the table too for a long time.
Is it completely useless to stick your finger up in the wind to see which way it is blowing? I don't think it is.
What you are describing is the pro gay marriage movement. At this point in time the "get govt out of marriage" movement is as far along as the polygamy movement. Not even visible to over 90% of the population.But any "measurable movement toward liberty [that] actually accomplishes something" - such as the WA & CO marijuana initiatives - is made possible by those who agitated against the status quo long before there was any feasible chance of actually accomplishing those things. The necessary preliminary groundwork was laid by people who were not "going to accomplish anything any time soon." Should they have decamped and "gone home" instead? Should they be dismissed as having been "head in the clouds" utopians?
Yeah, I was being facetious by saying that their actions won't accomplish what they want but I stand by saying that it's likely their grandkids will be dead of old age long before the free society becomes reality.... however, statements like this are equally flawed and unpersuasive. For just one thing, it "non-sequitur-ishly" denies that "any of their actions" can possibly be efficacious, merely because they are also vehemently opposed to voting - thereby implicitly suggesting that change can only be effected by voting (which is a notion that I reject as categorically and emphatically as I do the notion that "voting is an act of violence").
Last edited by fr33; 11-18-2014 at 12:58 AM.
Again... such a small group of people are into him compared to others. I understand that you are a Mormon so on this issue maybe your community has a rare perspective. But ending marriage licensing isn't actually even a thing to most people. It's completely off the radar for them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us