Clint Eastwood Endorsement?

[PierzStyx]

Neither drug use nor prostitution are victimless crimes. You can argue that the federal government hasn't the Constitutional right to enforce such laws, because it doesn't. But calling them victimless is wrong. Drug users very often cause grievous harm to those around them, infringing upon others life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. through violence, idiocy, and terror. And any society that allows for prostitution promotes a general breakdown in the moral strength necessary not just to hold together a prosperous society, but a good one as well.

 

[MJU1983]

Neither drug use nor prostitution are victimless crimes. You can argue that the federal government hasn't the Constitutional right to enforce such laws, because it doesn't. But calling them victimless is wrong. Drug users very often cause grievous harm to those around them, infringing upon others life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. through violence, idiocy, and terror. And any society that allows for prostitution promotes a general breakdown in the moral strength necessary not just to hold together a prosperous society, but a good one as well.

Hello slippery slope, nice to meet you.

 

[LawnWake]

Marriage existed before religion got ahold of it. It's not 'sacred', it's a business deal to ensure that the woman of the family has got a man to take care of her in return for babies. So much for the 'sanctity' of marriage.

I disagree that the government should be in the business of marriage all together, but if it is, it shouldn't discriminate against people. It's not the government's job to protect religious rites, that's the job of the religious practitioners themselves. So no need to force your own religious traditions and your concept of marriage on to others through government coercion.

Neither drug use nor prostitution are victimless crimes. You can argue that the federal government hasn't the Constitutional right to enforce such laws, because it doesn't. But calling them victimless is wrong. Drug users very often cause grievous harm to those around them, infringing upon others life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. through violence, idiocy, and terror. And any society that allows for prostitution promotes a general breakdown in the moral strength necessary not just to hold together a prosperous society, but a good one as well.

Drug users mostly become dangerous when the drug business is not regulated by the dynamics of the free market. A dealer gets someone hooked, ups the price and downgrades the quality. That wouldn't be possible in society with legal drugs.

And moral strength? Please, two consenting adults have sex and neither of them is complaining and if they are, they're still taking individual responsibility for it. Doesn't sound amoral to me. Unless you want to project your personal preference on to the rest of society.

Weed and prostitution are legal where I live and we're a far less violent country than America.

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Neither drug use nor prostitution are victimless crimes. You can argue that the federal government hasn't the Constitutional right to enforce such laws, because it doesn't. But calling them victimless is wrong.

The actual acts of drug use (ingesting drugs) and prostitution (exchanging sex for money) ARE victimless. You can argue that there are deleterious effects that come from people who engage in those acts, but those are separate from the acts themselves.

 

[cucucachu0000]

Iits worth a shot. Something like that would wake some people up, he is loved by girlfriends neocon family. They would shit a brick if I told him that.

 

[Brett85]

Here is a list of things you would have trouble doing and staying out of jail if you took what the government has elected to grant:



What I don't like about neocons, are all the lies. It is different treatment for straight couples that have an option gay couples do not have. Now before you start with another lie about how gay men are allowed to get married... to a woman(!), you have to consider the illegality and legality of marriages of convenience.



Also, I am pretty sure if one were to falsify a marriage form by having Tony change his/her name to Toni and putting an "F" for sex, you would get thrown in jail. Even if that is how Tony/Toni felt. Stop with the lies. It is a different standard. You want to defend it, please do it with the truth.

Well, my position is that people shouldn't get thrown in jail for crimes in which there is no victim. That's why I don't believe that people should get thrown in jail for engaging in activities such as homosexual conduct, drug use, and prostitution. Despite my user name, I'm very libertarian on these kinds of issues. I just don't believe that the government should grant homosexuals extra, "legal rights." The government shouldn't be in the business of granting rights. We all have the right to life, liberty, and private property that are granted to us by God. We start getting into a slippery slope if we think that the government grants us "rights."

Also, this issue has nothing to do with being a "neo-con." Quit using that term against anybody who doesn't meet your definition for what a libertarian is. Paleo conservatives are often socially conservative even though they support a non interventionist foreign policy.

 

[Voluntary Man]

there are activities which are far more destructive to the participants than any potential benefits. some such activities are legal; others are illegal. however, if the activity itself is not a direct violation of an involuntary participant's natural right (the rights which laws are supposed to be designed to protect, as opposed to those rights granted by law, which are actually privileges), i have a big problem with criminalizing unpopular or self-destructive behaviors.

is there any behavior more self-destructive than suicide? are there any laws more absurd than prohibitions against suicide? governments are only legitimate when protecting the rights of the people. when governments go beyond this, and venture into providing for health and happiness, the train has jumped the tracks and innocent people will be hurt.

having said that, i really wouldn't have too much of a problem with anti-pimp laws. pimping usually involves coercion, and is, by definition, an act of victimization and exploitation. conversate amongst yourselves.

Neither drug use nor prostitution are victimless crimes. You can argue that the federal government hasn't the Constitutional right to enforce such laws, because it doesn't. But calling them victimless is wrong. Drug users very often cause grievous harm to those around them, infringing upon others life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. through violence, idiocy, and terror. And any society that allows for prostitution promotes a general breakdown in the moral strength necessary not just to hold together a prosperous society, but a good one as well.

 

[pacelli]

I think a Clint Eastwood endorsement would sound like this: "I'm voting for Ron Paul. Everybody else is full of shit."

 

[Travlyr]

I think a Clint Eastwood endorsement would sound like this: "I'm voting for Ron Paul. Everybody else is full of shit."

Hell yeah.

 

[NJames]

It is a different standard. You want to defend it, please do it with the truth.

It is not a different standard. The standard is not "Do you want to have sex with this person? Yes? Ok, then you can marry." That's absurd. It is also not "Do you love this person?"

The standard for marriage in western civilization is that you may marry one consenting adult of the opposite sex. Nobody really cares whether you'r straight or not.

 

[NJames]

Marriage existed before religion got ahold of it. It's not 'sacred', it's a business deal to ensure that the woman of the family has got a man to take care of her in return for babies. So much for the 'sanctity' of marriage.

False. Don't pretend that you can prove the origins of marriage via history. Marriage clearly predates all history unless you count Genesis, which admittedly was written a couple thousand years later.

 

[LawnWake]

False. Don't pretend that you can prove the origins of marriage via history. Marriage clearly predates all history unless you count Genesis, which admittedly was written a couple thousand years later.

Yeah, I meant to say the Abrahamic religions got a hold of it. To tie the concept of marriage to christianity and use christianity's model of marriage as the model of marriage that should be protected through government is governmental discrimination against other religions or other views on marriage.

To deny that it's a business deal would be silly. Though not all marriages, even in history are business deals, in most of western society that's what it boiled down to. There is evidence for marriage out of love in ancient Egypt, but those weren't religious ceremonies. Same with ancient Greece.

 

[Brett85]

there are activities which are far more destructive to the participants than any potential benefits. some such activities are legal; others are illegal. however, if the activity itself is not a direct violation of an involuntary participant's natural right (the rights which laws are supposed to be designed to protect, as opposed to those rights granted by law, which are actually privileges), i have a big problem with criminalizing unpopular or self-destructive behaviors.

is there any behavior more self-destructive than suicide? are there any laws more absurd than prohibitions against suicide? governments are only legitimate when protecting the rights of the people. when governments go beyond this, and venture into providing for health and happiness, the train has jumped the tracks and innocent people will be hurt.

having said that, i really wouldn't have too much of a problem with anti-pimp laws. pimping usually involves coercion, and is, by definition, an act of victimization and exploitation. conversate amongst yourselves.

Obviously, it shouldn't be legal to force somebody to engage in prostitution. That would be called rape. But wouldn't there be a lot less violence and coercion associated with prostitution if it were legal? I would think that a lot of these problems would go away if prostitution were out in the open where it could be regulated.

 

[Chieppa1]

So, instead of this thread being about how awesome Clint Eastwood is, its another gay marriage discussion thread. Great. Why do we nitpick everything?

 

[Voluntary Man]

maybe. i don't really have a problem with prostitution, or gambling, or moderate drug use. i don't personally want to participate in these activities, but i support the right of others to do so, my disapproval not withstanding. i do have a big problem with pimps, though.

Obviously, it shouldn't be legal to force somebody to engage in prostitution. That would be called rape. But wouldn't there be a lot less violence and coercion associated with prostitution if it were legal? I would think that a lot of these problems would go away if prostitution were out in the open where it could be regulated.

 

[jmdrake]

Here is a list of things you would have trouble doing and staying out of jail if you took what the government has elected to grant:



What I don't like about neocons, are all the lies. It is different treatment for straight couples that have an option gay couples do not have. Now before you start with another lie about how gay men are allowed to get married... to a woman(!), you have to consider the illegality and legality of marriages of convenience.



Also, I am pretty sure if one were to falsify a marriage form by having Tony change his/her name to Toni and putting an "F" for sex, you would get thrown in jail. Even if that is how Tony/Toni felt. Stop with the lies. It is a different standard. You want to defend it, please do it with the truth.

Everything on your "list" can either easily be handled by contract or is something we should be working to get the government out of anyway.

Tax Benefits --- There shouldn't be an income tax. And anyway sometimes people have to deal with a "marriage penalty".

Estate Planning Benefits --- Best handled through a revokable inter-vivos trust. It doesn't matter if your married or not. You don't need a lawyer. Counting on "spousal benefits" for estate planning is extremely stupid.

Government Benefits --- Shouldn't exist. Social security will be broke soon anyway. Death benefits and retirement benefits should be assignable to anyone just like life insurance. It shouldn't matter if you're sleeping with your beneficiary or not. With defined contribution plans (like IRAs). Medicare is a joke. And don't get me started on "public assistance". That has helped undermine marriage because women can get more money if they are single heads of households.

Employment Benefits -- That's a fraud especially when it comes to health insurance. The health insurance tax benefit should be given to the individual so he can buy it on the free market just like he buys car insurance. In fact there should be no health insurance tax benefit because there should be no income tax. The federal government really has no right to impose any benefit mandate on private employers.

Medical Benefits - "Spousal" visitation and medical decision making can be taken care of 100% through contract. It's called a durable power of attorney for healthcare + a living will. Anyone who doesn't have those things today is too stupid to be married anyway. Think "Terri Schiavo". Even if you're heterosexual you need this. And you might want someone to have the power over your medical decision making that you're not sleeping with. This is a total red herring.

Death Benefits - Consenting to after death arrangements - Can also be covered by living will and durable power of attorney. Non issue.

Family Benefits - adoption - You don't have to be married for joint adoption or foster care.
Child support - alimony - Are you trying to make an argument against gay marriage? Anyway, can be covered by contract.


Housing Benefits - Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only." - Case law already covers this. You don't have to be sleeping with someone to be considered "family".

Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. - Contract.

Consumer Benefits - This is anti-libertarian to even be discussing this. The federal government has no role in what kind of benefits businesses offer consumers. If a business wants to give a gay couple a discount it can. If it doesn't want to it shouldn't have to. Let the free market sort it out.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy) - You can get loss of consortium for people you aren't sleeping with.

Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states). - Again, this is supposed to help the gay marriage argument? Gays are wanting third parties? That's ironic since Lawrence v. Texas started when one gay male called the police on his lover who was cheating on him.

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. - Meh. A witness can always say "I forgot". There's really nothing a prosecutor or plaintiff can do about that.

Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. - Shouldn't exist.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse. - Anchor lovers? Immigration laws are screwy anyway.

Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family. Visitation rights in jail are not limited to members of immediate family.

 

[jmdrake]

How is gay marriage not a victimless crime (well, in places that forbid it, anyway)? Getting the government out of marriage and defining it is as libertarian as it gets.

I think most people here can agree with that. The problem with the "gay marriage" movement is that it's just further entangling the government into marriage.

 

[MJU1983]

So, instead of this thread being about how awesome Clint Eastwood is, its another gay marriage discussion thread. Great. Why do we nitpick everything?

INTERNETS = serious business. lol

 

[jmdrake]

Gay marriage already exists, and as is, it's fine. What isn't libertarian is government endorsing and thereby degrading a religious ceremony. Think about it -- as is, people actually go pay the government so their religious ceremony is legalized. In the US, it's "weird" not to go tell the government about who you've committed to -- that's fucked up. It'd be silly for a libertarian to say MORE people should be expected to go get their ceremony legalized.


-- @ marriage benefits - most of those potential problems can be solved with a simple contract. The rest are simply problems with an invasive, over-reaching government which needs to be trimmed down - but that's no reason to continue expanding the number of people expected to go ask gov't for legal permission to marry their mate -- it's a reason to decrease the size and power of gov't, not increase it.

+rep

 

[jmdrake]

So, instead of this thread being about how awesome Clint Eastwood is, its another gay marriage discussion thread. Great. Why do we nitpick everything?

CLINT EASTWOOD IS AWESOME AND I'D LOVE TO HAVE HIS ENDORSEMENT!

.
.
.
And with my luck he'd go endorse John Huntsman.