Social liberty/libertarianism? Foreign policy?

[LisaIA]

I still don't get it, Darkside.  You acknowledge that some homosexuals are promiscuous, while others are committed and monogamous.  You acknowledge the same is true for heterosexuals.  You're not coming right out and saying this, but I'm just trying to piece together the logic from what you have written... do you believe that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to demand the government teat? I can only speak from personal experience, but most if not all of the gay people I know are extremely self-sufficient responsible individuals, while many of the straight people I know are irresponsible jag-offs.  Is it the 'loud and proud' thing that bothers you?  Because I don't believe they're being loud and proud about their alleged dependence on public assistance. 

In spite of any disagreement, I appreciate your correct use of the word myriad

[Stratispho]

The problem isn't homosexuals, or drugs, or welfare, or immigration, or (insert almost anything)... but that the government is stealing wages with a threat of violence if you object to pay for any government program. There is no accountability and no recourse.

[MichaelNotMike]

homosexuals, but agree they can do whatever they want. Whether they should be able to be "married" like a man and woman I'm not really sure about.....

Someone (on here?) summed up my position on this perfectly. "Why should ANYONE want to stop anyone from getting a government piece of paper."

Not that there should BE government pieces of paper, but really, I can't see feeling any more strongly about keeping homosexuals from getting "legally" married than I can see keeping homosexuals from applying for a zoning variance. I don't think there should BE zoning, but the idea of anyone worrying, taking political action, or protesting with signs that say "THE GAYS DON'T DESERVE ZONING VARIANCES" and "A ZONING VARIANCE IS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN" is pretty damn laughable.

My wife and are "legally" married, got married four years ago. We got married at the courthouse. Except for the cool old justice of the peace who performed the four-minute service, the whole experience was much like a trip to the DMV....Including getting panhandled as soon as we walked out of the building. (This was in California, mind you.)

If we had it to do over, we'd likely consider NOT getting the piece of paper. Or getting the piece of paper but only for tax reasons.....though Obama is trying to cut the marriage deduction, probably because he hates the family unit and considers it a threat to "global governance."


MWD

[MichaelNotMike]

... I doubt the species is in any danger. ...

Especially in Wyoming. A trip to any WalMart would lead you to believe that the average family here has six kids, at least. Which makes me wonder how this could possibly be the least-populated state, but it is.

My wife, Debra Jean, was at WalMart recently. I usually go with her shopping, but I was home busy working. She had an experience that made me pretty darned proud of her.

In front of her at the checkout line there was a young couple (both probably 23 or 24 years old) with three very young kids. And the wife was pregnant. They were taking forever, paying for stuff with food stamps, trying to figure out what they could buy, and counting pennies for the rest. Finally DJ said "Food stamps....sheesh.....If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."

The couple got incredibly indignant, and said "What do you care if we're on food stamps? The money comes from the government!"

DJ said "...And the government gets its money from ME!"

It was getting ugly, until the tall Wyoming gentleman in a cowboy hat behind DJ got up in the husband's face and said "The lady's right...."

I love my wife and I love Wyoming.

MWD

[MichaelNotMike]

I recently wrote my state representative and a Wyoming state senator and suggested a bill whereby all public and government buildings in Wyoming would be required to post signs that say "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em", with a silhouette of a cat, a dog, and a pregnant woman with six kids.

Sort of a modest proposal, but I got a kick out of it.


MWD

[DarkSide]

I know, I'm probably not being as clear as I could.  I'm basically bitching about lack of responsibility and entitlement in general.  I pretty much only picked on gays as an example because they were the main subject in the preceding posts.  Any of the other examples I pointed out would have done just as well.  I don't condone homosexuality in any way, and it is certainly unnatural.  That said, not all gays are alike any more than anyone else is.  I have a real problem with the "loud and proud" fanatics who want to be celebrated and given special privilege rather than simply being tolerantly left alone to do their thing.  I think I agree with John in that just because I think someone has a right to their choices as long as they take responsibility for those choices and don't burden others,  it doesn't mean I have to like or agree with those choices.  Or that I can't look down my nose and shake my head at the folks who make them.  

I especially dislike the argument that "It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved."  Say someone, hetero, homo, druggie or whatever, contracts AIDS or some other nasty crud from the activities of their chosen "lifestyle."  Even if that person is well insured and not asking for handouts, the simple fact is that they are getting such handouts anyway as soon as they begin receiving treatment.  You and I are paying for these handouts.  When someone uses a large amount of medical services that are paid for through an insurance policy it raises the rates a bit for everyone.  This is mitigated just a bit by the fact that the companies try to adjust rates according to risky behavior, but then they have more liability to discrimination lawsuits and the whole thing continues to spiral out of control from there.  If the afflicted person doesn't have insurance, we pay increased premiums due to the increased prices of medical services brought on by the industry being forced to allow for the treatment costs of the irresponsible types.  At the end, responsible people bear a significantly larger proportional share of the costs to services ratio than the irresponsible people, whatever their group.  This would remain true even under single payer "Obamacare," although along with increased premiums we would also see shortage of services and denial of care to both the responsible and irresponsible groups.

The same holds true for most other aspects of life, not just health care.  I don't have a clue what to do about it, either.  I just know I don't like it.  I suppose if we could eliminate insurance and go back to paying the doc ourselves, with livestock if necessary, the problem would solve itself.  Hope that clears up my position at least a little.  

DS

I still don't get it, Darkside.  You acknowledge that some homosexuals are promiscuous, while others are committed and monogamous.  You acknowledge the same is true for heterosexuals.  You're not coming right out and saying this, but I'm just trying to piece together the logic from what you have written... do you believe that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to demand the government teat? I can only speak from personal experience, but most if not all of the gay people I know are extremely self-sufficient responsible individuals, while many of the straight people I know are irresponsible jag-offs.  Is it the 'loud and proud' thing that bothers you?  Because I don't believe they're being loud and proud about their alleged dependence on public assistance. 

In spite of any disagreement, I appreciate your correct use of the word myriad

[LisaIA]

I especially dislike the argument that "It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved."  Say someone, hetero, homo, druggie or whatever, contracts AIDS or some other nasty crud from the activities of their chosen "lifestyle."  

I do not follow. My statement "It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved" was specifically talking about being gay.  Gay sex and gay love between two people is only their business.  Just like the sex I have with my husband is only our business.  One does not contract AIDS from simply being gay.  Being gay does not suggest any particular lifestyle.  Personally I'm straight and I don't have any habits that should result in my getting AIDS.  Gay people are just PEOPLE.  That's what I'm trying to say.  They're no more or less prone to any "nasty crud" than anyone else.  You are taking a leap somewhere in there that I'm not going along with.

[DarkSide]

My statement "It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved" was specifically talking about being gay.

Perhaps, but the whole gay thing is only a small facet of the point I am trying (in vain, it seems) to make.  Something about personal responsibility or some such.

Gay sex and gay love between two people is only their business.  Just like the sex I have with my husband is only our business.

I'll go along with that, though I don't particularly want to hear about any of it.

One does not contract AIDS from simply being gay.  Being gay does not suggest any particular lifestyle.

Perhaps not, but statistically there are conclusions to be drawn.  Being gay is a particular lifestyle, or subset thereof anyway. 

Of course they're people, did I suggest anywhere that they're animals or something?

Not sure that there's actual communication taking place here, I certainly didn't set out to debate gayness...

[Stratispho]

I especially dislike the argument that "It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved."  Say someone, hetero, homo, druggie or whatever, contracts AIDS or some other nasty crud from the activities of their chosen "lifestyle."  Even if that person is well insured and not asking for handouts, the simple fact is that they are getting such handouts anyway as soon as they begin receiving treatment.  You and I are paying for these handouts.  When someone uses a large amount of medical services that are paid for through an insurance policy it raises the rates a bit for everyone.  This is mitigated just a bit by the fact that the companies try to adjust rates according to risky behavior, but then they have more liability to discrimination lawsuits and the whole thing continues to spiral out of control from there.  If the afflicted person doesn't have insurance, we pay increased premiums due to the increased prices of medical services brought on by the industry being forced to allow for the treatment costs of the irresponsible types.  At the end, responsible people bear a significantly larger proportional share of the costs to services ratio than the irresponsible people, whatever their group.  This would remain true even under single payer "Obamacare," although along with increased premiums we would also see shortage of services and denial of care to both the responsible and irresponsible groups.

All of your arguments against gays, druggies, etc are misdirected. The problem is that there is a government monopoly on violence forcing you to pay for those handouts. It's not the people getting the handouts that should be discussed, it's the giant criminal organization behind it that should be talked about and figured out how to bring down.

If your neighbor is stealing birdseed from the grocers market and putting out bags of said bird seed and feeding the squirrels and every wild creature around and they're crapping all over your house, car, patio furniture.... do you blame the animals or the neighbor?

[DarkSide]

All of your arguments against gays, druggies, etc are misdirected. The problem is that there is a government monopoly on violence forcing you to pay for those handouts. It's not the people getting the handouts that should be discussed, it's the giant criminal organization behind it that should be talked about and figured out how to bring down.

True to a certain extent.  The aforementioned people are NOT absolved of any responsibility, however.  After all, they vote to continue this crap.  You'll not make an anarchist out of me, but what we have here is definitely out of control.

[Stratispho]

You'll not make an anarchist out of me

Give us time. We're persuasive. 

[MichaelNotMike]

Republicans made me a Democrat.
Then Democrats drove me to being a Republican.
Republicans drove me to be a libertarian.
Libertarians drove me back to being a Republican.
Republicans drove me to be an anarchist.

Your mileage may vary.

[clemmac]

Republicans made me a Democrat.
Then Democrats drove me to being a Republican.
Republicans drove me to be a libertarian.
Libertarians drove me back to being a Republican.
Republicans drove me to be an anarchist.

I LIKE 

[MANUMIT]

....After all, they vote to continue this crap.  You'll not make an anarchist out of me, but what we have here is definitely out of control.

The "anarchy" you appear to be afraid of is embodied in the current situation...lawless-ness based strictly on might or majority with fancy pieces of paper justifying the actions.

1828 Definition....AN'ARCHY, n. [Gr. rule.]
    Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion.

However...the original definition has morphed into TOO MUCH government where there is too much law & supreme power.  The laws are not efficient, individuals (within the gang) do what they please with impunity and there is quite a bit of political confusion.

The "anarchy" a lot of us preach and practice is precisely what you do everyday when you go to work, buy products & services or otherwise freely, voluntarily interact with your fellow man...and is precisely defined as AN ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT, or outside control/restraint.

1828 Definition...GOV'ERNMENT, n. Direction; regulation. These precepts will serve for the government of our conduct.
    1. Control; restraint. Men are apt to neglect the government of their temper and passions.

    2. The exercise of authority; direction and restraint exercised over the actions of men in communities, societies or states; the administration of public affairs, according to established constitution, laws and usages, or by arbitrary edicts.

Criminals are always going to be criminals no matter how many words get put on paper...I don't see the need to give the worst of them, those committing crime for the "common good" (as defined by those individuals) enhanced tools and "legal" smokescreen for their actions all in one nice neat package.

Remove the sheen of "authority" and let every person's actions stand on their own....want to be "licensed" then get licensed....want to protect three-legged sloths, then protect three-legged sloths.  Want the "services" of the existing system, fine...VOLUNTARILY pay them AND most importantly, allow others to opt out.  The true free-market "majority" will expand programs they want and defund programs they don't.

Don't stick a gun in my back, and more & more in my face, and tell me I have to support the winners of an election and their actions just because of some g-d piece of paper (at least according to former president Bush) "authorized" it...cause that's anarchy brother and I ain't buying none of it.

MANUMIT

[DarkSide]

The "anarchy" you appear to be afraid of...

Who said I was "afraid" of it?