Libertarianism's two big policies (violent crime, leader, financial, states)

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by mtl1

Marriage laws is an example of the government co-opting the church and breaking the wall of separation.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by mtl1

Marriage was originally the church's creation and function. Originally it was an agreement between a man and woman and god, recognized by the church. A church should define marriage and marry or divorce a couple.

I have no problem with some institution of religious belief having weird expensive ceremonies and rituals (though I think ultimately as a species we should be moving away from religious beliefs at all, but that's going to take centuries and I digress...).

Originally Posted by mtl1

Any state or atheist "marriage" is just a government contract with government strings attached.

I suppose in this case terminology counts for something. For example, I have no strong desire to get "married" to my girlfriend. Would the exact same thing under a different name than "marriage" be more palatable? A little, I guess. I'm loathe to seek or need recognition from the state. I don't need that institution to acknowledge anything about our intentions, living arrangements, etc. We're together now. We may remain together or we may not. However I think writing up a custom contract that we both agree to, granting certain resolutions in terms of property and accumulated wealth, which could then be witnessed and later, if necessary, enforced by the "courts," falls under the purview of "limited government."

Truthfully I find the whole idea of permanence, possession, and exclusivity excessively controlling, unrealistic, and puritanical. I think a standard domestic partnership contract should be for 5 or 10 years, with the option, should both parties agree, to incrementally extend it once the initial term has expired. I don't see a problem with future contracts being something like "an agreement between these three men and these two women to create and adopt X number of children for a period of Y number of years" though I can see the complexity level of that could grow exponentially.

[whogo]

We can argue what things should be like in a libertarian nation but in the world we live in now gays should have equal protection under the law. Just one example, my wife's expected SS benefit is about 250 bucks based on her work history and over a $1000 simply because she is married to me. No reason a gay couple should not have the same benefit regardless of what we think of SS benefits in the first place.

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by whogo

...gays should have equal protection under the law...

Yes. I doubt many who lean libertarian would disagree with this.

[mtl1]

Originally Posted by whogo

We can argue what things should be like in a libertarian nation but in the world we live in now gays should have equal protection under the law. Just one example, my wife's expected SS benefit is about 250 bucks based on her work history and over a $1000 simply because she is married to me. No reason a gay couple should not have the same benefit regardless of what we think of SS benefits in the first place.

So why not equal protection under the law for a polygamist coupling, or pedophilia or incestuous coupling? You can say apples and oranges but so is same-sex and opposite sex marriage.


No matter how you spin it government co-opted marriage and many years later completely redefined it.


Marriage wasn't the real intent of survivor benefits and tax benefits, benefiting primarily housewives and children was the intent of the benefits. Co-opting in the name of "equality" is objectionable to me.

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by mtl1

So why not equal protection under the law for a polygamist coupling, or pedophilia or incestuous coupling?

I have no issue with polygamist coupling, nor with incestuous coupling (though the latter, as I understand, can carry some genetic risks should the two decide to try and create another human due to the sameness of their coding). Pedophilia falls under consent -- we do differentiate adults from children both in terms of sexual consent and in terms of contract consent.

Anyway, here's a post I made a while back (complete with a little chart I made) to explain how I saw the same sex / poly issue and opinions thereof: http://www.city-data.com/forum/40993703-post27.html

[whogo]

Originally Posted by mtl1

So why not equal protection under the law for a polygamist coupling, or pedophilia or incestuous coupling? You can say apples and oranges but so is same-sex and opposite sex marriage.


No matter how you spin it government co-opted marriage and many years later completely redefined it.


Marriage wasn't the real intent of survivor benefits and tax benefits, benefiting primarily housewives and children was the intent of the benefits. Co-opting in the name of "equality" is objectionable to me.

We have age of consent laws for a reason, Some people do not have the mental capacity or maturity to enter into a contract.


Polygamous marriages do complicate things under our current welfare state much more than gay marriage. There is a much weaker case for stating polygamists are denied equal protection under the law.


The primary beneficiaries of SS survivor benefits are women long past child bearing age.

[mtl1]

I guess the question is does Libertarianism believe in egalitarianism, forced or unenforced?


Nature, human nature and this country (or any?) were never originally egalitarian. Egalitarianism is mostly a post 1960s philosophy and policy. I don't believe in egalitarianism.


I should define what I mean by egalitarianism-everything being equal, identical, interchangeable or compatible or can or should be made so.

[whogo]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The only egalitarianism in libertarianism is that all men are created equal and entitled to certain
unalienable rights.

[mtl1]

I don't want to get into a tit for tat over gay marriage. I just don't believe in egalitarianism.

Originally Posted by whogo

We have age of consent laws for a reason, Some people do not have the mental capacity or maturity to enter into a contract.

We had opposite-sex marriage laws for a reason. I don't need to go into all the reasoning and justification. The point is no matter your reasoning some are not going to accept it.

Polygamous marriages do complicate things under our current welfare state much more than gay marriage. There is a much weaker case for stating polygamists are denied equal protection under the law.

Well that's your position. You're free to rank order it how one wants. I find no reason gay couples should receive the same equal protection as straight couples.

The primary beneficiaries of SS survivor benefits are women long past child bearing age.

But the intent behind it was women were housewives who raised children and were dependent on their husbands' income, so they should continue to receive his income after he is gone

[mtl1]

Originally Posted by whogo

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I knew someone would bring that up. They were sticking it to King George and saying we are born equal to the royal born and have certain rights that were not endowed by man. They did not really believe that all men, classes or the sexes were exactly equal.

The only egalitarianism in libertarianism is that all men are created equal and entitled to certain
unalienable rights.

So they are okay with one class being treated unequal to another outside of unalienable rights? It seems libertarians seem to argue more egalitarianism would result if minimal laws were imposed. I think less egalitarianism would result. Essentially society would revert back to tribal and less tolerant.