Liberals just don't get it. (drugs, free speech, crime, examples)

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

If you think rights come from government you completely miss the point of them.

A right is an abstract idea. If you try to kill me, I'll try to kill you first. We won't be discussing rights. If you think you can go it alone, be my guest.

Our constitutional rights come by agreement of our citizens. The government is just an organization, like any other. You speak of it in the abstract as well, as if "government" is an alien sentient being. The government is us. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's not us. Welcome to democracy.

[It'sAutomatic]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

If you think rights come from government you completely miss the point of them.

They come from people around you. Governments are made of people, in fact.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Grsz11

You said the right thinks people should do what they want, which is utterly false. A gay marriage costs you nothing, so if what you said were true the Tea Party would have no problem with it. That's not the case.

I don't have an issue with same-sex marriage as long as creating such marriages doesn't involve government defining what is official government-certified truth.

Of course the real purpose of marrying members of the same-sex is to make gay sex officially equal to straight sex so perverts who **** members of their own sex can walk around with a document from the state that makes no distinction between a normal heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one.

With that in hand, homosexuals don't have to feel bad about being perverts because the state says what they do in private is OK.

I prefer the state stays out of the bedroom and I really don't want them calling balls and strikes where the issue is what is or is not acceptable sexual expression between consenting adults.

Like so many others on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that government has no place defining what marriage is or is not.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by mattee01

Flat out lie. Every single day a conservative / republican / tea party comes out against homosexuality. Every day. You're either blind, stupid, or both.

Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are not the same thing.

Two heterosexual men can marry in a same-sex marriage state.

Two homosexuals can marry in any state if they are of opposite sexes.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Except for, you know, virtually every single elected member of congress who identifies with the Tea Party.

How many can you name who aren't rabid social authoritarians? One? Two? You could count them up on one hand and probably have fingers left over.

The Tea Party is largely a white deeply Christian movement and their views and the people they elect largely represent exactly that - anti-tax, smaller government (for things they don't personally like), and more socialize conservative than mainstream America. Let's not pretend the tea party movement is something new and pure; it's just that old white christian social authoritarians who are terrible at math and dislike anyone who isn't exactly like them adopted a new name. Whatever Ron Paul-esque origins it once had are long gone and those people are relegated to the fringe of what is supposedly their own movement.

What is more "rabid social authoritarian" than defining sexual relationships between consenting adults as acceptable or not by granting or not granting a marriage license?

Unlike same-sex marriage advocates, I prefer the state stay out of our bedrooms.

What is a private matter between two consenting adults shouldn't be subject to government's prying eyes and there definitely shouldn't be a state-issued license for such a private sexual relationship.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by momonkey

I don't have an issue with same-sex marriage as long as creating such marriages doesn't involve government defining what is official government-certified truth.

Of course the real purpose of marrying members of the same-sex is to make gay sex officially equal to straight sex so perverts who **** members of their own sex can walk around with a document from the state that makes no distinction between a normal heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one.

With that in hand, homosexuals don't have to feel bad about being perverts because the state says what they do in private is OK.

I prefer the state stays out of the bedroom and I really don't want them calling balls and strikes where the issue is what is or is not acceptable sexual expression between consenting adults.

Like so many others on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that government has no place defining what marriage is or is not.

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

You know what's really perverted? A fat chick having sex. No marriage for you, fat chicks. (No offense, in case the sarcasm wasn't evident.)

You are one sick puppy. You are the perverted one. Normal (your term) people don't concern themselves with the sex lives of consenting adults.

Saying you don't care is a lie. If you didn't care, you wouldn't call gays perverts.

So we should not concern ourselves with someone else's private sex life unless they want the state to publicly issue a license that regulates that private sexual relationship?

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

You speak in the abstract. I speak in real terms.

Incorrect. I speak using the actual definitions of words, you are the one using abstracts. I am speaking about the concepts of freedom in the context of the political philosophers that came up with the idea.

You are in over your head. It is obvious you don't read authors like Smith, Bacon, Locke, Voltaire, etc... yet you pretend to know about the concept they fathered, while contradicting the very ideas that liberty are based on.

Have you even read a book on natural law?

It was completely legal to artificially alter stock prices before the crash of 1929 resulted in regulation. You can call it free market, unfree market, joe's thai pepper market, I don't care. If you're unfamiliar with the leadung causes of the '29 crash, then thats on you. I'm not going to argue.

Don't argue then, it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

These companies did NOT cause the crash without help from government. Rather, it was a neo-mercantilist corporate state, where government – as only government can – empowered privileged business interests to make fortunes at the expense of regular working and consuming Americans.

It was pretty much exactly like today, the problem is people like you advocate aggregating all the authority to one source, which then sells it to the highest bidder.

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

A right is an abstract idea. If you try to kill me, I'll try to kill you first. We won't be discussing rights. If you think you can go it alone, be my guest.

Christ, read some damn rights theory before you speak on it. That is the WHOLE POINT of rights, is that they exist weather or not everybody else disagrees with you. If you base a society on rights, just like you base a society on authoritarianism, people are there to protect them.

You just keep proving your ignorance of Smith, Bacon, etc.... and the concepts of human freedom that they came up with and changed the world with.

Our constitutional rights come by agreement of our citizens.

NO THEY DON'T, if they do, THEY CAN'T BE RIGHTS BY DEFINITION. What you are speaking of are privileges.

Even the people who wrote the constitution say that the rights existed before the constitution and it just RECOGNIZES the rights that naturally exist.

Under your understanding, people who live under tyrannical governments don't have their rights violated because the majority says they don't have rights. THIS NEGATES THE WHOLE POINT OF RIGHTS. It simply doesn't work.

The government is just an organization, like any other. You speak of it in the abstract as well, as if "government" is an alien sentient being.

The government is a group of men and women that use violence on people to achieve their goals. They claim that they have the "consent" of the governed, though I give them no consent. If the consent of the majority is enough, you simply value mob rule over human freedom. Sad.

The government is us.

No it is NOT. I am not associated with the government, and I do not consent to it. It is simply a group of men and women who use force and the threat thereof against me. They think it is legitimate because people like you tell them it is ok to use violence on people who fundamentally disagree with them.

You can argue practicality all you want.... the end result is the same, you believe in authoritarian mob-rule, and I believe in human freedom.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's not us.

I am not part of the government, I do not consent to it. Lying to help your position means you have a weak position.

You are just grasping at straws now.

Welcome to democracy.

Welcome to authoritarian mob-rule.

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

They come from people around you.

Wrong again, read some actual philosophy.

The WHOLE point of rights is that they exist, period. Regardless what those around you think and regardless of the violence they are willing to use against you.

That just puts people like you in violation of rights theory.

The WHOLE point of rights theory are rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away

The fact that you argue they can't exist because people want to violate them shows you don't understand the fundamental concepts of freedom.

Governments are made of people, in fact.

Yeah, men and women that people like you give consent to violently violate MY rights. Under rights theory, you can't consent for me... now matter how large the majority. Again, having the permission of the majority is just mob-rule.

[petch751]

Originally Posted by petch751

Liberals accuse republicans and tea party of trying to stop them from doing what they choose to do. They refuse to get ... Go ahead, you are free,

WE JUST DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR YOUR CHOICES.

^^

[GregW]

Governments should be, but rarely are, established to protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the mob whether they be a political party, a religion or any other group of "My way or the Highway" fanatics.

FWIW - marriage laws were and are not about sex but inheritance. Priests were not forbidden sex but marriage so all of their possessions became Church and not their spouses or children's property. This is just one of the places Mammon took over Christianity from Jehovah during the great expansion of the "Christian" church.

It is not the government's care what married partners do sexually with one another. It is the government's concern what happens when said marriage dissolves due to divorce or death. Government is in the realm of Mammon not the God of Jesus Christ or any other religion. If a religion has prohibitions about some sexual behaviors then it only applies to the adherents of that religion and not to any nonbelievers. The government should never be involved in enforcing religious beliefs on anyone. Ever.

BTW - We Liberals do get it. The base of Liberal is Liberty. The Liberty to be free of the dictates of the Mob.

[petch751]

Originally Posted by GregW

BTW - We Liberals do get it. The base of Liberal is Liberty. The Liberty to be free of the dictates of the Mob.

LOL, as long as someone else pays for it. All of it!

Look at the Hobby Lobby ruling. The company pays for 12 forms of birth control yet doesn't agree with 4 forms and liberals are SPINNING all over the place. Pay for it ALL!.

Ya, the company has rights to their beliefs <sarcasm>, pay for ALL of it even though you don't believe in the abortion pill.