Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In any thread where libertarian logic is talked about there is at least one metaphoric reference to guns being used to force a situation (even if it isn't in reality.) You see this rhetoric about anything from taxes to laws to even businesses that "have to serve you." So I ask, what is the obsessions with guns libertarians? Why must you use that anytime you talk about being cohersed?
I've seen this from several different posters over the last year as a response for taxes, disturbing the peace laws, the business owners' "right to discriminate against patrons," etc. So don't marginalize this. Some seem to use that buzzword any chance they get.
I've seen this from several different posters over the last year as a response for taxes, disturbing the peace laws, the business owners' "right to discriminate against patrons," etc. So don't marginalize this. Some seem to use that buzzword any chance they get.
I didn't marginalize anything. You did. That's why there hasn't been any discussion. You didn't present a valid argument.
Libertarians in these arguments refer to initiating force, not guns per se; since guns are such a common and easily-understandable way to use force, it serves to drive home the point that ultimately all these actions they refer to come down to initiating force. If you sufficiently resist any of the sort of edicts you refer to, at some point you will be staring down a government gun. The fact that some or even most people might even willingly do it anyway or be sufficiently intimidated to back down before the guns come out does not change the fundamental nature of the interaction. If you do not ever comply the situation will come to force in reality.
Oh, and when I first read the topic I thought it was about "libertarian obsession with guns" as in gun culture .
I didn't marginalize anything. You did. That's why there hasn't been any discussion. You didn't present a valid argument.
Why isn't the argument valid? There is nothing forcing someone to open a business to open if you don't want to serve blacks, gays or women. There is nothing forcing you to not pay taxes, you don't get shot for it, you just get arrested for evasion and put in jail as well as part punitive damages to the government. The police aren't breaking down your door because you played your music to loud, they ask of you to do so or face citations. When you smoke pot, you don't see the root squad at your doorstep with a battering ram (unless you are running a drug smuggling ring or selling mass accounts.) Libertarians tend to use this rhetoric like it happens every second.
No obsession, just concern with the Constitution. /thread.
Up next: why the liberal obsession with political correctness in every and all things?
What concern of the Constitution, I don't see that logic, let alone understand it at all.
Political correctness could be over how offensive words and phrases are about people. Think about it, if whites really hated the word honey, we wouldn't want someone calling us that as a racial slur.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
