Yoou sort of hit on my point, in the past governments have tried to control society. As a freedom loving individual, no matter how good the intentions, the state has not business trying to tell me how to live.
As long as the rule of law in terms of property are upheld, the state should leave people free. Whether it is marriage or some other social issue, the state should only be there to uphold property rights.
____________ --
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
As long as the rule of law in terms of property are upheld, the state should leave people free. Whether it is marriage or some other social issue, the state should only be there to uphold property rights.
Free to kill, maim, have sexual relations with minors, etc...
All of these things are extreme examples of what is not exceptable in our society that are protected under the law, which do NOT deal with property
As long as the rule of law in terms of property are upheld, the state should leave people free. Whether it is marriage or some other social issue, the state should only be there to uphold property rights.
Free to kill, maim, have sexual relations with minors, etc...
All of these things are extreme examples of what is not exceptable in our society that are protected under the law, which do NOT deal with property
Capebretoner, God bless you. At least, someone is seeing one of my points. That's why i said initially, if we accept that the govt shudnt care about gay unions, then they shud as well allow everyone's sexual fantasy and preference to materialise. There are lots of sick minds in today's society that's why we hear of sexual relations with minors which i think most pple wud have a problem with and that's why we all have an entrusted responsibility in our government to curb it....then why being selective? Believe it or not, every law that is made, changed, nullified or modified in a society affects every member of the society directly or indirectly.
Well, I can think of a lot of things that people do in a community that bother me, none of which I would want to use the force of the state to correct.
It is not the job the government to create and model society, its role is limited to ensuring that laws are upheld, not cultural norms.
Free to kill, maim, have sexual relations with minors, etc...
All of these things are extreme examples of what is not exceptable in our society that are protected under the law, which do NOT deal with property
Actually they are properety rights. Your life is your property and no one has the right to tkae that away. Your body is your property as well and if you do not want to have sexual relations, you should not be forced into it. Likewise, in Canada, children are considered property as well....
Negative rights vs postive rights. The government should enforce the former and stay away from the latter.
____________ --
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
It is not the job the government to create and model society, its role is limited to ensuring that laws are upheld, not cultural norms.
Sorry sir, that statement is seriously flawed.[/quote]
Yes because the greatest examples of the state trying to create a society is Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba and North Korea. I would toss in China, but according to my PM, they are progressing very well on Human Rights.
____________ --
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:39 am Post subject: uhhh...
A few points:
1. Hickorystick, oversimplifying the role of government to property rights leaves an inapplicable ideology. Should everyone be in charge of their own sewage, as long as it doesn't affect others? Well, perhaps its easier to have it run municipally. And, I hope protecting the environment is under the realm of citizien property rights - because the line about leaving the market to determine everything but property and personal protection fails in the environment, where the market is ill-equipped to deal with the issue, since there is no cost to degrading the environment, beyond ones own personal displeasure at looking at it, which is surely compensated by the money made from the degradation.
2. Profiler, your stand against homosexuality is odd. First, you're concerned with having to fill out a hetero/homo checkbox on your tax return... Then you're concerned that it shouldn't be encouraged because its not normal. Either this is the stand of some high-school homogenizer, or I'm misunderstanding - everything I do must be accepted as socially normal? Sounds a bit fascist. And your logical interpretation that gay unions should open the door to necrophilia and incest? Homosexual unions are for the right to officially recognize the union of two same-sex individuals, and this recognition does not harm anyone. Incest typically involves the sexual assault of minors, which certainly hurts people, and necrophilia involves either killing people, or digging people up from their graves. These actions both hurt people. You'll find that most sexual acts which do not exploit or harm others are permissible, regardless of your notion of normality.
Free to kill, maim, have sexual relations with minors, etc...
All of these things are extreme examples of what is not exceptable in our society that are protected under the law, which do NOT deal with property
Actually they are properety rights. Your life is your property and no one has the right to tkae that away. Your body is your property as well and if you do not want to have sexual relations, you should not be forced into it. Likewise, in Canada, children are considered property as well....
Negative rights vs postive rights. The government should enforce the former and stay away from the latter.
Just wondering, how do you define, negative and positive rights?
It seems that a lot of people see nothing wrong with gay couples having the same benefits, but don't want to call them "married". Sounds fine with me, I never put much effort in terms as long as they get the same benefits, and the only difference in the definition is marriage is between a man and a woman, and a union is between two people of the same gender.
Since this is figured out, how does a gay couple get a divorse, or de-unioned?
All times are GMT - 3 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
