Brian, Have you considered that reaching out to understand people also extends to reaching out to understand the sensibilities and world view of Southern white protestants. Have you listened ,and heard the Google ron Paul interview in Mountainview last week? I just know how you can take the body of Pauls work and beliefs and attach such labels to it.,
BTW, just to clarify, I'm not out of touch with the Southern white
Protestant voters. For instance, I've always believed to my core
(grew up Methodist in Tennessee) that abortion is murder. Still do.
But Harry Browne changed my mind about abortion bans with one sentence:
"Given the government's record with the War on Poverty and the War on
Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion would lead within five
years to men having abortions."
Question: If Harry Browne could adopt a Libertarian position on
abortion that was not inconsistent with this Southern Protestant's
values, then why the heck can't Ron Paul?
Answer: Because he's not a Libertarian. Same reason he can't adopt a
Libertarian position on LGBT issues. For reference, here's how a real
Libertarian addresses LGBT issues:
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?sernum=67
Rob
(speaking for myself not Outright)
Brian, Have you considered that reaching out to understand people
also extends to reaching out to understand the sensibilities and world
view of Southern white protestants. Have you listened ,and heard the
Google ron Paul interview in Mountainview last week? I just know how
you can take the body of Pauls work and beliefs and attach such labels
to it.,
From: Brian Miller
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty] Something for all the
Ron Paul supporters to read
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Rob, do you believe in legal (government sponsored)
gay marriage, because if you do, then you TOO are not
a "real" libertarian. As a Libertarian you should
believe in the Supreme Court upheld constitutional
right of living with whom you choose and acting with
them how you may. And believe that not even President
Ron Paul could keep you from that. You should also
believe we should be able to contract with whomever we
want but that we should not have government "bless"
that union anymore than we would want them to abolish
it.
Peace,
-TJ
--- Rob <robpower@...> wrote:
BTW, just to clarify, I'm not out of touch with the
Southern white
Protestant voters. For instance, I've always
believed to my core
(grew up Methodist in Tennessee) that abortion is
murder. Still do.
But Harry Browne changed my mind about abortion bans
with one sentence:"Given the government's record with the War on
Poverty and the War on
Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion would
lead within five
years to men having abortions."Question: If Harry Browne could adopt a Libertarian
position on
abortion that was not inconsistent with this
Southern Protestant's
values, then why the heck can't Ron Paul?Answer: Because he's not a Libertarian. Same reason
he can't adopt a
Libertarian position on LGBT issues. For reference,
here's how a real
Libertarian addresses LGBT issues:
I've never met a so-called "real libertarian against government marriage" who didn't have a legal marriage license -- including Ron Paul (who has a government marriage to his wife Carol).
The purists seem intent on their purism only to the degree that it is a useful device for homophobia -- if they were truly principled about avoiding a transitional approach of equalizing marriage on the way to getting the government out of it, skipping straight to the getting government out of it, they'd happily avoid getting government marriages themselves.
I have yet to meet one single "married but not government married" Libertarian who has done this. Yet they all seem intent on forcing gays to all do this (while continuing to pay the taxes to fund the marriage welfare program that they never get around to campaigning against *except* when the topic of same-sex marriage comes up).
Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: Rob, do you believe in legal (government sponsored)
gay marriage, because if you do, then you TOO are not
a "real" libertarian. As a Libertarian you should
believe in the Supreme Court upheld constitutional
right of living with whom you choose and acting with
them how you may. And believe that not even President
Ron Paul could keep you from that. You should also
believe we should be able to contract with whomever we
want but that we should not have government "bless"
that union anymore than we would want them to abolish
it.
Peace,
-TJ
--- Rob <robpower@...> wrote:
> BTW, just to clarify, I'm not out of touch with the
> Southern white
> Protestant voters. For instance, I've always
> believed to my core
> (grew up Methodist in Tennessee) that abortion is
> murder. Still do.
> But Harry Browne changed my mind about abortion bans
> with one sentence:
>
> "Given the government's record with the War on
> Poverty and the War on
> Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion would
> lead within five
> years to men having abortions."
>
> Question: If Harry Browne could adopt a Libertarian
> position on
> abortion that was not inconsistent with this
> Southern Protestant's
> values, then why the heck can't Ron Paul?
>
> Answer: Because he's not a Libertarian. Same reason
> he can't adopt a
> Libertarian position on LGBT issues. For reference,
> here's how a real
> Libertarian addresses LGBT issues:
>
>
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?sernum=67
Well you know Brian, like many government programs,
many were forced to get licenses. I have a drivers
license because I dont want excessive fines if I get
pulled over not because I "love" having a government
issued ID. Sometimes you make me laugh out loud.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
I've never met a so-called "real libertarian against
government marriage" who didn't have a legal
marriage license -- including Ron Paul (who has a
government marriage to his wife Carol).The purists seem intent on their purism only to the
degree that it is a useful device for homophobia --
if they were truly principled about avoiding a
transitional approach of equalizing marriage on the
way to getting the government out of it, skipping
straight to the getting government out of it, they'd
happily avoid getting government marriages
themselves.I have yet to meet one single "married but not
government married" Libertarian who has done this.
Yet they all seem intent on forcing gays to all do
this (while continuing to pay the taxes to fund the
marriage welfare program that they never get around
to campaigning against *except* when the topic of
same-sex marriage comes up).Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
Rob, do you believe in
legal (government sponsored)
gay marriage, because if you do, then you TOO are
not
a "real" libertarian. As a Libertarian you should
believe in the Supreme Court upheld constitutional
right of living with whom you choose and acting
with
them how you may. And believe that not even
President
Ron Paul could keep you from that. You should also
believe we should be able to contract with whomever
we
want but that we should not have government "bless"
that union anymore than we would want them to
abolish
it.Peace,
-TJ
--- Rob <robpower@...> wrote:> BTW, just to clarify, I'm not out of touch with
the
> Southern white
> Protestant voters. For instance, I've always
> believed to my core
> (grew up Methodist in Tennessee) that abortion is
> murder. Still do.
> But Harry Browne changed my mind about abortion
bans
> with one sentence:
>
> "Given the government's record with the War on
> Poverty and the War on
> Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion would
> lead within five
> years to men having abortions."
>
> Question: If Harry Browne could adopt a
Libertarian
> position on
> abortion that was not inconsistent with this
> Southern Protestant's
> values, then why the heck can't Ron Paul?
>
> Answer: Because he's not a Libertarian. Same
reason
> he can't adopt a
> Libertarian position on LGBT issues. For
reference,
> here's how a real
> Libertarian addresses LGBT issues:
>
>
Nobody forces one to get a government marriage license. Your comparison to drivers' licenses is laughable. One can be "married" but still not have a license -- as supposedly purist "libertarians" point out to gay couples all the time. Legally, he would be "shacked up" with his spouse.
The real laugh are "libertarians" who partake fully in the government programs that they claim to "oppose" and do nothing to "oppose" them until the topic of gays getting married comes up. Such "libertarians" are willing to condemn queer folk to permanent second class status while sucking off the government teat themselves, and have zero credibility either with libertarians who have brains nor the general queer community.
Of course, this ensures that Libertarian Party support in both communities are similar to the total support for Ron Paul's campaign in the general population -- less than 1%. I can see why that doesn't bother you, since you deem such miserable performances as a grand success, but I'd like to see the Libertarian Party succeed on a much better basis.
If I have to trade off the fake-libertarian purists for 10% of gay voters -- yeilding us $2 million in extra annual political contributions and an extra 1% or so of the popular vote, I'll gladly do so. It'll more than double the pitiful performance you seem so excited about in the Paul campaign -- and actually tie it to the Libertarian Party.
Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: Well you know Brian, like many government programs,
many were forced to get licenses. I have a drivers
license because I dont want excessive fines if I get
pulled over not because I "love" having a government
issued ID. Sometimes you make me laugh out loud.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
> I've never met a so-called "real libertarian against
> government marriage" who didn't have a legal
> marriage license -- including Ron Paul (who has a
> government marriage to his wife Carol).
>
> The purists seem intent on their purism only to the
> degree that it is a useful device for homophobia --
> if they were truly principled about avoiding a
> transitional approach of equalizing marriage on the
> way to getting the government out of it, skipping
> straight to the getting government out of it, they'd
> happily avoid getting government marriages
> themselves.
>
> I have yet to meet one single "married but not
> government married" Libertarian who has done this.
> Yet they all seem intent on forcing gays to all do
> this (while continuing to pay the taxes to fund the
> marriage welfare program that they never get around
> to campaigning against *except* when the topic of
> same-sex marriage comes up).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
> Rob, do you believe in
> legal (government sponsored)
> gay marriage, because if you do, then you TOO are
> not
> a "real" libertarian. As a Libertarian you should
> believe in the Supreme Court upheld constitutional
> right of living with whom you choose and acting
> with
> them how you may. And believe that not even
> President
> Ron Paul could keep you from that. You should also
> believe we should be able to contract with whomever
> we
> want but that we should not have government "bless"
> that union anymore than we would want them to
> abolish
> it.
>
> Peace,
>
> -TJ
> --- Rob <robpower@...> wrote:
>
> > BTW, just to clarify, I'm not out of touch with
> the
> > Southern white
> > Protestant voters. For instance, I've always
> > believed to my core
> > (grew up Methodist in Tennessee) that abortion is
> > murder. Still do.
> > But Harry Browne changed my mind about abortion
> bans
> > with one sentence:
> >
> > "Given the government's record with the War on
> > Poverty and the War on
> > Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion would
> > lead within five
> > years to men having abortions."
> >
> > Question: If Harry Browne could adopt a
> Libertarian
> > position on
> > abortion that was not inconsistent with this
> > Southern Protestant's
> > values, then why the heck can't Ron Paul?
> >
> > Answer: Because he's not a Libertarian. Same
> reason
> > he can't adopt a
> > Libertarian position on LGBT issues. For
> reference,
> > here's how a real
> > Libertarian addresses LGBT issues:
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?sernum=67
Your first mistake is that you think some dont have to
have marriage licenses to get by in life. The other
thing is you are so very wrong with what I think. I am
not happy with 1 percent for Paul or an LP candidate.
I want to win. I want to win by working with similarly
minded folk, "queer" or otherwise, to win elected
offices and promote the LP platform. When Ron Paul
supports much of our platform I support him, as I did
with Harry Browne and Badnarik. I do not feel our
preidential candidates will have the same ability to
get future LP volunteers and votes as much as Ron Paul
is doing now, for instance, our website got plenty
more views (I think it was county, maybe state) when
Ron Paul was here and then when he left it went back
down. This is a sign that Ron Paul can help grow our
party and our party's base.
And please do continue to do the work you are doing,
just because I support Ron Paul doesn't mean I don't
support getting more gays into our party. Hell, I
don't like being the only good looking, well dressed
male at our events (wink)....
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
Nobody forces one to get a government marriage
license. Your comparison to drivers' licenses is
laughable. One can be "married" but still not have
a license -- as supposedly purist "libertarians"
point out to gay couples all the time. Legally, he
would be "shacked up" with his spouse.The real laugh are "libertarians" who partake fully
in the government programs that they claim to
"oppose" and do nothing to "oppose" them until the
topic of gays getting married comes up. Such
"libertarians" are willing to condemn queer folk to
permanent second class status while sucking off the
government teat themselves, and have zero
credibility either with libertarians who have brains
nor the general queer community.Of course, this ensures that Libertarian Party
support in both communities are similar to the total
support for Ron Paul's campaign in the general
population -- less than 1%. I can see why that
doesn't bother you, since you deem such miserable
performances as a grand success, but I'd like to see
the Libertarian Party succeed on a much better
basis.If I have to trade off the fake-libertarian purists
for 10% of gay voters -- yeilding us $2 million in
extra annual political contributions and an extra 1%
or so of the popular vote, I'll gladly do so. It'll
more than double the pitiful performance you seem so
excited about in the Paul campaign -- and actually
tie it to the Libertarian Party.Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
Well you know Brian,
like many government programs,
many were forced to get licenses. I have a drivers
license because I dont want excessive fines if I
get
pulled over not because I "love" having a
government
issued ID. Sometimes you make me laugh out loud.-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:> I've never met a so-called "real libertarian
against
> government marriage" who didn't have a legal
> marriage license -- including Ron Paul (who has a
> government marriage to his wife Carol).
>
> The purists seem intent on their purism only to
the
> degree that it is a useful device for homophobia
--
> if they were truly principled about avoiding a
> transitional approach of equalizing marriage on
the
> way to getting the government out of it, skipping
> straight to the getting government out of it,
they'd
> happily avoid getting government marriages
> themselves.
>
> I have yet to meet one single "married but not
> government married" Libertarian who has done
this.
> Yet they all seem intent on forcing gays to all
do
> this (while continuing to pay the taxes to fund
the
> marriage welfare program that they never get
around
> to campaigning against *except* when the topic of
> same-sex marriage comes up).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
> Rob, do you believe
in
> legal (government sponsored)
> gay marriage, because if you do, then you TOO
are
> not
> a "real" libertarian. As a Libertarian you
should
> believe in the Supreme Court upheld
constitutional
> right of living with whom you choose and acting
> with
> them how you may. And believe that not even
> President
> Ron Paul could keep you from that. You should
also
> believe we should be able to contract with
whomever
> we
> want but that we should not have government
"bless"
> that union anymore than we would want them to
> abolish
> it.
>
> Peace,
>
> -TJ
> --- Rob <robpower@...> wrote:
>
> > BTW, just to clarify, I'm not out of touch
with
> the
> > Southern white
> > Protestant voters. For instance, I've always
> > believed to my core
> > (grew up Methodist in Tennessee) that abortion
is
> > murder. Still do.
> > But Harry Browne changed my mind about
abortion
> bans
> > with one sentence:
> >
> > "Given the government's record with the War on
> > Poverty and the War on
> > Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion
would
> > lead within five
> > years to men having abortions."
> >
> > Question: If Harry Browne could adopt a
> Libertarian
> > position on
> > abortion that was not inconsistent with this
> > Southern Protestant's
> > values, then why the heck can't Ron Paul?
> >
> > Answer: Because he's not a Libertarian. Same
> reason
> > he can't adopt a
> > Libertarian position on LGBT issues. For
> reference,
> > here's how a real
> > Libertarian addresses LGBT issues:
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?sernum=67
> >
> > Rob
> > (speaking for myself not Outright)
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Philip
> Berg"
> > <philip@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian, Have you considered that reaching out
to
> > understand people
> > also extends to reaching out to understand the
> > sensibilities and world
> > view of Southern white protestants. Have you
> > listened ,and heard the
> > Google ron Paul interview in Mountainview last
> week?
> > I just know how
> > you can take the body of Pauls work and
beliefs
> and
> > attach such labels
> > to it.,
> > > From: Brian Miller
> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:02 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re:
[ca-liberty]
> > Something for all the
> > Ron Paul supporters to read
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So here you're saying it's bad that Ron
> Paul
> > isn't
> > > > radical enough.
> > >
> > > No, I am saying Ron Paul is too radical --
=== message truncated ===
Now you're just crossing into the surreal.
First you claim it's unlibertarian for Outright to call for marriage equality, since it involves government. Now, you're insisting that people need government licenses "to get by in life."
Accepting the latter dubious assumption for the moment, are you attempting to argue that gay people don't need the licenses, and that only heterosexuals do? If so, what's the basis for this contention?
And you still haven't answered the initial question which is -- if Ron Paul is in favor of abolishing all government marriage, why does he himself partake in it?
I'm actually a bit of a purist on this issue -- I support marriage equality as a transitional policy towards getting government out of it altogether. Phony purists like Paul simply embrace that position to protect the status quo and deepen the role of government in the lives of all. That's why he strongly supports it for himself -- strongly enough to get the licenses.
Secondly, if you want to work with queer folks and promote the LP platform, you don't do that by promoting Republicans and attacking Libertarian candidates as an LP executive. Plain and simple.
Incidentally, if Ron Paul was running as a Libertarian, I wouldn't be criticizing him to this degree, because I have faith in the ability of the LP to hold candidates up to the platform test. It's precisely because he's seeking greater power for himself as a Republican -- while masquerading in LP drag -- that I'm so critical of his efforts.
Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: Your first mistake is that you think some dont have to
have marriage licenses to get by in life.
The other
thing is you are so very wrong with what I think. I am
not happy with 1 percent for Paul or an LP candidate.
I want to win. I want to win by working with similarly
minded folk, "queer" or otherwise, to win elected
offices and promote the LP platform. When Ron Paul
supports much of our platform I support him, as I did
with Harry Browne and Badnarik. I do not feel our
preidential candidates will have the same ability to
get future LP volunteers and votes as much as Ron Paul
is doing now, for instance, our website got plenty
more views (I think it was county, maybe state) when
Ron Paul was here and then when he left it went back
down. This is a sign that Ron Paul can help grow our
party and our party's base.
And please do continue to do the work you are doing,
just because I support Ron Paul doesn't mean I don't
support getting more gays into our party. Hell, I
don't like being the only good looking, well dressed
male at our events (wink)....
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
> Nobody forces one to get a government marriage
> license. Your comparison to drivers' licenses is
> laughable. One can be "married" but still not have
> a license -- as supposedly purist "libertarians"
> point out to gay couples all the time. Legally, he
> would be "shacked up" with his spouse.
>
> The real laugh are "libertarians" who partake fully
> in the government programs that they claim to
> "oppose" and do nothing to "oppose" them until the
> topic of gays getting married comes up. Such
> "libertarians" are willing to condemn queer folk to
> permanent second class status while sucking off the
> government teat themselves, and have zero
> credibility either with libertarians who have brains
> nor the general queer community.
>
> Of course, this ensures that Libertarian Party
> support in both communities are similar to the total
> support for Ron Paul's campaign in the general
> population -- less than 1%. I can see why that
> doesn't bother you, since you deem such miserable
> performances as a grand success, but I'd like to see
> the Libertarian Party succeed on a much better
> basis.
>
> If I have to trade off the fake-libertarian purists
> for 10% of gay voters -- yeilding us $2 million in
> extra annual political contributions and an extra 1%
> or so of the popular vote, I'll gladly do so. It'll
> more than double the pitiful performance you seem so
> excited about in the Paul campaign -- and actually
> tie it to the Libertarian Party.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
> Well you know Brian,
> like many government programs,
> many were forced to get licenses. I have a drivers
> license because I dont want excessive fines if I
> get
> pulled over not because I "love" having a
> government
> issued ID. Sometimes you make me laugh out loud.
>
> -TJ
> --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
>
> > I've never met a so-called "real libertarian
> against
> > government marriage" who didn't have a legal
> > marriage license -- including Ron Paul (who has a
> > government marriage to his wife Carol).
> >
> > The purists seem intent on their purism only to
> the
> > degree that it is a useful device for homophobia
> --
> > if they were truly principled about avoiding a
> > transitional approach of equalizing marriage on
> the
> > way to getting the government out of it, skipping
> > straight to the getting government out of it,
> they'd
> > happily avoid getting government marriages
> > themselves.
> >
> > I have yet to meet one single "married but not
> > government married" Libertarian who has done
> this.
> > Yet they all seem intent on forcing gays to all
> do
> > this (while continuing to pay the taxes to fund
> the
> > marriage welfare program that they never get
> around
> > to campaigning against *except* when the topic of
> > same-sex marriage comes up).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
>
> > Rob, do you believe
> in
> > legal (government sponsored)
> > gay marriage, because if you do, then you TOO
> are
> > not
> > a "real" libertarian. As a Libertarian you
> should
> > believe in the Supreme Court upheld
> constitutional
> > right of living with whom you choose and acting
> > with
> > them how you may. And believe that not even
> > President
> > Ron Paul could keep you from that. You should
> also
> > believe we should be able to contract with
> whomever
> > we
> > want but that we should not have government
> "bless"
> > that union anymore than we would want them to
> > abolish
> > it.
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > -TJ
> > --- Rob <robpower@...> wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, just to clarify, I'm not out of touch
> with
> > the
> > > Southern white
> > > Protestant voters. For instance, I've always
> > > believed to my core
> > > (grew up Methodist in Tennessee) that abortion
> is
> > > murder. Still do.
> > > But Harry Browne changed my mind about
> abortion
> > bans
> > > with one sentence:
> > >
> > > "Given the government's record with the War on
> > > Poverty and the War on
> > > Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion
> would
> > > lead within five
> > > years to men having abortions."
> > >
> > > Question: If Harry Browne could adopt a
> > Libertarian
> > > position on
> > > abortion that was not inconsistent with this
> > > Southern Protestant's
> > > values, then why the heck can't Ron Paul?
> > >
> > > Answer: Because he's not a Libertarian. Same
> > reason
> > > he can't adopt a
> > > Libertarian position on LGBT issues. For
> > reference,
> > > here's how a real
> > > Libertarian addresses LGBT issues:
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?sernum=67
> > >
> > > Rob
> > > (speaking for myself not Outright)
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Philip
> > Berg"
> > > <philip@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brian, Have you considered that reaching out
> to
> > > understand people
> > > also extends to reaching out to understand the
> > > sensibilities and world
> > > view of Southern white protestants. Have you
> > > listened ,and heard the
> > > Google ron Paul interview in Mountainview last
> > week?
> > > I just know how
> > > you can take the body of Pauls work and
> beliefs
> > and
> > > attach such labels
> > > to it.,
> > > > From: Brian Miller
> > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:02 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re:
> [ca-liberty]
> > > Something for all the
> > > Ron Paul supporters to read
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So here you're saying it's bad that Ron
> > Paul
> > > isn't
> > > > > radical enough.
> > > >
> > > > No, I am saying Ron Paul is too radical --
>
=== message truncated ===
So, Rob, could one logically conclude that because the government is
inept
in the "wars" on poverty and drugs that the government should also stop
banning rape and murder too?
If someone is raped or murdered, the evidence that the crime was
committed is pretty obvious -- someone is found dead or someone is
claiming to have been raped and is willing to voluntarily submit to a
rape exam.
But if a woman takes an RU-486 pill, how do you know an abortion has
occurred? Short of implanting a monitoring chip in the womb of every
single woman of child-bearing age, the law would simply be unenforceable.
Laws against murder and rape can be enforced without utterly
destroying the right to privacy. Laws against abortion cannot.
The same argument works for drugs, by the way. Without every single
person being tested for drugs constantly their entire lives, the lack
of evidence that someone has consumed a drug makes drug bans just as
unenforceable as abortion bans.
Rob
(not that it has anything to do with gay rights, but just in case
anyone was wondering, I'm still speaking for myself not Outright
Libertarians)
Yep, I knew it, somehow, when someone puts on the
"majical" Libertarian cloak they meet your demands.
This way of thinking is what has made the LP
irrelevent over the years. People want to support
candidates and a message not a party. Most people,
even when voting for an R or D vote on their message,
no matter how crappy it is, not their party. You are
precicely the kinds of LP members that won't
change.... and I hope to replace with more like me in
the coming years. Politics never happen in an "all at
once" fasion. You can never have it all at once. You
fight for every issue you can win and wait until
timing is right. Ron Paul knows that fighting for gay
rights won't win a nomination of a conservative party
so he doesn't run on it. You just don't understand how
the real world of politics works. You can't bore
voters to death with 1000s of items of a platform you
tell them some things the candidate is for (and not
for) and they make the decision. Oh well, I am eager
to see what the delegates decide to do at the
conventions, I will hardly be a lone voice.
I also believe marriage should be a religious and not
government thing. Since Dr. Paul is religious he felt
the license and being married was the thing to do, and
remember it was almost 50 yrs ago, he may have changed
his mind but I doubt you can rescind your license. I
don't think anyone should have to be licensed, but I
hardly think it's worth our time to belittle anyone
who is quite libertarian but has a marriage license.
If we do that we may as well eject at least a quarter
of our party that I am sure possess such items. I do
believe in transitional government but with marriage I
think the only transition should be from what we have
now to no marriage licenses, not to everyone having
licenses, but I guess it doesn't make sense. I would
not be against it one way or the other, but this issue
alone won't keep me from supporting RP, just as the
issues I brought up about the LP candidates won't keep
me from voting for one of them if Paul doesn't get the
Republican nomination. Although, I may have to really
think about my vote for Root or Hollist.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
Now you're just crossing into the surreal.
First you claim it's unlibertarian for Outright to
call for marriage equality, since it involves
government. Now, you're insisting that people need
government licenses "to get by in life."Accepting the latter dubious assumption for the
moment, are you attempting to argue that gay people
don't need the licenses, and that only heterosexuals
do? If so, what's the basis for this contention?And you still haven't answered the initial question
which is -- if Ron Paul is in favor of abolishing
all government marriage, why does he himself partake
in it?I'm actually a bit of a purist on this issue -- I
support marriage equality as a transitional policy
towards getting government out of it altogether.
Phony purists like Paul simply embrace that position
to protect the status quo and deepen the role of
government in the lives of all. That's why he
strongly supports it for himself -- strongly enough
to get the licenses.Secondly, if you want to work with queer folks and
promote the LP platform, you don't do that by
promoting Republicans and attacking Libertarian
candidates as an LP executive. Plain and simple.Incidentally, if Ron Paul was running as a
Libertarian, I wouldn't be criticizing him to this
degree, because I have faith in the ability of the
LP to hold candidates up to the platform test. It's
precisely because he's seeking greater power for
himself as a Republican -- while masquerading in LP
drag -- that I'm so critical of his efforts.Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
Your first mistake is
that you think some dont have to
have marriage licenses to get by in life.The other
thing is you are so very wrong with what I think. I
am
not happy with 1 percent for Paul or an LP
candidate.
I want to win. I want to win by working with
similarly
minded folk, "queer" or otherwise, to win elected
offices and promote the LP platform. When Ron Paul
supports much of our platform I support him, as I
did
with Harry Browne and Badnarik. I do not feel our
preidential candidates will have the same ability
to
get future LP volunteers and votes as much as Ron
Paul
is doing now, for instance, our website got plenty
more views (I think it was county, maybe state)
when
Ron Paul was here and then when he left it went
back
down. This is a sign that Ron Paul can help grow
our
party and our party's base.And please do continue to do the work you are
doing,
just because I support Ron Paul doesn't mean I
don't
support getting more gays into our party. Hell, I
don't like being the only good looking, well
dressed
male at our events (wink)....-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
> Nobody forces one to get a government marriage
> license. Your comparison to drivers' licenses is
> laughable. One can be "married" but still not
have
> a license -- as supposedly purist "libertarians"
> point out to gay couples all the time. Legally,
he
> would be "shacked up" with his spouse.
>
> The real laugh are "libertarians" who partake
fully
> in the government programs that they claim to
> "oppose" and do nothing to "oppose" them until
the
> topic of gays getting married comes up. Such
> "libertarians" are willing to condemn queer folk
to
> permanent second class status while sucking off
the
> government teat themselves, and have zero
> credibility either with libertarians who have
brains
> nor the general queer community.
>
> Of course, this ensures that Libertarian Party
> support in both communities are similar to the
total
> support for Ron Paul's campaign in the general
> population -- less than 1%. I can see why that
> doesn't bother you, since you deem such miserable
> performances as a grand success, but I'd like to
see
> the Libertarian Party succeed on a much better
> basis.
>
> If I have to trade off the fake-libertarian
purists
> for 10% of gay voters -- yeilding us $2 million
in
> extra annual political contributions and an extra
1%
> or so of the popular vote, I'll gladly do so.
It'll
> more than double the pitiful performance you seem
so
> excited about in the Paul campaign -- and
actually
> tie it to the Libertarian Party.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
> Well you know
Brian,
> like many government programs,
> many were forced to get licenses. I have a
drivers
> license because I dont want excessive fines if I
> get
> pulled over not because I "love" having a
> government
> issued ID. Sometimes you make me laugh out loud.>
> -TJ
> --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
wrote:
>
> > I've never met a so-called "real libertarian
> against
> > government marriage" who didn't have a legal
> > marriage license -- including Ron Paul (who
has a
> > government marriage to his wife Carol).
> >
> > The purists seem intent on their purism only
to
> the
> > degree that it is a useful device for
homophobia
> --
> > if they were truly principled about avoiding a
> > transitional approach of equalizing marriage
on
> the
> > way to getting the government out of it,
skipping
> > straight to the getting government out of it,
> they'd
> > happily avoid getting government marriages
> > themselves.
> >
> > I have yet to meet one single "married but not
> > government married" Libertarian who has done
> this.
> > Yet they all seem intent on forcing gays to
all
> do
> > this (while continuing to pay the taxes to
fund
> the
> > marriage welfare program that they never get
> around
> > to campaigning against *except* when the topic
of
> > same-sex marriage comes up).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
=== message truncated ===
Oh yeah, how many parts of the platform does one have
to be supporting in order to pass the "platform test"
as you said below, does Wayne Allen Root have to
support ending the Iraq War? You are something else
man.
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
Now you're just crossing into the surreal.
First you claim it's unlibertarian for Outright to
call for marriage equality, since it involves
government. Now, you're insisting that people need
government licenses "to get by in life."Accepting the latter dubious assumption for the
moment, are you attempting to argue that gay people
don't need the licenses, and that only heterosexuals
do? If so, what's the basis for this contention?And you still haven't answered the initial question
which is -- if Ron Paul is in favor of abolishing
all government marriage, why does he himself partake
in it?I'm actually a bit of a purist on this issue -- I
support marriage equality as a transitional policy
towards getting government out of it altogether.
Phony purists like Paul simply embrace that position
to protect the status quo and deepen the role of
government in the lives of all. That's why he
strongly supports it for himself -- strongly enough
to get the licenses.Secondly, if you want to work with queer folks and
promote the LP platform, you don't do that by
promoting Republicans and attacking Libertarian
candidates as an LP executive. Plain and simple.Incidentally, if Ron Paul was running as a
Libertarian, I wouldn't be criticizing him to this
degree, because I have faith in the ability of the
LP to hold candidates up to the platform test. It's
precisely because he's seeking greater power for
himself as a Republican -- while masquerading in LP
drag -- that I'm so critical of his efforts.Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
Your first mistake is
that you think some dont have to
have marriage licenses to get by in life.The other
thing is you are so very wrong with what I think. I
am
not happy with 1 percent for Paul or an LP
candidate.
I want to win. I want to win by working with
similarly
minded folk, "queer" or otherwise, to win elected
offices and promote the LP platform. When Ron Paul
supports much of our platform I support him, as I
did
with Harry Browne and Badnarik. I do not feel our
preidential candidates will have the same ability
to
get future LP volunteers and votes as much as Ron
Paul
is doing now, for instance, our website got plenty
more views (I think it was county, maybe state)
when
Ron Paul was here and then when he left it went
back
down. This is a sign that Ron Paul can help grow
our
party and our party's base.And please do continue to do the work you are
doing,
just because I support Ron Paul doesn't mean I
don't
support getting more gays into our party. Hell, I
don't like being the only good looking, well
dressed
male at our events (wink)....-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
> Nobody forces one to get a government marriage
> license. Your comparison to drivers' licenses is
> laughable. One can be "married" but still not
have
> a license -- as supposedly purist "libertarians"
> point out to gay couples all the time. Legally,
he
> would be "shacked up" with his spouse.
>
> The real laugh are "libertarians" who partake
fully
> in the government programs that they claim to
> "oppose" and do nothing to "oppose" them until
the
> topic of gays getting married comes up. Such
> "libertarians" are willing to condemn queer folk
to
> permanent second class status while sucking off
the
> government teat themselves, and have zero
> credibility either with libertarians who have
brains
> nor the general queer community.
>
> Of course, this ensures that Libertarian Party
> support in both communities are similar to the
total
> support for Ron Paul's campaign in the general
> population -- less than 1%. I can see why that
> doesn't bother you, since you deem such miserable
> performances as a grand success, but I'd like to
see
> the Libertarian Party succeed on a much better
> basis.
>
> If I have to trade off the fake-libertarian
purists
> for 10% of gay voters -- yeilding us $2 million
in
> extra annual political contributions and an extra
1%
> or so of the popular vote, I'll gladly do so.
It'll
> more than double the pitiful performance you seem
so
> excited about in the Paul campaign -- and
actually
> tie it to the Libertarian Party.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
> Well you know
Brian,
> like many government programs,
> many were forced to get licenses. I have a
drivers
> license because I dont want excessive fines if I
> get
> pulled over not because I "love" having a
> government
> issued ID. Sometimes you make me laugh out loud.>
> -TJ
> --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
wrote:
>
> > I've never met a so-called "real libertarian
> against
> > government marriage" who didn't have a legal
> > marriage license -- including Ron Paul (who
has a
> > government marriage to his wife Carol).
> >
> > The purists seem intent on their purism only
to
> the
> > degree that it is a useful device for
homophobia
> --
> > if they were truly principled about avoiding a
> > transitional approach of equalizing marriage
on
> the
> > way to getting the government out of it,
skipping
> > straight to the getting government out of it,
> they'd
> > happily avoid getting government marriages
> > themselves.
> >
> > I have yet to meet one single "married but not
> > government married" Libertarian who has done
> this.
> > Yet they all seem intent on forcing gays to
all
> do
> > this (while continuing to pay the taxes to
fund
> the
> > marriage welfare program that they never get
> around
> > to campaigning against *except* when the topic
of
> > same-sex marriage comes up).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
=== message truncated ===