ThePyg's Waterfall
It's sad that Liberals are not against bigger government, considering that's what their name means.
But it's ironically true. now, folks like Romney and Santorum (especially Santorum) don't like Libertarians because of our beliefs in personal freedom (and even economic freedom, something that a lot of Republicans have abandoned or don't truly support.)
In general, though, especially among the younger crowd, it's easier to have a Conservative turn Libertarian than to have a Liberal turn Libertarian. Stossel said that he was surprised by this since Conservatives seemed to believe in moral restrictions while Liberals seemed more open minded. He thought that Liberals would be logical enough to look at the facts behind free market economics and just make a rational choice.
How we were all wrong. Conservatives, in touting typical stuff about "pull yourself by your own bootstraps" and "Live by your decisions" have actually found these economic principles to transcend into personal choices. Now, most Conservatives do not view economics in the same way as Libertarians (since Libertarians have shown free markets to benefit far more than a currently Statist intervention that we have today), they usually just do stuff to favor self-interest and greed, but their policies, ironically, are more in tune with Libertarian ideology. So it's not so hard to push them a little further on economics and to show them how it's not about "dog-eat-dog" but about mutuality and non-aggression.
Liberals, on the other hand, are not really good on even personal freedoms. While they like the usually politically correct stuff like abortion and gay marriage, most don't give a shit about the War on Drugs or even the War on Terror (based on Obama type Liberalism, of course.) Democrats and Liberals are nothing more than Authoritarians who ever once in a way cater to a minority. Conservatives cater to the rich and the religious, but at least many of them are abandoning those policies after being shown Milton Friedman or Reason magazine.
Abortion should be completely legalized and unregulated. While it may seem harsh to allow this, late-term abortions are rare and usually too complex to be just for the sake of "convenience" for the mother. What abortion laws do is bring about a bureaucratic system that women must go through in order to hope to achieve their abortion.
And contraceptives and education are available to the public, but not through coercion.
Silicon Valley has been a major success story for so many young and intelligent entrepreneurs.
The last thing the internet needs is a bunch of taxes and possible regulations just to strike down on those wishing to push their ideas that will benefit society and themselves.
The internet is best left alone. It has been a success story and the less government involved in it, the better.
They are not a medical decision if we view medical as something concerning physical health.
However, if I had the ability to screw with the Universe, I'd make it so that we could still consider them as mental health issues. Some people could not handle a baby that is of an undesirable race or gender, which is an endangerment for depression or anxiety.
Of course, I'm just in favor of completely legalized abortion. So a medical reason wouldn't matter to me in the legislative portion. Privately, however (if a hospital or insurance company decides to fund it or not), is really up to whatever contract or terms were agreed upon.
How does a marriage license differ from a broad private contract?
There is little room for negotiation in a marriage contract. Marriage contracts come with automatic terms that must be changed by the party if they even know what is in the contract.
The greatest killer in this is the prenuptial agreement, which must be specifically put in (often something that ruins relationships or harms the marriage, people are practically coerced into not getting a prenup for the sake of the marriage hegemony).
Even so, a marriage contract from government is only granted to those that government finds suitable to meet the requirements of marriage. Once again bringing about issues of gay marriage, polygamy, marrying a child, etc.
A contract between the military, spouse, and a military personnel is a contract with the government.
A very specific one considering living arrangements and living arrangements only. What if the terms of marriage are not what a soldier and his partner agree with?
You seem to want to just change the name.
Clearly that is not the case. I want to eliminate it and allow individuals to create their own terms. Already, eliminating marriage as a contract, would greatly eliminate the need for one. many things that marriage comes with are things that people either don't want or find to not be necessary, or maybe doesn't cover enough. Through individual contracts without government definition or regulation, most of these issues would be rectified.
most contracts defacto are contracts with the government in that the government agrees to enforce them.
Still treating me like I am anti-government. Far from the case. Government must enforce the right to contract.
What about the legal benefits of marriage
Can any not be considered through private contract?
the spouse of a military personnel can live on base with them.
The problem with this is this is military personnel that is not fighting. Military bases outside of the US should not exist. Military bases within the US can make room for a spouse or loved one through a contract between the military personnel and the military. We do not need a marriage contract for this.
Marriage serves several purposes via granting numerous privileges and rights.
Rights to property and offspring and visitation can be handled by private contract. Allowing government to regulate marriage is bringing in a bureaucratic mess (see gay marriage, animal marriage, and polygamy).
Marriage licenses are obsolete.
At one time, hundreds of years ago, the purpose of government regulated marriage was to encourage reproduction.
At the moment, marriage is just a vanity thing. People like getting married, and many of them do not have children.
Others have children out of wedlock.
And Thousands of children are in the foster program.
Marriage serves no purpose these days, and we are evolved enough to recognize this. if you love someone, visit your church and get married. But stop having government get involved.
It's about the appeals of sexuality and the aspects of sexual organ that makes a gay man become aroused by a cock.
Consider how women look at dicks. Many of them will not find an erect penis to be very attractive when they're the type of woman who bars herself sexually (prudes, monogamous, etc). However, when a woman becomes far more open to sexuality, it is common to look at the penis as more attractive. They'll even be more inclined to want to do more things with it... you know, orally ;)
So think about being gay. If you're a man, you usually love sex a shit load. Treat it very physically. Gay men aren't much different, and now that they're gay and open about it, they'll usually love dicks... like, a lot (sometimes even more than most women).
hahahah, but no.
i don't think about her washing her hair because washing hair has nothing to do with debates.
even being drunk, at this moment (and you know it, because only drunk people advertise that they're drunk) makes me think "eh, w/es yo, what's that argument like?"
lol, I wish this specific picture was more of the case. I usually see shit like this in dude's facebook defaults.
Chicks tend to have the more "lol, look how cute i am" photos.
In general, Facebook is great for exposing how much like ants we all are, just doing the same routine shit, even in our independent moments.
The reasoning for paying for abortion and contraception is quite amazing. They say "it would be cheaper than paying for people with kids".
first... why do we have to pay for any of this?
Second, why are we accepting irresponsible behavior and then just paying for it?
If this is the case, why not pay for sterilizations, which eliminate the cost of contraception AND abortions AND welfare for kids.
And then we can pay for porn, which eliminates any cost of sex (unless couples are using porn while they have sex, but hey, people abuse all systems of welfare, right?)
