Clint Eastwood's 'Leave Everybody Alone' Definition of Libertarianism

Appearing on Ellen this week, Clint Eastwood twice drew applause with a succinct definition of libertarianism: "Leave everybody alone." During the interview (video below), he joked about his odd, Newhartesque routine at the Republican National Convention, saying, "The Democrats who were watching thought I was going senile, and the Republicans knew I was." But as in that speech, Eastwood did not seem enthusiastic about the GOP:

Ellen DeGeneres: You have called yourself a libertarian. Is that right? 

Clint Eastwood: Well, libertarian values, that's where Republicans used to be, when they were saving money and everything. 

DeGeneres: Explain libertarian to people. 

Eastwood: Libertarian means you're socially liberal—leave everybody alone—but you believe in fiscal responsibility, and you believe in government staying out of your life. [Applause.] I thought so too, and I still believe in that. When I was 21 years old and started voting, I sort of became Republican because that's the way they were thinking…In the last few years, both sides have just spent like drunken sailors. Not to insult the Navy in  any way…

DeGeneres: Your stance on gay marriage is that you don’t have any problem with that.

Eastwood: This is part of the libertarian idea: Leave everybody alone. Leave everybody alone. [Applause.] 

Eastwood turned 21 (the voting age at the time) in 1951. While it would be quite a stretch to describe the Republican Party's 1952 platform as libertarian, it did feature considerable criticism of overbearing government, including some points that Republicans nowadays rarely make, even when criticizing Democrats:

We charge that [the Roosevelt and Truman administrations] have arrogantly deprived our citizens of precious liberties by seizing powers never granted.

We charge that they work unceasingly to achieve their goal of national socialism....

We charge that they have violated our liberties by turning loose upon the country a swarm of arrogant bureaucrats and their agents who meddle intolerably in the lives and occupations of our citizens....

We charge that they have plunged us into war in Korea without the consent of our citizens through their authorized representatives in the Congress...

We denounce the Administration's use of tax money and a multitude of Federal agencies to put agriculture under partisan political dictation and to make the farmer dependent upon government....

The tradition of popular education, tax-supported and free to all, is strong with our people. The responsibility for sustaining this system of popular education has always rested upon the local communities and the States. We subscribe fully to this principle.

Notably absent: any mention of God (unless you count the Soviet Union's "godless terrorism") or social issues (unless you count the GOP's endorsement of "a Constitutional Amendment providing equal rights for men and women"). Dwight D. Eisenhower, for whom Eastwood presumably voted, had a pretty good fiscal record (including three balanced budgets), especially when compared with those of subsequent Republican presidents. Although he took office as an ardent cold warrior, he cut defense spending after the Korean War and left office warning the nation about the power of the "military-indusrial complex"—not the sort of concern you are apt to hear from today's Republicans, most of whom seem to believe that more military spending is always better while less always poses an intolerable threat to national security.

In short, there are reasons why the Republican Party might have looked more libertarian to Eastwood in the 1950s than it does today, although you also have to allow for the gradual realization that the GOP chronically fails to practice the small-government principles it preaches. As for the Ellen audience's warm response to Eastwood's thumbnail sketch of libertarianism, it is nice to hear, but I suspect the consensus would fall apart once we got into the details of what fiscal responsibility and leaving people alone require in practice. 

[Thanks to Mark Lambert for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Notably absent: any mention of God (unless you count the Soviet Union's "godless terrorism") or social issues (unless you count the GOP's endorsement of "a Constitutional Amendment providing equal rights for men and women").

    They are not mentioned because people didn't fight about those issues back then. It was taken for granted that normal people believed in God and things like porn and homosexuality had no place in the public sphere. It was the water in which everyone swam.

    The fact that they don't mentions those things just means it wasn't the Republicans who started the culture wars.

  • The Hammer||

    This doesn't make any sense. If everyone had just agreed to not ever create or look at porn and not be gay or question the existence of God, then the Republican Party would still be the party of small government and fiscal responsibility?

  • wareagle||

    of course, it makes sense but you have to put it in context. The kulture warz were non-existent back then. We're talking before Elvis and Chuck Berry and that demon rock and roll even. The parties changed to reflect their views on changing social morays.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Not being a dick here, but I think it's mores rather than morays (pronounced the same). I figure someone may, one day, decide to be a dick about it and on that day, this may be a helpful correction.

    Hopefully my over-the-top politeness will protect me from the forumnal beating I should take if I'm wrong on this.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Not being a dick here, but I think it's mores rather than morays (pronounced the same).

    That's because social morays are being constantly undermined by social eels.

  • Numeromancer||

    +1 FTW!

  • shamalam||

    very good! +1

  • wareagle||

    well, now this is a conundrum:

    http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/140/morays/

    and

    http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/morays.html

    I'm iz confoozed..... Mores works either way, so I'll stick with that.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...but I think it's mores rather than morays (pronounced the same).

    How do you think your first fore into Grammar National Socialism went, Tagsy? Proud of yourself? Feel superior now, you condescending bastard? Hey, everyone, the big man caught a typo and thusly negated an entire comment! And so on...

  • BakedPenguin||

    social morays JESUS EELS!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Blasphemy! The eel is of the DEVIL!1!1!

  • ||

    At least it's not a lamprey eel. Those things are creepy and gross.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    When you're just swimming by
    And an eel bites your thigh
    That's a moray.

  • John||

    There was a cultural agreement in the 1950s. People didn't fight over drugs, porn, religion in the public sphere, or gay rights, because neither side advocated changing the consensus.

    So it makes perfect sense that such issues would not be in either party's platform. They were not controversies.

  • SugarFree||

    No, John. There was a consensus that freedom would be abridged. People wanting freedom didn't start the culture wars, the people who took it away from them did. Any other interpretation denies the right of self-ownership and argues that the government grants rights.

  • John||

    You assume that everyone on your side of the culture war was without sin. We had a huge cultural change in this country in the 1950s and the 1960s. Yet, there was no such thing as an evangelical or a social conservative political movement. That came later in the late 70s and 80s. And that arose because the forces of "freedom" as you call it, were co-opted by a bunch of asshole leftist intent not on freedom but on shoving their view of the world down the everyone's throat.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ITT a certain slightly butthurt SoCon tries to play 'you too' with the issue of social freedom.

  • John||

    What makes you think I am a SOCON? I am pro legalizing drugs and pro pornography. I am anything but a SOCON. It amazes me you could think that.

  • Tonio||

    "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

  • SugarFree||

    No, I don't assume that. I assume that in the state of nature I'm free to take drugs, gay marry without sanction by the state, believe in whatever god or lack of god I choose, and make and consume all the porn I want.

    Government restricted these things and no matter how popular those restrictions were doesn't make it moral for it to have done so.

  • John||

    But you are also free to think those things are wrong and teach your kids the same and not have the government funded schools tell them differently.

    The biggest thing that caused the culture wars were the damned public schools. If we had just had a voucher system and everyone went to the schools they wanted, the culture wars might never have happened or been a lot less nasty. The SOCON political movement started in school board elections.

  • sarcasmic||

    How does one "consume porn"?

    Do you eat it? Do you snort it?

    How exactly is it "consumed"?

  • SugarFree||

    con·sume/kənˈso͞om/
    Verb:
    1. Eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink).
    2. Buy (goods or services).
  • sarcasmic||

    Who buys porn in the Internet age?

  • SugarFree||

    Porn was mostly a physical object when the laws against it were originally passed.

  • John||

    Who buys porn in the Internet age?

    Have you seen the women on Youporn and Xhamster? There is a reason why its free.

  • wareagle||

    I assume that in the state of nature I'm free to take drugs, gay marry without sanction by the state, believe in whatever god or lack of god I choose, and make and consume all the porn I want.

    yes you are but back to where this started -- in the early 50s, none of the above was a major social issue. Or even a minor one. Party platforms of the time had no reason to include any of these.

  • SugarFree||

    I was only addressing John's argument that somehow people wanting to enjoy their natural rights were aggressing against the state. I'm arguing that they were defending themselves.

    But as to the party platforms: There were people in the 1950s that wanted to do drugs, be gay (it wasn't an issue of marriage at the time), produce and enjoy porn, and openly be atheists/Jews/non-Christians/whatever. Just because they weren't yet a political force doesn't mean they didn't exist.

  • wareagle||

    not denying their existence, just the lack of critical mass. Times have changed and those things moved to the forefront. That's all.

  • SugarFree||

    not denying their existence, just the lack of critical mass.

    You weren't but John was. It looked like you were agreeing with him. Threading is ruining this place.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I think, perhaps, you're not quite seeing it. The sea change came when the people who wanted the previously denied freedoms, now thoroughly corrupted by the left, decided that their ideas should be taught to schoolkids regardless of what the parents thought. The socon movement was born as a backlash to this.

  • Robert||

    I was only addressing John's argument that somehow people wanting to enjoy their natural rights were aggressing against the state. I'm arguing that they were defending themselves.


    He didn't say they were aggressing against the state, he just said they started the culture wars. Maybe it could be couched as a war of independence (for some of them it was, for others not -- and we're seeing more of the latter now), but it was a war they started.

  • SugarFree||

    And fugitive slaves were stealing themselves from their owners, right Robert? Those dirty auto-thieves.

  • Zeb||

    The point is that it was still immoral for government to ban those things, even if no one publicly disagreed.

  • The Hammer||

    Ok. That's fine. And that part does make sense. But your last line doesn't, and it just reeks of TEAM cheerleading.

  • John||

    Why? It is true. The culture wars were started by people who wanted to change the culture. Stating that fact says nothing about whether the people who started the culture wars were right or wrong.

    I would very much like to start a culture war about drugs and get rid of people's idiotic idea that they should be illegal or are always bad. The fact that I am starting the culture war doesn't make me right or wrong.

  • tarran||

    The culture war actually started with the pro-public school movement. It opposed all those dirty Catholics teaching papist heresies to impressionable children denying them the chance to learn good Protestant ethics and values.

  • T o n y||

    So your point has no substance?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I think you're dismissing the cultural craziness that was the Red Scare. Just 5 years later, in 1957, Congress found it necessary to make In God We Trust our official motto, because E pluribus unum was too Commie what with the whole "out of many, one" thing. In 1954, they decided to add "under God" to the pledge.

    So I disagree with your thesis that "people didn't fight about those issues back then." In fact, they fought about it every since the time of Thomas Paine.

  • John||

    The red scare was a bit one sided. A Democratic Congress passed those things. Both major parties agreed that communism and atheism were horrible and that the country was a Christian country.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Conservatives began freaking about even before the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    The Constitution says we are not a Christian country. Is that why you hate it?

  • sarcasmic||

    The Constitution does not say we are a Christian country.
    That is not the same as declaring that we are not a Christian country.

    Not that you would understand the difference.

  • wareagle||

    the Constitution also says nothing about an income tax, an FDA, an EPA, Depts of Ed - Commerce - Energy, lifetime positions in Congress, or free birth control. And yet, we have those things.

  • Zeb||

    Actually, the constitution does say something about an income tax. Just saying.

  • wareagle||

    not in original form. 16 amendments later, you are right. I will be more clear.

  • Zeb||

    I think it is worth making the distinction since all of the other things you mentioned still are most definitely not in the constitution.

  • OldMexican||

    Re; Palin's Buttwipe,

    The Constitution says [sic] we are not a Christian country. Is that why you hate it?


    Chapter and verse, s'il vous plaît?

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Not in the Constitution. From the Treaty of Tripoli ratified by Congress in 1797.

    Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
  • Robert||

    This is true. Today's social issues simply weren't "issues" back then. There were non-conformists, but, being non-conformists, they weren't interested in having people conform with them!

    Unfortunately there were, and still are, edicts against some non-conforming activity, and at least some sporadic enforcement of them, and some people who liked doing those things who were not non-conformists for its own sake thought they could help get those laws changed by making those activities more popular and respectable. And unfortunately, they were right to think that, because unless a society is very strongly libertarian, they will tend to forcefully suppress certain behaviors if those behaviors are too unpopular (yet not so unpopular that nobody notices them). And they were joined by other people who were bossy and just wanted to say to society, "Fuck you!" Hence the counter-culture and the culture wars, which are still with us.

  • ||

    Good for Clint. At least he's consistent. I wonder if Rowdy Yates was a libertarian.

  • ||

    Well, we know for damn sure that Cylde was one.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Bronco Billy was a progressive. There, I said it.

  • ||

    I suspect the consensus would fall apart once we got into the details of what fiscal responsibility and leaving people alone require in practice.

    Once they realized it meant not getting free stuff and not being able to regulate soda sizes, yeah.

  • The Hammer||

    I wonder if Ellen will be voting Libertarian now?

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    PLUS OTHER WORDS THAT AREN'T SPAM

  • LTC(ret) John||

    + one squirrel evasion

  • Joe R.||

    This weekend I went to my local meeting of atheists (of which most are leftists), and bumped into several who were laughing at Eastwood because of the format of his speech while having no idea of the content of his speech. When I told them what was in it, the response was roughly "Oh."

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    This weekend I went to my local meeting of atheists

    Is this like atheist church?? Support group?

  • SugarFree||

    A blending of the two, as someone I know who attends explains it. He keeps trying to get me to go, but I'm not a joiner and sitting around talking about what I don't believe sounds boring beyond belief.

  • Tim||

    That's hard to believe.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Considering they probably sit around most of the time complaining about microaggressions, you're probably better off.

  • SugarFree||

    As far as I can tell, it's part science fiction convention without the costumes and part speed-dating.

  • Joe R.||

    Since I'm right in the Bible Belt, yeah, it kind of is a support group. Someplace I don't have to be closeted.

    Really, it's an excuse to get together and have beers.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Really, it's an excuse to get together and have beers.

    Well hell, why didn't you just say so.

  • wareagle||

    Really, it's an excuse to get together and have beers.
    --------------

    I thought that's why we invented sports.

  • GILMORE||

    Joe R.| 9.19.12 @ 1:34PM |#
    Really, it's an excuse to get together and have beers.

    We live in a sad age indeed in which you need to all agree there IS NO GOD in order to be confortable enough to slug down a few brews.

  • SKR||

    And here i thought it was more like, " honey, I'm off to the athiest meeting."
    Later, "I'll have a Pliny the Elder please."

  • BarryD||

    Uh, if you remember the beer you could get in the 1950s in America, I think you'd understand why beer-drinkers at the time were convinced that there was, in fact, NO GOD.

    It wasn't until the late 1980s that beer drinkers began to believe that, just maybe, there was some sort of benign deity.

  • Robert||

    In that case, what's God's excuse when he wants to drink?

  • Tonio||

    Yeah, I'm with you, Joe. There's an Atheist meetup group where I live; not churchy, they meet at a bar. It is lonely being atheist in the Bible Belt, but I think your best bet is using your churchy group to find like-minded people you can hang out with when the god talk gets to you.

    Fortunately, my sister and her husband are Atheist, so I've got that.

  • robc||

    You need an excuse?

    Maybe thats yet another advantage of believing in God.

    (No, I cant follow that logical chain either)

  • robc||

    And on a related note, The Holy Grale, a damn fine bar in Louisville, has way more religious iconography in it now than it ever did back when it was a Unitarian church.

  • SugarFree||

    I, myself, just go to a bar. I'd rather drink in peace.

  • John||

    What do you mean they are mostly leftists? That can't be true. I have been told any number of times on Reason that atheists are not generally leftist.

  • SugarFree||

    Are you going to start this bullshit again? Really?

  • sarcasmic||

    Red Tony can't help himself. He's like pocket hulk.

  • John||

    I have said any number of occasions that atheists tend to be leftists. And been told every time that that is not true.

    So let me ask you, are the majority of atheists leftists or are the not? Can we get this on record please?

  • SugarFree||

    In my experience they break down about 60/40 on blue/red with a larger proportion of libertarian/anarchists than the genpop.

    I'd say there are more vocal left-atheist, but it's not the commie-riddled movement you want to make it out to be.

    Judging all atheists by PJ Meyers is as unfair as judging all Christians by Fred Phelps.

  • sarcasmic||

    I like to think that there's a difference between atheists and what I call anti-religionists. Or to be more specific, anti-Christians.

    The latter gives the former a bad name.

  • SugarFree||

    In my experience, the anti-Christians mostly had a conservative upbringing. They are the toxic run-off of religious inculcation.

  • sarcasmic||

    In my experience, the anti-Christians are just smarmy liberals who look down upon anyone who believes in something greater than them, other than government.
    They believe in emergent order when it comes to biology and cosmology, but mock anyone who dares to contradict the notion that society should be shaped and guided by the object of their worship: government.

  • SugarFree||

    It's all a matter of definition. People who are actually angry about Christianity? 19 out of 20 had some sort of strict religious up-bringing. If you define anti-Christianity as actively opposed to the legal imposition of Christian principles outside of consensus morals (i.e. negative rights), then you've described almost all atheists and the portion of Christians that believe like robc.

    If you just want to argue with a leftist atheist about leftism, then go find one.

  • robc||

    I would describe the anti-christians like CS Lewis described himself during his atheist days: "Angry at God for not existing."

  • Joe R.||

    I consider myself anti-religious, but I tend to keep my yap shut about it unless someone else brings it up first. I don't start the local battle of the culture war!

  • Tim||

    You know what your problem is? You watched "The Flintstones" as a kid, a gateway to the neo pagan and unchristian world. Simple primitives living at peace with nature? How do you explain Mr. Slate then? And there's a clear line to be drawn right down through history from Mr. Slate to Mr. Spacely of Spacely Space Sprockets. George Jetson never stepped foot in a Church!
    I rest my case.

  • Robert||

    You want to draw lines? The Jetsons are named after the Jetson Mill from a Great Depression-era movie. Zap Branigan from Futurama cartoons is named after cartoon character Bash Branigan from the movie How To Murder Your Wife, which is also an expose of jury nullification. And Futurama cartoons are named after the World's Fair Futurama exhibitions. And Google rips off Barney Google, with those googly, googly eyes that they only recently got rid of. I have proof!!

  • Tonio||

    What Sugar, said, John.

  • sarcasmic||

    Outspoken atheists tend to be leftists because they want to use government to force their atheism onto intolerant religious people in the name of tolerance.

    There are plenty of atheists who are not leftists. You just don't see them because they tend to not talk about it.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I'm an athiest - have been for over thirty years. But unlike many of my brethren, I don't get that excited about the issue - or religion in general. People are going to believe what they want to, facts or philosophy be damned. Getting in such arguments with friends only leads to enemies.

  • Tim||

    You. Klingon. Bastard.

  • ||

    +1

  • R C Dean||

    I'm an apatheist:

    I just . . . don't . . . care about religious belief.

    Its part of my generally apathetic approach to what other people do, so long as it doesn't have a direct affect on me.

    I about gave my liberal sister-in-law a heart attack not long ago when I told her I wasn't so much tolerant of gays as I was apathetic about them. People can do whatever you want with their junk; I really don't care.

  • SugarFree||

    How dare you not fit their strawman argument against you.

  • Virginian||

    This is a big thing with liberals and gays I've noticed. It's not enough to just tolerate the LGTBQW* community, you now have to celebrate it and love it or else you're a bigot. Not caring is almost as bad as caring but opposing.

  • Tonio||

    That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, Sic Semper Ty commenter.

  • robc||

    I wasn't so much tolerant of gays as I was apathetic about them.

    Im going to steal that.

    I think they is my problem with most gay activism (most activism, period, actually) -- Im perfectly fine with letting them screw whoever, just dont try to make me give a damn (or a dollar). They object to my apathy.

  • R C Dean||

    I'm trying to remember exactly how I put it, something about not really caring that much about other people's hobbies.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Most leftist atheists aren't actually atheists. They're just transferred their belief in one imaginary agency (God) to a slightly more subtle imaginary agency (The State) withtout realizign the core problem with their worldview remains the same.

  • sarcasmic||

    Some of us just have no faith. Period.

  • ||

    BLASPHEMER! We all know that us libertarians REALLY worship the free market and pure, sweet Chaos. So obviously, Discordia is our true mistress. It's just like how everyone knows atheists worship Satan.

  • Joe R.||

    Red Tony:

    You do realize it is possible for atheists to not generally be leftist, and for my local group to be mostly leftist? I made no claims about the atheist community at-large, and have no idea what the demographics are, aside from a presumably 100% disbelief in a god or gods. Also, what fucking difference does it make unless you're going to try to pull some "guilt by association" bullshit?

    At any rate, yes, the local ones are mostly lefties. Libertarians are overrepresented in the group compared to the local public at large, though.

  • John||

    The atheist community at large does seem to be leftist by a pretty large majority. And that is important because it shows that being an atheist does not make one immune from stupidity anymore than being a Hindu or Buddhist or anything else does.

    And if it is so unimportant, why are you so pissed off about.

  • Tonio||

    The atheist community at large does seem to be leftist by a pretty large majority.

    Citation needed.

    Also, what Sug said at 1:22.

  • sarcasmic||

    The vocal atheist community at large does seem to be leftist...

    ftfy

  • T o n y||

    What it says is there is a definite correlation among:

    secularism (atheism)
    liberalism
    intelligence

    I think you'll find the pattern holds the entire world over.

  • sarcasmic||

    I find it humorous that the very same liberals who mock those who believe that life was created by some guiding force are the first to mock those who believe society is a result of emergent order, instead of the higher force called government that you, Tony, worship as a god.

  • Joe R.||

    And that is important because it shows that being an atheist does not make one immune from stupidity

    "Intelligence leads to atheism" does not mean "all atheists are intelligent."

    If anyone said that, their logic was flawed. And if they didn't, then you're trotting out your usual Tony-ish straw man.

  • Joe R.||

    And after I write this, I see that Blue Tony reinforced my point already.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's kinda messed up to call him 'Red Tony' after a string of posts in which nearly everyone says that atheists tend to be leftists, no?

    Oh, it looked like it could've gone there, but then everyone just went , 'yup' and killed it.

    Me, I believe in all the gods. Every last one. Simpler really.

  • wareagle||

    Good goddamn, someone with name value gives props to libertarianism and still the snark must follow:

    I suspect the consensus would fall apart once we got into the details of what fiscal responsibility and leaving people alone require in practice.

    No fucking shit. Half the country has no problem with intrusive govt, as long as it intrudes on people doing things they don't like. The man put libertarianism in the easiest-to-understand terms possible - be fiscally responsible with our money and let adults make their own adult decisions - yet that is not good enough.

    No, the GOP of the 50s is not what it is today; news flash - neither is the Dem Party. Both have taken turns for the worse. Maybe someone of Eastwood's vintage has seen enough to recognize the slide and suggest a better way.

  • sarcasmic||

    Half the country has no problem with intrusive govt, as long as it intrudes on people doing things they don't like.

    More like 95%. The only argument is over what they don't like, not whether or not the government should intrude.

  • wareagle||

    which makes the snark even stupider. It's like the only thing some of these writers hate worse than non-libertarians is those who profess libertarian values.

  • ||

    The Democratic Party, despite legitimate concerns about its tendencies to victim politics, is much better on race issues than it was in 1950.

    Having had something like a third to a half of their party being the political wing of the KKK is something the Dems have been trying to live down/sweep under the rug for forty some years.

  • wareagle||

    seems the Dems have succeeded as they are the source of race-baiting today. Some might call it projection. Or maybe it's latent guilt.

  • Loki||

    Or maybe it's latent guilt.

    That would require a guilty conscience, which, of course, requires a conscience. Something most Dems (and Repubs [standard "pox on both their houses" disclaimer]) don't have.

    It's more like they realized that instead of actively oppressing minorities they could peddle permanent victim-hood and turn minorities into a permanent voting bloc for their party. Pretty ingeneous really. And easy, especially if you have no shame.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We charge that they work unceasingly to achieve their goal of national socialism....

    D'OH!

  • Tim||

    "Leave people alone" = "Leave people to die" in some people's minds.

  • Pro Libertate||

    "Leave people alone" = murder.

  • db||

    Meat = murder,
    therefore
    "leave everybody alone" = meat.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Meating adjourned!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    We approve this message.

    Sincerely,

    The American Cannibal Party

  • Robert||

    Where is Steve Smith now that we need his expertise?

  • Mensan||

    And Murder Is Easy, therefore,
    meat = easy.

    Wait ... what?

  • Robert||

    No, that's right. Cooking low slow works pretty well for just about any kind.

  • GILMORE||

    Tim| 9.19.12 @ 1:02PM |#

    "Leave people alone" = "Leave people to die"

    Dems have really latched onto this concept over the last year... clearly George Lakoff or his evil breatheren caught on that people were hip to 'freedom'... so they started defining "freedom" as "something enabled by the loving support of our overlords"...

    i.e. without Free Education, how can you be 'free'? Without free healthcare, how could you frolic through the meadows? Without a vast hydra of energy and environmental regulatory agencies, you would be breathing poison and drinking hormone-infected sewage... which isn't Free!

    The modern liberal 'freedom' is closer to the literal definition of 'Islam' = Submission

  • T o n y||

    Liberals believe that freedom means the ability to act, much in the way the dictionary defines it.

    Libertarians believe in the freedom for the kids of rich parents to prosper and for everyone else to be free to fuck off and die.

  • db||

    And a single tear rolled down tony's cheek. He finally loved...

  • KDN||

    free·dom
       [free-duhm]
    noun
    1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
    2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
    3. the power to determine action without restraint.
    4. political or national independence.
    5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

    Never does this word imply a need for income redistribution or security from poverty.

  • T o n y||

    Poverty, illness, ignorance, and a lack of law and order are all "restraints" on people's ability to act. I'm for more freedom. Does that take tax dollars to achieve? Sure. But I bet if you look up this same word in a thesaurus, "being taxed" won't show up as an antonym.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Poverty, illness, ignorance, and a lack of law and order are all "restraints" on people's ability to act. I'm for more freedom. Does that take tax dollars to achieve? Sure."

    Freedom doesn't mean insuring everyone is able to act with equal ability, it means you can act to the best of your own ability no matter how you attain it as long as you aren't taking it from someone else. Being born a hermaphrodite doesn't make you more free than those of us with just a penis.

  • T o n y||

    All you're describing is anarchy/social darwinism. Law order itself requires taxation (taking from some and giving to others). The logic can be extended to other social responsibilities. And has, successfully, in many societies on earth. The same can't be said for your scheme.

    Total equality is a strawman. But there is room between the extremes of total communism and anarchy. And I'm sure you reside somewhere in there just like I do.

  • KDN||

    Poverty, illness, ignorance, and a lack of law and order are all "restraints" on people's ability to act.

    Uh, no.

    I'm for more freedom.

    Unless it's of the economic variety. In which case, all your decisions are belong to us.

    But I bet if you look up this same word in a thesaurus, "being taxed" won't show up as an antonym.

    Well one dictionary definition of tax is, "a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand." That's far closer to an abridgement of freedom than poverty or illness, neither of which is directly forced upon you and maintained by an outside party. And it is that maintenance of the lack thereof by an outside party which is at the heart of all five of the definitions of freedom.

  • T o n y||

    What does whether there is a human agent behind the restraint have to do with the burden of the restraint?

  • ||

    What does whether there is a human agent behind the restraint have to do with the burden of the restraint?

    It's not just about the burden. It's about the willing actions against us. Non-living or non-conscious things don't have any will, T o n y. They aren't "violating" our rights. They aren't "restraining us", because they aren't taking actions against us. They don't "take action" at all. They just exist.

    People (and animals in general), on the other hand, take deliberate actions that infringe on freedoms. There's a moral element to the actions of willing creatures against us that other things just don't have. If I'm stuck in a hole, I'm certainly not free, but I wouldn't claim my rights are being violated. There's no moral aspect to physical barriers, unless they've been placed upon us by someone else. Rights are not all there is to freedom, just as rights are not all there is to justice.

  • triclops||

    The Left can be summed up with the following statement, "Whether you want it or not, we will be everyone's helicopter parents".

  • Cytotoxic||

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Ed Crane is a whiny cunt parasite.

    Now that he's free to create a think tank of his own...we'll never hear from him again.

  • WWNGD?||

    Fifty percent of the time the democrats want to control your public life and the republicans want to control your private life. The other fifty percent of the time it is the other way around.

  • ||

    Nice.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Ellen: Ah, that's one thing about our libertarians, don't play any favorites! Libertarians hate everybody: statists, drug warriors, anti-abortionists, abortionists, public unionists, mosque deniers, budgetless congressmen, mortgage deduction takers, you name it.
    Audience: How do they feel about married gays?
    Ellen: Ask him.
    Clint: No, they get entitlements.

  • Russell||

    Leave the English langiage alone as well.

    To many conservatives, the problem with gay marriage is semantic agression . The word 'marriage ' is taken, so stead of trying to co-opt the name and distort the meaning of a venerable institution, they ought to come up with a neologism of their own for their newfangled one, like Kwanza or Tweeting.

  • sarcasmic||

    That is why I have a problem with phrases like "legalizing gay marriage" or "making same sex marriage legal".

    I prefer what I think is a more honest description: "redefining marriage".

  • Tonio||

    Sure, whatever. Anything to distract from the actual argument about rights, eh?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, because adjectives should never modify the meaning of nouns.

  • wareagle||

    this one does a bit more than modify it; it turns the concept on its head. For most of my life, 'marriage' meant two people of opposite who are unrelated. The adjective redefines the term as we have historically known it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not only that, but the use of the adjective requires that another adjective be used when describing "traditional" (oh so quaint!) or "straight" (oh so bigoted!) marriage.

  • SugarFree||

    Or you call them both "marriage" and go about your business. That marriage must be kept as man/woman is the only reason the "gay" modifier is necessary.

    Gay people aren't advocating that they be "gay married", just "married."

  • wareagle||

    and here we get back to semantic circles. Until recently, marriage meant the same thing to everyone except the polygamist outliers - one man, one woman. Changing the equation is fundamental difference. On the other hand, I'm with Clint; let consenting adults make their own decisions.

  • Robert||

    No, even most polygamists meant the same thing (1 each of man y woman) by "marriage". It's just that they believed in participating in more than one marriage at a time.

  • SugarFree||

    Turning on it's head would mean marriage is "two people who are legally separate in romantic and financially terms until the contract is dissolved." Gay marriage is a sideways move at worse, a slight nudge in reality. It's still two people agreeing to the exact same contract, just one doesn't have opposite genitals.

  • Joe R.||

    For most of my life, 'marriage' meant two people of opposite who are unrelated

    There are Muslims and Mormons who believe that polygamy is OK. First cousin marriage is legal in 22 U.S. States plus the District of Columbia.

    Perhaps you should reconsider your definition of marriage, because it already isn't what you think it is.

  • wareagle||

    jesus on a flying biscuit; there always has to be "that guy" who plucks the outlier from the air. For most folks, marriage has meant exactly what I outlined: two people, opposite sex, unrelated.

    Doesn't mean there are no exceptions and the presence of a law does not mean a rash of cousins getting married nor has it stopped govt from going after polygamists.

  • Joe R.||

    For most folks, marriage has meant exactly what I outlined: two people, opposite sex, unrelated.

    You're using circular reasoning, then. If you're saying that marriage is heterosexual because that's the way "most folks" think of it, then the goal of gay marriage advocates should be to change the way most folks think of it, which is exactly what is happening. But you're saying they shouldn't do that, because most folks think it means opposite sex.

  • ||

    Yeah except for the majority of human history it meant women being chattel property of their fathers and then their husbands. I'm pretty sure any modern "definition" of marriage is better than that shit.

  • Zeb||

    It's really a pretty slight change, though. Just change "two people of the opposite sex" to "two people who want to fuck each other". I wouldn't call that a radical redefinition of the word.
    Also, I'd say to people who are still complaining about marriage being redefined: "too bad, it already happened". If we are to have government recognized marriages, it should have more to do with acknowledging reality than social engineering.

  • robc||

    If we are to have government recognized marriages

    How about we work on that bit then?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Just change "two people of the opposite sex" to "two people who want to fuck each other"

    Bigot.

    Why should people want to fuck, to enjoy marriage?

  • John||

    It is not about that. It is about making homosexuality a protected class like race and sex. Gay marriage is just one way to get down that road.

  • sarcasmic||

    I actually supported the redefining of marriage until they started using civil rights arguments. At that point I realized it was about taking people to court, not equal rights.

  • John||

    I am exactly the same way. The last thing we need is another law suit industry.

  • Tonio||

    That's like saying blacks have a right to vote as long as it's theoretical and they don't try to exercise them or anything.

    And I hate the grievance industry as much as anyone else here.

  • John||

    Except that you don't choose to be black. You do choose to be gay. Disliking gay people is no different than disliking Steelers fans. Stupid? Sure. Illegal? Not if you want to have a free country.

    You have a right to do whatever you want Tonio. But you do not have a right to use the coercive force of government to make everyone else like you for it.

  • mr simple||

    Choose? Seriously? I thought we were all past that outdated way of thinking. Perhaps you think it's a mental disorder or something?

  • John||

    No. It is no different than people who choose to tie each other up or watch porn or whatever. It is a life style choice. People enjoy that lifestyle good for them. They have every right to do it. But they have no right to expect the government to coerce everyone into accepting it.

  • John||

    Mr. Simple,

    Just because it is a choice, doesn't mean it is a disorder.

  • Tonio||

    It's John, mr simple. To be pitied rather than hated.

  • Robert||

    No, you don't choose to be gay nor to be a Steelers fan, unless you're insincere about your preference. Our preferences may be acquired, but not chosen.

    I don't think people are born gay, either, any more than they're born Steelers fans. You don't decide what to like, you realize what you do like.

  • Joe R.||

    You do choose to be gay.

    Reference, please.

  • R C Dean||

    Personally, I think its because the gay activists aren't looking for legal equality; they're looking for social approval. So they want the word that connotes social approval.

  • sarcasmic||

    And the ability to take people to court if they don't approve.

  • Zeb||

    Some gay activists. Aren't we supposed to treat people as individuals, not as members of special groups? The fact that some assholes want to use it to advance their agenda is not a good reason to oppose something.

  • Eric||

    Too large a blanket statement. Perhaps some have political intentions, but others surely just want the same legal rights as couples who choose to join in marraige contract: Visitation, inheritance, insurance, social security, etc.

    Here's a comprehensive list of rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples:
    http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency.....30190.html

  • sarcasmic||

    I believed that as well, until I learned that any and all compromises that do not include the word "marriage" shall be rejected.

    It's all about a word.

  • T o n y||

    And your being a pissy bitter bitch is reason enough to deny equal rights.

  • Eric||

    That's understandable though. Otherwise to be "gay married" or "legaly recognized" or whatever epithet du jour would always be subordinate to truly being married. I can understand someone not wanting to settle for less.

  • sarcasmic||

    There are two distinct issues. First is the legal stuff that comes with the contract, the second is the name of the contract.
    It is dishonest to insist that the two be coupled, as it is dishonest to accuse those who oppose the second of also opposing the first.
    The whole thing reeks of dishonesty.

  • Eric||

    I think that's why the long term solution is to decouple the terms marriage and government. The government should recognize the contract, regardless of terminology. While, churches or other organizations are free to recognize whatever they wish.
    However, until that happens, I can't begrudge gays the term marriage, regardless of their motive.

  • sarcasmic||

    I can't ally myself with dishonest people.

  • Tonio||

    My, someone is smugly self-righteous.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes. Yes, you are.

  • ||

    First is the legal stuff that comes with the contract, the second is the name of the contract.

    It's like saying that the issue of separate schools for whites and blacks is a different issue from the difference of quality between white schools and black school. When you have two differently-named legal designations, it's an open invitation to discriminate between them when making laws.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Here's a comprehensive list of rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples:

    And every single one of those 'rights' is in reality special treatment by the state vis-a-vis the unmarried.

    I'm not clear on why libertarians think that expanding state privileges is a plus.

  • T o n y||

    And? Nobody's gonna force you to join the late 20th century and "approve" of the way people are born. But what's wrong with gays advocating for social approval?

  • califernian||

    Please. That is not the issue. Don't try to hide behind that 'semantic' defense.

    If a man has 4 wives, they are still wives.

    If a brother and sister get married, they are still husband and wife.

    No one cares about eh semantics and those who say they do are being dishonest.

  • califernian||

    Also, just to be clear.

    I'm against legal gay marriage. Because I"m against all state involvement in marriage.

  • Tonio||

    Sure, Cali, and that's real convenient. If Libertopia is ever to be achieved it will be through incrementalism and compromise, not through ideological rigidity.

  • C. Anacreon||

    How many going to St Ives?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I think we all know there were no homosexuals until the 'sixties.

  • Zeb||

    Yep. Before that it was just showing a dude some respect.

  • ||

    A LOT of respect.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Nineteensixties, that is.

  • ||

    Who buys porn in the Internet age?

    People (many of them Mormons) who think it is worth paying for 1080 high-def full-length movies, instead of the 720p clips now offered for free on several sites.

  • ||

    I actually supported the redefining of marriage until they started using civil rights arguments. At that point I realized it was about taking people to court, not equal rights.

    If someone is denying you equality under the law / equal rights, they're not likely to stop because you said pretty please. Taking them to court is usually called for.

  • sarcasmic||

    This whole "denying you equality" thing tends to take the form of positive rights, which libertarians did not recognize last time I checked.
    Taking someone to court because they wouldn't do something for you is, in my mind anyway, an initiation of force and a violation of the NAP.

  • ||

    I agree that I shouldn't be forced to say, take your photo, because you're a gay couple or an ethnic couple (nevermind that I'm not stupid enough to pass up someone wanting to pay me money for some pictures). But the government has a duty to treat all citizens equally. That's why the best solution is licensing by the government and ceremonies by who the fuck ever.

  • ||

    This whole "denying you equality" thing tends to take the form of positive rights, which libertarians did not recognize last time I checked.

    Let's call out "positive rights" for what they really are: state-granted privileges. Right now the law grants official recognition, and sometimes privileges, to legally "married" couples.

    But the issue of state recognition and privileges is not itself the issue at hand. The issue is, as long as the state IS offering those things, it can't discriminate based on sex.

  • ||

    To many conservatives, the problem with gay marriage is semantic agression . The word 'marriage ' is taken, so stead of trying to co-opt the name and distort the meaning of a venerable institution

    So you're in favor of going back to the definition of marriage in the Old Testament and legalizing polygamy, but killing homosexuals?

    Or perhaps you're using a selective version of "venerable"?

  • wareagle||

    any more words you would like to put in his mouth?

  • Tonio||

    He phrased it as a question, so no. The lack of an answer is telling.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Actually, this is kinda understandable.

    A semi and a car can both do everything a car can do, but you can't haul cars in a car.

    So, same laws apply, same privileges extended, but two different names because, for all the sameness, there are obvious differences.

  • ||

    Except there is a word that covers both vehicles: "automobile". So saying straight couples and gay couples need different names the way semis and cars do doesn't work, since there is a term for both types of legally recognized couple: marriage. No reason to have two legal names for "legally recognized straight couple"s and "legally recognized gay couple"s when "marriage" covers them both, any more than there needs to be two separate names that cover "semi"s and "car"s when we already have "automobile".

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Although he took office as an ardent cold warrior, he cut defense spending after the Korean War and left office warning the nation about the power of the "military-industrial complex"

    That's actually not even the main point of his speech. Liberals, especially, have focused so ardently on to that particular phrase "tree" the last 50 years they missed the whole fucking forest:

    Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    BlockquoteBut each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

    It's a deeply conservative speech, one focusing on sustainability and moderation, and warning against the tendency of the country's steadily growing technocratic society to relinquish its freedoms to the "experts" of the expanding managerial class.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Damn:

    BlockquoteBut each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

    It's a deeply conservative speech, one focusing on sustainability and moderation, and warning against the tendency of the country's steadily growing technocratic society to relinquish its freedoms to the "experts" of the expanding managerial class.

  • ||

    this one does a bit more than modify it; it turns the concept on its head. For most of my life, 'marriage' meant two people of opposite who are unrelated. The adjective redefines the term as we have historically known it.

    For the beginning portion of my life, "equal" meant "separate but equal", as in separately equal drinking fountains for whites and blacks.

    Sometimes redefinitions are an improvement.

  • wareagle||

    we're debating the semantics, not the social implications. I doubt anyone here opposes gay marriage, but words mean things. And separate but equal has managed to revert to equal but separate in many places.

  • sarcasmic||

    All it is is semantics.

    It is an argument over how the agency with the monopoly on the initiation of violence defines a word.

  • Joe R.||

    As I pointed out above, that definition of "marriage" is wrong, anyway. Charles Darwin married his first cousin. One of Albert Einstein's wives was both a first cousin AND a second cousin.

    There's a lot of cousin fucking going on out there, apparently.

  • wareagle||

    it wasn't a definition, it was an explanation of how most folks view marriage. But you keep chasing outliers for every post.

  • ||

    But you keep chasing outliers for every post.

    No, he's only addressing the points you bring up. Saying that people used to marry their cousins more is hardly an "outlier". It shows that the ideas of what "marriage" is change over time, and your whining about this one is ridiculous.

  • Tonio||

    There's a lot of cousin fucking going on out there, apparently.

    Always has been.

  • ||

    This whole "denying you equality" thing tends to take the form of positive rights, which libertarians did not recognize last time I checked.
    Taking someone to court because they wouldn't do something for you is, in my mind anyway, an initiation of force and a violation of the NAP.

    I'm not "tending" to argue for positive rights at all. I'm arguing for equal rights. I'm also not arguing for an initiation of force. I'm arguing that the definition of marriage and the rights and responsibilities should be the same for everyone, and not involve any initiation of force.

    Just because someone takes your argument, and adds elements you disagree with, doesn't mean your argument is wrong. It means their additional elements may be wrong.

  • sarcasmic||

    That might make sense on an emotional level, but the logic escapes me.

  • SugarFree||

    If you advocate legalization of marijuana and a small subset of those that agreed with you also advocate that it be force-fed to 6th graders to open their minds, does that mean your advocacy is illegitimate? Is opposing what they want to do necessitate opposing what you want as well?

    The problem is the public accommodation case law, not who can or can not sue under it.

  • sarcasmic||

    I agree.

  • ||

    ^^This.^^

    Also, I fear that having separate designation for straight and gay marriages will leave it wide open to having some laws apply only to "marriages", while "civil unions" get shafted. This could make them inherently unequal, similar to how having separate white and black schools ended up with inequality between the two types.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Is opposing what they want to do necessitate opposing what you want as well?"

    Is supporting what you want to do supporting what they want to do? Are you actually doing anything to oppose them?

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm arguing that the definition of marriage and the rights and responsibilities should be the same for everyone

    So it's not real unless the government says so?
    All the government is is force. That's all.
    So you're saying that it's not really marriage unless it's backed up with force.

  • Tonio||

    Again with the sophistry and the convenient excuse to deny rights to people.

  • ||

    Stop addressing strawmen.

    If the government is going to be saying anything at all about marriage, it shouldn't be able to discriminate based on sex, any more than it should be able to discriminate based on race.

  • R C Dean||

    Personally, I think "marriage" is what churches do, and "licensing" is what governments do.

    If the government is going to license these family partnerships, it should do so without regard to gender (at a minimum).

    To avoid the confusion of the clerical role and the governmental role, it should call these licenses something other than "marriage" licenses.

  • SugarFree||

    Civil unions for all, and to to all a good night.

    The semantic argument over the definition of marriage shouldn't be a legal debate, but a religious one.

  • sarcasmic||

    But if it's not a legal debate, how do you take people who disagree with you to court?

  • robc||

    I dont even see the reason for civil unions.

    It might be necessary to get from where we are now to someplace better, but unless the civil unions acknowledge all unions (man-woman, man-man, man-woman-woman-woman-woman-woman-woman, man-woman-man-woman-man-woman*), then its worthless.

    *props to Heinlein for that one.

  • SugarFree||

    Well, I'm for any number of people contracting together in any manner they like. I don't think we even need marriage/civil unions as a distinct contract type, but people seem to insist on it.

    I'd prefer legal binding for the purposes of financial intermingling and divisions and responsibility of assets to be done with incorporation.

    I don't think a contracts should be the standard for handling romantic relationships. If you want it, sure, but not having it shouldn't be any sort of impediment in any way.

  • R C Dean||

    I can see some value in having a default version of the contract that is applied like we do corporate charters and the like.

    If people want to vary it, then they should of course be free to.

  • Robert||

    No, marriage is what men y women do, and it's waaaay older than churches. But licensing is what gov'ts do. But having permission to do something doesn't make it possible; it's the difference between "may" y "can".

  • Loki||

    I suspect the consensus would fall apart once we got into the details of what fiscal responsibility and leaving people alone require in practice.

    This is probably the main reason why libertarianism never gets anywhere. Once people realize what that actually means in practice, they go running for the hills. "You mean I might have to take care of myself and if I fail I'll have no one to blaim but myself? Aiiieeeee!!!!1 Run away!!!!!" Until people realize that all that "government help" is just bullshit peddled by serial liars, we're never going to get anywhere. Every conservation will end up at "Libertarianism sounds good in theory but..."

  • ||

    In practice, "government help" is an oxymoron. We need to stop describing smaller government in terms of people losing goodies, and instead make the case that they lose more goodies by allowing the government to do the job.

  • Robert||

    You mean we can't trick people into signing on, and then with a "Bwahahaha!" reveal that they've just committed themselves to it irrevocably?

  • ||

    any more words you would like to put in his mouth?

    I'm pointing out that when he uses "venerable", he's actually referring to a fairly recent redefinition, which he then argues shouldn't be further redefined, because it is a little bit old. Just the right amount of old.

    He's basically arguing from authority.

  • wareagle||

    I don't see that. He's saying that, until very recently, marriage has had a very specific meaning. Now, there is an effort to broaden that meaning to people whom the original did not include.

    This is becoming its own version of Indians. When someone describes another person as Indian, how many folks ask "is that feathers or dots?"

  • Joe R.||

    If you tell me Bob and Steve got married, I'm not going to ask if they're gay married or straight married.

  • wareagle||

    congratulations for continuing to be that guy.

  • Joe R.||

    It's not my fault that your argument is based on a faulty premise.

  • wareagle||

    the premise is sound; your just intent on trying to find the one exception that exists to virtually any rule.

  • wareagle||

    you're

  • mr simple||

    until very recently, marriage has had a very specific meaning.

    Only if you start that sentence with "From fairly recently ..." as marriage was not one man, one woman for most cultures for most of human history.

  • ||

    That might make sense on an emotional level, but the logic escapes me.

    Which part of "get government out of defining marriage, and limit government to adjudicating contracts voluntarily entered into by individuals" do you find illogical?

  • sarcasmic||

    That is actually my preferred solution.

    However I've found that many supporters of the redefining of marriage do not find this to be acceptable, because then they can't take people to court for not recognizing them as "married".

  • ||

    I'm arguing that the definition of marriage and the rights and responsibilities should be the same for everyone

    So it's not real unless the government says so?
    All the government is is force. That's all.
    So you're saying that it's not really marriage unless it's backed up with force.

    I'm an anarchist. I'd like to get rid of government and its use of force entirely. But, for those straight minarchists who insist on a role for government, I say, don't insist on government using force on your behalf, and then bitch the gays insisting on that same equality under the law. If you don't want the government initiating force on behalf of gays, then be willing to be logically consistent and non-hypocritical and say government can't initiate that same force for straight couples either.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm an anarchist. I'd like to get rid of government and its use of force entirely.

    And within five minutes you'll have gangs of thugs roaming the streets, competing with each other over the last word on violence.

    Before long you have a winner, and it calls itself government.

    Government is not a necessity, it is an inevitability.

    Acceptance is the first step to recovery.

  • Joe R.||

    And within five minutes you'll have gangs of thugs roaming the streets, competing with each other over the last word on violence.

    Who would then be shot by me and my family, and we would all live in total peace and free from all criminality.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who would then be shot by me and my family, and we would all live in total peace and free from all criminality.

    Eventually the gang will become too big to fight off, at which point it becomes government.

    It's inevitable.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I agree, which is also why I am not an anarchist. Government does only one thing well and that is force. The goal is to limit the government to be used only for the protection of our freedom and liberty. A decentralized power/responsibilty structure, where the greatest power and responsibility lies with the individual.

  • sarcasmic||

    Good luck with that.
    Without an incentive to get rid of lousy rules, lousy rules will beget more lousy rules.
    The logical conclusion is a totalitarian state where nothing exists that is not covered by some regulation or legislation.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm moving to my own galaxy anyways. So vote for whoever you want.

  • Joe R.||

    Until I get enough of my friends together to fight it.

    It's inevitable.

  • califernian||

    Government is not a necessity, it is an inevitability.

    You are right but "minimum possible powers and intrusions" is a valid goal for our govt.

    I leave you with this.

    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

    TJ, right as always.

  • sarcasmic||

    Until the second shakes off those chains and becomes the criminal organization that it is today.

  • ||

    However I've found that many supporters of the redefining of marriage do not find this to be acceptable, because then they can't take people to court for not recognizing them as "married".

    So are you in favor of the law being changed so straight people also can't take people to court for not recognizing them as "married"? Because if so, we're in agreement.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't favor discrimination, however I do not consider it to be an initiation of force so I see no good reason why it should be prohibited.

    Like SF said above "The problem is the public accommodation case law".

  • Eric||

    If Eastwood is such a libertarian, why couldn't he have used his name recognition for better purpose...like supporting Gary Johnson? Romney isn't even sort-of-libertarian, while Johnson could use all the help he can get.

  • Proprietist||

    Technically his convention speech was pretty pathetic if that was supposed to be an endorsement of Romney-Ryan. It said few positive things about the GOP in general.

  • John||

    That is why it was an effective speech. It wasn't just singing the GOP song. It was repudiating Obama and telling people that yes it is okay to fire the black guy.

    The GOP already had plenty of people to sing the GOP song. What they needed and got was that.

  • Eric||

    Yep. And he breaks the traditional mold of country music stars, B list actors, and NASCAR drivers that the GOP usually trots out.

  • T o n y||

    Near-universal mockery? Yeah, success!

  • John||

    It was only near universal in the voices in your head.

    And the fact that you and sock puppets like you are so intent on saying it was bad only proves how effective it was.

    Note, no one talks about how stupid and crazy Granholm's speech at the DNC was. Why? Because it was obviously stupid and crazy and there is no need to point that out.

  • T o n y||

    I suspect if Clint had talked at a different time slot nobody would have made a fuss.

    But since there was no post-convention poll improvement for Romney, it's hard to see in what way Clint was a success.

  • John||

    It was a big success. No one speech is going to change the polls.

    Just admit it, he made fun of your idol and you hate him for it. Stop pretending it wasn't an effective speech. It was very effective and showed Obama to be the angry buffoon he is. And that is why you are so angry about it.

  • T o n y||

    Ah so by success you don't mean by any objective measure, you mean a) you enjoyed it or, more likely, b) you are a dutiful Hannityesque GOP flack and you have to declare it so, in the hopes that someone might believe you.

  • Proprietist||

    And he damned yours with faint praise.

  • Trespassers W||

    After 80 years of getting the Republicans to think he's one of their own, he's now working to bring them down from within.

    Clint is playing the long con.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "you also have to allow for the gradual realization that the GOP chronically fails to practice the small-government principles it preaches"

    Which at 21 Clint peobably hadn't fully realized. Especially in the pre-information age where the hypocracy wasn't staring you in the face 24/7. Not to mention at 21, you're paying more attention to partying and poontang than to politics.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement