Gay Marriage

Libertarians, Gay Marriage, and Freedom of Association: A Primer

How the same right allows for both same-sex marriage recognition and refusing to sell gay couples wedding cakes

|

Your rights end where my pastry knife begins
Credit: Tamas | Dreamstime.com

How can a libertarian support gay marriage but also the right of businesses to decline to provide goods and services such as cakes, wedding dresses, and photographers for gay weddings? For many libertarians, it makes perfect logical, philosophical, and legal sense.

But from the outside perspective, it often does not. As a result, critics looking for an opportunity to throw shade on the increased media and public interest in libertarian ideas can focus on just a piece of this mentality. We saw the Village Voice do just that recently, as media critic Roy Edroso incorrectly declared that we here are "more likely" to defend the rights of private individuals and businesses who want to discriminate against gays than the rights of gay couples to demand marriage recognition from the government.

Reason Editor-in-Chief Matt Welch already responded by highlighting our lengthy history of support for gay marriage, going all the way back to 1975. As a gay libertarian who writes frequently on both components, perhaps I can help illuminate some concepts here and explain why arguing that gays have the right to marry each other and arguing that businesses have the right to deny them goods and services are fundamentally connected to manifestations of the same right: freedom of association.

The Way You Libertarians 'Support' Gay Marriage Is Kind of Weird

That's not a direct quote from anyone in particular, but is my interpretation of how libertarian attitudes toward gay marriage are perceived by many on the left, particularly whenever libertarian issues pop up on gay blogs.

To get really basic, libertarians generally believe the power of government should be limited to what is necessary to protect the rights of the citizenry. There are a lot of different ways this belief manifests among libertarians and different libertarians draw the line in different places—there's as much variety of opinion among libertarians as there is among progressives and conservatives—but this is the underlying philosophy and it influences where a libertarian comes from. Freedom of association is one of these rights—the inherent right of human beings to choose with whom they want to spend their time and money, to unionize with, and to sell goods, services or labor to without unnecessary government intrusion.

It's important to understand then that libertarian support for same-sex marriage and civil liberties for gay people in general is not a result of how libertarians feel about gay people. It has nothing to do with whether an individual libertarian actually likes or is comfortable with being around gay people or even whether a libertarian thinks homosexuality is a natural outcome of biological diversity or whether gay people are going to hell. Support for same-sex marriage is a result of a belief that gay people, just like heterosexual people, have the right through freedom of association to create their own families and expect to be treated the same way under the law. Laws forbidding recognition of gay marriage are a government intrusion on this inherent right.

If You Guys Support Gay Marriage, Why Do You Keep Wanting to Get the Government Out of It?

You shouldn't need a license from the government to express or commemorate your rights. For many libertarians, just having licensed marriages at all is an imposition of unnecessary government control. Many libertarians do not believe that the government has a legitimate stake in determining who should or should not be allowed to declare themselves to be married. (Note that the question of whether the government has an actual stake in restricting marriage to heterosexuals is frequently asked in current legal challenges against the bans, resulting in some rather strange arguments from opponents claiming that allowing gay marriages will somehow result in fewer heterosexual marriages.)

Unfortunately for a free people, governments everywhere have tied all sorts of privileges, regulations, and benefits (and sometimes penalties!) to marital status. Many libertarians believe that many of these rules should not be tied to marital status and often shouldn't exist at all. Marital relationships should be handled by private contracts, which would still require some government involvement, particularly once children are introduced, but generally would not be subject to a federal or state stamp of approval.

Though the "get government out of marriage entirely" response is a typical refrain from libertarian-leaning conservative politicians who have been getting attention in recent years, nobody has really introduced a system by which that could happen or truly expressed a vision of how the government would disentangle itself from the many, many policies it has already put into place. For many libertarians, supporting same-sex marriage is then an imperfect but acceptable solution for now. Married gay couples should be treated the same under the law as heterosexual couples. Some other libertarians, however, are holding the line, worried that this compromise expands the power of the state to define relationships, and would rather force the government to surrender its authority to determine who can and cannot be married entirely. But either way, it's important to note that both outcomes give gay and lesbian people much more actual freedom to create their own families than they have had until recently.

If You Support Gay Marriage What's the Deal with Permitting Discrimination Against Gays?

If you philosophically believe in a particular right, it should naturally follow that a right extends to everybody, including those who disagree with you or even hold positions you find detestable. Those who believe in freedom of speech typically understand that one outcome is that certain people will say bigoted things. But since we all equally have free speech, we have the freedom to criticize and oppose the bad things that other people say. Many Americans, regardless of political leaning, oppose censorship because we understand it's a slippery slope and the expression of government power can be used to censor more than bigoted speech. It could be used to by those in control to curtail the right to criticize authority.

The belief in freedom of association, therefore, obligates us to respect the right to refuse to associate with certain people, even if bigotry is a possible reason for that refusal. A Christian baker shouldn't have the authority to stop a same-sex couple from getting married. But the couple shouldn't have the authority to require a baker to make them a wedding cake for the ceremony. Freedom of association in the world of commerce requires us to accept the right of both sides to determine with whom to do business. The same right that calls for the government to recognize same-sex marriages also permits the baker to refuse to provide a wedding cake.

The slippery slope here is easy to explain by invoking Nazis. (Why is it always Nazis?) Should a baker be required to make a cake with a big swastika on it on behalf of a Nazi customer? If you believe the answer to this question is "no," then understand that giving the government the ability to restrict freedom of association could result in an outcome that forces the baker's hand here, as absurd as it may seem.

Should a Baker Be Able to Refuse to Sell a Wedding Cake to an Interracial Couple?

Many libertarians would say yes (including myself—so much for public office). Yet America's history of very serious discrimination against blacks, much of which was not just permitted but enforced by the government and through legal channels, has influenced the way many people see freedom of association. This outcome is understandable, but whenever we talk about restricting a right (and libertarians generally acknowledge that rights may be restricted when they interfere with the expression of the rights of others), the restriction must be considered within the scope of all potential solutions. Restricting a right is a form of government control over individual liberty. Once we accept allowing the government to restrict freedom, it is very difficult for the public to control how this power may manifest later; thus, our resistance to censorship.

It is very difficult to argue that a wedding cake is a necessity for any human being of any race, religion, or sexual orientation. A person does not need a wedding cake to survive. As humiliating as it may be to be refused a cake for bigoted reasons, there's no physical or economic harm being done to somebody refused a wedding cake.

Nor does the denial of a wedding cake deny the ability of a gay or interracial couple to actually acquire a wedding cake from another source. The existence of marketplace alternatives is another reason why libertarians would be reluctant to restrict the baker's freedom of association. This is far from "redlining," where banks and insurance companies colluded and denied loans and insurance to swaths of minorities in inner city neighborhoods. As unpleasant as these anti-gay discriminatory acts are, they have been shown to be isolated incidents scattered across the country in situations where the victims had the ability to remedy the situation by turning to other businesses.

Just as a libertarian's general support for same-sex couples to define their own partnerships and families isn't an endorsement of homosexuality, a libertarian's general support for the right of a business to refuse to engage in commerce with somebody shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of bigotry. In order to restrict a person's right to freedom of association, the damage caused by the outcomes must be very high. Having to select a different bakery or photographer, many of whom would love to do business with gay couples, does not rise to that threshold.

NEXT: Brickbat: Say What?

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.

  1. Libertarians should be explaining why relying on the state to bless your union with a license invites heartache.

    1. Because the only purpose of the state, if it exists at all, is to protect the rights of people. Stopping people from marrying without its approval limits your rights. I shouldn’t need the approval of a clerk or judge to marry who I want.

      1. Iron…your logic is faulty. The nowhere in the US does the government stop anyone from getting married. What the government does not do is offer recognition to all marriages. Marriage exists without a government license.

        Libertarians need to focus on the core issue, which is not marriage licenses, but is securing the same legal protections for gay marriages that exist for straight marriages. That can be done without calling it marriage, and much of it can be done without government intervention. Do we really need a law to permit same sex partners hospital visitation? I don’t think so.

        1. Marriage exists without a government license.

          Not possible. See what caused the Windsor ruling

          That can be done without calling it marriage,

          I like civil unions and leave the religious ritual for marriage. My second marriage, to a Catholic could not be in her church (Divorce, I didn’t give a shit either way). Her brother was a Catholic priest. The mayor married us, then stepped back and Father Mike gave a benediction or whatever. The mayor and he acted as if it was fairly common. No second ceremony at all. When I asked Mike how many priests would have done that for a non-relative, he smiled and said, “Can we talk about the weather?”

          I still like it as single-ceremony civil/religious function.

          and much of it can be done without government intervention.

          Impossible. See Windsor.

          Do we really need a law to permit same sex partners hospital visitation? I don’t think so.

          Strawman fallacy. See Windsor.

      2. I agree you should be able to marry who you want to marry!

  2. By the way, you’re an Uncle Tom, Shackford. Or, you know, whatever the gay libertarian equivalent of that would be.

    1. Uncle Nancy

      1. NOT ALL HOMOSEXUALS ARE NANCIES. You’re ignorant.

        How about Uncle Tom of Finland?

        1. Just a joke man.

          1. And its funnier than Uncle Tom of Finland!

    2. I’ve been called everything from “not really gay” to “self-loathing” for not following the goodthink.

      1. Ah, kind of how Clarence Thomas is “not really black”.

        1. For reference

          Everyone knows Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the best Supreme Court justice, but which one is King Shit of Poop Mountain? The competition is pretty fierce.

          1. The Jezzies need to stick to topics that they are capable of understanding, like naked Disney princes.

            1. That particular author writes for Jezebel, Media Matters, jurisprudes, etc…. Her style of writing would be more appropriate for your average reddit comment.

      2. It’s probably just a phase.

      3. “not really gay”

        Fauxmesexual

        1. Shouldn’t that be fauxmosexual?

          1. MoFosexual

      4. No one has ever called me “not really gay” but I’ve definitely been called self-loathing for not supporting current group think.

    3. Uncle Bruce?

    4. Uncle Fucka

      1. Shut your fucking face!

    5. Bob’s your aunt Sally.

  3. Perhaps because of the wording, the problem is that the concept of negative rights vs positive rights is beyond most folks.

    1. It was the first concept I embraced.

      I’m not sure it’s the wording. I think its the actual effect on a person’s belief system. Essentially, once you accept negative rights, freedom to associate, self ownership, NAP, and the other related ethics then all your heroes die. Doesn’t matter if your heroes were Ronald Reagan or FDR, everything you learned in public school and on the nightly news is suddenly wrong. Your head is filled with contradictory beliefs that cry out for resolution.

      I think people look into that chasm and turn back.

      1. Wow, if I was depressed when I posted my original statement, now I’m really depressed! Bad enough to not be able to grasp the concept, but to understand it, and to walk away… oi ve!

  4. throw shade

    racist!

  5. To get really basic, libertarians generally believe the power of government should be limited to what is necessary to protect the rights of the citizenry.

    Let’s decode what government is, by substituting “mafia”, and see if this statement makes sense:

    “To get really basic, libertarians generally believe the power of a mafia should be limited to what is necessary to protect the rights of the citizenry.”

    Nope. Take two:

    “To get really basic, libertarians generally believe the power of a mafia should be limited to nothing.”

    OK, now that makes sense. Feel free to resubstitute the eumphemism “government” back into the sentence.

    1. OK, now that makes sense. Feel free to resubstitute the eumphemism “government” back into the sentence.

      What if we replaced “government” with asparagus? Or shoe laces?

      Government is not a euphemism. Check any dictionary.

      Oh yeah, when does the citizenry get to elect the mafia, and would the mafia be bound by our constitution?

      “To get really basic, libertarians generally believe the power of a mafia should be limited to nothing.”

      How far will we get by joining you in denouncing Thomas Jefferson as a mafia gangster and repudiating the Declaration of Independence? And agreeing with you that the people are forbidden to institute governments to secure fundamental rights?

      How will you enforced your prohibition on a free people, Don Corleone?

      Finally, might this be why the libertarian label is rejected by 85% of libertarians?

      1. Let’s say you’ve got some mafia syndicate that’s shaking down businesses for protection money. Now at some point the guys collecting money offer the businesses a list of gangsters to choose from, and the one with the most votes becomes the new mafia leader. Does that legitimize the mafia?

        1. Yes, because you voted, even though your thug lost out to a worse thug, you accepted and legitimized the outcome by participating in the process.

          1. “by participating” So everyone who does not choose to voluntarily vote for a mafia boss…I mean public representative must still be subject to said government’s use of power?

            Another angle, if I voted and they burned my baby, it’s all justified because of the right to vote?

            This whole government is good thing is really confusing to me since I see government’s committing most of the violence in society. Help an ignorant person understand why violence and coercion is a good thing?

        2. Let’s say you’ve got some mafia syndicate that’s shaking down businesses for protection money. Now at some point the guys collecting money offer the businesses a list of gangsters to choose from, and the one with the most votes becomes the new mafia leader. Does that legitimize the mafia?

          Stack the deck much? If all that happens under a freely ratified constitution — like I said — then you’re playing word gamed with a goofy analogy.

          Same questions remain.

          How far will we get by joining you in denouncing Thomas Jefferson as a mafia gangster and repudiating the Declaration of Independence? And agreeing with you that the people are forbidden to institute governments to secure fundamental rights?

          How will you enforce your prohibition on a free people, Don Corleone

        3. Does that legitimize the mafia?

          Dishonest question. My question included a constitution, so you’re playing word games off his dumb analogy. Stacking the deck to create a strawman fallacy. They have elections in Russia, ya know.

          Elections alone legitimize nothing without a constitution . which many of us learned in junior high. Do you understand “constitution?”

          The questions remain unanswered. No surprise.

          How far will we get by joining you in denouncing Thomas Jefferson as a mafia gangster and repudiating the Declaration of Independence? And agreeing with you that the people are forbidden to institute governments to secure fundamental rights?

          How will you enforced your prohibition on a free people, Don Corleone?

          1. They have elections in Russia, ya know.

            Yeah, they have a constitution in Russia too. And in North Korea as well. The existence of an organizing document doesn’t say anything about the legitimacy of a government. Nor is the American constitution by any means a libertarian document.

            1. Very true. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It is currently meaningless since the states haven’t enforced it for over a century.

              1. Very true. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It is currently meaningless since the states haven’t enforced it for over a century.

                (lol) How would the states enforce the constitution — a power which does not appear in my copy??

                1. Our friend Michael is unfamiliar with how the Constitution came about. He also doesn’t seem to understand that it is a document telling the federal government what it can and cannot do.

                  1. Our friend Michael is unfamiliar with how the Constitution came about. He also doesn’t seem to understand that it is a document telling the federal government what it can and cannot do.

                    Cut the bullshit evasion. How do states enforce the constitution … which does not appear in my copy?

            2. Nor is the American constitution by any means a libertarian document.

              (laughing) Why would it have to be? In an ideal world, would we prefer a free society or a libertarian society?

              1. In an ideal world, would we prefer a free society or a libertarian society?

                There’s only a distinction in the cavity between your ears. To make it clear in your doubleplusgood speak though, the United States constitution by no means established a free society. Unless your conception of such includes slavery, economic protectionism and military conscription, to name a few.

                1. Clarification for dumbasses. Most folks will grasp this instantly.

                  In a libertarian society, we’d all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems. John Galt’s statue stands in every town square.

                  In a free society, Galt’s Gulch is next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. Each community is voluntarily. And that statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” DUH

                  Defenders of Liberty? Or Delusional?

                  The dumbasses are encouraged to tell us how that free society — for everyone — violates any libertarian principle. I’ve been asking that question for at least a quarter century. Still no answer.

                  This is why we had a majority for 40 years, but have been a massive failure. Look closely. Libertopia has ALWAYS been defined as needing everyone to be a libertarian. None dare call it bigotry.

                  the cavity between your ears.

                  (lol) You do enjoy making a bully and an ass out of yourself.

                  For at least 30 years, the greatest threat to liberty has been the anti-gummint purity police. That’s why the libertrarian label is rejected by 85% of libertarians.

                  Copyright 1998-2014 by Michael J Hihn. All Rights Reserved and

                  1. In a libertarian society, we’d all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems.

                    That’s actually more like what an anarchist, or more specifically an anarcho-capitalist, society would look like, at least as a caricature, which is evidently the only way you can conceptualize the world.

                    1. That’s actually more like what an anarchist, or more specifically an anarcho-capitalist, society would look like

                      No, sonny, that’s been libertopia for 40 years. Do a Google search for Mary Ruwart. (laughing)

                      Stop running away from the question. PM. Does this “free society” violate any libertarian principles?

                      In a free society, Galt’s Gulch is next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. Each community is voluntarily. And that statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

                      You already blew libertopia. Yes or no on this one??

                  2. By the way, I wouldn’t worry too much terribly much about the copyright disclaimer (the irony presumably being unintentional). You needn’t worry about anyone here pilfering your words. Even if they had any value in the marketplace, it would hardly be worth the shame of claiming them to capitalize on it.

                    1. (lol) Are your parents proud of how you turned out?

                  3. Who, in a libertarian society, would force one to live in a gated community? Who would force them to support any police force? Who would force them to erect a statue of John Galt?

                    No one.

                    Who would prevent the owners of a piece of property from creating a Marxist commune on that property? Who would prevent owners from establishing a community of whatever type they wish on their own property?

                    No one.

                    A libertarian society is a free society.

                    1. JParker

                      Who, in a libertarian society, would force one to live in a gated community? Who would force them to support any police force? Who would force them to erect a statue of John Galt?

                      I never said force dumbass. You must be new to this. Do a Google search for Mary Ruwart, and wipe the egg off your
                      face.

                      Read my lips. The definition we’ve promoted as a libertarian society is bogus.

                      (laughing) JParker agreed with me! DUH

            3. Yeah, they have a constitution in Russia too. And in North Korea as well.

              Umm, how were they ratified?

              1. Umm, how were they ratified?

                Move the goalposts much?

                A constitution by itself doesn’t mean jack shit if the government ignores it.

                1. HIHN: Umm, how were they ratified?

                  Move the goalposts much?

                  You really believe our constitution was not ratified? (OMG)

                  A constitution by itself doesn’t mean jack shit if the government ignores it.

                  (laughing) Like I said, anti-gummint types are dumbasses, driven by hysteria and conspiracy theories. Was our constitution ratified? (gasp)

                  1. Whatever, troll. I’ll leave you to masturbate by yourself.

                  2. Like I said, anti-gummint types are dumbasses, driven by hysteria and conspiracy theories.

                    Particularly if you invent hysterical conspiracy theories to ascribe to someone based purely on your wild imagination rather than anything they’ve actually articulated.

                    Since you don’t appear to comprehend the reference, this is what “moving the goalposts” means.

                    sarcasmic was suggesting that you were raising the standard of evidence from the mere existence of a constitution to the method by which it was ratified. He was not suggesting that the United States constitution was not ratified. Nor could any reasonable person with an even minimal comprehension of English possibly infer as much. Even taking into account your ignorance of the term “moving the goalposts” and apparent unwillingness to familiarize yourself with the term , it’s mystifying how you possibly concocted such an elaborate conspiracy theory where none existed. I guess I was wrong before. You may be stupid, but damned if you aren’t capable of mendacity as well.

                    1. (laughing) It is MY definition of the Constitution we’ve been discussing

                    2. PM,

                      He accused me of “moving the goalposts” to a ratified US Constitution … From where?

                      Umm, they had to come from an unratified US Constitution, right?

                      Thus, his premise (and now yours) can only be that the US Constitution is not ratified, as I stated.

                      NOW are you done stalking me????

                    3. PM, this link confirms the constitution under discussion was “freely ratified” (yawn) .

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4714312

              2. Umm, how were they ratified?

                The Russian constitution was ratified by national referendum in 1993.

                I assume the North Korean constitution was ratified by the Workers’ Party of Korea.

                1. (laughing) Was ours ratified by a national referendum? Or was ours crafted by state governments to restrict the power of the central government?

                  There’s was written by two men! Read your own link/

          2. Do you understand “constitution?”

            Yeah. It’s a document that our gangster government largely ignores because fuck you that’s why.

            1. Importantly, even if the government followed it to the exact letter, the mere existence of a constitution doesn’t legitimize the actions of any government. Slavery provides a very convenient example here in the United States. The institution of slavery, enshrined in our constitution, was not legitimate even when it was constitutional. Prohibition provides another good example. That enough of the country voted to take away the ability of people to legally trade in a particular good didn’t make prohibition a legitimate use of government. Now, of course, we’ve dispensed with the notion that such a thing would require a constitutional amendment, which gets to the point regarding the uselessness of a constitution that the government just ignores anyway. But even as a philosophical matter, the mere existence of consensus around which rights to take away from you does not confer any legitimacy on the taking of rights.

              1. HIHN “Do you understand “constitution?””

                Yeah. It’s a document that our gangster government largely ignores because fuck you that’s why.

                Clearly confused on what a constitution is! And he/she will get even more trash mouth as we go down the page.

                1. Clearly confused on what a constitution is!

                  You certainly are. The failure of any other person to adopt your idiosyncratic definitions of terms certainly does lead to some confusing arguments, mostly between you and the voices in your head.

                  And he/she will get even more trash mouth as we go down the page.

                  Well, not everyone is as blessed with the gift of restraint and good manners as you are…

                  What a stupid misfuck.

              2. The dark secret of the anti-gummint goobers. They’re incapable of living in a society, because they demand perfection to only their values. THEY must be pleased … not the community. The values of a dictator.

                even if the government followed it to the exact letter, the mere existence of a constitution doesn’t legitimize the actions of any government.

                It does to the society. If you can’t live in a society of equals ? feel free to leave.

                Slavery provides a very convenient example here in the United States.

                OMG. You’re a lifty!

                The institution of slavery, enshrined in our constitution, was not legitimate even when it was constitutional.

                Pay attention, anti-patriot.

                1) Slavery existed for all of human history.

                2) Slavery was brought here by Europeans.

                3) Americans abolished slavery in a mere seventy years. And you want us to feel shame for that?

                4) We abolished slavery because we have the Constitution you now ridicule.

                People are not perfect. For all of human history, we grow and evolve our systems of justice, liberty, freedoms and other values. A free society satisfies itself, as a whole, not you alone. If you demand we bow down to YOUR definition ? Find a deserted island to rule.

                1. Michael,

                  Fortunately junior high will be starting again and we won’t have to read about your love for the State any longer as you’ll be back in your government school.

                  Just out of curiosity why are you posting on this site? You posting the things you do here would be like me posting at a pro-big government site like Huffington or National Review. It just doesn’t make any sense.

                  1. This is the Libertarian Party of the United States.

                    Do a page search for my name.
                    Do a page search for your name.
                    Do the math

                    http://hihn.us/1pIfF4H

                  2. You guys operate like a gang of street thugs. Keep showing everyone what you are.

                  3. I to apologize for making fool of you on the history of slavery?

                  4. OMG! Jeffrey is having a hissy fit because he was called out!

                    Fortunately junior high will be starting again and we won’t have to read about your love for the State any longer

                    Another example of how the blowhards work. The blowhard says omething totally stupid, like states have the power to enforce the constitution. (snicker)

                    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4714437

                    So I keep asking him HOW states enforce the Constitution. Like all blowhards, he refuses several requests … because he made an ass of himself … then he comments like a 12-year-old child … while STILL refusing to explain how states have power to enforce the constitution.

                    All this is a sub-conspiracy to the anti-gummint purists who claim the US is no better than North Korea. But SOMEHOW if we accept THEIR constitution, nobody would EVER violate it. (yes, precisely that crazy)

                    Bullies and thugs. PaulW even threatened physical violence! (Mike shakes head in amazement)

                    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4715784

                2. Oh, goody! The screaming idjit Michael Hihn shows up to prove that Bo isn’t the most tiresome POS who posts here!
                  Michael, stuff it, pal. You’re look less stupid that way

                  1. 12-year-old kids.
                    Nothing but name-calling.
                    Does it giggle while typing?
                    Never defines an issue, to avoid being publicly humiliated.

      2. would the mafia be bound by our constitution?

        You think the government is actually bound by the constitution?

        1. HIHN: “Would the mafia be bound by our constitution?”

          You think the government is actually bound by the constitution?

          Of course, silly. Ever hear of our Supreme Court? Would you prefer we not have one — like the mafia?

          Are you also a Birther?

          PLEASE spare me any anti-gummint conspiracy theories

          1. Ever hear of our Supreme Court?

            You mean the Nazgul in black robes that give deference to the legislative and executive branches while for the most part ignoring the constitution? Yeah, I’ve heard of them.

            1. You mean the Nazgul in black robes that give deference to the legislative and executive branches while for the most part ignoring the constitution? Yeah, I’ve heard of them.

              Examples?

          2. Ever hear of our Supreme Court?

            The same supreme court that endorsed:

            – Throwing antiwar protesters in jail.
            – Forcible sterilization.
            – Internment of Japanese-Americans.
            – The war on drugs.
            – Etc.

            Look, the free country you’re wishing for doesn’t exist. It was a good attempt, and I personally believe the minarchists still can make it work with enough tries, but you’re in denial.

            1. Look, the free country you’re wishing for doesn’t exist. It was a good attempt, and I personally believe the minarchists still can make it work with enough tries, but you’re in denial.

              You’re just another anti-gummint goober, all spreading the same bullshit. Everything that had happened under our Constitution could happen under a purely libertarian constitution. DUH

            2. HIHN: Ever hear of our Supreme Court?Would you prefer we not have one — like the mafia?

              The same supreme court that endorsed:

              Would you prefer we not have one — like the mafia?

              In what delusional stupor do you deny that the same could happen with a “pure” libertarian constitution?

          3. Clearly Michael is a statist who is lost at the wrong website.

            1. One more time, Jeffrey, how would states enforce the constitution …. and where can we confirm your wacky conspiracy theory?

            2. Anti-gumnint purists are too extreme for ? Ayn Rand!

              They destroyed the Libertarian Party. Now they want the entire movement.

              Ayn Rand (“The Virtue of Selfishness” chapter 15)
              http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2013…..e-society/

              Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society ? the last, not the first reform to advocate. It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today.

              Even Rand chose pro-liberty over anti-gummint purity.

              Eric Hoffer described it in the 1950s.
              Mass movements do not need a God, but they do need a devil. Hatred unites the True Believers.

              All zealots and fanatics proclaim themselves “True Believers,” fighting for a “Greater Good:”. A Master Race, A Collective, An Almighty State, a God, a Party, or Libertarian Principles. For all of human history … we see the same footprints in the sand … leading to every abuse of liberty … The True Believers … beating their chests to proclaim purity of principle ? demanding obedient conformity ? Don’t dare cross them. Look what they’ve done to libertarianism

              Cato’s 2006 Zogby Poll saw the libertarian label rejected by 85% of libertarians! First take back our movement, then take back America.

    2. Anarchist dogmatics are really fucking boring.

      1. As are libertarian orthodoxy pissing contests.

        1. True.

          When people start saying Mafia this and Armed Thugs that, they’ve just conflated the United States Government with North Korea and even the most sympathetic fellow-travelers will shut you out.

          1. they’ve just conflated the United States Government with North Korea and even the most sympathetic fellow-travelers will shut you out.

            I’m a minarchist and I have no problem recognizing that the only differences between the North Korean and the United States governments are matters of degree, not fundamental character.

            1. Yeah, but for anyone who doesn’t get the basic libertarian idea, it’s a foreign concept.

              1. Yeah, but for anyone who doesn’t get the basic libertarian idea, it’s a foreign concept.

                Which part confuses YOU so badly?

                This is why libertarians have developed a libertarian society for us, which is the opposite of a free society for everyone.

                1. That you think society as it is currently structured resembles in any way something even approaching “libertarian” is testament to your dishonesty or stupidity. Probably the latter. Mendacity would require a much, much better understanding of the basics of libertarian political philosophy than you appear to possess.

                  1. That you think society as it is currently structured resembles in any way something even approaching “libertarian” is testament to your dishonesty or stupidity.

                    Where did I say that? (snicker)

                    What we DEFINE as a libertarian society for ourselves is the OPPOSITE if a free society for everyone.

                    One more time

                    In a libertarian society, we’d all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems. John Galt’s statue stands in every town square.

                    In a free society, Galt’s Gulch is next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. Each community is voluntarily. And that statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” DUH

                    REPEAT. I’ve been asking this question for over a quarter century – How does a free society for everyone violate libertarian principle. STILL no answer!! Just rage.

                    he basics of libertarian political philosophy than you appear to possess.

                    (laughing)
                    Talk is cheap. Answer the question How does the “free society” defined here violate the libertarian philosophy you claim to know?

                    Copyright 1998-2014 by Michael J Hihn. All Rights Reserved and Defended

                    1. In a libertarian society, we’d all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems. John Galt’s statue stands in every town square.

                      In a free society, Galt’s Gulch is next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. Each community is voluntarily. And that statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

                      Apart from the staue of Galt, it sounds as if you are using different words–with the first set done in a disparaging tone–to describe the same thing.

                      In the Free Society, I’m pretty sure the folks in Galt’s Gulch have ways of keeping out the marxists from the commune next door, and the fundies keep out the catholics–save as invited guests.

                      And I’m very certain that slots in the gated communities in the Libertarian Society aren’t allotted by some government functionary, that they perhaps organise by something like shared interests.

                      So, I’m not really sure what your oft repeated piece shows other than the fact that you cannot recognise the inconsistencies in your poorly thought out scenarios.

                      All quoted pieces are Copyright 1998-2014 by Michael J Hihn. I need to make that plain as these Rights are Reserved and Defended–and I surely wouldn’t want someone blaming me for them.

                    2. And I’m very certain that slots in the gated communities in the Libertarian Society aren’t allotted by some government functionary, that they perhaps organise by something like shared interests.

                      Also true for the Free Society.

                      I keep forgetting that the young’uns know nothing about the history of libertopia or Mary Ruwart, or …

            2. I’m a minarchist and I have no problem recognizing that the only differences between the North Korean and the United States governments are matters of degree, not fundamental character.

              What a stupid misfuck.

              1. I have to hand it to you, that’s the most cogent bit of drool I’ve ever seen you slop into your sippy cup in your time commenting here.

              2. (raises eyebrows) Whoa! I thought potty mouith disgusted you. (lowers eyebrows)

                (lowers eyebrows further)

                (furrows eyebrows)

                (shaves eyebrows)

                (laughs)

                1. Sounds like a semantics argument to me. The first example is a just-libertarian society, the second a pluralistic free society (that libertarians happen to be running as a majority in the government). And I indeed would prefer the second.

                  1. Thomas O. One more Goober destroying the libertarian label.

                    Emphasis added for the mentally disabled.

                    The first example is a just-libertarian society, the second a pluralistic free society (that libertarians happen to be running as a majority in the government). And I indeed would prefer the second.

                    I SAID the any-gummint goobers were crypto fascists. Now we see it. Ummm, where does “libertarian philosophy” require that libertarians run the government? (OMG)

                    Now we know why everyone else refused to answer the question!

                    Is HIS the voice of libertarianism we want presented to the world? Or am I correct that anti-gummint goobers are the greatest threat to liberty?

                    Is this why Cato’s 2006 Zogby Poll found the libertarian label rejected by 85% of libertarians?

                    Thanks for proving my point!

    3. I prefer the “if/then” statement rather than what the author chose to say.

      Something like:

      “IF govt has any purpose at all, then it should be limited to protect individual rights.”

      That should satisfy (or tick off) the an-caps and minarchists. Both of them think you’re agreeing with them…

      1. ace_m82|8.19.14 @ 6:09PM|#

        I prefer the “if/then” statement rather than what the author chose to say.

        Fine. But you’re the one who says the constitution creates a fight between the states and the people!!

        And when will you explain your hit-and-run bullshit that I said states should ban religion?

  6. Libertarians should be explaining why relying on the state to bless your union with a license invites heartache

    Why? Pissing and moaning with no solution is … pissing and moaning. Satisfies the anti-gummint purists but not pro-liberty (does nothing to advance liberty). Plus they’d laugh at you.

    Who will certify rights of inheritance, community property … and the tax code, among others? Who will defend their contract? Or must we also describe private court systems? Not as easy as it seems, is it?

    My concern is the faux libertarians who say the state has no business in marriage … as an excuse to deny equal rights while the state is still engaged. DUH. They are a disgrace to libertarianism.

    And let’s not forget the faux federalism of Ron/Rand Paul, which is actually the same argument used by southern racists after emancipation — and has nothing whatever to do with federalism to any HONEST follower of the Constitution, strict or otherwise.

    1. One must realize that removing marriage, while a valid libertarian aspiration, is far harder than it seems. You’re stripping a legal construct that has been a fixture of the common law for well over a millennia–marriage has tenticles in every part of the law: testimonial privilege, property ownership, rights to privacy, and intestacy distributions, just to scratch the surface.

      We have to ask ourselves, if marriage is no longer a relationship recognized by the state, how these issues get resolved. It’s there that the rubber meets the road, and I suspect libertarians will have no unifying solution.

      1. I agree Michael. I hope that Rand is trying to move the ball slowly for the Republican Party, acknowledging that he can’t do anything if he isn’t in the Senate, but that may be optimistic. But you are right, in principle, states should not be denying the rights of citizens either. Getting the Feds out of denying those rights would be a positive step on the other hand. The next step would be the Feds preventing the states from denying those rights. Or who knows, maybe the courts will continue to decide the issue for us. That would certainly be the fastest way. Changing hearts and minds of the people and then their senators and reps will require baby steps.

        1. The next step would be the Feds preventing the states from denying those rights. Or who knows, maybe the courts will continue to decide the issue for us.

          But Ron/Rand Paul are doing the exact opposite, citing the 10th Amendment, which does not even apply. The 9th Amendment explicitly denies ALL levels of government ANY power to “deny or disparage” fundamental human rights — the unalienable rights of our Declaration.

          So, it’s pure hooey to say that issues like abortion and gay marriage are reserved to the states.

          On that issue, Rand and Ron are the enemy.

          1. You really don’t like Christians, do you?

            Saying that the 10th amendment makes it a fight between the states and the people (it does) is not saying that a state ought to try to ban it. You know that and yet keep making this charge.
            Therefore, I am compelled to inductively conclude that you just don’t like them. My best explanation (given your prior comments) is that you simply don’t like Christians.

            1. ANOTHER ONE!!!
              ace_m82

              You really don’t like Christians, do you?

              When you said the same thing the other day, you also made a fool of yourself.

              Saying that the 10th amendment makes it a fight between the states and the people (it does)

              (lol) One more time. The 9th Amendment gives the people power over the states.

              is not saying that a state ought to try to ban it. You know that and yet keep making this charge.

              (lol) Ban WHAT?

              Therefore, I am compelled to inductively conclude that you just don’t like them.

              I’m calling you out, ace_m82
              Where did I say the state should ban religion? Have you ANY shame?

              My best explanation (given your prior comments) is that you simply don’t like Christians.

              Thanks for confirming that your charge is a shameful lie!

            2. STILL NO ANSWER

              I’m calling you out, ace_m82
              Where did I say the state should ban religion? Have you ANY shame?

              apparently not

      2. …how these issues get resolved.

        How are they resolved between parties not married to each other? I don’t understand how libertarians can tilt at so many other windmills of statism but somehow this one is a bridge too far, mixaphorically speaking.

        I don’t begrudge libertarians coming out hard publicly for recognized same-sex marriage recognition. I have no problem with it myself, except that it’s still a club of benefits others are still excluded from enjoying.

        Philosophically speaking, when talking libertarian ideals, less state involvement when possible is better. Shackford, at least, always frames the debate as recognition as opposed to legalization because currently anyone can get privately get married, thankfully. And he always throws out there the possibility of removing state involvement as it currently exists: licensing. He’s aces.

      3. You’re stripping a legal construct that has been a fixture of the common law for well over a millennia

        Not even close, actually. Civil marriage in its modern form arguably began with the Marriage Act of 1753 in England. Before that it was mostly governed in the Western world by canon law of the church, which at the time was not distinct from the state. The modern implications of marriage upon tax treatment and government benefits, in particular, are very, very modern by historical standards. Inventions arising from the equally modern income tax and welfare state.

        1. He’s mot talking about civil marriage when he mentions marriage for millennia.

          We know marriage existed at the time of Moses, and it was closer to today’s civil ceremony, but was neither church or state. The bride may have been purchased, or the man and women agreed between themselves alone.

          The church did nothing official at all until about 1500, and even then it was optional at first.

        2. Marriage is older than hx. It predates language and probably H. sapiens. All developments have been to accommodate the institutions of language, law, and religion to the fact of marriage as it already existed.

          1. Indeed.

            All the religious part ever did was add “God’s blessing” to the deal. Except for Catholics.

          2. H. sapiens? Gak and Ook were able to proclaim themselves married in their religion among the other cavepeople?

            I think you’re confusing “marriage” with “staying with the partner you once fucked”.

            1. I think you’re confusing “marriage” with “staying with the partner you once

              Do a Google search: marriage history
              In many cultures it began as buying the wife as property from her father. Women as property was the origin for women denied property rights and (later) the vote. It didn’t entirely disappear until less than 100 years ago.

              Oh say, 2000 years ago, I buy this babe from her dad. Would I pay all that money to own a fuck? Or head for a red-light district?

      4. Abolition is sometimes hard work. Abolitionists are always ridiculed. Abolishing slavery was hard. How would the slaves eat, who would take care of them?

        Hard is not really an argument against.

        I don’t honestly see it as that difficult, take government out, by the time it’s effective most people would have downloaded their private marital contracts, signed and had them notarized. There would be some clean up with a bunch of government entitlements, SS, etc. But that’s true of almost every liberty position, government has to get smaller for liberty to operate.

      5. Ben Dexter|8.19.14 @ 8:17AM|#

        One must realize that removing marriage, while a valid libertarian aspiration, is far harder than it seems. ……

        Edited for space. Very well stated. Here’s the problem. For 40 years now.

        Always be pro-liberty. Never be anti-government. Until recently, I thought that was marketing. Sell the sizzle not the steak. But it’s so much more.

        How could we have a majority of Americans be libertarians for nearly 40 years … and achieve NOTHING. Indeed, the libertarian label is rejected by 85% of libertarians.

        And we see it all here. I call them the anti-gummint goobers. They always attack other libertarians. Have done it for 40 years.

        They, the purists, are killing libertarianism, if they haven’t already. They attack and assault the very people we need I call us the “electoral libertarians.” We’ve been elected. We’ve had victories large and small. BUT … we didn’t “get gummint out of it” so we’re traitors to the movement

        Here’s what they cannot grasp
        We can’t have a free society without governance.
        And we can’t govern unless … wait for it … we elect a majority
        Complicated, eh?

        They destroy, or try to, every single person or plan that will move us toward an electoral majority. So we’ve gone nowhere for 40 years. As America slips further down.

        We have our own equivalent of the Christian Taliban. Intolerant and dictatorial. Libertarian fundamentalists.

      6. That’s true, and it bugs me that so many libertarian activists & intellectuals so facilely say of this & other matters of family law, “Get the gov’t out of it.” Same with many other issues where the problem isn’t gov’t per se, but only bad law.

        These guys seem to forget that gov’t includes courts, and that people take their disputes to court.

        1. Where gov’t goes wrong isn’t having registr’n (i.e. acknowledgment) or witnessing of marriages, isn’t operating courts where such facts as whether X is Y’s spouse are resolved, isn’t even referencing married status & spouses in statutes, but is in licensure of marriage. That we could get gov’t out of.

          1. Good distinction.

            Some think it’s fascism for the county to keep property ownership records. How can government protect my property if they don’t know what it is?

    2. …as an excuse to deny equal rights while the state is still engaged.

      Who’s doing that?

      1. The strawmen in his head.

        1. WTF|8.19.14 @ 8:39AM|#

          The strawmen in his head.

          Did you watch the video? Will this be another challenge to your hit-and-run attacks that you run away from?

      2. HIHN: …as an excuse to deny equal rights while the state is still engaged.

        Who’s doing that?

        Many, especially here. Often Ron Paul supporters. Listen closely. When asked about gay marriage they say the government should not be involved and no more.

        Here’s Ron Paul bobbing and weaving in a Presidential debate, including his unconstitutional claim that it’s a state issue. Watch him duck and run on having changed his position

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxJAmWvmP60

        1. WTF ran away, when called out by the facts.

          Don’t allow the anti-gummint goobers to bully you.

    3. Why would one “follow…the Constitution” when it has so clearly failed to accomplish its founding principles?

      1. how does a document fail? All it can do is provide a guide. Whether followers adhere to it is another question. Blaming the instrument misses the point.

      2. db

        Why would one “follow…the Constitution” when it has so clearly failed to accomplish its founding principles?

        That’s a typical bullshit question.

        See, we can’t enforce the constitution by force or violence. So if you want an armed revolution, how can you assure us that the results will be much better?

        See, Galt’s Gulch was quite small in population, and not the dictatorship needed maintain a “libertarian” society of 350 million people — which would be a contradiction in terms, hence a bullshit question.

        Then again, we do have the “Chicken Little” libertarians.

    4. Satisfies the anti-gummint purists but not pro-liberty (does nothing to advance liberty).

      Lol. This from a guy who condemns Reason for endorsing legalized marijuana because it is better to keep it criminalized and hope that someday it is completely decriminalized than to legalize it, which involves government regulation and classification under the current controlled substances regime.

      We must be anti-gummint purists on pot as a matter of principle. We must be utilitarians on gay marriage. As a matter of principle.

      1. This from a guy who condemns Reason for endorsing legalized marijuana

        (laughing) Now he’s gone over the edge.

  7. To get the government out of marriage[a good thing]you’d need to trash the tax code,hopefully with a flat tax.Also,ending this belief your employer should pay for your ‘health care’ and your families.I do not see that happening in the near future.All issues with divorce could be handled by contract law between the two paties

    1. Flat tax is mathematically stupid, since the 1% subsidizes 40% of the ENTIRE share of personal income taxes paid by the core middle class ($40-99k)

      The average tax rate for that income group is 8%. The average for the top 1% is over 20%. How do you flatten that without a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class and a massive tax CUT for the rich? Jr high math?

      Meanwhile Democrats are creating new campaign ads as we speak, “ANOTHER war on the middle class.”

      You forgot inheritance and community property. And how will you effect those changes without a dictatorship? Umm, who protects and defends that contract law?

      1. There’s nothing wrong having one rate for all people.Treating every one equal before the law,as it should be.A proper role of government is to enforce contracts agreed to between people.Is that hard to understand?I’m against death taxes.

        1. I forgot one thing,the flat tax ideas I like have one deduction around 20 to 25 thousand dollars for each taxpayer..Medicare and S.S.will also need to be dealt with,means tested at the very least.

          1. I forgot one thing, the flat tax ideas

            The math makes it impossible.

            1) The high-tax-rate wealthy subsidize 40% of the entire personal income tax share for the core middle class ($40- 99k)

            2) A flat tax reduces the HIGHER tax rates, not the lower ones!

            3) So if the rich no longer subsidize the middle class, ummmm, does that mean
            middle-class taxes go up …. by 60!

            It’s not as stupid as Ron Paul’s “Repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing.” The goobers suck it up, but they believe anything that’s anti-gummint.

        2. There’s nothing wrong having one rate for all people.

          Don’t argue, he ignored half your post (the part where you talk about reducing the need for taxes) and then said, “How’s that going to work, Jr. High math?”.

          The obvious answer to his “Jr. High math” “question” is “2nd Grade Reading” but then you’re just feeding the troll.

          Hihn is a thinly-veiled statist on par with the other statist trolls (anybody seen Tony?) around here.

          1. he ignored half your post (the part where you talk about reducing the need for taxes)

            (laughing) You’re quite the bullshitter. This is his entire post.

            To get the government out of marriage[a good thing]you’d need to trash the tax code,hopefully with a flat tax.Also,ending this belief your employer should pay for your ‘health care’ and your families.I do not see that happening in the near future.All issues with divorce could be handled by contract law between the two paties

            Which part reduces spending? (snicker)

        3. Like I said, the math destroys a flat tax.

      2. The average tax rate for that income group is 8%.

        Where did you get this figure? I am middle class, and my effective tax rate is around 22%.

        1. Where did you get this figure? I am middle class, and my effective tax rate is around 22%.

          Like most Americans you may be confusing your tax bracket with your effective (average) rate. And the data are a percentage AGI not of taxable income, as you can see on the table.

          The larger point, for me, is that the rich are subsidizing 40% of the entire share of personal income taxes for the core middle class ($40k-99k)

          These are official IRS data. Look to the far right columns.

          http://1.usa.gov/13imgV9

      3. I have a modest proposal that I think will work better than a flat tax. How about if the government decides how much money each person is allowed to keep, then takes the rest? That way the government can get the debt paid down and have plenty left over for operating expenses. Those expenses including, but not limited to, a mail delivery system, a health-care system, a welfare system, and a retirement system. What do you think?

        1. What do you think?

          If it won’t elect a majority in Congress it’s not worth thinking about.
          Especially when you’d spend $0 on defense.

      4. Your preference for a progressive taxation system says nothing about the mathematical wisdom of a flat tax. Political viability and mathematical practicality are nearly always completely different from one another – never more so than in this case.

        1. Political viability and mathematical practicality are nearly always completely different from one another…

          Especially when math makes the flat tax (and fair tax)impossible.
          THREE flat taxes works. My plan was copyrighted in 1994

          http://libertyissues.com/taxfed.htm

          With government is so large a single tax on EITHER Income or Sales would be far too distorting.

          This is revenue neutral
          1) 9% payroll tax (no tax returns) on income over $20,000.
          2) 9% national sales tax, same exemptions as most state sales taxes.
          3) 0.9% “sales tax” on capital transactions — stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.

          Feds collect both state and national payroll/income taxes, eliminate state income tax bureaucracy.

          States collect the federal sales tax along with their own.

          We now have tax dollars flowing in both directions, state and federal, which is where Reagan’s New Federalism failed.

          Each state makes its own “federalism” deal with the feds,. Dollars transfer automatically, no change to taxpayers.

          The libertarian concept of “competing governments” is 40 years old. Voters would force the federal and state to COMPETE for power (and revenues) States would have the power and the tools to privatize whatever works for each one.

          I think Herman Caine lifted the idea, but changed it to avoid copyright. He says he got it from an adviser in Cleveland. which is where I first published it.

          Copyright 1994-2014 by Michael J Hihn. All rights reserved

      5. Inheritance is already dictated by statute. All you would have to do is revise the statute to say “private relationship contract” instead of “licensed marriage”.

        And what about community property? you’re looking for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

        1. Inheritance is already dictated by statute.

          Which is already bullshit as it is. You should be able to plan your estate any way you wish. The express wishes of a person in his or her will are routinely invalidated by the courts on that basis.

          1. @ TonePolice “Inheritance is already dictated by statute.”

            Which is already bullshit as it is.

            You just made a massive ass of yourself. Again

            You should be able to plan your estate any way you wish.

            OMG We are, sonny!

            The express wishes of a person in his or her will are routinely invalidated by the courts on that basis

            Bullshit. Are you also a birther?

            Back to Tone Police, the only statutes regarding estates are if the person dies “intestate” (no will). For example, my Dad died intestate in Ohio. His estate was split 50% to or mom and the other 50% among the kids.

        2. All you would have to do is revise the statute to say “private relationship contract” instead of “licensed marriage”.

          I read “Who will certify the right to substitute an ass for a lion?” anyway.

        3. Inheritance is already dictated by statute. All you would have to do is revise the statute to say “private relationship contract” instead of “licensed marriage”.

          You guys crack me up. Who defends and protects both parties of those contracts?

          And what about community property? you’re looking for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

          Or you don’t understand it.

      6. Flat tax is mathematically stupid, since the 1% subsidizes 40% of the ENTIRE share of personal income taxes paid by the core middle class ($40-99k)

        The average tax rate for that income group is 8%. The average for the top 1% is over 20%. How do you flatten that without a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class and a massive tax CUT for the rich? Jr high math?

        What does that have to do with math?

        Of course, you’re assuming current levels of spending. Because you’re a “libertarian”

        1. So, Michael Hihn, the “libertarian” wants government in your relationships, disavowing freedom of association, loves the progressive tax system, something stupid about marijuana that I can’t find now, thinks the same supreme court that okayed slavery and consistently fails in their duties is leigitimate, and what else?

          Seems to me that you are a progressive, Michael, perhaps you should just dump your “I’m a libertarian because it makes me feel unique” stance. You’re not. You’re a fucking statist.

          1. One more psycho liar. Pay attention, folks. This is how the anti-gummint goobers operate.

            I show how the Flat Tax is mathematically impossible, so dipshit concludes I support progressive taxation (bullies act that way.) Meanwhile, I have my own flat tax on this page. Do a page search for “0.9%” to see what an dumbass PaulW is. (snicker)

            And they run in packs.

            1. Which you wrote after my comment you fucking disingenuous dipshit.

              And somehow, the flat tax is mathematically impossible, but you created one that isn’t! Wow, you must be a fucking magician.

              You’re a statist, you make apologies for the state. You consistently look for state sponsored solutions to problems that the free market can take care of. You obviously don’t believe in freedom of association, as is apparent from your posts.

              You have this belief that since you’ve laid claim to the word libertarian for longer than some of us, you’re the last word on it. Guess what, when you can’t even follow libertarian principles with any consistency, you’re shown to be either a.) a fucking moron, or b.) a disingenuous asshole who needs to get fucked.

              1. PaullW — One more screwuip!!

                1. PaulW — AGAIN! (I hit “submit” by accident)

                  And somehow, the flat tax is mathematically impossible, but you created one that isn’t! Wow, you must be a fucking magician.

                  (snicker) ) One more time. I PROVED the flat tax is impossible. But, I said THREE Flat Taxes would work, and described all three. But PaaulW can’t count up to three!

                  You’re a statist, you make apologies for the state.

                  Thie Goobers are also blowhards. I say the flat tax is mathematically impossible.
                  PM says I support progressive taxation.
                  PaulW says I make apologies for the state

                  (snicker)

                  The rest of his rant is more bullying, just as wacko. Next lesson

                  We’ve analyzed how the anti-gummint goobers lie, attack and disgrace our movement. They’re blowhards. We’ve seen them bloviate.

                  Blowhards troll forums like this, pontificating on things they know nothing about.

                  If you dare challenge or correct their bloviating … the thugs unleash their rage. They ain’t as stupid as they look. YOU favor the state. They blame their victims, like liberals.

                  You’re fucking stupid. A moron. They even threaten violence. “A disingenuous asshole who should be fucked …confirming what I’ve said all along. Thugs. The proof is right here.

                  He’s been publicly humiliated, in self defense. But the aggression will continue.

                  Don’t let them bully you. We can’t take back America until we take back our movement.

                2. This is how bullies operate.

                  You’re a statist, you make apologies for the state.

                  Where? When?

                  ? You consistently look for state sponsored solutions to problems that the free market can take care of.

                  Consistently? Name just one. (LOL)

                  Unlike you dumbass anti-gummint types I stay with solutions that can be implemented within 5 years.

                  I watched you assholes destroy the party, now you’ve infiltrated the movement. ANYONE with a proposal, to be elected or run on — you attack, and attack and attack.

                  Other than pissing and moaning, what have you EVER done to advance liberty?

                  How can we have a free (or freer) society without electing anybody? DUH

                  You obviously don’t believe in freedom of association, as is apparent from your posts.

                  Put up or shut up.

                  STOP STALKING ME

                  1. PaulW STILL refuses to justify his attacks

                    You’re a statist, you make apologies for the state.

                    Where? When?

                    You consistently look for state sponsored solutions to problems that the free market can take care of.

                    Consistently? Name just one. (LOL)

                    How can we have a free (or freer) society without electing anybody? DUH

                    You obviously don’t believe in freedom of association, as is apparent from your posts.

                    Put up or shut up

        2. What does that have to do with math?

          Which part of the explanation confuses you?

          “The average tax rate for that income group is 8%. The average for the top 1% is over 20%. How do you flatten that without a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class and a massive tax CUT for the rich? Jr high math??”

          It really is Jr High math.

          Of course, you’re assuming current levels of spending. Because you’re a “libertarian”

          Math is not your long suit.

        3. Of course, you’re assuming current levels of spending. Because you’re a “libertarian”

          Taxes deal with revenue not spending.
          I assumed nothing, merely analyzed the flat tax as proposed.

          1. “How do you flatten that without a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class and a massive tax CUT for the rich? Jr high math??”

            “I assumed nothing, merely analyzed the flat tax as proposed.”

            You really are a fucking disingenuous piece of shit, aren’t you?

            1. Jesus Christ, this guy makes me like Tony, at least he has a ceiling on his stupidity.

              1. PaulW

                Jesus Christ, this guy makes me like Tony, at least he has a ceiling on his stupidity.

                Keep in mind, dumbass says this because he can’t handle the junior high math — as proven below. (timestamp 5:01am)
                (snicker)

            2. PaulW – moral coward.
              Is ANYONE this dumb?

              HIHN“How do you flatten that without a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class and a massive tax CUT for the rich? Jr high math??”
              “I assumed nothing, merely analyzed the flat tax as proposed.”

              You really are a fucking disingenuous piece of shit, aren’t you?

              More thuggery. He can’t answer without exposing that he made a total ass of himself, the same guy who couldn’t count to three! (OMG)

              Let’s review, shall we? I said, and linked to proof, that the rich subsidize 40% of the entire share of personal income taxes for the core middle class ($40-99k)

              Wait for it … so how can we flatten the tax rates without a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class and a massive tax CUT for the rich? I even got ridiculed for saying it’s junior high math!!

              Is anyone else as confused as our anti-gummint goober. Caution: if you can do the math, PaulW says you’re making excuses for the state!

              Lesson: You will ALWAYS be punished for knowing more than a bloviating thug.
              Do not let them bully you. Don’t allow them to continue disgracing the libertarian brand.

              1. This is middle school math:
                Money (Cash)= Income (Taxes) – expenses (Spending)
                If spending is more than income, it creates a negative cash balance. This negative cash balance can be taken care off by increasing income or taxes. Other way to balance it will be to just reduce spending. In that case, the negative cash balance can be neutralized or even turned into positive balance. In your tiny and zero IQ liberal head, you cannot integrate the third value (spending) into this very basic equation in finance. Just like a child who can sequence two objects, but, not three.

  8. parties,crap

  9. I can not support this “marriage equality” as long as my polygamous friends are treated as SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS!

    1. I can not support this “marriage equality” as long as my polygamous friends are treated as SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS!

      You self-loathing bigot! Marriage rights are human rights! You don’t have polygamous friends, your polygamy rights are being denied to *YOU* and them.

      You’re as bad as any anti-gay homophobe who thinks their opinion matters just because they have “gay friends”. Until you come out of the closet, you can’t fathom what it’s like to live under the crushing social persecution that surrounds polygamy.

  10. There sure are a lot of people talking about libertarians lately. I guess we’re past the “first they ignore you” stage.

    1. We’re close to the “then they shoot you in effigy in video games” stage, rapidly approaching the “then they put you in reeducation camps” stage.

    2. We’re well into the “then they lie about you at every opportunity” stage.

      1. ^This. I see an awful lot of arguments against what people imagine libertarianism to be, without actually understanding what libertarianism actually is.

        1. When people are indoctrinated into believing that freedom means asking permission and obeying orders, the concept of liberty can be difficult to understand.

          1. I don’t think difficulty in understanding is the problem. I think the problem is that people look at liberty and say “I need to do what? Take care of myself? Ain’t nobody got time for that.”

            1. Also, add to that the paternalistic people who can’t have people making the wrong decisions for themselves.

    3. We’re clearly in the “Then They Fight You” stage.

  11. Apples to oranges, Reason. Libertarians support the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about their personal lives without government restriction and moral interference…it is not the governments job to patrol individual morality. The gay rights organizations wanted the marriage licenses, because ‘spouse’ denotes many privileges, however they didn’t stop there because once the government recognized gay marriages, they wanted the government to force everyone else to embrace the view that it was okay….that tramples the rights of the 98.5 % of the population that ISN’T gay.

  12. The only guaranteed rights are those enumerated in the federal constitution or the constitution of the states or not addressed at all by either. Licensing marriages is a state function (or not if the citizens of that state do not wish the state to license marriage). There is no guaranteed right to marry at all at the federal level, it’s left to the states and the citizens of the states. At the state level it is generally not a right, it is a privilege no different than the privilege to drive. In truth no state prohibits marriage between same sex couples, it just prohibits state licensing of such marriages. Referring to this as a right is wrong, that’s not an argument for or against states sanctioning marriage, it’s an argument against arguing that marriage is a guaranteed right in the first place.

    1. Our rights as citizens are not limited to those mentioned in the Constitution. Our rights are virtually limitless.

      The Constitution is a document telling the federal government what it can and cannot do. It is the states (and, by extension, the peoples of the states) telling the federal government what it is allowed to do.

      Anyone who believes their rights and liberties come from the State is clearly a statist.

      1. The Constitution is a document telling the federal government what it can and cannot do. It is the states (and, by extension, the peoples of the states) telling the federal government what it is allowed to do

        A surprisingly common error. Our Founders were not stupid. The Constitution also restricts states.

      2. It is the states (and, by extension, the peoples of the states) telling the federal government what it is allowed to do.

        That’s precisely backwards. The people are superior to the states.

    2. The right to marry has been established in both US case law and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. You may argue that there should be no right to marry, but one wonders why you’d bother.

      1. With your line of reasoning this Reason site shouldn’t even exist: We’ve had a massively oppressive government for so long now…why bother?

        1. A right to marry does not come from the government. No more than your right to life, liberty and property.

          This is plainly obvious as the State takes any of these away from you whenever it feels like it.

          1. Dumbass. It’s the state’s function to defend those rights.

            This is plainly obvious as the State takes any of these away from you whenever it feels like it.

            (yawn)

        2. How is government recognizing a basic right to marry part of this massive oppression regime?

          If you even have time in the day to worry about that, it would seem that things aren’t all that oppressive.

    3. Cap’n Krunch|8.19.14 @ 9:17AM|#

      The only guaranteed rights are those enumerated in the federal constitution or the constitution of the states or not addressed at all by either

      Rights are guaranteed if they ARE listed in either constitution ..AND if they’re NOT listed!! Thanks for clearing that up!!

    4. Licensing marriages is a state function (or not if the citizens of that state do not wish the state to license marriage).

      Nope. 9th Amendment.

      There is no guaranteed right to marry at all at the federal level, it’s left to the states and the citizens of the states.

      Unless and until the states stop ALL licensing. 9th Amendment.

      it’s an argument against arguing that marriage is a guaranteed right in the first place.

      14th Amendment. (equal rights)

  13. Sounds like a solid plan to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.Anon-Surf.tk

  14. To get really basic, libertarians generally believe the power of government should be limited to what is necessary to protect the rights of the citizenry.

    Except there’s a long-established right to be free of discrimination from businesses that cater to the public. That right exists. It’s not illusory. You have to go a step further and declare that you don’t think this right should exist, that the right of the business owner to discriminate trumps it. That’s a legitimate opinion, but not any more so. What counts as a right is not determined by libertarians fantasizing that they alone have translated the intentions of the moral universe.

    So you must, with equal volume, defend the right of businesses to discriminate based on race. If your big problem is that this is politically touchy, then perhaps you should examine why these are your priorities when there is another perfectly legitimate set of priorities that everyone else thinks is superior.

    1. And as if on cue, here comes Tony to helpfully demonstrate for us the issue raised in this comment:

      Perhaps because of the wording, the problem is that the concept of negative rights vs positive rights is beyond most folks.

      1. It’s not beyond me, it’s bullshit. Nobody wants to live in a society in which everything is permitted. And you can’t forbid certain things without enforcement. And that requires a positive entitlement to means of enforcement. You can’t weasel your way out; it takes tax dollars and bureaucracy to protect your right to own property or run a business. Since I’m helping to paying for that positive right, I have every legitimate reason to claim a right to be free from discrimination.

        You need to believe there is a meaningful distinction between positive and negative rights because it means you don’t ever have to choose between alternatives. Because that’s hard, I guess. But you’re in numerous, if not auspicious, company. Lots of people struggle with complexity and want the world to come with an instruction manual.

        1. “Nobody wants to live in a society in which everything is permitted.”

          Tony’s right. If we let people decide who they want to bake a cake for next they’ll start murdering babies and torturing kittens.

        2. Who wants to live in a society where everything is permitted? Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle. Libertarianism is built around it. This includes the freedom of association. Therefore, libertarians do no believe we should live in a society in which everything is permitted.

          Please…take your statist silliness somewhere else.

          1. Then you do not believe in having only negative liberties. So stop saying such silly things.

          2. Therefore, libertarians do no believe we should live in a society in which everything is permitted

            Logic?

        3. You can’t weasel your way out; it takes tax dollars and bureaucracy to protect your right to own property or run a business.

          Have you come across lots of libertarians advocating a tax rate of zero? Because this sounds like you’re arguing against a straw man.

          You say ‘weasel your way out’, I say ‘do better with less’ which, given the better/worse and less/more permutations is the most preferable/sustainable/elegant.

          1. I’m arguing against the claim that enforcing “free association” is any less positive a right than enforcing “freedom from discrimination.”

            1. Back to the “liberty tyrants” argument again?

              Sheesh, man, how many times do we have to show how stupid of an argument that is, and how stupid you are as an extension?

              1. Sheesh, man, how many times do we have to show how stupid of an argument that is, and how stupid you are as an extension

                You’re the dumbass who can’t count to three. (lol)

            2. I’m arguing against the claim that enforcing “free association” is any less positive a right than enforcing “freedom from discrimination.”

              Anybody who believes that any of the rights in the BOR are, in any way, positive rights or that the notion of negative rights is purely a fabrication owes me a firearm.

              And for anybody who thinks modern libertarians invented a false notion of positive/negative rights as some matter of convenience to deal with complexity; I will accept cash and gold equivalents of the firearm of my choosing.

              You choose your positive and negative rights selectively and pretend they don’t exist to make your arguments sound reasonable. When, in reality, saying ‘free association’ and ‘anti-discrimination’ are both positive rights of the same weight is as reasonable as issuing every citizen the firearm (or any arms) of their choice, but not none, and then chasing down the people that choose to own illegal firearms.

      2. But positive things include rainbows, happiness, and sunshine. Negative things include yelling and death.

        Why do you want people to die rather than be happy?

  15. Gays and lesbians discriminate all the time. The vast majority of lesbian bars do not allow straight men to come in, even if they live in the community. The entire liberal progressive movement supports this. Most gay bars discriminate against older gays as well. Some even won’t let men in over 34. Yet oddly, the left has never said that was discrimination.

    Girl I knew was part of the Queer Fashion scene in NYC, when glam and lipstick lesbians swept the city. This did not however, happen in gay and lesbian scenes in other cities. After 3 years she returned to Chicago where the uniform was khacki , hair short and no make-up. Sitting at Paris, the major lesbian bar within minutes a customer walked over and poured a pint of beer on her head telling her not to wear makeup in the bar again. The bartender told her she was in the wrong bar. Rejected by the lesbian community of Chicago, I ended up marrying her.Two years into the marriage, Paris began having one night a month Lipstick Lesbian nights. 5 Years after NYC.

    1. Anecdote that would be way over Tony’s head. The libertarian believes the bars have the right to not serve, with absolutely no restrictions.

      Tony believes white male christians must serve whoever he deems they should serve.

      You know… Has anyone seen Fargo (TV series) yet? I picture Tony as Lester Nygaard sitting behind a computer.

  16. Honestly, we shouldn’t have to explain any of this to anyone.
    It’s blindingly self-evident.

    Our opponents aren’t stupid, they just just disinegenuous craven assholes. For them it’s all about power and getting what they want. See Tony. They don’t care about the rights of their enemies. They don’t really want equality. They want privileges and the right to force people they don’t like to do humiliating things.

    1. There is no extra force required for prioritizing freedom from discrimination over freedom to discriminate. You endorse either one or the other.

      If you repeal the public accommodation piece of the CRA, and a black person wants to be served at a restaurant but is told to leave, are the police not called to forcibly remove him? Government enforces one right or it enforces the other. You don’t get a special negative liberty star sticker for your preference.

      1. I think we’re making a little progress here. You may have accidentally stumbled across the problem in all this: the problem is government.

        1. But then who would force people to do things I want them to? Or force them not to do things I don’t like? It would mean the breakdown of Society if I can’t force people to comply with my personal references!

          1. So you don’t think police should force trespassers off private property?

          2. http://library.mises.org/books/Murray N Rothbard/Anatomy of the State.pdf

            1. Fitting that you point me to Rothbard who opposed the entire civil rights movement (and women’s suffrage) as they upset the natural order of things, and, contrary to his Utopian anarchism, wanted the state police to “clear the streets of bums and vagrants” and otherwise administer instant punishment on “street criminals.”

              I guess you can go on at some length describing the flaws of the state when you plan to use its power functions to clear away undesirables in anticipation of your stateless utopia in which everyone (somehow) gets along.

              1. I love pulling a Rothbard on statists. It either confuses the hell out of them as they have never read him (the only thing they know about him is what some other statist told them to think about him) or it acts like a crucifix against Dracula.

                1. I’ve read him. Now you go read some Dewey and Rawls, how ’bout?

              2. You’re citing hearsay. Rothbard said no such thing, O’Malley said as such about him.

                See, I can look at Wikipedia too. You claim you’ve read Rothbard by reading his wikipedia page. Hilarious. Absofuckinglutely hilarious.

                1. What about this?

                  In his defense he’s said far worse things.

                2. Wikipdedia requires verifiable sources, or they place a prominent alert saying so and requesting documentation,

                  Absofuckinglutely hilarious

                  (snicker)

      2. Which is worse:
        1) Being forcibly removed from a particular business that wishes to discriminate.

        2) Being forcibly prevented from opening or operating a business entirely, because you wish to discriminate.

        I submit that 2 is a must greater imposition that 1. In 1, you can always go to a different business. In case 2, you have no other option, you are universally excluded from participating in commerce, with anyone, even willing customers.

        1. So now we’re down to measuring which form of government force is less of an imposition? That’s not what I was told. I was told that we have to allow discrimination because otherwise would be to allow government force. Now it’s about degrees? How about you give me a fucking break?

          And nobody is forcing anyone to be a bigot.

          1. HazelMeade, my apologies, but you really butchered that. We should really be talking about aggression.

            Going to someone’s property unwanted and refusing to leave is an act of aggression. Force, in this case is justified. You somehow let Tony claim that we believe all force to be bad, when in the case of defense of one’s self or one’s property, we all agree it is not.

            Tony is being disingenuous, he knows the difference, but I give him points for honing his game a bit.

            1. I’ll come to Hazel’s defense, because he actually recognizes that both require force, and simply chooses what he thinks is the better option. To recognize that rights can come into conflict is an important step on the road to being a realist.

              Of course, I think society chose correctly when it decided that the right of people to have equal access to commerce that serves the public regardless of race, sex, religion, disability, or (soon) sexual orientation, is more important than the claimed right to have police enforce your bigotry, and that this is so obvious that to choose otherwise would get you raised eyebrows at even the most laid-back of cocktail parties.

              1. It is really a question of the use of market freedom vs government force.

                You’re being disingenuous, because you know what our stances are and where they come from.

                Personally Tony, you wouldn’t find me caught dead in a store that didn’t serve blacks. You know why? Because fuck that store owner, that’s why.

                Progressives consistently cannot wrap their heads around that government didn’t create the Civil Rights movement, it merely stepped in at the end and took credit for it. The change was sweeping the country, and societal pressures would have done 10x the good, because there would be no resentment of people being forced to do something they do not want to do.

                When the law went from making discrimination lawful to outlawing discrimination, it skipped the idea of simply having equal protection under the law.

                1. Sorry, I should say making discrimination the law. As it, you had to discriminate or you were breaking the law.

                2. And I say there’d still be rampant discrimination in public accommodations in certain parts of the country if the federal government allowed it. Who’s to say? At any rate it remains true that without outlawing discrimination, you are required to have the taxpayer-funded police forcibly eject patrons for being black or gay. I don’t want to pay for that, thank you.

                  1. No, you may have to have the police forcibly eject people who are not wanted on other people’s property. That would be the law, and the law wouldn’t care about your intentions or whether said person was black or gay or whatever. The law would only say that a person wasn’t wanted on someone’s property and refused to leave. That is it.

                3. PaulW

                  It is really a question of the use of market freedom vs government force.

                  (lol) Nope. The principle here is initiation of force, which can happen in the free market.

        2. Which is worse:

          Umm, they’re both wrong. You’re walking down the road where idiots say the right to Life trumps all other rights.

      3. I can barely wrap my head around how stupid you are.

        Does this actually pass for logic in your mind?

        You do not need the police to escort someone off your property that you do not want there. You can do it yourself, you can have your security do it, or in your case, you can get your wife to do it.

        1. So, since we’re not about government enforcing trespassing law, is it also the case that I can personally enforce nondiscrimination by holding a gun to the baker’s head and forcing her to make my cake?

          Yes, this passes for logic. And you don’t have anything. Either you enforce the owner’s right to discriminate or you enforce the patron’s right to be free from discrimination. Neither is a “negative” right.

          1. No Tony, you piece of shit, the difference is aggression, like we just talked about. Holding a gun to a baker’s head is aggression. Not baking someone a cake is not aggression. Just like not giving isn’t the same as stealing. Do you get it yet, or must I keep calling you stupid? I really don’t like to, you know, it hurts me as much as it hurts you.

            1. How do you get the unwanted black customer out of your shop without aggression?

              1. The unwanted customer aggressed when he refused to leave someone else’s property.

                Force is not aggression when it is in direct response to aggression.

                Do you get it yet? Aggressing means you initiated. The storeowner did not initiate. Same as if you broke into someone’s house and they punched you in the mouth and threw you out the door. The homeowner is not the agressor, you were not wanted on his property, therefore you aggressed on him.

                Can I make it any more clear? Anyone more fluent than I am in retard?

                1. The unwanted customer did nothing differently from any other customer. It’s quite a stretch of libertarian terms to call that aggression. It’s almost as if you pick and choose your arbitrary policy preferences and then slap labels on them in order to make them fit into your scheme.

                  1. The unwanted customer did nothing differently from any other customer.

                    So what? Are my property rights determined by YOUR action?

                    Then again, PaulW often makes stupid statements like that, based on what I call knee-jerk libertarianism.

                    It’s a property-rights issue, but the goobers feel some need to squeeze everything into the non-aggression principle. Hence “knee-jerk”

                    Based on property rights alone, you have no “right” to enter my property at all, and how can you possibly believe
                    otherwise?

                    (I do love it when a goober calls somebody a “retard” after making a typical dumbass statement. It’s like when Rachel Maddow reaches a total stupid conclusion, holds her hands out, palms up and triumphantly says “ta da.” Goobers exist also on the left)

              2. Tony:

                How do you get the unwanted black customer out of your shop without aggression?

                False choice. You don’t need the government to enforce your right not to do business with someone. It looks like this:

                Black guy: “I want a black, gay wedding cake.”
                Store owner: “I don’t do that sort of thing. Sorry.”
                Black guy: “OH, YEAH? Well, I’m not leaving until I get my black, gay wedding cake!”
                Store owner: “Enjoy your wait.”

                At what point, exactly does the government have to enforce that? I don’t see the store owner using the threat of violence, or really needing to.

                Of course, you have to substitute something else falsely as a substitute for discrimination, just so your not-very-clever “We all use government force!” bullshit can make even an attempt to fly. Not a very good one, it seems.

                1. Brian loves to bloviate endlessly, like so many of the anti-gummint blowhards

                  Try this: “You have no ‘right’ to enter my property.”

                  Eight words. And more accurate.

                  Disagree? Fine. Give us your street address.

            2. Bear in mind that he didn’t do anything differently from any other customer. Unless you want to claim that patronizing a business is to commit aggression against it.

              1. Well, if all the customers are asked to leave, and don’t, then I assume all the customers are committing aggression. But, that’s not exactly just patronizing a business.

                1. Well, if all the customers are asked to leave, and don’t, then I assume all the customers are committing aggression.

                  Same error. Nobody has a “right” to be on your property, regardless of whatever you say. You even have property rights when sound asleep! (gasp).

              2. Bear in mind that he didn’t do anything differently from any other customer.

                Considering the post just says ‘Store owner’, yeah, ‘Black guy’ walking into a sporting goods store and asking for ‘a black, gay wedding cake’ is pretty different from the other customers.

                Even if the ‘store’ is a bakery, probably not a lot of straight/gay white/blacks walking into saying “I want a , wedding cake.”

                If I went to pretty much any shop imaginable and said “I want a white, straight .” It wouldn’t be out of the ordinary to expect treatment kid gloves to outright ejection.

                “I want the white, straight tires put on my car.”

                “I want the yellow, transgender coffee.”

                “I want a blue, asexual hammer.”

                1. Dammit. Parser ate my tags;

                  saying “I want a *race*, *sexual orientation* wedding cake.”

                2. Yet more bloviating

                  mad.casual

                  Even if the ‘store’ is a bakery, probably not a lot of straight/gay white/blacks walking into saying “I want a , wedding cake.”

  17. Freedom of association is one of these rights?the inherent right of human beings to choose with whom they want to spend their time and money, to unionize with, and to sell goods, services or labor to without unnecessary government intrusion.

    Unfortunately, same-sex “marriage” does not help, and overall hurts, in the achievement of those goals.

    1. So if I have a religion in witch i believe that Blacks are untouchables.Can i refuse than service to black people because of my believes?

      1. You should be able to … without the wacky excuse you proffer.
        How does that relate, in any way, to the comment you responded to?

    1. I assume you’re the same Cindy as that link. Very well argued and presented, even where we disagree!

  18. I don’t understand why it’s a federal issue as marriage to me is a contractual matter which should be administered at the state level. I think it’s better to focus on changing any federal laws that provide benefit to groups whether couples, races, genders, corporations, etc. Because that’s the right thing. While one can argue whether states should be involved in marriage, to me it’s obvious the federal government should be out of it.

    1. I don’t understand why it’s a federal issue as marriage to me is a contractual matter which should be administered at the state level.

      9th Amendment
      14th Amendment.

      While one can argue whether states should be involved in marriage, to me it’s obvious the federal government should be out of it

      Obviously wrong. 9th and 14th Amendments. You apply the same false argument as Ron Paul and the Ku Klux Klan (among others).

  19. Well, it is homosexuals themselves who claim that the purpose of homosexual marriage is to destroy the institution of marriage. Part of their war on the patriarchy, American, etc. on behalf of international communism and radical Islam.

    http://illinoisfamily.org/homo…..-marriage/

    But the major point is that libertarians are AWOL on the battle for freedom of association since all “libertarians” support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed private discrimination.

    1. Federale

      Well, it is homosexuals themselves who claim that the purpose of homosexual marriage is to destroy the institution of marriage.

      ONE woman, Sluggo, using the same argument as libertarians.

      Part of their war on the patriarchy, American, etc. on behalf of international communism and radical Islam.

      (laughing) You’re a Birther, right?

  20. The response I get when I try to explain these issues is that no one has a right to own a business (wtf?) and that although freedom of speech is protected, freedom of association is not when it comes to business. Not sure the best response to that as current law appears to be on their side. Trying to convince them of what is right vs what is law vs what is just becomes difficult for most to grasp.

  21. What a cess-pool!
    We get MH trying to prove he’s the smartest guy in the world and proving the exact opposite.(Hey, twit! That “Robert” only shows up to agree with you. Is that a sock by any chance?)
    Then we get Tony trying and failing to prove that “up” = “down”.
    Glad I had work to do today.

  22. Since this primer is geared towards liberals more than conservatives, a better example than Nazis, Mr. Shackford, might be a Muslim baker forced to make a cake depicting Muhammad. I’m guessing that example would disorient some people.

  23. I think the Key point in “religious freedom” is that they deny it on base of their basic or fundamental believes. So first one has to declare it basic beliefs and than refuse to all customers services that violate against this believes. So unless someone is making “Worthiness interviews” with the customers to find our if the live in “sin” than it is discrimination because one is choosing to refuse service on pretext of religious freedom but is all customers where checked one will find out that the same Business owner will have given services to many other people that violate his personal religious believe. Also is professional service not a agreement with someones action. Otherwise our Internet provider would have to find out our religious believes as we could use his services for acts he sees unfit, stores, Insurances and all business needed to be checked for customers Violation to there core beliefs and that is rather unpractical and unnecessary as a service is not an agreement of action and thereby not falls under protection for religious freedom. The only service that could be denied is church services like,, baptisms, Blessings, marriages ect. Oh and Foster care is government busyness that only is granted to some church organisation, so there is no right in refuse.

  24. “This is far from ‘redlining,’ where banks and insurance companies colluded and denied loans and insurance to swaths of minorities in inner city neighborhoods.”

    It sounds in that sentence as though you are not in favor of ‘redlining’ – but if a bakery has freedom of association should not be forced to make a cake for a gay couple, then don’t banks and insurance companies also have the right to freely associate with each other and decide whom they will not do business with?

  25. I don’t support anything homosexuals do, but I acknowledge their right to do it as consenting adults. I also don’t think any of it is the government’s business. All wonderful ideas, right?

    Unfortunately we live in a fascist surveillance police state so none of what I think is ideal matters.

  26. It’s interesting when you hear folks say, “mind your own business!!” in regards to social issues like gay marriage. But when it comes to actually minding one’s own BUSINESS, literally, forget about it.

  27. I think homosexuality is an act that is unnatural, but what two consenting adults do is their business. However, when they force me to recognize their relationship as marriage the infringe on my religious beliefs. If gays want a legal union, fine, but call it that, recognized by the state not God. I am convinced the only reason they want to call it a marriage is to legitimize it by usurping the morality of the term marriage.

  28. It’s more than just Freedom of Association.

    Let’s throw a monkey into this wrench. 😉

    Assuming that the FedGov implements a “law” that forces businesses to provide services/products that they find morally objectionable:

    What happens to my Kosher Deli? (Or Halal Tea Shoppe, or Hindu Curry & Wings restaurant, etc. etc.)

    When some Activist comes in and demands Treif/Haram/Beef, wouldn’t that “law” apply there as well?

    Forcing a Hasidim Deli to make a Ham & Cheese sandwich is NO DIFFERENT than forcing a Fundamentalist Christian Pastry Chef to make a “gay” wedding cake or… and this is critical… FORCING A MINISTER OF ONE SECT TO PROVIDE MINISTERIAL SERVICES TO MEMBERS OF OTHER SECTS.

    There is no Rational or logical reason for a Atheist or Gay couples to demand that their “legal marriage” (a .gov fiction originally implemented to allow feudal lords prima-nocta) be performed by ANYONE who has fundamental opposition to the religious/sociosexual positions of the couple being “married”. If you aren’t Catholic, don’t go harassing a Priest. If you aren’t a Mormon, don’t demand that you have the “Right” to be married at the Salt Lake Temple. If you are Gay, don’t go looking for a Straight, Fundie Pastry Chef.

    If there are no Gay Pastry Chefs near by, RECRUIT ONE. Your community probably needs more pastry chefs anyway.

    This “battle” for the “Right” to force a business to discard THEIR Right to “refuse service to anyone” WILL go too far. Be careful what you wish for.

  29. People and businesses have a right to refuse service to any individual, couple or group. We do not need government to fix this bigotry. Markets can take care of it better. Laws and regulations are just going to cost more money to tax payers and government is very likely to mess it up even more. Despite of spending enormous amounts of money on anti-discrimination laws enforcement, discrimination still exists, It has just gone under cover and has become harder to detect and fight, making it very difficult for free markets to correct this anomaly in our behaviors.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.