I don't want everyone to be violated equally- I want everyone to enjoy full liberty. I also support anyone who manages to keep their own property out of the hands of the thieves, in whatever manner they manage that.
The entanglements I have thus far managed to avoid, I don't want extended to me, and I don't wish for others to be caught up in those I haven't escaped.
If someone wants to beg The State's employees for "recognition", I won't stop them. But I will suggest that- just perhaps- they aren't seeing the big picture. Freedom is never enhanced by begging for government permission.
So I posted this status on Facebook:
I support getting The State out of ALL marriages (and the rest of life). Equal interference isn't a very smart goal. Don't beg for leprosy just because your neighbor is infected.
Yet, this position is called "hypocritical" and more by some people. People who claim "The State" equals "freedom", in at least some areas.
Here is part of what was said:
This 'state out of marriage' thing is just the latest 'argument Du Jour' thing that does not hold water because the proponents of it can't live by the implications of it when they think it through. If really believed, they would be forced to repudiate *all* state recognized contacts, never marry, never own property and never own a license. They don't do that. It's just a convenient way to deny freedoms to others and think they are moral for doing so.
In this, you are no different than a bible thumping conservative. I leave you to your hypocrisy. Have a fine day.
So, without the State, there can be no contracts. Yes, he actually admitted he believes this earlier in the thread. And, so, I finally "blocked" him.
Then his sockpuppet sent me a message saying:
Thank you sir! There is no greater compliment than to be blocked by someone who has such a weak position it can't hold up to examination.I really need to remember that it's only the internet. I can laugh and walk away at any time.
You are a fraud and a coward sir. I am just a little happier in the knowledge that I exposed it.
You will reply with some smarmy comment and then block this Nic too. Don't bother - I won't read it. I just keep this account to chuckle at those who are so easily outwitted they have no choice but to flee. Tata sunshine!
.
I went over to the facebook thread and tried to stick with some of that detritus.
ReplyDeleteLesson: I now know why I've so adamantly avoided facebook and most other social networking sites. We hear it a lot, so I'll repeat:
How do you argue with stupid???
Sam
It's the "But who will build the roads?" fallacy all over again.
ReplyDeleteWithout govt sanctioned marriage, there would be no marriage.
Without govt police, there would be no security. Without govt courts, no justice. Without govt run monopoly utilities, there would be no water, no sewage, no gas, no electricity, and by Crom no roads EVER!
And of course, by living peacefully, there would be no peace.
As Sam says, there is no arguing with stupid.
If I might paraphrase the old adage:
ReplyDeleteThose who are ignorant of history will be ignorant about the present.