al

Here’s one, then, that I think Aaron can agree with: had he been in a position to do so, he would have favored keeping interracial marriage illegal, because it would have worked against “more state intererence in people’s lives”.

I take it that is a fair representation of your views?

I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. It’s bad manners.”

It’s called an inference. People who aren’t morons understand that consistent application of logic can yield inferences from what someone does say to something that they don’t say, and that if the inferred statement is absurd, so is the original statement. This is known as reductio ad adsurdum.

It’s not a trick, and not admitting the point doesn’t make you a racist, it makes you an anti-gay bigot — duh.

That’s what it’s about — A. G. trying to impose his theology on others.

I’ve answered your question numerous times now. I can’t help it if you don’t like the answer. You’re presenting a False Dilemma and I’m not going to go for it. Again, I’m sorry if you don’t like to hear that. Maybe you should hurl some insults at me to make yourself feel better.

And speaking of corners, you never did tell us if you would have opposed allowing interracial marriage, Aaron. Saying “I would rather the State get out of people’s relationships all together (Aaron, shouldn’t that be “altogether”?): whether straight or gay, Jew or Christian” isn’t an answer. Would you would have supported or opposed changing the laws of Virginia to allow interracial marriage? Hmmm…? It’s easy to get out of that corner, you know. Just stand up and walk out.

Owning a marriage license does not exclude you from being a true libertarian, just as stealing does not exclude someone from being a Christian. Just because you’re not acting particularly libertarian at the time doesn’t mean you are forever banned from the ideology. I’m not a Randian.

Anyway, your “logical” conclusion isn’t very logical, it’s just a crap attempt to paint me into a corner. Knock it off.

Also, twerp? Surely you’ve got some better ad hominem in there.

This whole thread illustrates (I think AGunn would agree with me here) exactly why the state cannot ever maintain just dominion over marriage. It cannot justly satisfy through licensure all the subjective definitions of marriage. I mean it’s not fair if a man can’t marry another man. Why can’t Fred petition the court to marry his biological brother? If marriage can be any consensual “arrangement” between consenting adults, why can’t two couples get married in a double marriage relationship with two husbands and two wives? And why can’t the state grant me license to this? Why is it that only a man and a woman are a valid marriage? These are questions that cannot suitably be answered by the state. Other issues could be answered suitably by the state like rape, murder, theft; but with marriage NO!

Even the libertarian who takes the minarchist “night watch man” view of the state, marriage is absolutely NOT something considerable for state dominion. I thought this was an easy one all libertarians agreed on from minarchist to anarchocapitalist.

“A true libertarian who was also an advocate for gay marriage would not beg the state for its blessing. He would encourage homosexuals to set up their family institutions outside the auspices of the state. He would also understand that using the state to advance moral viewpoints is inherently wrong and unbecoming of someone who thinks their cause is just.”

So a “true libertarian” who was also an advocate for straight marriage would not beg the state for its blessing. Sounds like your logic means that a straight couple where were “true libertarians” would never get a marriage license and would set up family institutions outside the auspices of the state. So if you have a marriage licence, by your logic, you’re not a “true libertarian.” Your argument, not mine.

I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. It’s bad manners.

And I do oppose discrimination, I am simply not so vicious as you, who would use guns and violence to do it. I don’t believe that two wrongs make a right.

As far as protecting people from being lynched, I’ll bring my own gun and stand with them. I’m not so cowardly as to beg the state to do it for me.

You call me abusive, but at least I don’t have to put words in other’s mouths and resort to obvious logical fallacies to make my points. I have spoken plainly and directly, something you have failed to do.

Finally, equality before the law is a noble, but abstract concept. I encourage it to be explored in competitive private legal/court systems. It is a conversation for another thread.

For some years I have been a libertarian in the tradition of real – or ‘classical’ – liberalism and I cannot understand how wanting equality before the law is not ‘libertarian.’ Aaron is not a libertarian, just an anarchist, and a not very smart one, anyway. Even a smart anarchist would want legal equality and would not complain if the police officer of the state stops, for exampel, a rape, only because he is a police officer of the state. Aaron has been very abusive of other people here, but his own position is merely laughable.

How many times do I have to hammer this single point?

The libertarian desires freedom from the coercive state. I don’t care about your arguments over how the predations of the state should be carried out, whether fairly or unfairly, you are trying to make two wrongs a right and I don’t care.

And to be direct, freedom from the state means you are taking the risk that justice will only be done part of the time. This is preferable to the libertarian, who believes that the coercive state is always unjust.

Samuel,
I’m not advocating a law that says that people’s natural rights are void. I also don’t want laws to “protect” my rights. If they’re MINE then let ME take care of them. Okay?

Finally, if there is any law barring free association, I recommend that it be ignored and fought and ultimately, disposed of.

Eric,
Minimizing injustice can always and everywhere be accomplished by telling those who would coerce and violate natural rights where to stick it, and by avoiding them as best as possible where resistance is not possible.

A true libertarian who was also an advocate for gay marriage would not beg the state for its blessing. He would encourage homosexuals to set up their family institutions outside the auspices of the state. He would also understand that using the state to advance moral viewpoints is inherently wrong and unbecoming of someone who thinks their cause is just.

“I think we should get the state out of our lives, and I’ll spend the rest of my life with that as a goal. But since we’re not going to get the state out of our lives in my lifetime or yours — indeed, probably never — I think that, in the meantime, we should try to minimize injustice in ways that are politically possible.”