|
jrodefeld posted:I just personally don't want the government involved in my heterosexual relationships. I would assume at least some gay couples feel the same way. No, it's just you. I actually love this fact for this often gets thrown out by straight libertarians who ironically have no problem getting a marriage certificate when it's for themselves.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
platedlizard posted:I like how you apparently think that "taking the government out of marriage" is somehow easier and less controversial than making marriage equality the norm. And what is preventing people drafting contracts that accomplish all these things? Being able to make medical decisions for one another, legal guardianship of children and any other issue you might raise can easily be accomplished through conventional contracts. In fact, I would suspect that churches and people that specialize in marrying couples would quite easily create standard contract templates that accomplish everything that current marriage licenses do and most people would not notice the change. The only difference is that the government would not be defining marriage as any specific thing. Culture and tradition will dictate the standard marriage contract and gay marriage contracts will likely be much the same. But we simply won't need any widespread consensus on a single definition of marriage. Marriages can be different for different cultures and peoples. I don't see why this would be very difficult.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Holy poo poo, I thought they got rid of gay panic defense. D: He was eventually plead guilty as they were gearing up for a 2nd trial and got 21 years, though they dropped the hate crime enhancement. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/brandon-mcinerney-school-criticized-by-both-sides-in-gay-teen-slaying-case.html quote:And what is preventing people drafting contracts that accomplish all these things? Because nobody wants that except crazy libertarians, most of whom are usually straight, white men whose right to marriage is already guaranteed. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And what is preventing people drafting contracts that accomplish all these things? Being able to make medical decisions for one another, legal guardianship of children and any other issue you might raise can easily be accomplished through conventional contracts. Except that hospitals, CPS, et cetera won't recognize private contracts, especially in bigoted areas; after all, you yourself said "you can't legislate away homophobia". EDIT: What he said VVVVV DoctorWhat fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:If only there were some sort of standard contract that could be written up for people wanting to enter a legal relationship with a romantic partner. Some sort of agreement that any two consenting adults could sign designating their consent to the arrangement. Hell, to solve potential legal issues that might arise around financial or other concerns, some sort of preemptive judicial review could take place, so that anyone who signed such an agreement would not have to hash out these details individually but could collectively refer to a body of case law and a legal framework when questions regarding the contract come up. Really, that's not even the biggest part of the whole thing. It's possible to go to a lawyer and get contracts drawn up between two people, and although that shuts out poor people, if that were all it took to get something equivalent to marriage then Lambda Legal or a similar organization could probably hammer out boilerplate civil union contracts that covered most simple situations. But, as plenty of gay folks in states without marriage equality well know, that doesn't necessarily mean anything to other people. Unless you go around to every hospital in the area with a "please recognize our relationship" form, and some kind of leverage to get them to sign it, it's not going to mean much when your partner's in the hospital and you don't want to deal with confidentiality issues to know whether they're even alive. A judge isn't going to give a poo poo about your relationship contract when they make a decision about spousal privilege. An employer isn't going to spend thousands of bucks to cover your not-legally-a-spouse under your healthcare benefits. The biggest part of marriage is having legal recognition of your relationship that's enforceable elsewhere. jrodefeld posted:And what state law is going to allow someone to beat you to death and get away with the excuse that you were hitting on them? That is absurd. No one would tolerate that. Yeah I mean hate crimes against LGBT people are always vigorously pursued by local police, right? I mean, they're against the law. Even when some backwoods cop thinks that the drat homo totally had it coming. Any kind of oversight is just needless government getting in that officer's life, telling them how to do their job, when they should get to make the decision to let people just go free because they've got the right morals and go to the right church. Space Gopher fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It does now that we've rejected the libertarian "nullification" version of the constitution. Before the 14th though, they had those exact rights. You are completely wrong about nullification. Nullification is a perfectly valid tool to reject unconstitutional federal laws. Given that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, the States have no right to nullify the right to free speech for example. Now what about California nullifying the clearly unconstitutional federal drug war and saying explicitly that we will not tolerate you raiding our medical marijuana dispensaries that we have rightly legalized at the state level. THAT is a fair use of nullification. It is a completely valid concept and has uses today. Are you really comfortable with having absolutely no way to fight against federal oppression?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And what is preventing people drafting contracts that accomplish all these things? Being able to make medical decisions for one another, legal guardianship of children and any other issue you might raise can easily be accomplished through conventional contracts. Let's turn this around: why can't marriage come with a default, wide set of legal and financial rights that, if a couple is uncomfortable with, they can place restrictions (or enhance) with individual legal agreements? I bought a car the other day, and was able to sign a standard set of transfer paperwork that covered all of the legal rights that both myself and the seller might be concerned about. If I had had any special concerns, we could have gone through the expense of drafting up an individual contract that would have had to be reviewed by both of our lawyers, but since we were going with a default, no special-circumstances sell we were able to take advantage of something that saved everyone time, money, and energy and left everyone with knowledge of their legal rights in the transaction. What you're advocating is making people choose from dozens or hundreds of different interpretations of a "contract" that most people do not want to change and will never have a reason to alter from the standard. And you're ignoring the fact that those few that DO want to alter the contract ALREADY CAN in the form of prenups.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You are completely wrong about nullification. Nullification is a perfectly valid tool to reject unconstitutional federal laws. Given that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, the States have no right to nullify the right to free speech for example. The Bill of Rights legally only applied to the federal government at first  Activist judges in the 20th century started to decide the 14th amendment also meant the Bill of Rights applied to the states. Here, wikipedia has a good article on ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights quote:THAT is a fair use of nullification. It is a completely valid concept and has uses today. This isn't really nullification at all. This doesn't work like jury nullification where one person can have charged dropped. This is just states deciding to boycott a federal law. Weed is still illegal on the federal level and they can, and often do, still enforce that fact inside of said states. quote:Are you really comfortable with having absolutely no way to fight against federal oppression? It's called voting, as well as activist judges most libertarians hate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
drat, this thread blew up while I was at workjrodefeld posted:And, I might be idealistic and blind to the pockets of racism that still exist in this country, but I don't think that even Alabama and Mississippi would bring back segregation even if the federal government didn't stop them. The thing is, that in these and similar states, segregation is still very much a real thing. Its just more covert and off the books now. Amused to Death posted:Getting the government out of marriage is a stupid goal in of itself because marriage has always been a civil affair THIS. It has always really annoyed me how certain christian groups seem to believe that they somehow invented the concept. jrodefeld posted:By the way, the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery. Yeah, I went to public school in Georgia and unfortunately was also exposed to this bullshit revisionist version of the civil war, "Its totally not about slavery, it was about mercantilism you guys!" jrodefeld posted:I think you are really stretching to find a scenario where my argument falls apart. I think you are really naive if you think his example is "stretching" Lightning Knight posted:Holy poo poo, I thought they got rid of gay panic defense. D: Depends on where in the country you're trying to argue it hangedman1984 fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Oh my god, at first I was just going to laugh at mises links, but you actually linked to FreeRepublic, a board full of crazy, seething racists. I guess you didn't see the Freep thread a few below this to know what exactly we think of FreeRepublic. Why would you laugh at Mises? He was only the greatest economist of the twentieth century and will there is no doubt that the site contains libertarian writings, the resources and quality of the research contained in that site is extremely impressive and far outdoes most other resources I have encountered. Secondly, I know nothing about FreeRepublic but I know a great deal about Lysander Spooner. Spooner was one of the most important and influential abolitionists of the 19th century and considering that page contains mainly quotes from Spooner a known abolitionist, your opinions on the site are irrelevent. What is your impression of Lysander Spooner's critique of Lincoln and the Civil War? He was a far more consistent and principled opponent of slavery that Lincoln ever was. Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that FreeRepublic is full of racists? Even if it was, the evidence and quotes contained in that specific article are completely valid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
Nullification is not an issue here. DOMA does not tell states what they can or can't do. It exempts them from mandated recognition of out of state contracts. Legalizing same sex marriage in your state or recognizing out of state same sex marriages is not flouting federal law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that FreeRepublic is full of racists? Even if it was, the evidence and quotes contained in that specific article are completely valid. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3415552
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
Here's a helpful 21,000 posts regarding Freep racism: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3415552 Don't worry, we'll wait for you while you get caught up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why would you laugh at Mises? Regardless of what I think of Mises the person, Mises.org is not Ludwig von Mises. To sum up Mises.org, well, someone pull up that article where one of the authors there was arguing children should be allowed to legally be sold since they're their parents property. quote:What is your impression of Lysander Spooner's critique of Lincoln and the Civil War? He was a far more consistent and principled opponent of slavery that Lincoln ever was. I didn't read it because it was on Freep, which basically is telling enough. There's the old saying even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yeah Freep doesn't even get that. Why is Freep terrible? Here's 540 pages of why http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3415552 It's also a good expose of why the Tea Party is terrible since this is the Tea Party in private essentially.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Regardless of what I think of Mises, Mises.org is not Ludwig von Mises. To sum up Mises.org, well, someone pull up that article where one of the authors there was arguing children should be allowed to legally be sold since they're their parents property. You mean the Murray Rothbard quote: quote:Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.[12] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.[13]
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Nobody who knows anything about the Civil War thinks that abolition was Lincoln's main reason for the prosecution of the war. But the terrible fear of abolition which gripped the South absolutely was their reason for beginning the war. I noticed earlier that you claimed Lincoln started the Civil War, which is patently false, since the first attack on Fort Sumter (an indirect one: the attack on its resupply ship) and the declaration of secession of South Carolina occurred before Lincoln's inauguration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
 The logical end conclusion of Austrian economics in Libertarianville
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
dorquemada posted:Libertarians are loving stupid man-children that are emotionally crippled in the empathy department and often have severe cognitive deficits that should preclude them from holding high office. Are you aware that The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave? It was little more than a battle strategy as it applied only to states controlled by the Confederacy. He did it to punish the confederacy. All the while he tolerated slavery in many Northern states. This is just reality. And the truth about the thirteenth amendment is that Lincoln did NOT champion its passage. Are you at all familiar with this book: "Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream", by Lerone Bennett, Jr http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0874850851?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0874850851&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell11 And before you go into a tirade about the author being a white supremacist, Lerone Bennett, Jr is a black man who used to be executive editor of Ebony magazine. You should definitely read it because he eloquently destroys the fiction you are putting forward about Abraham Lincoln. You also should read this article: http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo245.html Basically, the truth is that it is the other Senators that had to put political pressure on Lincoln to pass the thirteenth amendment. And until his dying day, he had a fantasy to deport every single black person back to Africa. Here is an article about that: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8319858/Abraham-Lincoln-wanted-to-deport-slaves-to-new-colonies.html I am obviously thrilled and overjoyed that the thirteenth amendment was passed but Lincoln was clearly a reprehensible person that cannot be defended for his atrocious violations of liberties and his actions as president and during the war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Repeating from earlier in the thread: The other thing is that you're still ignoring the issues of tax credits, hospital and jail visitation rights, child custody, the right to adopt... Why can all this not be written into a contract?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:He was eventually plead guilty as they were gearing up for a 2nd trial and got 21 years, though they dropped the hate crime enhancement. Ok, well at last that story didn't end with the "and he got away with it too" I thought it would. quote:Depends on where in the country you're trying to argue it Ugh why America? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why can all this not be written into a contract? Because you'd have to get the Government, the Hospitals, the Jails, the Child Protective Services, et al, to ALL agree to that contract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Secondly, I know nothing about FreeRepublic but I know a great deal about Lysander Spooner. Spooner was one of the most important and influential abolitionists of the 19th century and considering that page contains mainly quotes from Spooner a known abolitionist, your opinions on the site are irrelevent. Spooner was an abolitionist, and happened to have a beef with Lincoln (and in fact pretty much all government). That does not mean that Lincoln and the North "did not care about abolishing slavery." Lincoln was a well-known abolitionist; his election was what led the core slave states to secede and attack the US. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which, aside from freeing the vast majority of slaves in the US, also elevated the elimination of slavery to a war goal on par with preserving the Union - something that actually undercut Spooner's main criticism of Lincoln and the Republicans in the Civil War). Lincoln later pushed the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress, where it was ratified by the northern states. Lincoln was not just an abolitionist; he was the abolitionist. He's the guy who freed the slaves. The fact that Spooner wasn't a fan of Lincoln, or government in general, does nothing to change the fact that Lincoln was the guy who freed the slaves. ThirdPartyView posted:You mean the Murray Rothbard quote: You missed the other good bit! Murray Rothbard posted:Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. Also, it's important to keep in mind that Rothbard wasn't just an author they hired to write potentially controversial pieces, or something. He held the position of vice president at the von Mises institute for a long time, and was right there alongside Rockwell and Hayek when it was founded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why can all this not be written into a contract? Oh woweee I'll just go write myself some tax credits right now...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Oh woweee I'll just go write myself some tax credits right now... "Well gawrsh what's wrong with that? Then we can defund the government non-violently and create  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:43
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Because you'd have to get the Government, the Hospitals, the Jails, the Child Protective Services, et al, to ALL agree to that contract. Put another way: Say you're a gay dude, and your would-be husband is terribly injured, lying in a hospital bed wondering if he's gonna die alone. You want to visit him. You have a contract wherein he says "I want this dude to be able to visit me in the hospital." What steps do you take to visit him? Do you walk in the door and hand the contract to the receptionist? If so, what do you expect the receptionist to do? Do you expect the government to have notified hospitals that such contracts must be honored? If so, how is this not just marriage by a different name? If neither of these, then what? This isn't some gotcha, and these aren't rhetorical questions. I don't understand what kind of system you're envisioning when you suggest that same-sex couples write up a contract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why can all this not be written into a contract? Wha...because...it'd involve the government and multiple groups such as adoption agencies and hospitals to all sign the contract too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Wha...because...it'd involve the government and multiple groups such as adoption agencies and hospitals to all sign the contract too? Gee if only there was some way to know that the government officially and legally recognizes your relationship. Oh well, better get back to ending civil marriage!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
So in an ideal libertarian system, transfer of child custody can be done with just a contract without the involvement of any other laws and government agencies?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
Well, I certainly didn't agree with almost anything I saw written on that link. I am obviously not a conservative. I am a leftist, antiwar libertarian. I looked for a link featuring quotes by Lysander Spooner, who I have read extensively and I admire because he was one of the early libertarian abolitionists who actually paved the way for the freeing of the slaves. It was his strong belief that Lincoln was a hypocrite on this issue and that the Civil War could have been avoided. I didn't know FreeRepublic was such a known entity around here and was so loathed. I don't advocate any other positions, but I DO support the quotes of Lysander Spooner. I would appreciate if you would respond to the words of Spooner rather than launching into a tirade about FreeRepublic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Basically, the truth is that it is the other Senators that had to put political pressure on Lincoln to pass the thirteenth amendment. And until his dying day, he had a fantasy to deport every single black person back to Africa.  How'd you do in high school civics? If Lincoln didn't like the Thirteenth Amendment for some reason (say, despite his publicly held and widely known abolitionist views he was a secret supporter of slavery) he couldn't have done poo poo about it. There would have been no reason to put political pressure on him, because the President doesn't have any direct input on the amendment process. All he or she can do is work the bully pulpit for one side or the other. And, while Lincoln didn't do much for the Thirteenth in the heavily Republican Senate, he whipped like crazy for it in the House. The people who were actually there said as much. You are peddling a fantasy that paints Lincoln as a racist and slaver in an effort to excuse the people who fought the bloodiest war in American history to preserve their "right" to own other human beings.I'll leave you with the words of Frederick Douglass, whose credentials as an abolitionist, I hope, are not in doubt: Frederick Douglass, in memory of Abraham Lincoln, posted:Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether," gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I am obviously not a conservative. I am a leftist, antiwar libertarian. Read as: I'm a Paulite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
Alright, Lysander Spooner was an insane anarchist who's main beef with Lincoln was that his lovely mail company was 'forced' out of business by the federal mail system, and he fully supported the confederacy seceding because of 'consent to be governed'. He legitimately believed the rights of some racists in power trumped the rights of the people within, and that Davis was totally a swell guy for bravely standing up for his right to refuse to be governed, while plunging his people into poverty and war. He was also a violent abolitionist of the stripe of 'you negroes should go revolt more, that doesn't end horribly for the black population, right? I'll hang here and write another essay...' I think he was also super mad that college students had a reduced legal internship because, you know, they had an actual education behind them. So yea, Spooner, great dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:You mean the Murray Rothbard quote: You know, I really don't see how this is that controversial. I really like Murray Rothbard and this quote is obviously him exploring the outer reaches of the libertarian philosophy. But honestly, if this idea was put into practice, would the outcome for unwanted children be better or worse? I would suggest it might be much better. So as callous as it appears to sound, the logical implications would imply that a market for children who would otherwise be forced to spend years at adoption agencies would find a suitable home and parents who will love and raise the child. If it provides better outcomes for parents and especially the children, I don't see the problem. I haven't given this much thought, but if that is the best attempt to denigrate the writings at Mises.org then it is not very persuasive. The goal of writers like Rothbard is to get you to think about novel solutions to problems. You might disagree with some of his proposals but it will compel you to think like an economist and effectively evaluate a situation in society. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, I really don't see how this is that controversial. I really like Murray Rothbard and this quote is obviously him exploring the outer reaches of the libertarian philosophy. ACKNOWLEDGE THE WHOLE CONTRACT THING WE JUST POSTED LIKE TEN TIMES ABOUT GAAAH.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But honestly, if this idea was put into practice, would the outcome for unwanted children be better or worse? I would suggest it might be much better. I've got to say, usually trolls tip their hand much earlier than this. Good work, man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Alright, Lysander Spooner was an insane anarchist who's main beef with Lincoln was that his lovely mail company was 'forced' out of business by the federal mail system, and he fully supported the confederacy seceding because of 'consent to be governed'. He legitimately believed the rights of some racists in power trumped the rights of the people within, and that Davis was totally a swell guy for bravely standing up for his right to refuse to be governed, while plunging his people into poverty and war. drat, beaten to the punch. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, I really don't see how this is that controversial. I really like Murray Rothbard and this quote is obviously him exploring the outer reaches of the libertarian philosophy. jrodefeld, noted supporter of being able to buy and sell children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:jrodefeld, noted supporter of being able to buy and sell children. "The invisible hand will make sure all children - what? We tried that in Britain and some guy named Dickens bitched us out for it? Nonsense! I'm sure it'll work itself out; these things always do." Edit: \/\/\/ I love when that happens. Good on you. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:drat, beaten to the punch. It was perfect timing, just the other day I had some stupid rear end anarchist tell me how great Lysander Spooner was, so I looked up how loving insane and dumb he was, so this was just the planets aligning to let me call someone dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:"The invisible hand will make sure all children - what? We tried that in Britain and some guy named Dickens bitched us out for it? Nonsense! I'm sure it'll work itself out; these things always do." No, you see, the children will write tax credits into their purchase contracts, meaning that whoever buys them will get massive tax breaks and they'll all go live in a giant mansion and everyone will get a puppy. A FREEDOM puppy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:12
|
|