Maine's Question 1

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Individuals have the right to dictate their own communal partners and define the terms of their own contracts. When you get the government involved, you are now working in the context of a democratic process. You net results such as this and Prop 8.

Yes...which is why I wish the government would butt out.  But that does not mean I find the arbitrary institutional disclusions of gays a moral non-issue.  To me, it's like being OK with banning blacks from buses because you don't like the government being involved in public transit.

That doesn't answer anything about your ridiculous comments about non-marriage being more "viable," or why we should completely ignore the ends and just pursue our utopian visions even if we know that it will result in more evil.

How can no marriage result in "evil"? You're being ridiculous. Also, your argument about blacks on buses is not analogous to my argument, it would be clearly unconstitutional and violation of equal rights for all citizens.

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

The man wiretapped his political enemies. He subverted the isolationist movement by using infiltrators to strangle dissent. For that matter, he jailed dissenters on trumped-up charges. He expanded the war in an illegal air campaign into Cambodia, a neutral nation. He pushed the War on Drugs at the taxpayer's dole. The man was a fascist.

[Alexander Hamilton]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

Actually, Nixon did a lot more to get out of Vietnam without allowing Vietnam to fall to fascism, to be honest. I wouldn't expect a liberal to recognize that accomplishment, however.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

Actually, Nixon did a lot more to get out of Vietnam without allowing Vietnam to fall to fascism, to be honest. I wouldn't expect a liberal to recognize that accomplishment, however.

A "liberal"? If you were really a conservative, you'd agree with me. Real conservatives are isolationists. We fear the power a military-industrial complex might give to the State to exert its control over a blind and docile populace.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

Actually, Nixon did a lot more to get out of Vietnam without allowing Vietnam to fall to fascism, to be honest. I wouldn't expect a liberal to recognize that accomplishment, however.

So he was a fascist President who tried to protect other nations from falling into fascism.?

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

[Alcon]

How can no marriage result in "evil"? You're being ridiculous. Also, your argument about blacks on buses is not analogous to my argument, it would be clearly unconstitutional and violation of equal rights for all citizens.

It might help if you put more energy into understanding what I'm posting than replying to it hyper-fast.  Pursuing no marriage instead of gay marriage results in more evil because it is a completely doomed political proposition, or close to it.  There is no trending, and as long as >50% of the electorate is unwilling to view marriage in a non-traditionalist way, it will continue to be doomed.

(I) Results of pursuing gay marriage: The trends are with us.  It starts off as a more popular issue.  It's supported by a cohesive subset of the political landscape, which makes advocating for it vastly easier.  Elimination of a bigoted distinction in an institution I think is treated imperfectly (marriage) and unneededly.

(II) Results of pursuing no marriage: No real trends.  Less popular.  No cohesive political subset to activate and advocate.  The result is no political change, and the continuing win of traditionalist , while we wax frustrated on Internet message boards about how rational the position is but nobody will support it.  Yet.  Because you're letting carte blanche traditionalism win.

The ends of (II) being successful would be better than (I) being successful.  But (I) is much more plausible than (II), and thus chances are the outcome of pursuing (I) would be better than pursuing (II).  So, (I) is better than (II) because we cannot magically cause utopia to happen.

The fact that that separation would be Constitutionally addressed does not mean they're not analagous in my moral view.  "Analagous" does not mean identical; you can't demand a tautology.

[Alexander Hamilton]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

Actually, Nixon did a lot more to get out of Vietnam without allowing Vietnam to fall to fascism, to be honest. I wouldn't expect a liberal to recognize that accomplishment, however.

A "liberal"? If you were really a conservative, you'd agree with me. Real conservatives are isolationists. We fear the power a military-industrial complex might give to the State to exert its control over a blind and docile populace.

I am an isolationist. That doesn't mean I support immediately withdrawing from a war Nixon did not start. Nixon's policies, for the most part, wound down the war Johnson started. If you were really a libertarian, you'd agree with me. Libertarians support freedom.

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

Not at all. Fascism began as a strange blend of nationalism and anarcho-syndicalism during the run-up to World War I: Mussolini was the first pioneer of fascism, and he advocated nothing more than a strong centralized State (including expanding the wellfare rolls) and militarism. While there were many racialists who were fascists, fascism began as essentially race-neutral, being only extremely nationalistic.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

Not at all. Fascism began as a strange blend of nationalism and anarcho-syndicalism during the run-up to World War I: Mussolini was the first pioneer of fascism, and he advocated nothing more than a strong centralized State (including expanding the wellfare rolls) and militarism. While there were many racialists who were fascists, fascism began as essentially race-neutral, being only extremely nationalistic.

That still doesn't show how Nixon was an imperialist - and moving the war into Cambodia can hardly be considered imperialism.

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

Not at all. Fascism began as a strange blend of nationalism and anarcho-syndicalism during the run-up to World War I: Mussolini was the first pioneer of fascism, and he advocated nothing more than a strong centralized State (including expanding the wellfare rolls) and militarism. While there were many racialists who were fascists, fascism began as essentially race-neutral, being only extremely nationalistic.

That still doesn't show how Nixon was an imperialist - and moving the war into Cambodia can hardly be considered imperialism.

Imperialism isn't a prerequisite of fascism, either - only militarism, and a glorification of the valors of military combat, is. Antonio de Oliviera Salazar, fascist dictator of Portugal, was an isolationist who refused to support Nazi Germany, but nobody mistakes him for being something other than what he was.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

Not at all. Fascism began as a strange blend of nationalism and anarcho-syndicalism during the run-up to World War I: Mussolini was the first pioneer of fascism, and he advocated nothing more than a strong centralized State (including expanding the wellfare rolls) and militarism. While there were many racialists who were fascists, fascism began as essentially race-neutral, being only extremely nationalistic.

That still doesn't show how Nixon was an imperialist - and moving the war into Cambodia can hardly be considered imperialism.

Imperialism isn't a prerequisite of fascism, either - only militarism, and a glorification of the valors of military combat, is. Antonio de Oliviera Salazar, fascist dictator of Portugal, was an isolationist who refused to support Nazi Germany, but nobody mistakes him for being something other than what he was.

Of course imperialism is.

And the back and forth has been fun, but I hve class in a few hours, so I'm off to bed - I'll be on tomorrow (as always - lol).

[Lunar]

btw it's not always horrible to delete old quotations out of the code

[Eraserhead]

Score one for us cynics, unfortunately.

[Sbane]

     I'm surprised the anti-gay marriage side actually did better here than in California, given that I had thought Maine was far more socially liberal.

There is a large rural-urban divide as well on the gay marriage issue. This is why gay marriage does better in an urbanized state like California while failing miserably in a place like Montana even though the importance of religion in the people's lives is about the same. Maine actually places less importance on religion than California and yet voted about the same on gay marriage.

Also were there any exit polls done on this race?

[President Mitt]

Well that was an unpleasant surprise.

[Rowan]

What was the result? It ended up getting lost in pages worth of bullsh**t.

[Franzl]

What was the result? It ended up getting lost in pages worth of bullsh**t.

YES 53-47.

Oh, and f**k.

[Holmes]

I don't know. In California, I know why we lost. This time we did it right and we still lost. And now ing NOM and the catholic church are having a field day and I don't even wanna think about it. Will of the people to butt in on the lives of the minority!!1

[Hash]

Maine, go fuck yourself you regressive bigoted piece of sh**t state. What a worthless dump.

I'm majorly pissed off.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I want to see if Al would agree, but what are the odds that a Hillary-Obama primary would have had a very similar map? 

The "yes" electoral coalition looks very like the New England Clinton primary coalition, yeah... which is interesting. Deep down these social divisions are obviously important ones.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I knew it was over when I saw the Lewiston results someone posted early on.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Wow, why'd it do so well in Aroostock county? Obama won that county by 10 points, while Question 1 did worse in Piscataquis, McCain's sole county in all of New England. And Canada has gay marriage.

Aroostock is overwhelmingly Catholic, which presumably explains things. The parts of Canada Aroostock borders aren't especially (small "l") liberal, fwiw.