Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:38:14 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
cjc@newsguy.com^StopSpammers^
|
Viewed:
|
1085 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> Second, where does government come off favoring one lifestyle choice
> over another? If I shack up with a horse, that's animal abuse, the horse
> is not competent to enter into agreements, but if I shack up with Ed
> Boxer and he's OK with that why do we get discriminated against? (1) No
> sort of arrangment should be favored or frowned on.
Assuming we step into Libertopia, and you and Ed shack up, the
government ought to treat you no differently than anyone else, right?
He can inherit your property when you die, etc.
What about corporations? Does ACME Insurance company have to let you
guys on the family plan together or are they free, assuming they do
not approve of homosexual marriages, to require you to hold separate
single policies. Or are they free to charge you a higher premium for
whatever reason?
> Again, unfettered democracy is tyranny. Restricting a preexisting
> business, a property owner, or a person from carrying out business of
> any sort not otherwise rights violating at whatever time of day or night
> is convenient for them to do so violates the takings clause of the
> constitution, which was put there for a reason by the founding fathers.
Hrmmm. What about community standards for how a building should be
built, which colors can be used, type and size of signs, etc? I've
seen some pretty unusual looking Wal-Marts, and I assume they look
that way because of some sort of local "look and feel" code of some
kind. Right or wrong?
--
The pieces you want and nothing else - easy online bidding!
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - Focused discussion groups for LEGO fans worldwide
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| Whew. Where to start? (...) It is legislating consensual behaviour. And that's wrong. No avoiding it. (...) True. So what? (...) First off, why does government have a monopoly on sanctioning marriages? Aren't they merely a contract between people? (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
