Comment: uhm

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If Marriage is religeous, how (see in situ)


If Marriage is religeous, how come im married and have a marriage certificate even though im not religeous, and there was no religeon involved in my ceremony which took place in a hotel before a judge? Im sure at some point in the past, and to some people currently, "traditional marriage" is religeous. But so far, I don't see any christian groups trying to use government to block non-religeous people from getting married.

Because it's a state recognized religious institution. How is that hard to understand? The way the state recognizes it is irrelevant. You can also get married in front of a priest, it doesn't matter because the state is involved. For someone who wants to abolish the state institution you sure are defending its tenants pretty hard.

I'm not going to argue against the hypocrisy of those you speak of in this country, because it isn't the argument and is basically a red herring.

Also, you're mistaken in that I think we should CONSTANTLY be advocating for "universal" privledges against the state's power, and tax exemptions. We should advocate for them for every breathing individual until we are all immune from the state's authority and don't have to surrender one red cent to them(or perhaps even begin to wonder what we keep them around for anyway).

I'm saying your incrementalism doesn't work. It reinforces the notion of group rights and gives them legitimacy, regardless of your intentions.

There are many who want to wait outside and attempt to not participate in the system in the hopes that it will disolve all on its own. These people like to take principaled stands and say "No special privledges for anyone!" My belief is that this view is a pipe dream. As someone once said, those who do not live by the sword may still die by the sword.

Political power is like a gun. Just because you choose not to arm yourself doesn't mean you won't be a victim of politics. You can't simply opt out of the system. Sooner or later you will be targetted by the system, which if unopposed by those willing to play the game, will grow boundlessly. In the end, the former philosophy will probably be our only chance if the later fails. But we may attempt both. The view I advocate will be the far safer, less bloody route if it works. If it fails, option 2 will be waiting.

You're conflating the idea that people shouldn't advocate for group rights with political isolation. These are two totally different ideas. You can be politically active and stand up for the individual against the collective. To say you have to play politics and legitimize group rights is totally antithetical liberty. Even Rand who people here seem to hate for playing politics is advocating for the individual by delegitimizing group rights.

Besides I never said people should opt out, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, and that is another straw man.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record