Comments on: why not start off a blog by jumping on the commentary bandwagon? http://yellowisthecolor.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/why-not-start-off-a-blog-by-jumping-on-the-commentary-bandwagon/ Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:31:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: JohnPearson http://yellowisthecolor.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/why-not-start-off-a-blog-by-jumping-on-the-commentary-bandwagon/#comment-37 JohnPearson Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:15:39 +0000 http://yellowisthecolor.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/why-not-start-off-a-blog-by-jumping-on-the-commentary-bandwagon/#comment-37 Nice Post. That was well said. Always appreciate your indepth views. Keep up the great work! John Nice Post.

That was well said. Always appreciate your indepth views. Keep up the great work!

John

]]> By: TMH http://yellowisthecolor.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/why-not-start-off-a-blog-by-jumping-on-the-commentary-bandwagon/#comment-20 TMH Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:10:15 +0000 http://yellowisthecolor.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/why-not-start-off-a-blog-by-jumping-on-the-commentary-bandwagon/#comment-20 "I, on the other hand, am much more concerned with social and civil issues, and no amount of amazing tax policy could ever make me vote for a candidate that was anti-homosexual, anti-choice, etc. I’m a libertarian because I believe the government should stay out of our living rooms and bedrooms. He’s a libertarian mostly because he thinks the government should stay out of our wallets." No, no, no... that's not what I said at all! And I most def never argued that "fiscal" issues should be more important than "social" ones. I don't even think there's any meaningful difference b/n 'economic' freedom and 'personal/social' freedom. What I told you is that I don't think government should be involved in marriage, period. I can think of no good reason for the government to be in the business of defining/subsidizing/regulating marriage at all. Marriage should be an entirely private matter between the two people involved. The government shouldn't recognize any distinction between married and unmarried people, and it certainly shouldn't discriminate against non-married persons by giving special benefits to married persons. That's all I was saying at the bar. I don't think there's anything especially liberal or libertarian about a government regulated marriage scheme, so I don't get too excited about that system being expanded. “I, on the other hand, am much more concerned with social and civil issues, and no amount of amazing tax policy could ever make me vote for a candidate that was anti-homosexual, anti-choice, etc. I’m a libertarian because I believe the government should stay out of our living rooms and bedrooms. He’s a libertarian mostly because he thinks the government should stay out of our wallets.”

No, no, no… that’s not what I said at all! And I most def never argued that “fiscal” issues should be more important than “social” ones. I don’t even think there’s any meaningful difference b/n ‘economic’ freedom and ‘personal/social’ freedom.

What I told you is that I don’t think government should be involved in marriage, period. I can think of no good reason for the government to be in the business of defining/subsidizing/regulating marriage at all. Marriage should be an entirely private matter between the two people involved. The government shouldn’t recognize any distinction between married and unmarried people, and it certainly shouldn’t discriminate against non-married persons by giving special benefits to married persons.

That’s all I was saying at the bar. I don’t think there’s anything especially liberal or libertarian about a government regulated marriage scheme, so I don’t get too excited about that system being expanded.

]]>