Sometimes a doctor doesn't want to use a bathroom because they think it's too dirty, even if they may be slobs in some ways themselves. Harun 7. No, I think they understand our POV perfectly well. Liberty is the way stn. Clearly under a disparate impact analysis this is evidence of blatant discrimination. Individuals differ in their non-rational moral "tastes", which imply different values.

People build elaborate rationalizations on top of these non-rational foundations.

"One sane voice fighting tons of nonsense."

John C. Randolph 7. Tony 7. Since when do wedding bakers and photographers get paid and employed by Federal, state and local governments?? We are not entitled to the labor of a Brinks security guard. A police officer, is a different animal, though pun fully intended.

Government employees work for a government which is supposed to serves its citizens. So long as cops and judges count as "persons" then John C. Randolph's dictum applies. Who cares who cuts their check? Libertarians who aren't anarchists think they are entitled not only to the labor of cops and judges, but to force other citizens to cough up the money that pays their salaries.

Cops have every right to end their duties whenever they like, as do judges, if they are unhappy with the terms of their employment. Better example would be military, and even then they signed up as indentured servants. Also you're a dummy. WTF 7.

• Welcome to Reddit,.
• GET REASON MAGAZINE.
• gay dating apps by country!
• I am a Gay Conservative, And I Think It's Time You Met Me.

So if you can end your service on your terms, no one has a right to your labor, riiiight? Come on now, flex that little brain. LynchPin 7. Cops and judges agreed to serve all citizens equally as terms of their employment. They may have even taken an oath I don't know the details. But no one forced them to take that job. A baker or photographer or any number of other professions did not agree to serve everyone equally. But why can the government set the terms of employment for cops and judges and not set the terms of opening or working at a business?

Because its the government that employs cops and judges. Business owners and their employees don't work for the government. They most certainly did, at the same time they agreed to follow all the other laws of the land. Just as with a cop or a judge, they made a free choice to enter a profession that serves the public. Doing someone threatening to take your money or your business or your freedom is not the same thing as agreeing, any more than you might "agree" to give money to a mugger.

Bakers don't serve the public. They serve customers. And as business owners, they should be free to choose their customers.

Red Rocks Rockin 7. That someone can so consistently offer up such unconsciously self-contradictory twaddle as you over the years is one of the wonders of the modern age, along with Sally "I'm upset because my daughter is attracted to boys" Kohn. VicRattlehead 7. The Heresiarch 7. Just because the minarchist makes an exception for police and armed forces does not logically imply that they must support taxation for other purposes. I agree that minarchism is not completely internally consistent in that it holds property is sacred except for the provision of the minimal state.

But the existence of this one contradiction does not mean that the minarchist must accept that the state has a role in other realms. Of course, anarcho-capitalists are unburdened by any such contradictions. I'll also note that modern progressivism is similarly plagued by internal contradictions. Why may the state force me to pay for the education of another, but may not force me to say or not say certain things, or force me to follow or not follow a particular religion?

It's a major flaw in the Murphy-Nagel conception of property rights; that is, if property exists only at the behest of the state and ownership is a myth, couldn't the same be side of the right to speech, religion, assembly, and even of life itself? Francisco d'Anconia 7. There is good reason for this. It maximizes liberty.

Liberty is a balancing act when it comes to government. Without government an overwhelming last word in force someone will take your liberty from you. Some country will eventually invade and take your shit or some group who has more muscle than your group will steal your shit. On the other hand, a government given too much power will itself take your shit.

That's why, limiting the power of government to that which protects people's rights is the maximization point of liberty for all. So while still a contradiction 2 violates 1 by requiring taxes it is a perfectly reasonable place to limit government power if your goal is to maximize liberty for everyone. I agree, but Tony seems to think this is some type of "gotcha" observation. What I fail to see, and what Tony has so far failed to explain, is why the minarchist, because of this one exception, has to accept all the other roles of government that Tony advocates.

Because his argument is if the government provides positive rights in the form of military and courts, then it should be perfectly acceptable to provide healthcare, education, welfare He doesn't care about maximizing liberty for all See Double You 7.

Is This Where Libertarians and the Gay Community Part Ways? - Hit & Run : cis.e-safety.com.ua

I don't even see the government providing courts and the military as a positive right i. That's also the point behind the concept of equal protection of the laws - to minimize arbitrary power, not to provide some positive right to some thing.

• cork gay dating!
• gay phone sex app!
• gay dating and texting advice in long distance!
• I am a Gay Conservative, And I Think It's Time You Met Me | HuffPost.

The rule of law is all about minimizing arbitrary power, since ideally the law is based on sound reasoning and a genuine respect for individual liberty. Private individuals and groups can aggress against other private individuals and groups as surely as the government can. In fact, there does not always exist a bright line between who the government is and who it isn't. The rule of law helps reveal where that line is, and in so doing hopefully eliminates or at least restricts that arbitrary power.

The problem with Tony's line of reasoning is that he thinks my refusal to provide him my labor or property, absent some prior voluntary contract to the contrary, is the same thing as denying him his right to "life" and "liberty," as if his using the force of government to coerce me into providing for his livelihood is the same kind of "life" and "liberty" that the rule of law is meant to protect and not just an infringement on my life and my liberty.

He doesn't, he merely can't use the argument that taxation is evil theft and government is inherently bad because it commits violence--the only aspects of government you permit are the ones that actually commit violence. You have to defend your minarchist system on its merits--why is it good for people? Because it doesn't conform to your principles. Taxation is theft from an anarchist's perspective in that property is being taken without consent of the owner. If there is government, revenue is required to run it.

That means some sort of tax. While distasteful, it's a necessary evil, should be equitable and certainly minimized. That's WAY above and beyond what the anarchists are talking about. That is outright taking from one and giving to another. I favor a system where everyone has skin in the game and the amount paid corresponds to the amount used. But, some people would say that's not fair, and the cops will treat the donors better, so we should all pay them same.

• gay phoenix escort skylar!
• dating gay s and m masters!
• gay dating apps that are trans friendly!
• sexo gay escort baires!

Curt 7. NealAppeal 7. MJGreen - Docile Citizen 7. Hell, speaking descriptively now, hasn't it been declared that cops don't have an obligation to serve you? Harold Falcon 7.

'Dating Freedom Lovers,' InfoWars's Relationship Site, Will Tickle Your Libertarian Fancy

PBR Streetgang 7. If only there were some word to encompass the idea of forcing someone to engage in labor that they do not wish to engage in Sevo 7. Swiss Servator, rudert schwer! Doctor Whom 7. It's two completely different world views. Progressives consider their own emotional reactions to be Capital-T Truth in terms of both epistemology and morality.

Everyone wants to talk about rights, few want to talk about liberties and consent. Paulbotto 7. Except when they're taking about the necessity of affirmative consent to have one's hand held or be kissed on the cheek. So what is the motiv'n of "progressives"? I think it's simply the upsetting of whatever they see in society around them.