PEASANTS UNITE! VOTE FOR ROBIN HOOD
(Sponsored by California Peasants for Robin Hood)

"moral/cultural socialism"

Ok, I confess. What does that mean?

social citizenship!

(At least, that's the left wing version.)

I can't speak for Simon, but to me it means using the power of the state to run people's lives, in order that they best serve "society."

good LORD, Eric ... I only read the first page but how out-of-touch can these people be?

They don't WANT to understand the "Tea Party" movement so it's all "neofacism" and "white supremacy" and conservatives "slucing" the fears of people?

It's like they are studying bugs, not people. They don't engage in any honest discussion with Tea Partiers because they refuse to take a Tea person at their own word!

I don't want to have to be trying to think 3 steps ahead everyday on what the government is trying to take over and micromanage in my life. It's exhausting.

But maybe that's a feature, not a bug, of what our "betters" are trying to achieve.

Darleen,

Example of moral socialism: alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition.

Those are probably the most clear cut and obvious. There are to varying degrees many others.

Like government involvement in marriage. Originally designed to prevent race mixing.

M. Simon, with all due respect, we've been over this before. I have no problem with legalizing and regulating drugs at the exact same time that welfare is banned.

Like government involvement in marriage. Originally designed to prevent race mixing

That's demonstrably false. Government has been quasi involved in marriage even back in Greek and Roman times due to things like legitimizing children and inheritance.

Darleen,

So if people need the drugs for medical reasons you think that should be a reason to withhold support?

From my researches what I have found is that the vast majority of illegal drug use is self medication (ask your local hospital's psychological intake nurse for corroboration).

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/07/drug-war-articles.html

The drugs would be much cheaper than the equivalents Big Pharma supplies. Now even with prohibition they are some cheaper.

We have taken a medical condition and turned it into a crime. And your best idea is to end the crime aspect but find other ways to punish the afflicted? How Christian.

BTW I'm all for ending welfare as we know it. But people taking drugs is not in my opinion a valid reason.

Your idea to punish every one who takes drugs to get at the few who can't handle them (they should be under a Drs. supervision) is socialist in the extreme.

BTW we tried that with alcohol already. How'd that one work out?

From the wiki on marriage:

In many jurisdictions, a civil marriage may take place as part of the religious marriage ceremony, although they are theoretically distinct. Some jurisdictions allow civil marriages in circumstances which are notably not allowed by particular religions, such as same-sex marriages or civil unions.

====

There is no need for the State to be involved in marriage. In some places it was. In some it wasn't and in some places they didn't bother every one. Usually marriage was about property. If you didn't have any you didn't need one.

Roughly how we operate today. For a significant part of the culture kids don't marry until there is property or prospects of property. Or children.

Why gays want to marry is beyond me. But if that is what they want - give it to them. It neither steals my purse nor breaks my leg.

M. Simon

So if people need the drugs for medical reasons you think that should be a reason to withhold support?

When you can come up with the pharmacuetical equivalent of Underwriters Laboratories that will investigate and certify drugs, then the State has to be involved in making sure that pill you get that says on the bottle "lisinopril/hydrochlorothiaz" actually contains that.

recreation drugs - ditto.

There is no need for the State to be involved in marriage - until two or more people start filing lawsuits about the break up the the couple or polyamory group claiming portions of property - including possible business interests- divisions of income/support/debts and/or custody of children/pets.

Civil marriage is the State attempting to cover the contractual duties and obligations of the people who avail themselves of the institution. This already varies from state to state (some states are community property, some aren't). Each state has decided what is the optimal configuration of marriage contract they will cover by statute. Everyone else is free to do what they want and the State takes no notice of them. Same-sex, polyamory ... do what you want, no one is going to knock down your door and haul you to jail (unless you hold yourself out as polygamist).

A civil union for same sex couples is perfectly reasonable and should be left up to the decision of each state. It's not a "right" (opposite sex civil marriage is not a "right" either ... as it is a decision of the state to set up the statutes covering it or not).

It neither steals my purse nor breaks my leg

Unless you're a photographer that declines to take on a same-sex couple, or a church the declines to allow a same-sex couple to marry on church-owned property. Then the state will steal your property to punish your religious "intolerance".

I get it. Until the system is totally changed and can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that some folks should not be punished for their personal habits we ought to continue punishing them. Swell.

The left is going to own this issue and will be use it to smack you severely with a dead fish about the head and shoulders for the next 40 years.

Read Eric's latest on the subject:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/10/soros_buys_cult.html

====

BTW Darleen - if you invested your effort into taking down the government programs you didn't like instead of people you don't like you would get farther.

I take you to be just another supporter of the coercive sector of the economy. Wait until they turn that power on you.

===

It is frustrating for me to see the train wreck coming and my R friends oblivious to it. "Stupid party? Whatever are you talking about?"

oo..Simon, going personal eh? And not addressing my points about consumers do NOT have small labs in their home to test every pill they buy or about the settling of disputes in the legal arena.

I AM working hard for smaller gov - from working for TEA Party candidates to voting NO an any expansion of government.

But let's face reality here, shall we? I'm NOT going to support any singular piece of legislation that will increase the government's control of ME through increased TAXES.

Yes, I'm the member of the stupid party. Better than the dangerous party.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.