The Lonely Libertarian

A youth's libertarian take on things

64 notes

OMG WHY ARE WE MILITARIZING THE LETTUCE INSPECTORS?

hipsterlibertarian:

But seriously, why does the Department of Agriculture need submachine guns? Why do they need any guns?

So how did an internal government watchdog turn into an external projection of U.S. power against its own citizens? Because of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which amendedthe IG Act to grant inspectors “full law enforcement authority to carry firearms, make arrests and execute search warrants.” The law was sponsored by then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), passed with a heavily Republican majority (207-10 in favor, versus 88-110 among Democrats), passed overwhelmingly in the Senate (90-9, with no Republicans voting against), and then signed into law by President George W. Bush. The blunt truth is that after 9/11, a vast majority of elected conservatives want to arm the bejeebus out of the feds, with little or no deliberation about long-term consequences.

Oh right, 9/11. The most densely populated urban area in the United States was subject to a terror attack, so logically the farm department needs guns.

image

-_-

0 notes

Judge Strikes Down Pennsylvania Same-Sex Marriage Ban - NBC News

How I can be pro-gay, but reject this ruling

It seems today that the answer for both sides of any debate, particularly moral debates like gay marriage and abortion, is to use government force to get one’s way. I reject that notion. If we the people want gays to be accepted, using government force is not the answer. The answer is to educate the people. Forcing acceptance on people will only perpetuate the anti-gay attitude, but teaching tolerance won’t - it will fix it.

Beyond the principle of tolerance, there is the principle of contracts and non-aggression that can both be applied to this issue. Personal contracts between two individuals that does not harm another should never be rejected in a free society. To that end, if two individuals want to call themselves married, so be it. It is with that in mind that it baffles me as to why the government has itself involved in individuals’ contracts. To cut any sort of benefit to going into said contract would be a step in the right direction, simply because it is not the federal government’s business. That action followed by the teaching of tolerance and the importance of individual contracts will change society to accept gays. Otherwise, we’ll continue in this perpetual argument of disagreeing legislation and rulings.