NEW POLL: Johnson Rises To 1st Place With Young Voters, Trump Last

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?

Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.

And the conservative becomes a socialist making the argument for 100% taxation.

You obviously don't understand. Tax breaks are subsidies. The money has to be compensated. It has to come from somewhere. That requires additional coercion. Coercion is the antithetical to libertarianism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well if that's your argument, then marriage itself, gay or not, is simply a perception. There's no such natural phenomenon as marriage, it's simply an arrangement between people that has historically had religious sanction. Then the state steps in and creates a list of who can or cannot call themselves this completely made up thing.

No, the state steps in to provide support in order to make child rearing easier. Homos can't make babies with each other. Those state-imposed benefits are therefore moot for homo couples.

Yes, getting the state's permission to get married somehow makes child rearing easier.

It's not about permission. It's about subsidies.

Right, so cutting taxes is now considered a subsidy by conservatives. You sure you're not a Democrat?

Specifically aimed tax breaks are subsidies.
Why should booger-eaters be subsidized? Nothing libertarian about that.

Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

Go ahead. But why give extra breaks to homos since they can't make babies?

Your obsession with other people's potential procreation is a little weird to say the least.

You think survival of the species is an obsession?

No, I think your concern regarding the government needing to promote relationships based on your individual values is an obsession, and creepy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?

Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.

And the conservative becomes a socialist making the argument for 100% taxation.

You obviously don't understand. Tax breaks are subsidies. The money has to be compensated. It has to come from somewhere. That requires additional coercion. Coercion is the antithetical to libertarianism.

So, Stalinist or Trotskyist, comrade?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No, the state steps in to provide support in order to make child rearing easier. Homos can't make babies with each other. Those state-imposed benefits are therefore moot for homo couples.

Yes, getting the state's permission to get married somehow makes child rearing easier.

It's not about permission. It's about subsidies.

Right, so cutting taxes is now considered a subsidy by conservatives. You sure you're not a Democrat?

Specifically aimed tax breaks are subsidies.
Why should booger-eaters be subsidized? Nothing libertarian about that.

Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.

As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. Marriage equality is a libertarian misnomer.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

Go ahead. But why give extra breaks to homos since they can't make babies?

Your obsession with other people's potential procreation is a little weird to say the least.

You think survival of the species is an obsession?

No, I think your concern regarding the government needing to promote relationships based on your individual values is an obsession, and creepy.

Survival of the species is not a subjective value. Procreation is uniquely hetero.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?

Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.

And the conservative becomes a socialist making the argument for 100% taxation.

You obviously don't understand. Tax breaks are subsidies. The money has to be compensated. It has to come from somewhere. That requires additional coercion. Coercion is the antithetical to libertarianism.

So, Stalinist or Trotskyist, comrade?

I'm not promoting taxation. I'm only comparing human conditions as they apply to taxation.
Homo sex is as inconsequential as booger eating and hetero sex is potentially as significant as murder.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, getting the state's permission to get married somehow makes child rearing easier.

It's not about permission. It's about subsidies.

Right, so cutting taxes is now considered a subsidy by conservatives. You sure you're not a Democrat?

Specifically aimed tax breaks are subsidies.
Why should booger-eaters be subsidized? Nothing libertarian about that.

Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.

As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. Marriage equality is a libertarian misnomer.

I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

Go ahead. But why give extra breaks to homos since they can't make babies?

Your obsession with other people's potential procreation is a little weird to say the least.

You think survival of the species is an obsession?

No, I think your concern regarding the government needing to promote relationships based on your individual values is an obsession, and creepy.

Survival of the species is not a subjective value. Procreation is uniquely hetero.

Actually it would be. There are plenty of people who actively seek the end of the human race.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?

Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.

And the conservative becomes a socialist making the argument for 100% taxation.

You obviously don't understand. Tax breaks are subsidies. The money has to be compensated. It has to come from somewhere. That requires additional coercion. Coercion is the antithetical to libertarianism.

So, Stalinist or Trotskyist, comrade?

I'm not promoting taxation. I'm only comparing human conditions as they apply to taxation.
Homo sex is as inconsequential as booger eating and hetero sex is potentially as significant as murder.

When you say you don't want somebody's taxes cut, it doesn't matter the reason, you're promoting taxation. I knew socialists were bad at logic, but come on now.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.

And the conservative becomes a socialist making the argument for 100% taxation.

You obviously don't understand. Tax breaks are subsidies. The money has to be compensated. It has to come from somewhere. That requires additional coercion. Coercion is the antithetical to libertarianism.

So, Stalinist or Trotskyist, comrade?

I'm not promoting taxation. I'm only comparing human conditions as they apply to taxation.
Homo sex is as inconsequential as booger eating and hetero sex is potentially as significant as murder.

When you say you don't want somebody's taxes cut, it doesn't matter the reason, you're promoting taxation. I knew socialists were bad at logic, but come on now.

It's about selective tax breaks and their motivation. You're being obtuse.

 

[dblack]

It's not about permission. It's about subsidies.

Right, so cutting taxes is now considered a subsidy by conservatives. You sure you're not a Democrat?

Specifically aimed tax breaks are subsidies.
Why should booger-eaters be subsidized? Nothing libertarian about that.

Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.

As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. Marriage equality is a libertarian misnomer.

I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.

And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Right, so cutting taxes is now considered a subsidy by conservatives. You sure you're not a Democrat?

Specifically aimed tax breaks are subsidies.
Why should booger-eaters be subsidized? Nothing libertarian about that.

Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.

As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. Marriage equality is a libertarian misnomer.

I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.

And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.

However, I do believe that some tax breaks are legit -- as long as we have to have taxes in the first place.

 

[dblack]

Specifically aimed tax breaks are subsidies.
Why should booger-eaters be subsidized? Nothing libertarian about that.

Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.

As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. Marriage equality is a libertarian misnomer.

I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.

And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.

However, I do believe that some tax breaks are legit -- as long as we have to have taxes in the first place.

Why?

 

[dblack]

I'd also add that, regarding the taxation issue, taxes in general should not be lowered until the budget is balanced. One of the biggest reasons government bloat is so hard to address is that we're not actually paying for the government we're getting. We're just putting it on the credit card. If we were actually paying for it, people might be willing to make the difficult decisions we're currently steering around with delusional deficit spending.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.

As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. Marriage equality is a libertarian misnomer.

I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.

And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.

However, I do believe that some tax breaks are legit -- as long as we have to have taxes in the first place.

Why?

In the case of marriage, to ease burdens generated by procreation. Time must be committed to effectively raise children to become positive contributors to society and a compensation for that time in the form of a tax break would be a good way to go. Homos can't procreate so it's moot for them. But not with homo marriage. Legal homo marriage, that is. Legal homo marriage would force those tax breaks for no necessary reason. Very un-libertarian.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Right, so cutting taxes is now considered a subsidy by conservatives. You sure you're not a Democrat?

Specifically aimed tax breaks are subsidies.
Why should booger-eaters be subsidized? Nothing libertarian about that.

Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.

As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. Marriage equality is a libertarian misnomer.

I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.

And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.

The Answer to "Unfair" Tax Breaks Is More Tax Breaks

 

[dblack]

Specifically aimed tax breaks are subsidies.
Why should booger-eaters be subsidized? Nothing libertarian about that.

Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.

As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. Marriage equality is a libertarian misnomer.

I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.

And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.

The Answer to "Unfair" Tax Breaks Is More Tax Breaks

I'm less interested in the psychology of how we characterize targeted tax breaks, than I am their actual effects. I oppose them because Congress uses them to implement mandates on behavior that would be utterly objectionable (to the general public) if implemented as regulations with more straightforward penalties. The use of "tax incentives" to manipulate society has radically expanded the power of government and I'm opposed to the practice regardless of whether we think of them as penalties or benefits.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your sexual preferences don't make your property any less your property. A tax break for any reason is libertarian, and no tax break is a subsidy. Unless you're a socialist, of course.

As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. Marriage equality is a libertarian misnomer.

I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.

And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.

The Answer to "Unfair" Tax Breaks Is More Tax Breaks

I'm less interested in the psychology of how we characterize targeted tax breaks, than I am their actual effects. I oppose them because Congress uses them to implement mandates on behavior that would be utterly objectionable (to the general public) if implemented as regulations with more straightforward penalties. The use of "tax incentives" to manipulate society has radically expanded the power of government and I'm opposed to the practice regardless of whether we think of them as penalties or benefits.

My interest is in reducing aggression. If one person gets a tax break that's less overall aggression.

 

[dblack]

As long as taxes are inevitable, tax breaks are subsidies. It affects the pool. It has to come from somewhere. Giving tax breaks to homos in the name of their irrelevant personal behavior is counter-libertarian. Marriage equality is a libertarian misnomer.

I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.

And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.

The Answer to "Unfair" Tax Breaks Is More Tax Breaks

I'm less interested in the psychology of how we characterize targeted tax breaks, than I am their actual effects. I oppose them because Congress uses them to implement mandates on behavior that would be utterly objectionable (to the general public) if implemented as regulations with more straightforward penalties. The use of "tax incentives" to manipulate society has radically expanded the power of government and I'm opposed to the practice regardless of whether we think of them as penalties or benefits.

My interest is in reducing aggression. If one person gets a tax break that's less overall aggression.

I don't think that's valid. The aggression of taxation lies in the original claim on your income. Offering discounts for those who do as they are told doesn't mitigate the aggression.

It's like a mugger who offers half your money back if you give him a hand job. I don't see how that's any less aggressive.