Now you're contradicting yourself. This is not what you were supporting in previous posts.
--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I support eliminating all laws against consensual acts of any kind > whether it's abortion, gay marriage, drug manufacture, suicide, drug > use or sales, polygamy, prostitution, nudism, or whatever. > > I believe the laws of this country, each state, and even each town > come from the consent of the governed and as such no legitimate laws > infringe upon our rights. We are born with the right to do anything > we want as long as our actions don't infringe upon the person, > property, or rights of a non-consenting other. > > If the majority of any town want to vote in sharia law (as long as it > doesn't infringe on the person, property, or rights of a > non-consenting other or violate the Constitution) it's fine with me. > This means laws forcing women to wear certain types of garb or making > men grow beards is out. The laws of towns, states, and even the > federal government are still subject to the restrictions of the U.S. > Constitution so double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. > are out so there would be no chopping off of hands for shoplifting, etc. > > So any laws they want to make that are consistant with the limitations > of the U.S. Constitution are ok as long as they don't infringe on our > rights. > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" > <ericdondero@> wrote: > > > > Now this is a very interesting admission from you Paul. I think > > you've just crossed a line, one of which I doubt seriously even your > > most ardent followers on this and other forums would be willing to > > join you in. > > > > Let's pin down precisely what you are saying here. And please > > correct me if I mischaracterize your views. > > > > You are saying that if a group of Muslims suddenly became the > > majority voting block on the Riverside City Council, and decided to > > severely punish prostitution, exotic dancing, skateboarding, > > marijuana use, and close down bars throughout the city, you would > > have no problem with that, at all? > > > > This would not be an afront to your libertarian sensibilities? > > > > Come to think of it Paul, I rarely if ever hear you talk about civil > > liberties issues. I do remember once reading that you were Pro- > > Choice. But just for the record you do support drug legalization, > > and oppose prohibition of alcohol and support legalization of > > prostitution, right? > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > > > Are you saying the immigrants who came here didn't try to change > > the > > > laws to suit them? Need I remind you of Tammany Hall? > > > > > > If the people of a particular community prefer Sharia law, that's > > just > > > fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" <geofgibson@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" > > > > <ericdondero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I dare say, if authoritarians, using Islam as pretext, start > > taking > > > > > over communities here in the US (fact is, they've already > > taken over > > > > > two - Hamtramac and Dearborn, Michigan), the first people > > they'll > > > start > > > > > going after are the Prostitutes, Gays and Lesbians. We > > libertarians > > > > > will be second on the List. They'll view us as Infidels who > > support > > > > > the rights of the "Sex purveyors." > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! In Europe, France specifically, they are already > > attempting to > > > > claim they are not bound by local laws and will impose sharia on > > their > > > > own community. > > > > Next, Washington DC burns. > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
