I believe that the only legitimate purposes of government are to
  protect the lives, liberty and property of innocent persons. The purpose
  of government is not to prevent sins which do not harm innocent third
  parties without their consent. Sins which harm innocent third parties
  without their consent, such as murder, rape, robbery or fraud, should be
  punished by a legitimate government. It is a proper purpose of government,
  derived from protection of property, to uphold voluntarily arranged
  contracts among adults. Without the sanctity of contracts no free
  society could survive.
  If a woman voluntarily agrees to faithfully, lovingly and obediently
  serve the pleasure of a husband, she would be in violation of that
  contract and committing fraud if she served the pleasure of another
  man for money, i.e. as a harlot, whore, prostitute etc. or for fun
  i.e. as a slut, loose woman, promiscuous woman, tramp etc. Due to sexual 
diseases,
  the fraud could have deadly consequences for her husband or fiancé
  or cause him great financial loss if she conceived a bastard and her husband
  falsely believed that it was his child and provided the child with food,
  clothing, shelter, health care and education until adulthood.
  Therefore, such fraud violation should be punishable in a libertarian 
  society. Other possible limiting contracts might include teaching at a 
Christian
  school, but marriage, including engagement to be married, is obviously the 
most important.

  For life, liberty, justice and peace,
  David Macko

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Paul 
    To: [email protected] 
    Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:20 PM
    Subject: [Libertarian] Re: The Fallacy of Open Immigration by Stephen Cox


    UNENGAGED WOMEN OVER 18?!? What if they are engaged? What if they
    are married? Do you support laws against these acts? If so, why?

    Do you believe government is here to prevent "sin"?

    --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
    >
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > As stated previously, I oppose all laws to prevent interracial
    marriage, pornography,
    > prostitution by any unmarried, unengaged woman over 18 or any
    homosexual behavior
    > by voluntarily acting adults. I do not believe that any CofCC
    members, at least those
    > whom I met at the recent conventions, have any intent to promote
    such laws.
    > 
    > For life, liberty, justice and peace,
    > David Macko
    > 
    > ----- Original Message ----- 
    > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    > To: [email protected] 
    > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 1:03 AM
    > Subject: Re: [Libertarian] The Fallacy of Open Immigration by
    Stephen Cox
    > 
    > 
    > Umm, yeah #6 does. Re-read it. They very clearly state that
    they oppose
    > the state tolerating interracial marriage, pornography and
    homosexuality. 
    > Sounds like a clear call for prohibition to me. No one is
    putting words
    > in anyone's mouth and you know it. Quit making excuses for
    this group.
    > 
    > They are not libertarians, no matter how libertarian leaning a
    few of
    > their beliefs may seem to those looking for a straw to grasp.
    They lean
    > more toward the Constitution Party types (especially with
    their promotion
    > of Christian Nationalism).
    > 
    > Admit it. I pegged you and your defense of the non-libertarian
    CofCC is
    > not helping.
    > 
    > __________________________________________________________
    > James Landrith
    > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
    > cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547
    > AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159
    > MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith
    > Taking the Gloves Off - http://www.jameslandrith.com
    > The Multiracial Activist - http://www.multiracial.com
    > The Abolitionist Examiner -
    http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/
    > __________________________________________________________
    > 
    > > #6 does not advocate outlawing of interracial marriages and
    homosexuality.
    > > Until they do advocate such foolish, antilibertarian
    positions, quit
    > > putting words
    > > into their mouths.
    > > 3,4,5,7, 9, 10 and 13 and 12 to some extent are explicitly
    libertarian. 11
    > > and 14 are
    > > contrary to libertarian principles. The other planks are
    neither pro- nor
    > > anti-libertarian
    > > since they do not advocate the initiation of force to
    achieve their ends.
    > > 8 out of 14 is pretty good, compared to most organizations.
    2 out of 14 is
    > > not nearly
    > > as bad as many other organizations.
    > > For the record I disagree with Plank 1. No nation which
    would allow the
    > > murder
    > > of forty million of its unborn children and twice elect
    William Jefferson
    > > Blythe Clinton IV
    > > and George Walker Bush as president can honestly be termed a
    Christian
    > > nation.
    > >
    > > For life, liberty, justice and peace,
    > > David Macko
    > >
    > >
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    >



     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> 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/
 



Reply via email to