----- Original Message -----
From: David Macko
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Contracts, Marital and Otherwise was Re: [Libertarian] Re: The
Fallacy of Open Immigration by Stephen Cox
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/
