Of course, if another important premise of libertarianism, jury nullification, again regained its status, we might see situations such as I understand occurred in Texas until fifty years ago. Perhaps Terry could confirm this for us. According to the information I heard, if a man found his wife serving the pleasure of another man and shot both of them he would not be brought to trial since the prosecutor, sheriff and other authorities understood that no jury would convict him anyway.
For life, liberty, justice and peace, David Macko ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul T. Ireland To: David Macko Cc: [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 5:07 PM Subject: Re: Contracts, Marital and Otherwise was Re: [Libertarian] Re: The Fallacy of Open I If the contract of marriage is broken, any party involved can divorce the other. Other than that, the government has nothing legitimate to say in the matter. Any other position is not libertarian. It wouldn't matter if your wife chose to have sex with the whole defensive line of the Oakland Raiders; no punishment should ever be dished out by government. Prostitution and all consensual sex should be legal at all times regardless of a person's relationship status. On 9/18/06, David Macko < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do not believe that prostitution should be illegal except where it would break a contract. That is the libertarian position. For life, liberty, justice and peace, David Macko ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul T. Ireland To: David Macko Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Contracts, Marital and Otherwise was Re: [Libertarian] Re: The Fallacy of Open I I read 100% of your post and like virtually all of your other posts, it is the polar opposite of the libertarian position. On 9/18/06, David Macko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My position is the pure libertarian viewpoint, as you should see if you took time to read my response. David Macko ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 2:00 PM Subject: Contracts, Marital and Otherwise was Re: [Libertarian] Re: The Fallacy of Open I He was answering my question about using the government to make laws enforcing religious morality (specifically laws pertaining to fidelity ) because he stated that he'd support the freedom of "unmarried/unengaged" women to have any sex they wanted if they were over the age of 18 which is a disturbing and extremely non-libertarian viewpoint. --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David, > > What does that have to do with your advocacy of state-prohibited > interracial marriage? As you can see, there is great doubt about > what exactly you do believe. > > -Mark > > ++++++++++++++++ > > 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 > -- Your Friend in Liberty, Paul T. Ireland Libertarian Congressional Candidate California - District 35 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.electpaulireland.com -- Your Friend in Liberty, Paul T. Ireland Libertarian Congressional Candidate California - District 35 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.electpaulireland.com [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/
