Beautiful Anarchy

User avatar
SLSS
Posts: 6995
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Home
Contact:

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by SLSS » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:10 am

Redchaser wrote:Essentially the SCOTUS ruled that gay people have as much right to be miserable as anyone else. Personally I'm fine with it as I fear a government that intrudes into our personal lives much more than I rear a couple of dudes getting married. I am concerned however with how this will play out in regard to religious liberty. I certainly do not think it is right to discriminate against an INDIVIDUAL for being gay, however there is a difference between simply providing a product or service to an individual and being forced to participate in an event or ceremony the violates your religious beliefs. I worked in the wedding industry (DJ) for a long time. Preachers/Officiants, Photographers, caterers, musicians/DJ's are all on site and part of the event, not simply purveyors of a product. For the record, I've played music at a few gay/lesbian "commitment ceremonies", that was a choice I made weighed against my convictions, however I wouldn't impose that on someone who is perhaps more devout than myself.
Pretty sure there's a Freudian slip about two thirds of the through the second line.

Or not. :coffee
It's lime the battles between sperm whales and giant squid half a mile below the surface of the ocean. Only it happens in the palm I your hand.- thndr

when I fall, I am still cold and wet, but much more stylishly dressed. as my hat disappears in the riffle- flybug.pa


"Sugar? No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough."

User avatar
Bobwhite
Posts: 5103
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:48 pm
Location: Marine on St. Croix, MN
Contact:

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by Bobwhite » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:32 am

befuddled wrote:
Bobwhite wrote:A Libertarian perspective on gay marriages...

http://christophercantwell.com/2015/06/ ... look-cool/
What the Supreme Court did is for people who are completely on the opposite side of the spectrum from anarchy. In fact they are seeking recognition from government, not separation from it. He makes valid points...which are all irrelevant when taken in the context of the people this affects, at least coming from an anarchist point of view. When viewed as an anarchist, the anarchist has no dog in this fight whatsoever.
Perhaps, my lead should have been, "A libertarian perspective of the Supreme Court's recognition of gay marriages."

I think the point of the commentary is that, it really shouldn't matter if the government recognizes your marriage or not... gay or straight... that we ought to be free to marry whomever we want regardless of government recognition or approval.

I also understand that this is (at the present) a utopian ideal, and that as long as we have governments 'treating' us, that everyone should be treated equally.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your closing line, "When viewed as an anarchist, the anarchist has no dog in this fight whatsoever."

You're absolutely right. An anarchist would probably say that there shouldn't be a fight in the first place.
"Why in the fuck did I miss this place? It's like missing a raging case of the clap."

"Make it matter, fuckos." jhnnythndr

" Herre jävlar vilka fiskar!!" P-A

"I'm no saint though, nor a judge. Rock that shit good and hard, and on your way out, wipe your dick on the curtains." - Kyner

User avatar
Redchaser
Posts: 5997
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Lafayette, La
Contact:

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by Redchaser » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:40 am

SLSS wrote:
Redchaser wrote:Essentially the SCOTUS ruled that gay people have as much right to be miserable as anyone else. Personally I'm fine with it as I fear a government that intrudes into our personal lives much more than I rear a couple of dudes getting married. I am concerned however with how this will play out in regard to religious liberty. I certainly do not think it is right to discriminate against an INDIVIDUAL for being gay, however there is a difference between simply providing a product or service to an individual and being forced to participate in an event or ceremony the violates your religious beliefs. I worked in the wedding industry (DJ) for a long time. Preachers/Officiants, Photographers, caterers, musicians/DJ's are all on site and part of the event, not simply purveyors of a product. For the record, I've played music at a few gay/lesbian "commitment ceremonies", that was a choice I made weighed against my convictions, however I wouldn't impose that on someone who is perhaps more devout than myself.
Pretty sure there's a Freudian slip about two thirds of the through the second line.

Or not. :coffee
Oh shit, that's funny.
"... don’t let your life become the sloppy leftovers of your work" Jim Harrison

"Put in the effort and good things happen"... Hogleg

"Salinity is proportional to sanity for sure" ..The Volfish

Redchaser.com, all about Louisiana Fly Fishing

User avatar
kish
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:42 pm

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by kish » Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:50 pm

Thanks for the link, Bob. I've said for years that the government should not be in the marriage business, but Cantwell makes the argument way better than I ever could.

Back to the original post regarding one man's inability to have a huge impact. I initially agreed with the premise, but then I had one thought: "Obamacare". Without Obama in the White House, there's no way we'd have Obamacare. Like it or not, that's a pretty huge impact.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” Charles Kingsley

User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Mississippi

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by Plow » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:19 pm

I generally avoid stuff by folks that use more than 2 political qualifiers in their "title" but that was interesting.

Government shouldn't offer any tax or financial advantages for getting married. Period. Ditto for having kids. Zero, none, nada.

Polygamy is next, I think we'll be surprised by how many folks jump in.
Better Reds than dead...

User avatar
canook
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:14 pm
Location: Further

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by canook » Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:56 am

Plow wrote:
Polygamy is next, I think we'll be surprised by how many folks jump in.
Since it's God-approved (tm) in a number of bible passages, it'll be interesting to hear the fundamentalists' moral outrage on this one.

User avatar
Jon
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:01 am
Location: West O' The Divide

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by Jon » Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:49 am

Plow wrote: Government shouldn't offer any tax or financial advantages for getting married. Period. Ditto for having kids. Zero, none, nada.
Fuck me, there actually is something Plow and I agree on.
"unsalvageably incoherent"

User avatar
VTNZ
Posts: 2705
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:33 pm
Location: 45North and 45South

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by VTNZ » Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:41 am

I'll double that sentiment....I agree with Plow as well. In NZ you don't get to file jointly, and do not really have the incentives for birthin' babies. That said, here's the question: What/who made these tax breaks for marriage and baby making in US policy?

The gheys? No
The athiests? No

I honestly don't have a clue but my hunch and bet would be the baby-jeebus industry. Adding numbers to the flock is always the mission. Anyone got another idea just how these types of loopholes, apparently held with disdain by those on the left and right, got their way into the fabric of US culture and tax policy?

Kind of reminds me of the Ethanol subsidy BS; outside of D's and R's from Iowa....nobody thinks it's a logical proposition; and yet it continues.
People are assholes because half the people around are of below average intelligence - Shunned

I hope I didn't infer that I was antifingerbanging. Its an art I hold dear. - RT

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by Upsetter » Wed Jul 01, 2015 10:42 am

The individual income tax in the United States was largely marriage-neutral before 1948 because the tax was levied individually. However, in community property states wives had a claim to the income of their husbands, allowing the husband and wife to each report half of the joint income; with progressive marginal tax rates, this "income splitting" resulted in a marriage bonus. This treatment led to geographic inequity, which became more problematic as rates rose, and states whose property laws derived from common law began to follow suit. After World War II, Congress extended community property treatment to all married couples, and in 1948 the practice of income splitting between spouses was adopted for all couples. This allowed couples to aggregate their income on a joint tax return, and it doubled the width of each tax bracket for married couples. Each spouse was effectively assessed taxes on half of the joint income regardless of how much of the income that spouse actually earned. This was a major shift in the orientation of the federal income tax because it changed the unit of taxation from the individual to the family.

Originally, family taxation was advantageous to married couples because it lowered their average tax rate and thus commonly resulted in a marriage subsidy. However, single taxpayers were relatively disadvantaged, and this penalty on singles grew over time. Despite subsequent statutory changes designed to alleviate the burden, income splitting meant that a single taxpayer’s liability could be as much as 40 percent higher than that of a married couple with equal income.

The Tax Reform Act of 1969 addressed the disparity between single and married persons by creating a new tax schedule for single taxpayers, under which the differential between the tax liability of a single person and that of an equal-income married couple could not exceed 20 percent. There was no actual change in the tax burden imposed on married persons, but the introduction of the new single schedule caused their relative position to worsen. This change created the marriage penalty: in a reversal of the previous situation, the combined tax liability of two single people often increased with marriage. Since the reforms of 1969, numerous modifications have been made to the income tax laws that have altered the magnitude of the marriage penalty. However, most recent evidence documents that many couples still face a tax penalty because they are married. (For a comprehensive review of the history of the marriage penalty in the United States, see Bittker 1975.)
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopic ... enalty.cfm

User avatar
FormerlyChaseChrome
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:09 pm

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by FormerlyChaseChrome » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:58 am

Bobwhite wrote:
Perhaps, my lead should have been, "A libertarian perspective of the Supreme Court's recognition of gay marriages."
My thinking exactly...
ADD rules here man...

User avatar
Bobwhite
Posts: 5103
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:48 pm
Location: Marine on St. Croix, MN
Contact:

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by Bobwhite » Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:08 am

An interesting article about His Rotundity.

https://joeyclark.liberty.me/his-rotund ... -139753433

An interesting site... you might check it out.
"Why in the fuck did I miss this place? It's like missing a raging case of the clap."

"Make it matter, fuckos." jhnnythndr

" Herre jävlar vilka fiskar!!" P-A

"I'm no saint though, nor a judge. Rock that shit good and hard, and on your way out, wipe your dick on the curtains." - Kyner

User avatar
kish
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:42 pm

Re: Beautiful Anarchy

Post by kish » Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:18 am

"...praying for someone, anyone to make that jelly-face wiggle in the wake of a firm whacking." It was worth a read if only for that one line.

The BF quote comes to mind, roughly: A man willing to give up freedom to gain security deserves neither.

Looks like an interesting site. "I'm sorry, I apologize for nothing."
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” Charles Kingsley

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests