Last one.

Duplicate.

Duplicate - any way to delete these?

Sorry about the duplicates. Page timed out and didn't show the post when I refreshed the page. All of a sudden - there's a bunch of them.

The Marine is thinking: "Bull Moose he's not - bull s*** he is."

Teddy Roosevelt delivered a lengthy speech with a bullet lodged in his chest, holding the copious notes in his hands that probably saved his life when in his pocket. You would think Obama - with his hands free and reading from a teleprompter - could at least hold his own umbrella. 

Yes, it is. In fact, I've started avoiding the term "leftist" and instead just use the word "statist", which covers all the bases, from socialist to communist to fascist. You are either for the expansion of the state or you are for the expansion of individual freedom. No further explanation is necessary.

@Central Scrutinizer

Many on the left make the same argument about guns. Surely, based on your and their argument, a large increase in gun ownership will result in a large increase in gun death and general anarchy. But, statistics show the exact opposite. I used the example of the German Autobahn above, whose anarchistic lack of speed limit would surely be a veritable death trap. But, it's not. 

In the US, we restrict drinking alcohol to those over 21 (18 when I was a kid). When I first went to Germany as a college student, there was no minimum drinking age. With the advent of the EU, they have instituted a minimum age of 16 for drinking at a public establishment (still no minimum that I'm aware of for drinking at home or in private). Yet, in my experience, alcohol abuse in American colleges was worse that anything I saw in Germany.

Part of the libertarian message is that empowering people to act responsibly results not in anarchy but enhanced personal responsibility. Having a lot of laws does not result in a more civil society, but having people who understand the importance of civil behavior toward others does.

I'm not sure there's a libertarian consensus on speed limits. I've lived in Germany - a place not known for libertarianism - where much of the Autobahn is posted with recommended speeds only.  I believe the safety record is comparable if not better than our interstates. People there are expected to drive responsibly regardless of how fast they drive. You won't get a ticket for driving too fast, for the most part, but you will get a ticket for following too closely to the car in front of you or for driving below the prevailing speed in the left lane.

I read once about a dangerous intersection somewhere in Europe (Holland?).  As an experiment, they removed all red lights and the traffic and safety improved drastically. Because there was no signal, people automatically slowed down and proceeded cautiously. Accident and death rates fell for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Cautious drivers driving responsibly trump any amount of traffic laws or signals. 

I guess your point is that without government, we'd be no different than Ethiopia. That's also a point Obama often makes, as he insists that there is only the individual and the government. Libertarians tend to believe a better relationship is between the individual and social institutions, with an appropriately sized (i.e. limited) government there to enforce basic protections.  For most libertarians, such basic protections would include lawlessness on  the highways. It's the other 95% of stuff that government does that tends to be viewed with disdain.

Poise appears to be genetic in this case. If political skill and instinct are, she may have quite a future that could benefit us all.

You're describing the sort of voluntary and free association envisioned by the founders, and I agree with the maximization of it. Humans are capable of crafting solutions to problems to their own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of a group. Those dissatisfied with the group association can leave it. 

@BrentB67

A homeowner's association is a contract entered voluntarily and can be exited by moving somewhere else.

@Mike Hinton

"I wouldn't be surprised if fire and ambulance had an "insurance" rate and an "on demand" rate. So you can decide if it's worth taking that chance."

You typically will only have that option if you don't have a mortgage, because entities like Rural Metro report subscriber information to agencies - in some states - who then share it with mortgage and insurance companies. Don't ask me how I know. And it doesn't matter how much money you have in the bank to cover their services in the extremely rare case of a fire. In the case of ambulance, with Rural Metro, I believe you pay anyway even if you are a subscriber.  

I've felt this way all along. General estimates are that gays make up 1 to slightly over 2 percent of the population. Some portion of those won't marry because they have no desire or are happy just that they could if they wanted. Take half that number - because it takes two to marry (chime in here with the polygamy arguments) - and the result is a pretty small number of marriages. I can't see that it will have much effect on marriage in general.

The real issue - which won't end if gay marriage becomes accepted - is that we have a political party that exists to exploit dissatisfaction for political gain and to expand government as a remedy. Did gays know they wanted to marry 20 years ago? If they did, I never heard about it. In fact, it used to be considered a pretty bourgeois institution for most gays. Jim Crow ended and civil rights legislation passed decades ago, yet we are more racially charged as a society than ever because exploitation pays off politically. What will be the next cause to exploit?

What we have to do is break the victimization and government remedy treadmill. 

Your phrase "it predates the state" is the key. Marriage is essentially a private contract between two individuals or families, often within some religious context. The state's primary interest is the same as with any contract, and need only get involved if one party has reneged on their agreement. The other interest is if there are children involved. 

Libertarians probably have differing views on gay marriage - I tend to be pretty conservative socially, so I don't necessarily view it as a positive thing. But people's attitudes have changed about it and that will determine its future. The libertarian argument would be to get the state out of marriage, a view that predates gay marriage.

I don't think that's the libertarian argument - at least it's not mine. No one should set aside their moral values. The argument is over putting government in charge of enforcing their moral values.

Sorry, I have to disagree. I like the laugh.

It almost never fails that - upon telling someone I lean libertarian - I get a comment about Rand. I would equate it to conservatives being automatically assumed to be John Birchers.

Aside from reading "Atlas Shrugged", I have little knowledge of her or her philosophy. My understanding is that she despised libertarians, considering them to be anarchists. Most libertarians I know are more likely to speak fondly of Hayek than Rand. In my mind, Rand was passionate about capitalism and libertarians are passionate about markets, limited government, and freedom. I think there's a difference, although I probably can't articulate it.

There may be a Rand obsession, but I'm not sure it's libertarians who are doing the obsessing.