Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Cousin marriage banned in NH, marijuana banned in NH, some exotic pets banned NH  (Read 46925 times)

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

>According to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state

New Hampshire is the only northeastern state which bans marriage between first cousins -- NH also does not recognize out-of-state cousin marriages, and does not recognize marriage between adopted cousins (even if the adopted person is not related to the other person whatsoever).

> New Hampshire is the only New England state with no legalization of marijuana whatsoever.

> With regard to exotic pets, NH allows some exotic pets, but there are a lot of species that NH has banned. I can understand NH's ban on dangerous animals like Lions and Bears, but NH also bans deer, porcupines and squirrels from being kept as pets. Alligators are also banned in NH, even though they are statistically just as likely to hurt someone as a pit bull. (And for comparison, alligators are legal to keep as pets in Wisconsin, Nevada and West Virginia). In my opinion, so long as a person keeps an animal from hurting other people, that person should be allowed to keep a [fill-in-the-blank] exotic pet.

> Homeschooling in NH is OK, but could be better; in my opinion, the homeschooling setup in states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Texas and Alaska are better because they have fewer regulations.

> Property taxes in states in NH are higher than in a lot of other states. States like Wyoming, Alaska and West Virginia have lower property tax rates (though a few NH towns like Dixville and Hebron apparently have low taxes).

> Prostitution is allowed in Nevada but is illegal in NH.

> In Maine and Vermont, prisoners are allowed to vote; this is not the case in NH.

> NH is the only New England state with an "interference with animal facility" law, which is a law designed to silence opposition to unethical agricultural practices. These laws are designed to hide potentially unethical practices within "animal facilities" and curtails people's freedom of speech. Wyoming, California, Nevada, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, New Jersey, Delaware and other states have repealed this kind of law or never had it in the first place. NH has not repealed its law.

Don't get me wrong, NH has a lot of good qualities, but the above issues could use some improvement if NH is really to live up to its "live free or die" motto. The fact that NH legalized homosexual marriage in 2010 proves that NH has the capability to improve freedom in the state.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest

Totally. Completely agree. No one even claimed NH is perfect. The whole point of the FSP is to create liberty in our lifetime. It currently doesn't exist anywhere. If you haven't already, please join the FSP and move to NH. Please make a difference and help change the laws you disagree with.

BTW, welcome the FSP Forum!
Logged

dumbthumbs

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Viurem Iliures o Morirem
    • @dumbthumbs

I Agree but IMO cousin marriage is a strange issue to be concerned about.
Logged
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
-Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world : My own Government, I can not be Silent.” -Martin Luther King Jr.

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044

...and does not recognize marriage between adopted cousins (even if the adopted person is not related to the other person whatsoever).

That's actually not true, according to your Wikipedia link.  The link cites an attorney general's opinion, not actual law.

New Hampshire is the only New England state with no legalization of marijuana whatsoever.

Indeed.  Medical marijuana has passed through the legislature multiple times, but the governor kept vetoing it.  He's out, and the incoming governor has promised to support it.  So that should be addressed in the next year or two.

With regard to exotic pets, NH allows some exotic pets, but there are a lot of species that NH has banned. I can understand NH's ban on dangerous animals like Lions and Bears, but NH also bans deer, porcupines and squirrels from being kept as pets. Alligators are also banned in NH, even though they are statistically just as likely to hurt someone as a pit bull. (And for comparison, alligators are legal to keep as pets in Wisconsin, Nevada and West Virginia). In my opinion, so long as a person keeps an animal from hurting other people, that person should be allowed to keep a [fill-in-the-blank] exotic pet.

Do you have any sources for that?

Property taxes in states in NH are higher than in a lot of other states. States like Wyoming, Alaska and West Virginia have lower property tax rates (though a few NH towns like Dixville and Hebron apparently have low taxes).

Rates are irrelevant, because they depend upon the valuation of the property.  A town with a high rate, may have low-value properties.  Many folks from Maine who've told me how glad they are not be to paying NH's "high property taxes" have then told me what they pay... and they pay more in actual dollars, for comparable or lesser properties.

NH has the lowest overall tax burden in the continental US.  So, regardless of how taxes are extracted, those who live in NH pay less.

Prostitution is allowed in Nevada but is illegal in NH.

Prostitution is allowed in a few specific counties in Nevada.  It is illegal in the majority of the state.  NH isn't exactly unique in banning prostitution.  On the other hand, many (most?) states ban the production of pornography with their prostitution laws (since they are worded such that paying someone to have sex with someone else is just as illegal as paying someone to have sex with yourself), whereas the NH Supreme Court recently ruled that producing pornography is protected free speech and, therefore, cannot be banned as prostitution under that legal theory.

In Maine and Vermont, prisoners are allowed to vote; this is not the case in NH.

Yup.  Only four US states actually allow that.  NH is not one of them.

NH is the only New England state with an "interference with animal facility" law, which is a law designed to silence opposition to unethical agricultural practices. These laws are designed to hide potentially unethical practices within "animal facilities" and curtails people's freedom of speech. Wyoming, California, Nevada, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, New Jersey, Delaware and other states have repealed this kind of law or never had it in the first place. NH has not repealed its law.

I assume you're referring to RSA644:8-e, which prohibits injuring people at such a facility, as well as interfering with, or damaging their property?  Interfering with people's private property, damaging their private property, or injuring them, are not "freedom of speech."  And subsection IV of that same statute specifies that it shall never be used to restrict any actual exercise of free speech.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

I Agree but IMO cousin marriage is a strange issue to be concerned about.


Agreed, I don't understand the emphasis on the cousin thing in this post....

I'm all for people having the liberty to do whatever they want, but I do personally find it odd that anyone would have interest in marrying anyone with relation to themselves...
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native

Not to mention the suggestion that one can't lose voting rights as part of a criminal sentence.
You can lose your basic freedom to move about; but you can't lose a voting right?

As for home schooling, or schooling in particular, that is one of those parental rights issues... its seldom that the child makes the decision.
Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

I Agree but IMO cousin marriage is a strange issue to be concerned about.


Agreed, I don't understand the emphasis on the cousin thing in this post....

I'm all for people having the liberty to do whatever they want, but I do personally find it odd that anyone would have interest in marrying anyone with relation to themselves...

I also don't personally have any interest in cousin marriage, but that's not the point: just because something is odd doesn't mean it should be illegal. There are lots of heterosexual people out there who have no personal interest in getting married to someone of the same sex, yet they protect the right of those who want to get a gay marriage. At the very least, people who are entirely unrelated to each other but are only considered cousins because of adoption should be allowed to marry.

Also, there was no intention to have a specific "emphasis" on a particular subject -- the emphasis was intended to be evenly distributed among all issues which NH could potentially improve (marijuana, homeschooling, cousin marriage, exotic pets, prostitution, property taxes, etc.) -- and the emphasis does not have to be limited to the list I created. There are probably other issues which I did not mention which NH could improve.

...and does not recognize marriage between adopted cousins (even if the adopted person is not related to the other person whatsoever).

That's actually not true, according to your Wikipedia link.  The link cites an attorney general's opinion, not actual law.

It may be true that it is only an attorney general's opinion, and it may be possible for adopted (unrelated) cousins to marry, but the existence of the underlying law threatens the potential for that to occur.

Quote from: MaineShark
With regard to exotic pets, NH allows some exotic pets, but there are a lot of species that NH has banned. I can understand NH's ban on dangerous animals like Lions and Bears, but NH also bans deer, porcupines and squirrels from being kept as pets. Alligators are also banned in NH, even though they are statistically just as likely to hurt someone as a pit bull. (And for comparison, alligators are legal to keep as pets in Wisconsin, Nevada and West Virginia). In my opinion, so long as a person keeps an animal from hurting other people, that person should be allowed to keep a [fill-in-the-blank] exotic pet.

Do you have any sources for that?

These are the sources I found regarding NH's animal bans:

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/b4a2_exotic_animals_state.php?s=nh
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Nongame/RAARP/herp_rules.htm

The second link above states that alligators are illegal (apparently banned only 5 years ago, in 2007)

When you think about it, it is illogical that deer are allowed to be hunted and killed in NH, but not allowed to be kept as pets.

Quote from: MaineShark

Property taxes in states in NH are higher than in a lot of other states. States like Wyoming, Alaska and West Virginia have lower property tax rates (though a few NH towns like Dixville and Hebron apparently have low taxes).

Rates are irrelevant, because they depend upon the valuation of the property.  A town with a high rate, may have low-value properties.  Many folks from Maine who've told me how glad they are not be to paying NH's "high property taxes" have then told me what they pay... and they pay more in actual dollars, for comparable or lesser properties.

NH has the lowest overall tax burden in the continental US.  So, regardless of how taxes are extracted, those who live in NH pay less.

NH is the best when it comes to overall tax burden -- but the source below is where I learned that NH ranks poorly among overall property taxes:

http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/property-taxes-best-and-worst-states.htm

According to the above link, the only state with higher property tax rates is New Jersey. Though, like you said, the actual tax rate may be irrelevant if other factors are considered, like the value of a given property. But still, I'm sure there's people in NH who are paying more than they would like to (or think they should have to).

Not to mention the suggestion that one can't lose voting rights as part of a criminal sentence.
You can lose your basic freedom to move about; but you can't lose a voting right?

It depends on how far the government wants to go in terms of removing a prisoner's rights. The people of Vermont and Maine have decided that prisoners have right to vote, but no such right exists in New Hampshire.

Quote from: MaineShark
NH is the only New England state with an "interference with animal facility" law, which is a law designed to silence opposition to unethical agricultural practices. These laws are designed to hide potentially unethical practices within "animal facilities" and curtails people's freedom of speech. Wyoming, California, Nevada, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, New Jersey, Delaware and other states have repealed this kind of law or never had it in the first place. NH has not repealed its law.

I assume you're referring to RSA644:8-e, which prohibits injuring people at such a facility, as well as interfering with, or damaging their property?  Interfering with people's private property, damaging their private property, or injuring them, are not "freedom of speech."  And subsection IV of that same statute specifies that it shall never be used to restrict any actual exercise of free speech.

With regard to this issue, the focus of New Hampshirites should be to prevent new harsher laws (laws which are known as "ag-gag" laws). These are laws which deliberately try to stop "whistleblowers" at animal slaughter facilities (i.e. making it a crime to videotape something). 5 states (North Dakota, Montana, Kansas, Utah and Iowa) now have these "ag-gag" laws, and I don't want NH to become one of them.

Law RSA644:8-e is not an "ag-gag" law, but its language is worrisome:

"Whoever willfully causes bodily injury or willfully interferes with any property, including animals or records, used by any organization or project involving animals, or with any animal facility shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor."

The word "interferes" could potentially be used against a non-violent whistleblower who was trying to stop/uncover something. Also, it's fairly clear that the purpose of the law is to prevent animal rights activists from uncovering abuse because the law specifically uses the phrase "animal facility" -- note that it does not say "bakery facility" or "lumber facility" or "shampoo facility". Such a law, if it were to be revised, should not be so narrow as to only "protect" animal facilities.

Then there is the whole idea of whether it is ethical for "animal facilities" to be slaughtering animals in the first place, (and whether it is ethical for a law to "protect" those practices which some view as unethical), but I'm not going to get into that.

I brought the "animal facility" law up because it is a law which does not exist in about 50% of U.S. states, according to this link:

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/armpusecoterrorism.htm

What is especially disturbing is that people who allegedly "interfere" with unethical practices (such as non-humane slaughter, animal experimentation, etc) are labeled as "ecoterrorists" while the people who were doing the real abuse (or at least capable of causing abuse) are not investigated/punished at all. It is a lack of transparency and gives people in charge of such "animal facilities" undue "protections" (i.e. the ability to not be scrutinized).

I agree that damaging people's property should not be allowed, but not being able to scrutinize a facility which is potentially causing animal abuse is overbearing.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2012, 07:48:16 pm by ZR3 »
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native

Keeping a deer as a pet would remove it from its common property ownership.
Felons voting while in prison could be changed; but to what value, I could never guess.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest

Thanks again for joining the FSP Forum! Your intro post was unusual but I still am glad you are here :)

Please tell us about yourself. Are you going to be attending the 2013 New Hampshire Liberty Forum? I'd love to meet you and talk to you about this stuff in person. When do you plan on moving to New Hampshire?
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044

It may be true that it is only an attorney general's opinion, and it may be possible for adopted (unrelated) cousins to marry, but the existence of the underlying law threatens the potential for that to occur.

Of course.  But it's not likely to be a high priority among activists.  There are far worse laws out there, which are going to earn more effort in attempting to overturn them.

These are the sources I found regarding NH's animal bans:

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/b4a2_exotic_animals_state.php?s=nh
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Nongame/RAARP/herp_rules.htm

The second link above states that alligators are illegal (apparently banned only 5 years ago, in 2007)

When you think about it, it is illogical that deer are allowed to be hunted and killed in NH, but not allowed to be kept as pets.

I don't think there are a large number of folks desiring deer for pets.  You might get folks interested in fixing some of the other issues, though.

NH is the best when it comes to overall tax burden -- but the source below is where I learned that NH ranks poorly among overall property taxes:

http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/property-taxes-best-and-worst-states.htm

According to the above link, the only state with higher property tax rates is New Jersey. Though, like you said, the actual tax rate may be irrelevant if other factors are considered, like the value of a given property. But still, I'm sure there's people in NH who are paying more than they would like to (or think they should have to).

No one should pay any taxes, at all.  Since we're not there, yet, it's more important to focus on preventing new taxes from being instituted, than it is to worry about the already-low rates.  Unfortunately, we're not at the "repealing taxes" point, but are at least able to work to prevent growth.

With regard to this issue, the focus of New Hampshirites should be to prevent new harsher laws (laws which are known as "ag-gag" laws). These are laws which deliberately try to stop "whistleblowers" at animal slaughter facilities (i.e. making it a crime to videotape something). 5 states (North Dakota, Montana, Kansas, Utah and Iowa) now have these "ag-gag" laws, and I don't want NH to become one of them.

I can't imagine a law making it a crime to videotape something at a business, actually being passed and upheld as Constitutional, in NH.  If your employment contract prohibited that, and contained a penalty for violation of that provision, the courts would probably uphold the penalty to which you had agreed, but the laws in NH, generally, do not allow criminal penalties for civil matters like that.

Law RSA644:8-e is not an "ag-gag" law, but its language is worrisome:

"Whoever willfully causes bodily injury or willfully interferes with any property, including animals or records, used by any organization or project involving animals, or with any animal facility shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor."

The word "interferes" could potentially be used against a non-violent whistleblower who was trying to stop/uncover something. Also, it's fairly clear that the purpose of the law is to prevent animal rights activists from uncovering abuse because the law specifically uses the phrase "animal facility" -- note that it does not say "bakery facility" or "lumber facility" or "shampoo facility". Such a law, if it were to be revised, should not be so narrow as to only "protect" animal facilities.

Maybe look into the legislative history.  It was passed in 1993, so I expect it would not be overly-hard to find out what sort of things were in the news at the time.  I expect some animal facilities were subject to terrorist attacks...

It's also important to note that "animal rights activist" is a meaningless phrase.  Animals are things, not people, and do not have rights.

Then there is the whole idea of whether it is ethical for "animal facilities" to be slaughtering animals in the first place, (and whether it is ethical for a law to "protect" those practices which some view as unethical), but I'm not going to get into that.

What is especially disturbing is that people who allegedly "interfere" with unethical practices (such as non-humane slaughter, animal experimentation, etc) are labeled as "ecoterrorists" while the people who were doing the real abuse (or at least capable of causing abuse) are not investigated/punished at all. It is a lack of transparency and gives people in charge of such "animal facilities" undue "protections" (i.e. the ability to not be scrutinized).

I agree that damaging people's property should not be allowed, but not being able to scrutinize a facility which is potentially causing animal abuse is overbearing.

I think "ecoterrorists" is a silly term.  If they are engaging in terrorism, they are terrorists, plain and simple.  Terrorists engage in terrorism because they are deranged sociopaths; any "cause" they claim to be supporting is just an excuse for them to engage in violence.

And, again, animals have no rights.  They are, at most, property.  No one has any right to demand "oversight" over how someone else treats his property.  If you don't like how someone behaves, don't associate with him.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

And, again, animals have no rights.  They are, at most, property.  No one has any right to demand "oversight" over how someone else treats his property.  If you don't like how someone behaves, don't associate with him.

The way the laws are written right now, that is true -- animals are just viewed as property. But people are trying to change that, to create a new category called "living property" -- they are trying to rewrite the laws so that non-human animals are on the same level as humans, with the same rights as humans. And it has already somewhat been done in the form of animal cruelty laws -- a person who destroys a person's dog is far more likely to get in trouble than a person who destroys a person's pillow, because the pillow is a non-living thing and a dog is a sentient being just like a human. A lot of it has to do with whether the thing in question can feel pain and suffering, and so far courts across the country (with regard to animal cruelty cases) do agree that non-human animals like dogs are capable of pain and suffering just like humans.

Part of the desire to change the law is to make things less anthropocentric and to view humans as just another animal species -- this view has taken hold in the environmentalism movement, in which people say they are not the best things ever created and realize they are just one part of the planet. The notion that humans are superior to all other animals (and thus have more rights than animals) is known by some professionals as "speciesism" -- a bias in favor of one species over another. This may explain why laws (as they are written now) give humans more rights than animals and treat humans as being unequal to other animals.
Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

Thanks again for joining the FSP Forum! Your intro post was unusual but I still am glad you are here :)

Please tell us about yourself. Are you going to be attending the 2013 New Hampshire Liberty Forum? I'd love to meet you and talk to you about this stuff in person. When do you plan on moving to New Hampshire?

I live in NJ but I go to NH at least once a year and want to move NH at some point (hopefully by the end of this decade). In general, I am more familiar with northern NH than with southern NH.

I also forgot to mention another issue in the previous post: nudity. I think I heard somewhere that public nudity is technically legal in Vermont and NH (so long as it isn't in a local area where a town has banned it), but I could be wrong since I haven't done any research on it.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest

Thanks again for joining the FSP Forum! Your intro post was unusual but I still am glad you are here :)

Please tell us about yourself. Are you going to be attending the 2013 New Hampshire Liberty Forum? I'd love to meet you and talk to you about this stuff in person. When do you plan on moving to New Hampshire?

I live in NJ but I go to NH at least once a year and want to move NH at some point (hopefully by the end of this decade). In general, I am more familiar with northern NH than with southern NH.

I also forgot to mention another issue in the previous post: nudity. I think I heard somewhere that public nudity is technically legal in Vermont and NH (so long as it isn't in a local area where a town has banned it), but I could be wrong since I haven't done any research on it.

Awesome. Please move up. The sooner the better. The quicker you move, the more money you save.

There isn't a state law against nudity in public in VT. It is still legal in some towns, though I think all of the high populated areas (by VT standards) regulate it to some degree. There seems to be a state law against it in NH. However, there are nude swimming holes of NH, like in many states. There is at least 1 nude resort in NH, as I've driven by it dozens of times, in Lee. Being topless in public is legal in NH.

On a related note, I think the San Fransisco city council just banned nudity.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044

The way the laws are written right now, that is true -- animals are just viewed as property. But people are trying to change that, to create a new category called "living property" -- they are trying to rewrite the laws so that non-human animals are on the same level as humans, with the same rights as humans. And it has already somewhat been done in the form of animal cruelty laws -- a person who destroys a person's dog is far more likely to get in trouble than a person who destroys a person's pillow, because the pillow is a non-living thing and a dog is a sentient being just like a human. A lot of it has to do with whether the thing in question can feel pain and suffering, and so far courts across the country (with regard to animal cruelty cases) do agree that non-human animals like dogs are capable of pain and suffering just like humans.

Part of the desire to change the law is to make things less anthropocentric and to view humans as just another animal species -- this view has taken hold in the environmentalism movement, in which people say they are not the best things ever created and realize they are just one part of the planet. The notion that humans are superior to all other animals (and thus have more rights than animals) is known by some professionals as "speciesism" -- a bias in favor of one species over another. This may explain why laws (as they are written now) give humans more rights than animals and treat humans as being unequal to other animals.

I'm aware that there are nonsensical laws on the matter, and individuals who hold nonsensical opinions.

I was referring to actual reality.  Regardless of sentience, animals are not sapient and, therefore, are not persons, and have no rights.  Rights are an all-or-nothing proposition; you can't have "some rights."  People (of any species) each have the same rights as each other - no one has more or less.  Animals (of any species) have none whatsoever.  Species is irrelevant - show me an ape that has attained sapience, and I will assert that it is a person, and has all the same rights as any other person.

And, of course, those who have rights, also have the responsibility to respect the rights of others.  If a dog bites you, is he charged with assault?  If a bear kills you, is he a murderer?  If a dolphin splashes you, can you send him your dry-cleaning bill?
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

I Agree but IMO cousin marriage is a strange issue to be concerned about.


Agreed, I don't understand the emphasis on the cousin thing in this post....

I'm all for people having the liberty to do whatever they want, but I do personally find it odd that anyone would have interest in marrying anyone with relation to themselves...

I also don't personally have any interest in cousin marriage, but that's not the point: just because something is odd doesn't mean it should be illegal. There are lots of heterosexual people out there who have no personal interest in getting married to someone of the same sex, yet they protect the right of those who want to get a gay marriage. At the very least, people who are entirely unrelated to each other but are only considered cousins because of adoption should be allowed to marry.

Also, there was no intention to have a specific "emphasis" on a particular subject -- the emphasis was intended to be evenly distributed among all issues which NH could potentially improve (marijuana, homeschooling, cousin marriage, exotic pets, prostitution, property taxes, etc.) -- and the emphasis does not have to be limited to the list I created. There are probably other issues which I did not mention which NH could improve.


Okay - but you see where I could be mistaken that it was the emphasis of the post? Re-read your post. It's the first and only topic where you linked to something and it's the first thing stated in the headline/subject.

I agree that it shouldn't matter to people who don't want any part of it, all I was doing is stating that I *personally* find it very odd... that doesn't mean I would ever advocate for or attempt to stop you or anyone else from pursuing what you want to do. I am a small L libertarian so I don't believe a state should exist whatsoever, then people could marry their brother/sister for all I care, so long as I'm allowed my liberty...
« Last Edit: December 01, 2012, 08:10:18 am by crossonscout »
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10   Go Up