USANews版 - Ann Coulter捅马蜂窝：大多数libertarians都是胆小的假货 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Ann Coulter捅马蜂窝：大多数libertarians都是胆小的假货，因为怕得罪人，而不敢
就当前重要的文化问题表明立场
GET RID OF GOVERNMENT -- BUT FIRST MAKE ME PRESIDENT!
June 15, 2011
I consider all Republican debates time-fillers until New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie jumps in, but Monday night's debate did crystallize for me why I
dislike libertarians. (Except one, who is a friend of mine and not crazy.)
They lure you in with talk of small government and then immediately start
babbling about drug legalization or gay marriage.
"Get the government out of it" is a good and constitutionally correct answer
to many questions, but it's not a one-size-fits-all answer to all questions
.
It was a good answer, for example, when libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas,
was asked about government assistance to private enterprise and government
involvement in the housing market.
But it's a chicken-s**t, I-don't-want-to-upset-my-video-store-clerk-base
answer when it comes to gay marriage.
Asked about gay marriage, Paul said, in full:
"The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an
amendment (prohibiting gay marriage). But let me suggest -- one of the ways
to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We
know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. ...
Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it go to the individuals?
I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should
be in the church."
If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to
adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined if the
government doesn't recognize marriage? How about a private company's health
care plans -- whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue "do
not resuscitate" orders to doctors? (Of course, under Obamacare we won't be
resuscitating anyone.)
Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person's Social
Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you're divorced and able
to remarry? Where would liberals get their phony statistics about most
marriages ending in divorce?
Paul can't even scratch Social Security and Medicare off that list by taking
the libertarian position that there should be no Social Security or
Medicare, because he also said during the debate: "We don't want to cut any
of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn
so many in and got them so dependent on the government." (And of course,
those programs do exist, whether we like it or not.)
So Rep. Paul is a swashbuckling individualist when it comes to civilization'
s most crucial building block for raising children, but willing to be a run-
of-the-mill government statist when it comes to the Ponzi-scheme
entitlements bankrupting the country. He's like a vegetarian who says, "I'm
not a fanatic -- I still eat meat."
Some of those legal incidents of marriage can be obtained by private
contract -- such as the right to inherit and make medical decisions. Gays
don't need gay marriage to leave their electric spice racks to loved ones.
But there are more obtuse Americans than there are gay Americans, so courts
are going to be bulging with legal disputes among the unalert, who neglected
to plan in advance and make private contracts resolving the many legal
issues that are normally determined by a marriage contract.
Under Rep. Paul's plan, your legal rights pertaining to marriage will be
decided on a case-by-case basis by judges forced to evaluate the legitimacy
of your marriage consecrated by a Wiccan priest -- or your tennis coach. (
And I think I speak for all Americans when I say we're looking for ways to
get more pointless litigation into our lives.)
If one spouse decides he doesn't want to be married anymore, couldn't he
just say there never was a marriage because the Wiccan wasn't official or
the tennis coach wasn't a pro?
Under Paul's plan, siblings could marry one another, perhaps intentionally,
but also perhaps unaware that they were fraternal twins separated and sent
to different adoptive families at birth -- as actually happened in Britain a
few years ago after taking the government-mandated blood test for marriage.
There are reasons we have laws governing important institutions, such as
marriage. As in landscaping, you don't remove a wall until you know why it
was put there.
Marriage is a legal construct with legal consequences, particularly
regarding rights and duties to children. Libertarians would be better off
spearheading a movement to get rid of stop signs than to get rid of
officially sanctioned marriage. A world without government stop signs would
be safer than a world without government marriage.
It's true that eventually -– theoretically -- there could be private
institutions to handle many of these matters. But for anyone calling himself
a libertarian to put eliminating official marriage above eliminating Social
Security and Medicare is certifiable.
It's exactly like drug legalization: Sure, all good libertarians want to
legalize drugs, but the question is whether that is more important than
legalizing the ability to locate your widget factory where you want to put
it. Even purists can have priorities.
Most libertarians are cowering frauds too afraid to upset anyone to take a
stand on some of the most important cultural issues of our time. So they
dodge the tough questions when it suits their purposes by pretending to be
Randian purists, but are perfectly comfortable issuing politically expedient
answers when it comes to the taxpayers' obligations under Medicare and
Social Security.
If they could only resist sucking up to Rolling Stone-reading, status-
obsessed losers, they'd probably be interesting to talk to.
In my book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America," I make the
case that liberals, and never conservatives, appeal to irrational mobs to
attain power. There is, I now recall, one group of people who look like
conservatives, but also appeal to the mob. They're called "libertarians."
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106 | l******a
发帖数: 3803 | 2
answer
Is she bold inuf?
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: Ann Coulter捅马蜂窝：大多数libertarians都是胆小的假货，因为怕得罪人，而不敢
: 就当前重要的文化问题表明立场
: GET RID OF GOVERNMENT -- BUT FIRST MAKE ME PRESIDENT!
: June 15, 2011
: I consider all Republican debates time-fillers until New Jersey Gov. Chris
: Christie jumps in, but Monday night's debate did crystallize for me why I
: dislike libertarians. (Except one, who is a friend of mine and not crazy.)
: They lure you in with talk of small government and then immediately start
: babbling about drug legalization or gay marriage.
: "Get the government out of it" is a good and constitutionally correct answer
| y****t
发帖数: 10233 | 3 well, i believe she has more cojones than obama.
【在 l******a 的大作中提到】
:
: answer
: Is she bold inuf?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
