charlie

I’m afraid that, as John suggests, you are being deliberately obtuse.

You contine to propose some pretty radical ideas, which you see as “axiomatic”, without providing anything in the way of support for them.

e.g.

“I believe that men and women are properly equal — which imples indistinhguishable — before the law. I therefore don’t think that it makes sense that we have certain contracts that can only contain one of each, as that imples a legal distinction. And, before you ask, yes that means I think women ought to be available for combat in the military.”

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish, but the law has and still does make a distinction between men and women. The ERA attempted to have the strict equality of the two sexes written into the constituition, but it failed. Among the arguments used against it; that it could be used to advance the idea of homosexual marriage.

You continue to claim that you desire a “small and ineffectual government”. If that is the case, then I would think that you would support the idea of limiting the power of the courts to make laws without any checks or balances. Strangely, you do not do so. You have an very odd notion of limited government.

Like so many “social liberals”, you see the world as composed of individuals, who bear with them innumerable “rights”, and the state, which functions as the adjudicator amoung all the individuals whenever their “rights” conflict with each other. Whatever else can be said for the state in this scheme, it does not play a small and ineffectual role.

I thnk it’s pretty clear WHAT you believe. There is not much to be gained by your repeating your stance. I’m more interested in WHY you believe it. But I can’t seem to get much of an explanation from you, other than a fairly bastardized version of libertarianism which requires other people to behave as you wish them to.

Anyway, thanks for your time.