My guess, all of the Mrs. knew at some point. Rather they admit it or not…
Makes them lesbians?
It had been on the docket for like the last six months and aside from the ACA the most highly anticipated ruling.
Yes I acknowledged my ignorance here. I focus mostly on foreign policy issues these days when I can stand to read ‘the news’ - doing that generally always makes me angry in the middle of an already stressful work environment.
Again, the question though is why now?
??? WTF??? What are you talking about? something like 65% of the country supports gay marriage. They handled the ruling the same way the court always handles rulings “We find in favor of …”
What I meant is that this issue could have been, as I suggested in the OP, handled simply by the states themselves, and was headed in that direction anyway, as you mention below. So this decision, rather than creating the climate of emancipation that you see, is going to engender a greater sense of panic among the people who fear this kind of thing, and it’s going to make them react in more insane ways than they might have otherwise. Look at the states now that are already talking about banning marriage entirely after the ruling!
So, you are in favor of letting a minority group get fucked over until we all agree it sucks? well over half the country wanted marriage equality, that is a simple majority. pretend that’s why the SCOTUS stepped in.
No, I don’t believe in some variation on “things must be worse before they can get better,” as most Marxists do.
What you say just there confirms exactly what I was saying - most of the country favored this anyway. So there was no real need for the federal government to jump in and take credit for an organic process already underway. By doing so, they gave lie to a theory held by gay marriage opponents, namely that the government is only interested in this issue because it makes for a new class of people dependent on the State.
Frankly I don’t think the government should be in the business of issuing marriage licenses whatsoever. It’s not even anything remotely to do with disliking a minority lifestyle.
Like what they did when separate but equal was stuck down and integration was forced upon poor old southerners, right?
That’s a false equivalence.
What I was implying in my original statement, but maybe didn’t clarify, is that I believe the present State has a vested interest in fomenting unease between ethnicities, cultures, and lifestyles, because the creation of this chaos provides a justification for the State’s existence.
So it’s no surprise (maybe going back to Pon-E’s post from earlier) that they choose to focus on things like this rather than on ending the War On Some Drugs. Legalization of drugs diminishes the need for police, prisons, and other State resources, while continual government interference in social issues increases the need for such things.
The exact people who were gravitating towards acceptance, right?
No. Those people will continue to do so. I am talking more about people who were already in a paranoid ‘bunker mentality’ state, who will just continue to get worse.
Grmpy the thing with me is I’m generally going to take an anarchist position on things like this. Try not to get too emotional and you’ll find I agree with your social orientation, but almost always feel that coercive government power is the wrong way to win hearts and minds.
im sipping 12 year old scotch, so i’m going to jump in here…
my position on homosexuals is… i do not give a shit. i really don’t. the gender confusion/role play thing is strange to me. and for some reason, i’m not sure why, but i have a history of lesbians not liking me. It’s an inside joke with me and my buddies.
Back to the role thing… i don’t get it. the butch thing, wallet in back pocket, haircut - the whole fashion of it. seems silly. the whole lipstick lesbian and butch thing. (it’s the butch lesbians that do not like me, btw) i should mention… that i am a big anti-fashion person. so maybe that’s part of it. i don’t know.
mooney? input please.
time for a refill. i’ll look at this post in the morning at work and think, why the fuck did i type that. but hey, fuck it.
Some things to think about:
What image do you portray with your hair cut, choice of clothing, behavior, etc.?
What image do you want to portray or do you not care?
Do you dress up at work or not?
How do you feel when you portray it, comfortable or uncomfortable?
Are you more confident the more professionally dressed up?
Is this the natural/fundamental/baseline you, are you trying something new, or do you go through a series of different looks over time until you settle on one that make you feel good?
Do you need a makeover and to be restyled to fit a certain image, or are you ok with how you look in a natural state?
Do you want a more feminine or masculine look?
Would you cross-dress because you feel more comfortable cross-dressed and would you go out in public cross-dressed?
When I was nine, my mom had my long hair cut off into a Pixie because she thought it would be cute. Due to the shape of my face, I cannot pull off a Pixie haircut. Keep in mind that hair grows at about 1/2 inch per month. Therefore, I walked around for years being mistaken for a boy despite not being dressed as a boy. Yeah, my parents are really fucked up individuals; and together, they are even more fucked up. Side note: If you have ever read Franz Kafka’s letter to his father, that’s my parents right there. and I’m not joking. I have spent my entire life reconciling fact from fiction as opposed to accepting someone else’s fictitious reality that they try to force on everyone around them. I chose to not live in the Matrix.
The only time I get dressed up is if I have to give a professional presentation/attend an awards presentation in business attire, I’m going to a formal occasion such as a wedding, or if there is a dress code to get in the door and stay there (dress to impress club). I have long hair with fringe/bangs and it takes me too long to fix it nice by myself. About every 6 to 8 weeks, I go in and get it professionally dyed different colors (currently its a graded red/orange into black) and styled a different way.
Here is a TBT photo for you from when I was 21: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1307200002971&l=bbe9aefbb4
I was gay for about 20 minutes at a sleep over in high school once. I don’t regret it but to be honest, it really didn’t do anything for me. Even though, to be fair, the friend I was “being gay” with, looked a bit like Ricky Schroder with a great tan. And Ricky Schroder was a cute guy if it comes down to that. So I guess in a sense my 20 minutes of gayness wasn’t so bad.
im sipping 12 year old scotch, so i’m going to jump in here…
my position on homosexuals is… i do not give a shit. i really don’t. the gender confusion/role play thing is strange to me. and for some reason, i’m not sure why, but i have a history of lesbians not liking me. It’s an inside joke with me and my buddies.
Back to the role thing… i don’t get it. the butch thing, wallet in back pocket, haircut - the whole fashion of it. seems silly. the whole lipstick lesbian and butch thing. (it’s the butch lesbians that do not like me, btw) i should mention… that i am a big anti-fashion person. so maybe that’s part of it. i don’t know.
mooney? input please.
time for a refill. i’ll look at this post in the morning at work and think, why the fuck did i type that. but hey, fuck it.
Just one more though for you, slack. One of my friend’s dads cheated on his mom and they ended up getting divorced. His dad married the woman he cheated with. My friend said to me one day that he didn’t understand why his dad would choose his step mother because his step mother is no where near as good looking as him mom is. In fact, he just called her outright physically ugly.
Attraction comes in many forms, and it’s not always centered mostly on physical beauty. We also have our own definitions of what we find beautiful or what we find attractive/what turns us off.
When I think of fashion, I think of two things: the latest trends in style that are being published in magazines or trying to fit into a scene by looking and playing the part.
I was gay for about 20 minutes at a sleep over in high school once. I don’t regret it but to be honest, it really didn’t do anything for me. Even though, to be fair, the friend I was “being gay” with, looked a bit like Ricky Schroder with a great tan. And Ricky Schroder was a cute guy if it comes down to that. So I guess in a sense my 20 minutes of gayness wasn’t so bad.
If what you state is true, you are not unique.
About 70% of males have had a least one homosexual experience by the age of 18.
Most of you will never admit it.
It doesn’t make you gay.
It’s figuring out who you are.
Again, the question though is why now?
Because Mr. Obergefell was tired of being discriminated against and being treated like a second class citizen… and shouldn’t have to wait for the grass roots to “get there eventually”
What I meant is that this issue could have been, as I suggested in the OP, handled simply by the states themselves, and was headed in that direction
Could have but was not being handled by the states and despite what many on the right will push, the rights of minorities (or anybody for that matter ) are not up for popular vote. Headed in the right direction is a far off destination when you’re being fucked over now.
So this decision, rather than creating the climate of emancipation that you see, is going to engender a greater sense of panic among the people who fear this kind of thing,
So what…? as did the Bown Vs Board of Education ruling (even though you claim it’s a false equivalency even when it’s not) Oh no Rights for all make me feel all icky, Now I can’t control my bigotry.
and it’s going to make them react in more insane ways than they might have otherwise.
So, Let’s not piss off the bigots? seriously? that’s your logic?
Look at the states now that are already talking about banning marriage entirely after the ruling!
Can’t be done, and it only makes them look more foolish/bigoted. Especially as they sit in fear in their apocalypse jesus will return bunker.
No, I don’t believe in some variation on “things must be worse before they can get better,” as most Marxists do.
Umm, Not sure where you were going with this. But this doesn’t seem to follow my point.
What you say just there confirms exactly what I was saying - most of the country favored this anyway.
Still not fast enough. What it comes down to is discrimination. Most of the country being in favor of this is not a legal precedent for allowing discrimination for the people who aren’t. Most of the country being in favor of this means the ruling is no big deal. It’s only a big deal to the bigots. The people who aren’t going to change their minds anyway cause of Jesus.
So there was no real need for the federal government to jump in and take credit for an organic process already underway.
As noted already, underway is not the same as legal precedent. People being discriminated against shouldn’t have to wait around for public opinion to change. Justice is still the right thing, It doesn’t matter who it pisses off.
By doing so, they gave lie to a theory held by gay marriage opponents, namely that the government is only interested in this issue because it makes for a new class of people dependent on the State.
So, marriage causes people to be dependent on the state? Stupid reasoning is still stupid no matter who it comes from. and no it doesn’t help the “theory” that the government wants a new class of people dependent on the state. This ruling and that “theory” don’t even go together.
Frankly I don’t think the government should be in the business of issuing marriage licenses whatsoever. It’s not even anything remotely to do with disliking a minority lifestyle.
It has to do with being recognized by the society you live in so yes the government should be in the business of issuing licenses.
[quote]
Like what they did when separate but equal was stuck down and integration was forced upon poor old southerners, right?
That’s a false equivalence.
[/quote]
It’s a false equivalency because… Oh never mind. Let me just help you here. No it’s not. Discrimination is discrimination. You think this is about something else?
What I was implying in my original statement, but maybe didn’t clarify, is that I believe the present State has a vested interest in fomenting unease between ethnicities, cultures, and lifestyles, because the creation of this chaos provides a justification for the State’s existence.
You have got to be kidding!! Please tell me you are kidding. Yanking my chain right? “Creating chaos justifies the state’s existence?!”
SO you maintain that bigotry and discrimination is justified and rightly so in order to maintain social harmony and delegitimizes the state’s existence? and that the SCOTUS smacking down discrimination and bigotry is their attempt, not to correct and injustice but just an opportunist grab to create chaos in order to be justified? Have you said this out loud? like words out of your mouth hole where they are audible by your ear holes? Do you know how ridiculous this is?
How about the state’s duty to provide for the common welfare of it’s citizens? By not ruling on this case and continuing to let bigotry and discrimination attempt to “move away eventually on its own” they would be derelict in the governments duties.
The unease between ethnicities, cultures, and lifestyles, is already there it has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling. Only in Bizarro land does the legal precedent for everyone following the law mean that the state is breeding “unease.” Since when does “It’s against the law to discriminate” cause unease?
So it’s no surprise (maybe going back to Pon-E’s post from earlier) that they choose to focus on things like this rather than on ending the War On Some Drugs.
This is a false equivalency fallacy. Drug laws and discrimination towards people that are different are not the same thing. See how I explained how it was a false equivalency where as you just dropped it in as a line with no explanation to sound important?
Legalization of drugs diminishes the need for police, prisons, and other State resources, while continual government interference in social issues increases the need for such things.
not really. Those resources could be applied elsewhere and still utilized. It’s the state’s job to interfere in social issues otherwise civil unrest is likely to occur and then the State is really in danger. It’s in the states best interest to make sure things are harmonious. People don’t abolish governments because everything is great. Letting minority groups be shit upon is not a way to promote harmony.
No. Those people will continue to do so. I am talking more about people who were already in a paranoid ‘bunker mentality’ state, who will just continue to get worse.
Good let them get worse. They will naturally select themselves out of society or adapt who fuckin cares about them?
Grmpy the thing with me is I’m generally going to take an anarchist position on things like this.
You sound like a poorly thought out libertarian (but then I repeat myself) Or some paranoid AM radio listener. either way it’s not good.
Try not to get too emotional and you’ll find I agree with your social orientation,
It’s got nothing to do with emotion. That’s fine you agree with my social orientation but your paths to it seem mighty disjointed and unattainable given your stated destination…
but almost always feel that coercive government power is the wrong way to win hearts and minds.
That’s fine but that’s not what we had here.
[reply]im sipping 12 year old scotch, so i’m going to jump in here…
my position on homosexuals is… i do not give a shit. i really don’t. the gender confusion/role play thing is strange to me. and for some reason, i’m not sure why, but i have a history of lesbians not liking me. It’s an inside joke with me and my buddies.
Back to the role thing… i don’t get it. the butch thing, wallet in back pocket, haircut - the whole fashion of it. seems silly. the whole lipstick lesbian and butch thing. (it’s the butch lesbians that do not like me, btw) i should mention… that i am a big anti-fashion person. so maybe that’s part of it. i don’t know.
mooney? input please.
time for a refill. i’ll look at this post in the morning at work and think, why the fuck did i type that. but hey, fuck it.
Some things to think about:
What image do you portray with your hair cut, choice of clothing, behavior, etc.?
What image do you want to portray or do you not care?
Do you dress up at work or not?
How do you feel when you portray it, comfortable or uncomfortable?
Are you more confident the more professionally dressed up?
Is this the natural/fundamental/baseline you, are you trying something new, or do you go through a series of different looks over time until you settle on one that make you feel good?
Do you need a makeover and to be restyled to fit a certain image, or are you ok with how you look in a natural state?
Do you want a more feminine or masculine look?
Would you cross-dress because you feel more comfortable cross-dressed and would you go out in public cross-dressed?[/reply]
these are all social constructs and have zero to do with biology. they hold no weight Especially since social constructs change.
I was gay for about 20 minutes at a sleep over in high school once. I don’t regret it but to be honest, it really didn’t do anything for me. Even though, to be fair, the friend I was “being gay” with, looked a bit like Ricky Schroder with a great tan. And Ricky Schroder was a cute guy if it comes down to that. So I guess in a sense my 20 minutes of gayness wasn’t so bad.
It’s ok to be gay, dude, seriously. It’s alright. Nobody thinks any less of you. It must be lonely in there for you. [:(]
There is not a national church for a reason, despite a large portion of the population thinking we should have one and its philosophies written into law.
All humans deserve the same human rights.
Otherwise, history will repeat itself.
[reply][reply]im sipping 12 year old scotch, so i’m going to jump in here…
my position on homosexuals is… i do not give a shit. i really don’t. the gender confusion/role play thing is strange to me. and for some reason, i’m not sure why, but i have a history of lesbians not liking me. It’s an inside joke with me and my buddies.
Back to the role thing… i don’t get it. the butch thing, wallet in back pocket, haircut - the whole fashion of it. seems silly. the whole lipstick lesbian and butch thing. (it’s the butch lesbians that do not like me, btw) i should mention… that i am a big anti-fashion person. so maybe that’s part of it. i don’t know.
mooney? input please.
time for a refill. i’ll look at this post in the morning at work and think, why the fuck did i type that. but hey, fuck it.
Some things to think about:
What image do you portray with your hair cut, choice of clothing, behavior, etc.?
What image do you want to portray or do you not care?
Do you dress up at work or not?
How do you feel when you portray it, comfortable or uncomfortable?
Are you more confident the more professionally dressed up?
Is this the natural/fundamental/baseline you, are you trying something new, or do you go through a series of different looks over time until you settle on one that make you feel good?
Do you need a makeover and to be restyled to fit a certain image, or are you ok with how you look in a natural state?
Do you want a more feminine or masculine look?
Would you cross-dress because you feel more comfortable cross-dressed and would you go out in public cross-dressed?[/reply]
these are all social constructs and have zero to do with biology. they hold no weight Especially since social constructs change.[/reply]
He was asking why people dress the way the do. The answer is, various reasons.
I was trying to help him answer his own question.
We should all just run around naked. Problem solved.
There is not a national church for a reason, despite a large portion of the population thinking we should have one and its philosophies written into law.
All humans deserve the same human rights.
Otherwise, history will repeat itself.
We need a “thumbs up” button.
We should all just run around naked. Problem solved.
We need a “thumbs up” button.
So what…? as did the Bown Vs Board of Education ruling (even though you claim it’s a false equivalency even when it’s not) Oh no Rights for all make me feel all icky, Now I can’t control my bigotry.
Sigh yes Grumpy, you sussed me out. This whole time I have been sitting around my house in my WWII-era Stahlhelm, playing the “Horst Wessel Lied” endlessly on my stereo as I dream of crushing the faces of minority groups under my jackboot forever, with the Luftwaffe blackening the sky and Panzer divisions steamrolling the fading hopes of the weak and helpless.
Where, in my entire tenure here, have I exhibited “bigotry?”
I dissent on the grounds that I don’t think there should be coercive State intervention in social matters, that’s it. I have never had an issue with gays and as I said in my first post on this subject, some are the core influences on what I do (William Burroughs, Peter Christopherson, etc.)
So, Let’s not piss off the bigots? seriously? that’s your logic?
My logic is that “…or else!” coercive propositions embolden and even occasionally create bigots.
I attribute much of the progress of gay issues in this country not to legal rulings, but simply to their persistent ability to provide highly visible examples of why they are not the freaks that their enemies think them to be.
But when you have to force people to accept one another, it looks like you are operating from a position of weakness, not one of strength. It makes it look to others like “well, you peons are never going to figure out this shit for yourselves, so we’d better hold you at gunpoint until you do so.”
So, marriage causes people to be dependent on the state?
Yes, it does, if you are dependent on the state to formalize your marriage with a license.
You have got to be kidding!! Please tell me you are kidding. Yanking my chain right? “Creating chaos justifies the state’s existence?!”
Absolutely. War and conflict is the “health of the State”. The fewer artificial competitive divisions are created along lines of race, class, gender, etc. etc., the less need there is for their refereeing and policing abilities. Is it all that ‘out there’ to suggest that, if they don’t outright create these divisions, they certainly benefit from them?
You sound like a poorly thought out libertarian (but then I repeat myself) Or some paranoid AM radio listener. either way it’s not good.
If what you mean by libertarian is what Robert Anton Wilson meant (e.g. “a Republican who likes to smoke dope”) then no, I am not that one-dimensional. I am not a worshipper of the “free market” as the savior of human relations any more than I am a believer in governmental authority.
But I do base my philosophy and politics upon the concept that coercive acts must be limited as much as possible. I believe whatever social harmony we have achieved has come from processes that are far more random than fiat decrees, and with no threat of punishment behind them.
I am at “work” now and may try to address some of your other points later, but for now this is what I am running up the flagpole.
I blame all of this crap on the liberals. Republicans don’t put up with this nonsense.
Of course. Repubicans dont put with anything that doesnt benefit them directly. Just the nature of the beast.
I blame the queers.
And the Jews.
And the Jewqueers.
And Paul Barker.
I blame the queers.
And the Jews.
And the Jewqueers.
And Paul Barker.
Paul Barqueer.
[reply]I blame the queers.
And the Jews.
And the Jewqueers.
And Paul Barker.
Paul Barqueer.[/reply]
win
Sigh yes Grumpy, you sussed me out. This whole time I have been sitting around my house in my WWII-era Stahlhelm, playing the “Horst Wessel Lied” endlessly on my stereo as I dream of crushing the faces of minority groups under my jackboot forever, with the Luftwaffe blackening the sky and Panzer divisions steamrolling the fading hopes of the weak and helpless.
Where, in my entire tenure here, have I exhibited “bigotry?”
You’re missing the point. I don’t think you are a bigot. Far from it. You seem like a stand up fellow. I think you are a bit misdirected. You’re happy with the outcome but not the path taken to achieve the outcome. However, under the path that you suggest that we should have stayed on, who knows when gay people would have been given the right to marry. That supports the bigots in positions of power (Clerks and such who are tasked with the responsibility of handing out the certificates on Behalf of their state and the US) who want to discriminate, and that cannot be tolerated here in the America. If we left it up to the states, even though the rest of the country was well into desegregation, would we see desegregation in the south yet? I’m thinking no. This ruling gives even more legal ground for gay people wishing to exercise their right to marry and being discriminated against to seek justice. that is all.
I do think it’s bullshit that you think groups being discriminated against should have to put up with it until public opinion changes. That will never happen. There are still people pissed at the emancipation proclamation even though they are gazillion generations removed from it. When do we step in on behalf of the oppressed? According to you, it would seem, never.
I dissent on the grounds that I don’t think there should be coercive State intervention in social matters, that’s it.
That’s one of the very specific things that the Government is supposed to do! So, you think that Lincoln should have stayed out of the abolitionist movement too? Simply incredible. Continuing to let people find their way out of discrimination is not just and will never change with out the “coercive state intervention.”
Let me ask you this, What is more toxic, the “coercive state” insisting on justice, or it’s blind eye that lets it’s citizens institutionally treat each other like crap?
I have never had an issue with gays and as I said in my first post on this subject, some are the core influences on what I do (William Burroughs, Peter Christopherson, etc.)
I don’t think that you do. I never charged that you were a bigot. I do think that it’s sad that you would let people that have influenced you so greatly continue to be shit on without the benefit of Justice intervening.
[quote]So, Let’s not piss off the bigots? seriously? that’s your logic?
My logic is that “…or else!” coercive propositions embolden and even occasionally create bigots.
[/quote]
Occasionally? So, let’s keep a constantly toxic environment to prevent “occasionally?”
that’s a nice standard to keep if you’re on the side of not getting fucked over. Not so much for the other side.
I attribute much of the progress of gay issues in this country not to legal rulings, but simply to their persistent ability to provide highly visible examples of why they are not the freaks that their enemies think them to be.
and that’s fine but it’s still not a legal precedent that keeps others from being able to discriminant against them.
But when you have to force people to accept one another, it looks like you are operating from a position of weakness, not one of strength.
Says who? You are not forcing people to accept anybody. You don’t have to accept a gay married couple. You (I mean “you” as a specifically generic term, not actually YOU) go ahead and think they are sinners but you can’t treat them any different. It’s really pretty simple. I really don’t care for religion because of it’s oppressive nature, but you go ahead and pray to an invisible sky buddy and go through with your rituals and what not, and I will not attempt to deprive you of your rights to do so unless of course you think one of your rights is to deprive someone else of their rights. I don’t recognize a Deacon’s authority, I don’t even recognize his religion but I’m not going to treat him any different as a person. See the parallel with acceptance and behavior?
It makes it look to others like “well, you peons are never going to figure out this shit for yourselves, so we’d better hold you at gunpoint until you do so.”
Some times people have to be held responsible through force of law to not be an asshole, because Justice can’t wait around (nor should it have to) for peons to figure it out. So, Yea, that’s exactly what happened.
So, marriage causes people to be dependent on the state?
Yes, it does, if you are dependent on the state to formalize your marriage with a license.
No it doesn’t. You have an odd definition of Dependent. They are not taking anything from the government. they do not Depend on the government for anything other than validation. it’s not a drain on the state’s resources as your loaded term of “dependent” would suggest.
Absolutely. War and conflict is the “health of the State”. The fewer artificial competitive divisions are created along lines of race, class, gender, etc. etc., the less need there is for their refereeing and policing abilities. Is it all that ‘out there’ to suggest that, if they don’t outright create these divisions, they certainly benefit from them?
Where do you come up with this stuff? That is just so wrong. There are plenty of other things that the government can and needs to apply it’s resources that there is no threat of it becoming obsolete. Divisions hurt the government not help it. It does not need to create divisiveness. If you look at the ruling, the ruling you are opposed to, it is eradicating divisiveness not furthering it. the ruling is saying “YOU CANNOT BE DIVISIVE IN THE NAME OF THE STATE.”
incredible you would come away with the exact opposite understanding.
If what you mean by libertarian is what Robert Anton Wilson meant (e.g. “a Republican who likes to smoke dope”) then no, I am not that one-dimensional.
No, libertarian in that “i got my shit now fuck off”
I am not a worshipper of the “free market” as the savior of human relations any more than I am a believer in governmental authority.
Then who is the authority?
But I do base my philosophy and politics upon the concept that coercive acts must be limited as much as possible.
everything is coercive. everything. when the state steps in it’s for the common good of society. Such as this ruling by SCOTUS.
I believe whatever social harmony we have achieved has come from processes that are far more random than fiat decrees, and with no threat of punishment behind them.
I disagree, you can look at current attitudes towards black folks by the majority of the nation versus 1954 and before. Legislation. trampling on the rights of others is not a path to social harmony. it furthers an undercurrent of hate and despair. What is the governments job if not to wash that away or at least try?
Grmpy -
Since we are getting more and more into an unrelated topic here (what role government really should play in civic life, if any), I might propose we move our debate to another thread. It will spiral out of control quickly if it stays here. And I’m being rude by making a discussion parallel to Mooney’s.
You asked about where authority comes from though, and to that all I can do is echo the old CRASS slogan: [url https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQ1CvwF7BQ]“there is no authority but yourself.”
Idealistic? Impossible? Insane? Maybe. But I still feel the sanest society would be the one where there is as much self-reliance / self-sufficiency as possible, and as little delegation of one’s own skills to any governing body or corporate taskmaster. As it stands now, we have the worst of all possible worlds for people who dream about this kind of thing, but who can say that this state of things will last forever. If the marriage equality issue shows us anything, people’s attitudes can change very quickly within a single generation, and can enable things that were once deemed socially impossible.