Ann Coulter Rips Libertarians

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/22/ann-coulter-battles-room-full-of-libertarians-this-is-why-people-think-youre-puies/

Ms. Coulter, in her typically diplomatic fashion, called out Libertarians for their failure to see the forest for the trees.

Too many Libertarians get wound up with peripheral issues, such as legalized marijuana. They fail to see that the Left will generally be more than willing to throw them a bone (pun intended) as long as the establishment does not experience any serious opposition to their quest for control.

When people who affect to be advocates for very limited government support moves such as gay marriage and/or physician-assisted suicide*, they play right into the hands of those who are pushing for an ever-more authoritative state. While some will be content whiling away the hours, days, and months, in clouds of smoke, statists will be gaining one foothold after another.

*In fairness, not all Libertarians support these positions.

Supporting legislation that allows doctors to kill people opens a Pandora's box. Once you have a "right" (Governments can dole out privileges - not rights) to pay someone to kill you, the next step is that, if you can no longer support yourself, you should pay a doctor to kill you. The logical conclusion will ultimately be that you are obligated to submit to this "procedure" if you are incapable of supporting yourself.

Abortion was merely the first step for this agenda.

John Locke, in his Treatises on Government, noted that people are not born with the right to end their own lives. He used this truth to argue that, since this type of act violated the natural law, one also has no right to submit to slavery or tyranny. Although we are denied any education that includes such works, the Left is fully aware of his assertions. To get us painted into a corner in which we are no longer free to refuse to submit to an all-powerful state, they first need us to agree that our lives are not sacred and that ending life is a routine matter.

From The Blaze:

"But then things became a little more heated when Stossel decided to shift gears and brought up legalizing drugs.

“Libertarians and pot,” Coulter laughed. “This is why people think libertarians are pu**ies.”

Now although Fox censored the word, Mediaite’s Andrew Kirell was on the scene and can testify to Coulter’s language.

She continued:

'We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, “Oh, but we want to legalize pot.”

You know, if you’re a little more manly you would tell them what your position on employment discrimination is. How about that? But it’s always “We want to legalize pot.”

Stossel went all in Libertarian versus Social Conservatism: “Why can’t gays get married?”

“Well, they can,” she answered. “They have to marry a member of the opposite sex.”-The following is an excerpt from a post on a baker who may be in trouble for refusing to make a wedding cake with two brides.

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/02/baker-refuses-cake-for-fake-wedding.html

One must keep in mind that governments do not have creative powers. They cannot bring rights into existence. The State is given the power to regulate and protect institutions such as marriage to prevent abuses. These would include underage brides, one spouse who is still legally married to another, etc.

Marriage existed long before any government; therefore a government cannot,despite any legislative hoop-jumping, create the legality of a marriage that, by its very nature, cannot exist. Any law that presents itself as such is nothing more than play-acting by the State.

I once believed that the primary reason for using statutory powers to pretend that same-sex marriages exist was to destroy the family While I still believe that this is the primary purpose for some, I have come to think that others have a more insidious purpose for this.

-The purpose is to establish full governmental control of society and all of its people.

Think about it. If the State can force people to act as if a government can bring the impossible into existence, and force everyone to go along with it, then what is it incapable of doing or forcing? If a society accepts that the State can conjure up institutions by going through the motions of making laws, what can stop them from removing rights or creating others that infringe on the Liberties of the rest of the people?