No games at all. If you or AE can’t understand how marriage is a form of positive liberty, then it’s not my problem.

Sigh. Now you’re being willfully obtuse, Rob. AE and I have no problems understanding the positive liberty concept. My point was that AE didn’t ask you to elaborate on such distinctions. At #18 he asked you to

cite the laws they are trying to pass to restrict freedoms.

This clearly means laws meant to keep people from doing things, not laws which fail to help them do something.

Your answer to AE (@ 19) was

Any law … which restricts freedom of any person AND tells them how they should live their lives is a “nanny state” law.

This answer is redundant: restricting freedom is telling people how they should live. However it does suggest you got the point of AE’s question (as did your example of “blue laws”), your point about Cheney and SSM notwithstanding.

when the government took notice of only heterosexual unions, it did imposed legal restrictions on those that were not married in terms of family law and spousal privilege.

Here you logic really runs off the rails. By recognizing some relationships but not others as marriages, any intimate relationship between persons not recognized as a marriage has legal restrictions placed upon it by your definition. No government interference is required at all. That is not “restriction freedom and telling people how they should live.”

‘any law that attempts to encourage one behavior over others for society’s sake,’ like a national anti-smoking law that Huckabee has advocated for?

Uh, no. An anti-smoking law isn’t attempting to encourage a behavior. It prohibits a behavior. Here we have the main point of our disagreement: you don’t argue well. In fact, you don’t argue properly. I note that you’ve extended the usual use of a phrase and you come back with an example that fits the usual use of said phrase! Come on, man!

Yet the real question is why should government be encouraging one behaviour over others with the exception of being lawful?

Yes, that is the real question. But if people think the government should create incentives for one behavior without banning alternatives, should they be accused of wanting to restrict liberty?

This ‘private’ thing you’re arguing about is just a straw man.

The hell it is! You said that the “private Shiavo [sic] case” was interfered with. The case wasn’t private; it was a legal matter. You can’t call a court case something it isn’t and then fairly complain when you’re called on it. If you didn’t like the way Congress went about trying to ensure Terri’s constitutional rights weren’t infringed by Florida, you should have said so.

the state and federal government blatantly interfering with the judicial process of a single case and curtailing Shiavo’s marital contract.

Oh, really? I saw no interference in the court case. I saw the Florida legislature having second thoughts about what it had previously done, and Congress acting — in panicked and ineffective fashion — to ensure Florida didn’t deny Terri’s constitutional rights.

As for Schiavo’s marital contract, that wasn’t even an issue in the case. But then you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t approve of legal marriage contracts, so why do you care?

You mean taking life support off from someone who’s permanently lost all cognitive functions? Again, the matter should be private between spouses and their physicians.

No. I asked about denying food and water. No one in this case was on “life support” like a respirator. (You enjoy playing with words and changing the terms of an argument, don’t you? Such sophistry doesn’t work on me.)

As for the “permanently lost all cognitive functions” bit, that’s a medical diagnosis and medical diagnoses aren’t perfect. If we assume that such an diagnosis is wrong since it may be wrong, it that too nanny state for you?

And what’s this business about spouses and physicians. Didn’t you say you don’t like the government elevating certain relationships above others? Why then did Florida get to elevate her husband (who had moved on) above her parents?

Don’t bother answering, Rob. I know the answer: Because killing off those in a persistent vegetative state fits your secular humanist ethics.

Opposed to the latter altogether. Satisfied Dave?

Yes, very satisfied, Rob.

You don’t like legal marriage unless it is used to kill of those in a vegetative state. And you think any child should be able to legally buy alcohol. Got it.

You’re not a libertarian. You’re a libertine jerk.

Please. AE asked you to name restrictions of liberty; he did not invite you to play games about “positive” versus “negative” liberties. Not recognizing gay weddings as legal imposes no restriction on the actions of anyone.

No games at all. If you or AE can’t understand how marriage is a form of positive liberty, then it’s not my problem. To put it simple and in AE’s words, when the government took notice of only heterosexual unions, it did imposed legal restrictions on those that were not married in terms of family law and spousal privilege.

The phrase “nanny law” is most often used to describe laws meant to protect individuals from themselves. Drug laws are perfect examples. In describing marriage laws as such you are using the phrase to mean any law that attempts to encourage one behavior over others for society’s sake. So be it. But as I said, your comments about the FMA and DOMA suggest you want more government interference in these affairs, not less. It is therefore incongruous for you to complain about marriage laws as examples of nanny statism.

‘any law that attempts to encourage one behavior over others for society’s sake,’ like a national anti-smoking law that Huckabee has advocated for? Yet the real question is why should government be encouraging one behaviour over others with the exception of being lawful? Government or even religion wasn’t in the marriage business and the sky didn’t fall because they weren’t. When they did get into the marriage business, they got If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

This is rubbish. Why do you insist on arguing past me instead of with me?

You stated that social conservatives “interferred with the private Shiavo case.” There was no private case. This wasn’t a private disagreement between a husband and two parents. It was a court case. (Court cases involve the government and are therefore the people’s business per se.) A very public court case.

This ‘private’ thing you’re arguing about is just a straw man. The point I was making was about the state and federal government blatantly interfering with the judicial process of a single case and curtailing Shiavo’s marital contract.

Now that I’ve answered you hypothetical question, perhaps now you will answer my non-hypothetical question from my original comment that you ignored:

since when is deciding whether someone else gets food and water just a private affair anyway?

You mean taking life support off from someone who’s permanently lost all cognitive functions? Again, the matter should be private between spouses and their physicians.

Not a man for subtle distinctions, are you Rob? Yes, withdrawing the ability to drink legally from 18 to 20 year olds is rather nannyish. My point was that this wasn’t a new kind of restriction. When you call the 21-year drinking age “nanny law pure and simple” are you just opposed to denying alcohol to legal adults, or are you opposed to drinking age laws in the first place? From your comments it’s impossible to tell.

Opposed to the latter altogether. Satisfied Dave?

Again, Rob can’t explain how or why the marriage laws discriminate against him, when they’re applied equally to everyone.

Having a bad day, Rob? It’s not my fault you can’t come up with better examples.

Your argument is flawed since It is a form of social engineering so long as the government favours heterosexual unions. You’re aguing about a posive liberty in the form of government recognizing heterosexual unions, instead of negative liberty. Nanny law it is.

Please. AE asked you to name restrictions of liberty; he did not invite you to play games about “positive” versus “negative” liberties. Not recognizing gay weddings as legal imposes no restriction on the actions of anyone.

The phrase “nanny law” is most often used to describe laws meant to protect individuals from themselves. Drug laws are perfect examples. In describing marriage laws as such you are using the phrase to mean any law that attempts to encourage one behavior over others for society’s sake. So be it. But as I said, your comments about the FMA and DOMA suggest you want more government interference in these affairs, not less. It is therefore incongruous for you to complain about marriage laws as examples of nanny statism.

Some legal cases are private matters, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for court censures.

This is rubbish. Why do you insist on arguing past me instead of with me?

You stated that social conservatives “interferred with the private Shiavo case.” There was no private case. This wasn’t a private disagreement between a husband and two parents. It was a court case. (Court cases involve the government and are therefore the people’s business per se.) A very public court case.

How would you like it if your daughter’s rape case was televised, or even worse, paraded by congress?

Well, sherlock, I don’t have a daughter. But I do have a niece, so will use her in your hypothetical. In such a situation the televising of the proceedings would be beyond my control, but how I felt about them would depend on the particulars of the situation. Of course since this is a hypothetical question, I can give nor further answer.

As for being paraded by Congress, are you saying that the case was paraded by Congress from Terri’s husbands perspective, from her parent’s perspective, or from hers? Anyway, if I thought my niece was being done an injustice by the court, the “parading” of her case by Congress would probably please me just fine.

Now that I’ve answered you hypothetical question, perhaps now you will answer my non-hypothetical question from my original comment that you ignored:

since when is deciding whether someone else gets food and water just a private affair anyway?

Big case or not, it doesn’t matter. It’s still a form of nanny law pure and simple.

Not a man for subtle distinctions, are you Rob? Yes, withdrawing the ability to drink legally from 18 to 20 year olds is rather nannyish. My point was that this wasn’t a new kind of restriction. When you call the 21-year drinking age “nanny law pure and simple” are you just opposed to denying alcohol to legal adults, or are you opposed to drinking age laws in the first place? From your comments it’s impossible to tell.

under current Marriage law, you can marry one (1) person of your choice, subject to the restrictions imposed by the state to have government recognition.

Please explain how that discriminates against anyone.

LOL “Restrictions imposed by the state,” thank you very much for proving my point: it’s a nanny law. The solution would be for government to get out of the marriage business.

BTW that inane argument can also be used against interracial marriages: that is a black person has the freedom to marry, so long as it’s a person of his or her own race.

Also, what about the children of gay parents? They had no choice in their relationship, so why should the state penalize them?

under current Marriage law, you can marry one (1) person of your choice, subject to the restrictions imposed by the state to have government recognition.

Please explain how that discriminates against anyone.

Frank Lautenberg is a conservative? He’ll be interested to hear that, I think. He could probably use a few laughs right now.

In that circumstance, he took the social conservative positision. Anyway, it’s a tu quoque argument since we’re talking about conservatives being the vanguard of individual liberties.

The government not formally taking notice of homosexual unions is not a restriction of liberty. The government is simply ignoring the matter. If marriage laws are per se a form of social engineering, the only way to end such engineering is to end state recognition of marriages. But your comment against the FMA and DOMA suggests you want more such social engineering, not less.

Your argument is flawed since It is a form of social engineering so long as the government favours heterosexual unions. You’re aguing about a posive liberty in the form of government recognizing heterosexual unions, instead of negative liberty. Nanny law it is.

A legal case isn’t a private matter. And since when is deciding whether someone else gets food and water just a private affair anyway?

Wrong. Some legal cases are private matters, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for court censures. How would you like it if your daughter’s rape case was televised, or even worse, paraded by congress?

Now that was a very bad decision, being part of the erosion of federalism. (Of course, the states could stand up to such nonsense if they had the will.) However, unless you propose doing away with the drinking age concept altogether, this isn’t such a big case of nanny law.

Big case or not, it doesn’t matter. It’s still a form of nanny law pure and simple.

Brought the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which coerces individual state policies into setting the legal age to 21.

Frank Lautenberg is a conservative? He’ll be interested to hear that, I think. He could probably use a few laughs right now.

American Elephant asked for examples of laws that “restrict freedoms.” You’ve managed to produce some pretty poor examples:

Want to pass FMA and are against repealing DOMA. Regardless on which side of the issue you’re on, marriage regulation can be argued as a form of social engineering by the state.

The government not formally taking notice of homosexual unions is not a restriction of liberty. The government is simply ignoring the matter. If marriage laws are per se a form of social engineering, the only way to end such engineering is to end state recognition of marriages. But your comment against the FMA and DOMA suggests you want more such social engineering, not less.

Interferred with the private Shiavo case.

A legal case isn’t a private matter. And since when is deciding whether someone else gets food and water just a private affair anyway?

Brought the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which coerces individual state policies into setting the legal age to 21.

Now that was a very bad decision, being part of the erosion of federalism. (Of course, the states could stand up to such nonsense if they had the will.) However, unless you propose doing away with the drinking age concept altogether, this isn’t such a big case of nanny law.

And those are your first three example! That’s not good arguing. (In fairness, your last three examples were better.)

LOL There’s so many of them, where do I start? The worst one is supernanny Mike Huckabee. But as well as the conservatives in congress that:
Want to pass FMA and are against repealing DOMA. Regardless on which side of the issue you’re on, marriage regulation can be argued as a form of social engineering by the state.
Interferred with the private Shiavo case.
Brought the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which coerces individual state policies into setting the legal age to 21.
Continue to support the disastrous war on drugs.
Want to control more on what can be broadcast and set anti-pornography laws.
Last but not least; support the anti-sodomy laws such as Bush when he was governor of Texas.
There’s a lot more of course. Social conservatism is is in essence a form of statism. Someone wrote that it’s not only that they want the government kept out of their wallet, but out of their bedroom as well.
The only conservative with solid principles that I can think of would be Ron Paul (who won the CPAC straw poll without spending as much effort as Mitt Romney), although he has his own set of issues outside the scope of this topic.

And John is correct, I was alluding to that story. LaSalvia referred the NOM group as a bunch of pansies. No beer summit with them I guess.

Any law promulgated or supported by “conservatives” which restricts freedom of any person AND tells them how they should live their lives is a “nanny state” law. I’m with Dick Cheney. On the issue of gay marriage, “freedom for some means freedom for all”. On the issue of “blue laws” in my state of Texas….just because YOU think some stores selling certain kinds of products must be closed on Sunday does not mean that should apply to me. There’s two, bucky. And they are “conservative” down the line.

My issue with the conservative movement is solely with the social conservatives who want to impose a nanny state and restrict freedoms.

Examples please! Please name these conservatives and cite the “nanny state” laws they are trying to pass to restrict freedoms.