I must admit that it would be impossible for any country to have a fully deregulated fiscal system; when we compared your system to ours during the housing and monetary crisis, we could be forgiven for thinking that there didn't seem to be much effective legislation in place that was designed to protect the average US citizen from the corporate heavy-weights.
Our banking system could and should be fully deregulated. If it was, there would be little to no malinvestment because banks would actually fear failure and wouldn't need the government to create artificial incentives. Hooray for purist capitalism.
I can see your position as it relates in my view to a theoretical environment, but when this principle is applied to a real-world environment what would you do if you were on a school board where some father was wanting to join the board who was married to another male or to take it to an odd extreme with say to a cat or a dog.
I believe that education should be completely defederalized. If the school board is set up on democratic decision making then make that an elected decision. It's irrelevant, though, because is it moral to prevent someone from joining a school board because they do something immoral, or in this case, state something we disagree with? No, we are called to forgive, not punish. Punishment is up to God.
Requesting new hypothetical please
.
If you were to complain that he was an unsuitable individual to hold such an office, would he be able to have your States Legislature prosecute you under some wacky piece of Hate Crime legislation as I gather that this would negate any 1st Amendment rights.
Hate speech laws are inherently anti-1st amendment, so what is your point?
We almost had this situation here in my State about five years ago when our State Government (Left leaning) tried to restrain Christians from informing people about the practices of Muslims in other countries thankfully our countries High Court threw out that zany piece of legislation.
So you were given your freedom of speech back?
Another problem with removing marriage as being only between a man and a woman is that it would allow our children to presume, well, if our politicians dont think that its an issue then same-sex marriage and even marriage to an animal must be OK.
"If our politicians don't think it's an issue"??? No, the point is that the government is not a dictionary. This is a free speech issue. If someone is concerned about same-sex marriage that doesn't allow them to force a definition of marriage on someone else.
also, there is no "removing marriage as being only between a man and a woman" because you and I and many others will hold this definition and have the right to consider it the only legitimate definition. You are advocating that the government ban all marriages outside of one man and one woman, which seems good at first, until you realize that you have paved away for someone else's definition of marriage, namely sam-sex marriage, being enforced on you. Had we not given the government the power to regulate marriage in the first place, same-sex marriage as a definition would never have been able to be forced on people, so we are best off keeping government wholly out of marriage in the first place
1st Amendment rights
Now that I think about it, considering how the 1st Amendment has been unjustifiably used to restrain the Gospel and the free expression of Christians in the US, would you be better off by maybe abolishing your Constitution? Of course this is being said somewhat tongue-in-cheek but the liberals and atheists certainly seem to be abusing your Constitution so that they can achieve their agendas.
What are you talking about? Modern liberals despise our Constitution. See:
hate speech laws (violation of 1st)
gun control (violation of 2nd)
federalization of government agencies (violation of 10th)
obamacare
etc
The first amendment can be credited with providing a means of spreading the Gospel, not hindering it. True conservatives in America are the defenders of the Constitution.