I assume you support all of the above and oppose government intrusion. Is that correct?
There is a vast difference in regulating public behavior, i.e. sex acts taking place in a public place subject to everyone and anyone witnessing such whether they want to or not and the federal government regulating what an adult can view, read or do within the confines of his or her own home. Santorum is advocating criminalizing the later. As POTUS he may use the “bully pulpit” to say that in his own opinion it’s “morally” wrong but for him as POTUS to criminalize it goes against everything I understand about individual liberty.
I don’t want the government to dictate and criminalize every aspect of my life, either from the left or from the right.
Santorum is as much as a “Statist” as Obama is – different sides of the coin but from the prospective of individual liberty, very much the same coin, the same bum wooden nickel and not at all what our Founders envisioned for our Republic.
The topic is obscenity. There are laws against public sex and nudity because legislatures have deemed them obscene. You support government intrusion vis a vis public obscenity laws. Ergo you see a role for government in regulating obscenity. And by your reckoning this makes you a statist of the first order
You can’t have it both ways Marcus. You can certainly take a position on where obscenity and government should intersect but you’ve already ceded the point that they can and should. A common problem for libertarians especially those with a sense of decency.
Gingrich and Romney both have joined Santorum in stating they will appoint Attorney Generals who will enforce the obscenity laws on the books though Romney has not signed that pledge
So you're left with the foreign policy nutter or the prince. Who will you choose?