As an example, in a libertarian political system, there would not be government-enforced morality against partial birth abortion and polygamy and pedophilia, and homosexuals in the military and the radical homosexual agenda, entering the United States unrestrained by an INS and Border Patrol, and the left/libertarians would succeed in destroying America and social conservatism.
That is the reality and the success of libertarianism and the left in the last 50 years.
Your child’s fantasy that that will result in a new America of people putting down their crack pipes and ghetto lifestyles and becoming conservative voters and ending welfare and social programs, is insane, and totally bizarre.
Social liberals and immigrants vote for more government and welfare, social conservatives, the religious, are the ones voting against it, and who the libertarians and left are at war with.
You people are totally irrational and live in a fantasy world that when ALL votes are equal, that more ghetto living leads to people suddenly voting like Evangelical Christians, when the opposite is true.
You end welfare and social programs FIRST, then we can discuss adopting your radical leftist America destroying agenda.
Get the voters to vote out the social programs FIRST, not second.
Fifty years of history proves that libertarianism creates more soldiers of the left, not fewer.
Cool, you and I are in agreement. (Ain't that incredible?)
I agree that government subsidies that facilitate immorality should be ended FIRST. This specifically includes the Great Society programs and the Welfare State programs which followed.
For example, I would eliminate all laws that would tell businesses what health insurance coverage to buy (or even to offer health insurance), as well as laws that tell businesses they may not discriminate in hiring. Businesses could then declare that they will not cover gay couples (there would be a financial incentive, due to the cost of covering AIDS treatment).
Suddenly, gay marriage becomes less attractive, because it is no longer a way to tap into someone else's benefits package.
How many women would have children out of wedlock if they had no access to subsidizing government programs and regulations?