'Actually, I think they are better termed "conservatives". Those are the ones who foolishly think the rights of individuals are paramount and should not be trampled on by the state. Leftists generally view the state as supreme and it is the state that grants rights to its citizens. I'll go with the former.'
People who believe that the rights of individuals are always paramount are not libertarians, they are anarchists.
In any civilized society, the state has a right to establish certain social norms and standards.
Libertarians oppose a military draft and oppose immigration laws. The Founding Fathers had no problem with military conscription, and I doubt if they would have approved of the incremental invasion of America by Mexico.
"200 years ago, we had slavery and Women had few if any rights. Religious tests though unconstitutional were the law in many states. The founding fathers gave us a Constitution that allowed for continued improvement of our Nation and society."
200 years ago slavery was legal and constitutional, although certainly inconsistent with the founding principles of America which is why it was ulimately eliminated. Women had no rights as it was a male dominated world. Progess advances incrementally - as does decay.
The Founding Fathers did give us a Constitution which contains within itself a mechanism for improvement, but that same mechanism can be abused in the wrong hands.
"The 6 million couples living together outside of marriage hardly compare with the 2 1/2 to 3 million divorces annually, which directly and negatively impact over a million children annually. So the definition of swine may have to be greatly expanded."
At least the 2.5 million people who divorced made an attempt at marriage. And of those 6 million people who live together and produce offspring, their partnerships are far more likely to frgament than those of people who are married. Individuals who are given to instant gratification lack the dedication and self-discipline which is necessary to make a successful marriage work. And they produce the offspring which create the societal problems we see all about us as these children have no role models, no direction, no sense of family honor, no self-discipline or self respect, and become a burden rather than an asset to society.
"Perhaps they understand that true liberty means free choices, which at times will be the wrong choices. But that is the basis of freedom...the freedom to make a bad choice."
True liberty does mean the freedom to make bad choices - as long as the consequences of those bad choices are born by the indidivuals who make the bad choices. When people choose to live together outside marriage the ultimate consequences are children and society ulitmately bears the burden of dealing with the problems these children generate.
Actually, it doesn't have the right; it has the power. There is a huge difference. But yes, the state can set certain standards, as long as they do not violate my rights. When they do, the state must explain why such violation is in its interest in doing so. When it can't, as in this case, it looses that power. It's a nice balance. The state's first duty is to protect the rights of its citizens.
Libertarians oppose a military draft and oppose immigration laws. The Founding Fathers had no problem with military conscription, and I doubt if they would have approved of the incremental invasion of America by Mexico.
And this is relative to the discussion, how?
The Founding Fathers did give us a Constitution which contains within itself a mechanism for improvement, but that same mechanism can be abused in the wrong hands.
Indeed it can. But as the last 150 years have shown, far more harm can come from those who decide that states have "rights", and that the rights of individuals are secondary to the "norms" and "standards" the elite decide on. That would also classify as wrong hands.
And of those 6 million people who live together and produce offspring, their partnerships are far more likely to frgament than those of people who are married.
That's a dubious conclusion, since 50% of all first marriages and 60% of all second marriages fail. Far fewer of those living together out of wedlock have children than do married couples. That proves disastrous for the children.
Individuals who are given to instant gratification lack the dedication and self-discipline which is necessary to make a successful marriage work.
Indeed, but those living together have already made some commitment, so those are not the ones giving in to instant gratification.
And they produce the offspring which create the societal problems we see all about us as these children have no role models, no direction, no sense of family honor, no self-discipline or self respect, and become a burden rather than an asset to society.
Almost all of those children spring from one of two circumstances: the single mom who has numerous boyfriends and one night stands, and married couples who divorce. As I said, few of those who live together bring new children into the relationship. As for legislating against a lack of self discipline, I could think of a whole host of laws, most of which though would violate the rights of individuals. A free society pays a certain price for that freedom.
When people choose to live together outside marriage the ultimate consequences are children and society ulitmately bears the burden of dealing with the problems these children generate.
You are simply not talking about most of those 6 million couples living outside of marriage because they are normally quite self sufficient, normally do not have children, and are not a burden on society.
But you may want to look at the children from divorced parents and the single moms, including teen mothers, who have 3, 4 and more children all from different fathers, not one of whom would consider living with the mother, let alone marriage. This is far more about laws regulating morals than any serious attempt to prevent single parent children.