Posted on 12/22/2001 8:53:08 AM PST by rob777
Interesting. I don't recall seeing that in the Libertarian platform. I look forward to your sharing the reference.
And every family that sends their kids to one of those private schools is still obligated by law to fund the public institutions. Furthermore, the curriculum of those private schools is still dictated by the government. The government maintains a coercive monopoly on the education business and some day we'll bust it wide open and effect a separation of school and state. Until then, our country will continue its descent into communism.
There is equivalence by result.
Even if accurate, there is more to political belief than social issues.
But even with social issues, when the left and libertarians come to the same conclusion, it's often for completely different reasons.
Ask a leftist if, since they support legal recognition of gay marriage, they also support recognition of polyamorous (multi-partner) marriages. The majority I've dealt with go stark-raving angry. When it comes right down to it, leftists don't see gay marriage as about freedom to arrange one's life as one sees fit; they see it as overthrowing "patriarchy," "tradition," "the market," or whatever pet bogeyman they've latched on to.
Speaking for myself, I support equal legal recognition of traditional, gay, and polyamorous marriages. I believe that traditional marriage is the best arrangement for most people, but that there are exceptions. Even if there were no exceptions, it would still be a matter of arranging one's life as one see fits.
Where the left see certain things identified as "socially liberal" as a tool to some collectivist-utopian dream, the libertarian right come to those conclusions from the basis of individualism.
It's no wonder that most polyamorous households I know (I know four) are more to the political right than the nation as a whole.
Equivalence of result does not equal equivalence of reason. For that matter, the equivalence of result with regard to social issues, is an illusion. The goal of leftism (I refuse to call it liberalism) is that of the collective. The goal of libertarianism is the goal of individualism.
Do you oppose such enforcement on Libertarian grounds?
Roscoe:
The title of this thread is "What Libertarianism Isn't".
It's standard practice in English to capitalize all non-minor words in the title. Unless, you're one of those left-wing, post-modernist fruitcakes, who thinks that punctuation and grammar don't matter.
Nice try, but you aren't turning this around. You made an accusation against Libertarians and I challenged you to support that accusation with evidence. Are you now confessing that you have no evidence and were simply using falsehoods to smear others? Or, are you going to stay on track and provide the evidence to support your assertion?
My criticism of Libertarianism as it is expounded today is that it is puerile. Adults who have some experience in the real world may identify with the ideals (I do) but recognize that sophomore dormitory BS-session theory is not the same as making something work in the cold unforgiving world of reality.
Beyond that, libertarianism lacks coherence today, and shows no sign of becoming a definable, understandable position in the near future.
Moreover, if I am wrong, tell me.
Does Libertarianism support government enforcement of child support, or not?
And if so, how is doing so supported by Libertarian philosophy?
Libertarians are NOT conservative and to Christians who call themselves libertarians, I say you might want to rethink your views.
So one can't be a conservative Christian and a Libertarian at the same time? If not, why not?
You are wrong.
Does Libertarianism support government enforcement of child support, or not? And if so, how is doing so supported by Libertarian philosophy?
You asserted that they did. The burden of proof is upon you to document your evidence. Either do so, or you've admitted that you told other than the truth.
Libertarianism is the Edsel of the free marketplace of ideas.
I think it's more like a Ferrari.
Democrats: We hate Ferrari's. They're ugly and loud and they waste gas and all that unneccesary power and handling hurts the other drivers' self esteem. We like our equalitarian Fords. And we hate Chevrolets, even though the differences between modern Fords and Chevys are trifling once you get past the sheetmetal.
Republicans: There's something really appealing about Ferrari's, but we're afraid that if we get behind the wheel, we won't be able to handle all that power and we'll run into a telephone pole. And if it's not us, it'll be someone else, or their kid. Nope, Ferrari's are just too dangerous -- we'll stick to our Chevrolets, which at least are a lot better than those lame Fords the Democrats are driving. Never mind that the differences between modern Fords and Chevys are trifling once you get past the sheetmetal.
"Does Libertarianism support government enforcement of child support, or not? And if so, how is doing so supported by Libertarian philosophy?"
Does it naturally follow that someone's position on an issue should be consistent with that of the Libertarian political party in order to be concidered a libertarian position?
You've cited no source, unless you posted it to someone other than me, and I missed it. If so, please point me to it and we shall proceed. Otherwise, either answer, or demonstrate that your original assertion was false.
"Does Libertarianism support government enforcement of child support, or not? And if so, how is doing so supported by Libertarian philosophy?"
We'll address that after you document your earlier assertion.
Well, I'm neither a libertarian, nor a member of the Libertarian Party, so that would be best answered by someone who self identifies as either, or both. That being said, I would think it probably that the party may on occasion take positions which run contrary to the philosophy. The history of the Democratic and Republican parties are full of such divergences which leads me to believe that the realm of politics exerts pressures which cause this to happen. (not that I think it is a good thing...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.