Posted on 03/22/2013 8:51:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
My statement is based on my interpretation of the article.
There are libertarians who think that way. There are libertarians who act as if it is perfectly normal for people to be having sex with their own small children too. It definitely fits into the libertarian worldview like a hand in a glove. “What, you want to deny us this with the hand of the almighty state? You authoritarians!”
Libertarianism is a Utopian dream that can never be realized while civilization exists
Since there’s so much confusion on these matters:
Libertarian is not the same as anarchist. Liberals love this confusion (and some “conservatives” around here). Limited government is not the absence of government.
Libertarian is not the same as atheist. It’s amazing that it needs to be said, but apparently it does.
Libertarian is not the same as Objectivist. One can be both. I suppose an Objectivist would almost have to be a libertarian, but not vice versa.
Libertarian is not the same as libertine. Again, it’s amazing that this needs to be said, but it does. I don’t want a government that wastes its time and resources worrying about what two (or more) adults voluntarily do behind closed doors on private property. I assure you, I really don’t want to participate.
It’s the libertarian position to let the private owner of the business do what he or she wants.
It also happens to be the conservative position -— except for statist conservatives who would want to punish the hotels for renting to sodomites.
Do you advocate for the liberty of adults to murder if they choose
My personal conviction is that I and every other adult should be free to choose whether or not to use drugs, and that the right choice for me is to not use drugs.
Now understand that using drugs is a moral issue. Like murder or stealing. You use drugs, or murder or steal and guess what? That affects me and our nation. And because you support a law making dope smoking legal, don't be suprised when they pass a law making abortion legal.
Oops. They already have.
You are a liberal and a hypocrite.
Substituting the non-coercion principle for morality is a rejection of ethics. It destroys any explicit ethical standard. Since ethics is necessary and unavoidable, a gap is left. The void must be filled, though. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, there is no choice about having a moral standard. The only question is whether it is left implicit and contradictory, or made explicit and rational. Substituting the non-coercion principle for ethics is an attempt to deny this need. The attempt must fail, though. Ignoring the need won’t make it go away; it just leaves you without control.
>> There are libertarians who act as if it is perfectly normal for people to be having sex with their own small children too.
Gratuitous bullshit.
There is nothing in the libertarian philosophy where they LIMIT anything to adults. When they say things like that, it is to make themselves sound reasonable. They have no intention of limiting drugs and sexual perversions to adults in the long run.
Those libertarians are around. They are correct that pure libertarianism doesn’t limit anything to adults. LIMIMTING it to adults is not libertarian.
Now you are just trolling.
Short answer: No. They are not wrong.
I'm all about collaboration and building bridges. I see lots of problems with society but they break into two camps:
1) Social problems -- some people behave irresponsibly (they don't work, they don't care for their children, they take drugs, etc.)
2) Economic problems -- government taxes people, spends money on irresponsible people, and creates an environment where personal responsibility and hard work don't lead to success as much as they should.
I think the second problem should be attacked first. Limit the government charity. Cut the taxes. Abandon irresponsible people. Sink or swin: personal responsibility should be mandatory.
Once government is limited in that way (no longer a crutch) then I am all in favor of lifting rules on raising children, taking drugs, etc. Maybe it's OK if "anything goes" -- so long as the person making those decisions is fully responsible for the outcomes.
But, in general, I don't see a lot of Libertarians trying to limit government so much on the economic side of things. It's mostly: legalize drugs, open the borders, easy abortion, legal prostitution. Let's do the fun stuff first.
And THEN we'll try to take away the free money and social goodies which allow people to behave in any way they like.
I say that's backwards. It won't work. Libertines will just never be willing to move on ther Phase 2 and get rid of the EBT cards, the subsidized housing, and the government healthcare and retirement accounts.
I want to limit government quite drastically. But the order in which that is done is very important. And starting with the fun stuff is the wrong approach.
“Ever see a Libertarian discuss religion?”
Yes.
“Very rude. Very loud. No nuance. No real discussion. Just shouting down the other person because they’re stupid and moralistic and evil and don’t worship the flying spaghetti monster. Ridicule. Scorn. Derision.”
No.
Anecdotal stories of your ‘vast’ experience with libertarians mean nothing. Just out of curiosity, how many actual individuals are we discussing here?
Here’s a hint: there are plenty of libertarians who aren’t atheists.
Libertarians make ethical judgements too, look how they attack those who don’t agree with them.
I agree. Private-pay or private charity, on everything from medical care to education to food to housing.
“Now understand that using drugs is a moral issue. Like murder or stealing. You use drugs, or murder or steal and guess what? That affects me and our nation.”
So you favor banning alcohol? (And tobacco, and aspirin, and...?)
How very interesting to run across a Prohibitionist in 2013. I suppose you favor banning those evil guns as well, eh?
Your absurd caricature of libertarianism is of course absurd. You intended it to be.
But you have positioned your fictional libertarian position so far outside reality that it loses as force of argument.
Let me put it to you this way: I know of self-styled Christians who also think it right and proper for them to have sex with children. Would it then be reasonable or meaningful for me to ascribe that aberrant belief to Christians in general? I am quite sure you would object, despite their insistence that they were following the command of Almighty God, who is beyond question.
Similarly, although you might find an aberrant individual asserting the right to have sex with children, and that person self-identifies as a libertarian, you have no basis whatsoever to ascribe his deviancy to all libertarians.
Again, I accuse you of setting up an absurd sort of libertarianism to attack. Of course, you are free to do so... but you shouldn’t expect too many people to pay you much mind.
And when has that ever happened? I ask this because I'm constantly told I'm a nanny-stater if me and my ilk were elected then we would go all God-centric in this country and things would be even worse than the LBJ/Obama cultural/political realities that we live with today.
Bull-bleep. What are liberaltarians afraid of? For years, I've called for a return to a time when all 50 states had Sodomy Laws. When murder of the pre-born was illegal. When you couldn't say works like f--- and s--- on prime time TV. All us SoCons want is a return to a pre-LBJ times when the Constitution was adhered to and morals mattered. Unfortunately we've had liberals lie to us and tell us that the government is amoral.
And look where we are today.
Of course. The first sensible thing you have added to the discussion.
Trolling for trolls.
And your response boils down to: "You're wrong" with a scornful comment thrown in about my "vast" experience.
Thanks for proving my point so perfectly.
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.