Reply With Quote
adultery is a misdemeanor here tbh
adultery is a misdemeanor here tbh
This is why the left/right scale is a misnomer. If Repubs were more towards libertarians on liberties they'd be touting this ahead of Dems.
well... they typical description of libertarians is left on social issues, right on economic. whereas the more traditional conservative (and the republican party) is right on both
your beef is with the republicans not being libertarian enough, not with the left/right paradigm
Keep government away from my money but please visit my bedroom.
" o, 911?"
"My mom is having sex and she's not married."
"I'm sending over a unit immediately. Just lock yourself in a safe room until help arrives."
Yeah, I'm sure this is overwhelming for the local dispatch.
"government please visit my bedroom" uh ok
This is 100% an actual scene from Chris' teenage years.
Uh ok...." o, 911?"
"My mom is having sex and she's not married."
"I'm sending over a unit immediately. Just lock yourself in a safe room until help arrives."
Yeah, I'm sure this is overwhelming for the local dispatch.
"government please visit my bedroom" uh ok
Also very misleading. They aren't left like Democrats are left. They don't want gay marriage, etc. If anything they want no marriage.
Those that do want traditional marriage want it for the obvious biological imperative it reinforces. Yea, they're fine with legal pros ution. Do Dems fight for that? Not so much.
Your spectrum likes to irrationally lump. It's a contraption of the establishment. Clearly, my "beef" is with the left/right paradigm. Dems/Repubs are going to go with whatever direction the wind blows, tbh.
hole country
Who's to say that wasn't today
my general understanding is that libertarians believe the government shouldnt be involved in marriage at all, but as long as they are, they shouldn't discriminate and ban it for gays.
edit: looked it up to be sure, and yup. from the libertarian party platform...
https://www.lp.org/platform/
1.4 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender iden y should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.
Last edited by spurraider21; 02-10-2020 at 11:34 PM.
A "pure" libertarian would not believe in governmental marriage. I would be fine with it; but it's not a huge issue for me given that I think it serves a societal function.
which is exactly what i said. IF the united states is going to have the state involved in marriages, then libertarians absolutely believe in gay marriage. as it stands, its unlikely that the US (and all other states) are going to decide to get out of the marriage question altogether. and given that political reality, libertarians are pro gay marriage
they are generally left on social issues. abortion, gay marriage, drugs, pros ution, oppose the death penalty...
No. Traditional marriage serves a biological continuation; whereas, gay marriage does not.
ok... that's not the libertarian perspective. i just showed you the libertarian platform
thats just traditional conservatism.
you never struck me as libertarian. i would describe you as paleoconservative. non-interventionist foreign policy (hence your tulsi crush), but otherwise traditional conservative. you dont want gay marraige, abortion.. you want tighter immigration control, less multiculturalism, weaker federal government, and economically you dont want pure free trade, you want the trumpian "america first" protectionism. it has elements of nativism. i think tucker carlson is the closest analog in the current media
No, but I'm saying that when libertarians compromise it's as a matter of practicality. Most don't consider it a worthy compromise to allow gay marriage because some snowflake is going to get their feelings hurt. But the good news is that libertarians don't give a who is ing who if it's consensual.
i dont think libertarians care about the "biological continuation" or anything like that. they think people who want to be in a relationship together should be able to, and the government shouldn't be placing limitations like "gays cant get married" if the same government is gong to allow straight people to get married
I'm libertarian all the way for the most part. Unfortunately, little of our world is libertarian. Tulsi may have socialistic values on the one hand, but on the other she isn't empire building for the corporations. I think her socialism would ultimately be tempered. She strikes me as a pragmatist first and foremost.ok... that's not the libertarian perspective. i just showed you the libertarian platform
thats just traditional conservatism.
you never struck me as libertarian. i would describe you as paleoconservative. non-interventionist foreign policy (hence your tulsi crush), but otherwise traditional conservative. you dont want gay marraige, abortion.. you want tighter immigration control, less multiculturalism, weaker federal government, and economically you dont want pure free trade, you want the trumpian "america first" protectionism. it has elements of nativism. i think tucker carlson is the closest analog in the current media
I think there are libertarians that want no immigration control. And truth be told I could get my head around that if it was true libertarian world. But again, we have your activist judges (187) saying we have to pay for other people's .
Multiculturalism is code for let's accept paying for bull too. Of course as a libertarian I'm averse to that.
I want less federal government, absolutely. Repubs and Dems certainly don't. Rebubs are less blatant but ultimately big government.
I'm okay with free trade generally speaking. I can understand Trump's tariffs when he's dealing with rogue nations like China though.
I don’t get this. Do you think socialism is meant to cater to corporations?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
