Posted on 03/26/2013 5:52:31 PM PDT by cradle of freedom
Where do you libertarians stand on gays as boy scout masters?
I went to your source, it said this:
“For example, writers at the Independent Gay Forum endorsed the Libertarian Party and LGBT Libertarian organization’s position that the Boy Scouts of America should be free to exclude gay men as scouts and scoutmasters on the grounds that the government has no right to interfere with private organizations’ views on homosexuality.[6] Likewise, the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed the libertarian perspective in opposing federal hate crime legislation.[7]”
Which is what I said. I used to (before I became too busy) spend lots of time on libertarian blogs, I read a lot of libertarian books, and I read a prominent libertarian magazine. Homosexuality almost never comes up, we chiefly talk about government overreach or economics, not social issues. Libertarianism is kind of agnostic on social issues, it’s more about economics and government policy.
As for “homosexualizing the military,” if it turns out to have no effect on military utility, then what reason is their to avoid it? If, otoh, it turns out to have a negative effect (such as a big drop in recruitment or fighting or low morale or whatnot) then it should be reconsidered. The military is not the priesthood, it is part of a government body, and government is secular.
Sorry to spoil your illusion but I am not, nor have I ever been a fan of Ron Paul. That whining pipsqueak makes me cringe when even I hear him talk.
I am a Conservative that is simply tired of some fools blaming libertarians for the problems of this nation when they have never had any political success at all in our nation. There are approximately 55 million registered Republicans but the Libertarian Party has 325,807 members with only 235,500 registered voters as of 2008. In the most recent Presidential election, the Libertarian Candidate received just under one percent of the vote. The Libertarian Party has no Representatives in the House and no Senators, plus they hold no Governorships or any other state-wide elected positions. In the individual State Legislatures, the LP does not control any upper house or lower house seats at all. There are approximately 55 million registered Republicans. It would take an insane madman or a pathetic fool to think libertarians have any part in the problems of our country.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975
Most of the rabblerousers here would never believe it, but libertarians are not a bunch of pot smoking queers. It has been ten years since I interacted with them, but almost all of them were quiet thoughtful solid citizens. This excerpt from a paper explaining the personality traits of most libertarians may give understanding and insight.
|
The full paper is at the link.
I must confess, as the son of a pioneering computer systems programmer/analyst from sixty years ago, and a telecommunications technician/project manager myself for forty years I do fit this profile to a tee.
If you support the homosexual agenda and unlimited abortion and open borders as libertarianism does, then you are justified in promoting it and defending it and their agenda.
I love the way you supporters of the radical left agenda of the libertarians, cling to that single quote of a Ronald Reagan speaking to a libertarian audience while he was campaigning for their vote.
Funny that you don’t seem to have anything else, and you don’t mention how even when being interviewed by them, in thst interview, he kept dismantling them in that interview and defending social conservatism and strong national defense.
No you aren't,you are for the politics that you fight so hard for.
Don't fight for libertarianism and against conservatism and then pretend that you don't support their agenda.
I posted at 68 right from the LP platform that declares "Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect."
Clearly this indicates that the Parent-Child relationship is protected and you crazy notion that libertarians think consent and incest laws would be repealed is baseless. A handful of loudmouth liberal gays attempting to corrupt libertarian precepts to their own agenda cannot condemn libertarian principles at all. As stated before, Bill Mahar called himself a libertarian but is clearly a Socialist Fascist liar using the Saul Alinsky tactic of hijacking a trendy word(libertarian) to confuse and deceive. You need to quit helping him.
Did you just call Ronald Reagan a liar!? Crawl back under your rock I done with you.
LOL, your lack of integrity and honesty is on constant display.
You were trying to make Reagan something that he wasn’t, just as you fight for the people with this agenda while you dishonestly claim to be “conservative”.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Read that statement, as a parent you can do what you want, have whatever moral codes you want, or sexual ideas that you want, but “This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.” is bland and non-committal or defined.
Nothing is defined, or prevented, it is vague and meaningless coming from the people who also took this actual action which demonstrates where the ideology of sexual perversion (libertarianism) is on the question of NAMBLA and child sex.
“Ruwart wrote. “When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
“”Ruwart’s is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for “child performers”) and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind. It’s also political poison. As libertarian blogger Steve Newton put it, Ruwart and her allies run the risk of turning the party into “the poster child for NAMBLA and the aluminum hat brigade.”
The party’s executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, “Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography.” Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.””
Not all libertarians are alike, many are staunchly pro-life. Learn more before hating.
Libertarianism is what it is unlimited abortion and the gay agenda, and it seems that most of you are alike.
There is such a thing as asking for trouble.
The bottom line is that Homosexual Scoutmasters make as much sense as waving a burning firebrand in a powder magazine: no good can come of it.
Freedom of association has been completely obfusticated by the cries of abuse and bigotry, but the government has no place telling private individuals or organizations who to associate with, who to let in or who they can't kick out.
Attacking the people who say that loudest (That Government should just butt out) and then inextricably associating them with the LIBERTINES (who, independent of political party, might share some of that philosophy on very limited government involvement in private matters for their own reasons) is not only wrong, it alienates the very sort of people who believe that limited government is best.
Time has told. Prayer has been kicked out of the public schools since 1963. Sodomy is now taught as part of "sex education".
Most legal definitions of "sodomy" were not limited to buggery, but included acts of oral stimulation that are often practiced between a man and woman (husband and wife). That was the stated reason for the removal of those laws.
When someone says straight out that they are libertarians, then they are just that.
Conservatives need to learn what libertarianism is, and what it exists to advance, and why it is that those people don’t merely call themselves conservatives, and can’t, and people need to learn that the homosexual agenda and abortion and open borders and more, is a fundamental part of libertarianism, the actual primary agenda and without question, the one part of the libertarian agenda that advances and succeeds most easily as rinos and even democrats embrace the word to be able to say how they personally don’t like something, but that they take a “libertarian” view.
Nice try, but dishonest in it’s intent, the Liberty Caucus was fighting for the homosexual agenda.
It was cute the way you cut off the last few words of that sentence that you pretended to quote.
“”In 2010, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas denounced the new state Republican Party platform that supported criminalization of sodomy and making same-sex marriage a felony.””
From what I have seen tooting its horn as "Conservative", Conservatives need to learn what Conservatism is.
Maybe then they will have something to compare with other ideas.
When there are people who describe themselves as "conservatives" but use in the same phrase "pro-choice", "moderate", or any of a host of hyphenations designed to exclude whole segments of conservative thought, the term becomes as meaningless as any other label.
Often, running under the Republican label has been equated with being "conservative", but there are the Log Cabin bunch, the Bloombergs, and others who fly in the face of traditional values. Even then, people from those neo-Communist havens would use the same term.
There is a fundamental set of values, scripturally based, which is defined as "good". Following those values scrupulously is not something which can long or effectively be imposed from outside one's being: you have to believe.
Following the law just to stay out of trouble is "ethical" and "legal" but often not moral, and the legal system has (as a result of incredible government interference) become impossible for any one person to know, much less comply with--and the old Decalogue and Golden Rule no longer suffice to stay out of trouble.
Matters which were once the purview of the Church have become, first recorded by, and then usurped by the State, and therein lies the problem. Once a matter is no longer decreed by God, as in marriage, but defined by the state, the meaning can be twisted any way a conniving pack of lawyers in the Legislature or seated on a bench will. While that standard may be a solid object, it is not a fixed one, which the Church's standard is if scripture and doctrine are not twisted.
Because Government remains such a fickle standard of virtually anything, it is best to keep it out of as much as possible and prudent.
So let me ask, What does the Republican Party stand for any more? Not a hyphenated offshoot, but the whole thing?
Both labels have been co-opted by those bent on the destruction of this country, and few enough principled persons remain.
As a child, we learned the difference between right and wrong. Some of that was hardwired in. Some came from going to Mass, some was instilled by our elders.
All of those traditional mechanisms for instilling moral behaviour are being undercut by none other than our Government, intruding into matters where, by its own Constitution, it has no business intruding.
The fewer matters it intrudes into, the more resources left to provide for the common defense--one of the stated purposes for its very existence.
As for behaviour (morality), communities used to decide what they would and would not tolerate. The libertines could move to a jurisdiction where their behaviour was more likely to be tolerated, and the rest could put the social pressures on them to either toe the line and behave or relocate. Note, I said social pressure, not governmental pressure--there is a difference.
Now the government has jumped in that and said you can't decide who you will serve and who you won't, you can't decide who can or cannot be in your club or organization, and you are forced (first to be tolerant of and then) to "celebrate" behaviours which would have been completely discouraged were it not for government intervention.
So, like many, I hold to the belief that that government governs best which governs least. That people will, unfettered by edicts, sort it out, and that given a chance, good will prevail.
As a child we were told to "grow up, be responsible".
Well, we did, at least those of us who survived the process.
Now we have the government screwing around in our light sockets, decreeing the size of our toilet tanks, deciding what we can and cannot eat, prosecuting people over filling in a low spot in their yard, but NOT providing for the common defense.Sounds bassackwards to me.
Open Borders? Nuts.
That is one thing the Federal Government is supposed to control. So shrink the government, get it back to the jobs it was originally tasked with, get it out of peoples' toilets, bedrooms, and light sockets, and get back to a basic and understandable framework. The rest, leave to the people.
Back in the day when belladonna and Jimson Weed and Cannabis were not prohibited by government, everyone got so whacked out that the country folded, right?
No, they didn't.
A few did, and they provided a good bad example for everyone else --an object lesson of what not to do.
Their stupidity was held up as an unfortunate example, not hidden or mollycoddled. That worked then, and it will in the future, no laws required--provided the laws which prevent people from legitimately defending their persons, property, and families are removed too.
So shrink the Government back into its Constitutional framework, to the duties delegated it in the Constitution, without torturing concepts like "interstate commerce" to expand its purview, and then, just then, can we have Conservatism. Without the Libertarians, though, you'll just be stuck with two different flavors of Statist: Obama Statists and Bloomberg Statists, they're at their core control freaks who stand to gather wealth and power to themselves and tell the people it is for their own good.
The remainder was not germane to my comment.
You removed the last few words because the libertarian fight is to promote that homosexual agenda.
Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor.
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.