Posted on 03/19/2013 8:30:58 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
I meant only to copy regarding age of consent. Note the Libertarian Party Platform
Libertarian Platform
... PREAMBLE As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives ... human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, “age”, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual ...
Staff - 12/17/2012 - 2:07pm
http://www.lp.org/search/node/age%20of%20consent
It's only the government's own jackbooted thugs that keep that business going.
Note the Libertarian Party Platform
Already noted and addressed.
Note the Libertarian Party Platform
Already noted and addressed.
That is still in dispute in libertarian circles and you know it.
Can you provide any reason for anyone to accept your claim about libertarians - or are we supposed to blindly take your say-so on it?
As you well know MOST libertarians support abortion.
I know nothing of the sort. What I do know is that the LP doesn't speak for all libertarians, any more than the Republican Party speaks for all those who support a republican form of government.
Neither Paul nor the LP speak for all libertarians, any more than Mitt Romney or the Republican Party speak for all those who support a republican form of government.
Exactly why I am no longer a republican. Nor would I ever consider voting liberterian. In many ways they are worse than liberals.
not getting involved in your circular reasoning ~ but libertarians have a long track record when it comes to NOT supporting the rights of others to protect their communities and their standards and traditions.
If you can’t be truthful and have to use leftist lies, don’t debate. Freepers are not like democrats and bellieve whatever someone says.
"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," the former Pennsylvania senator writes. "It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."
I saw no direct quote of Santorum calling for a ban on pornography.
I know nothing of the sort. What I do know is that the LP doesn't speak for all libertarians, any more than the Republican Party speaks for all those who support a republican form of government.
not getting involved in your circular reasoning ~
No circles, just facts you don't like.
but libertarians have a long track record when it comes to NOT supporting the rights of others to protect their communities and their standards and traditions.
So their communities and their standards and traditions are weak? Must be if they have to be "protected" from voluntary private acts of adults.
"The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws," he writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum administration.
Still nothing about a ban, just a mention that Obama doesn't enforce laws that are already on the books, but that he will change that.
I'm no fan of Santorum, but this article does nothing to convince me that he called for a ban on pornography during his campaign in 2008.
‘Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”’
Imho, enforcing current laws is not the same as calling for new, more stringent laws.
Um... Yes?
You did see the part of my postings where I point out that I have disagreements with the Libertarian Party? That I do not feel that their positions necessarily support Objectivist libertarianism any more than the modern GOP-e is truly a “Constitutional conservative” organization?
Or... Maybe not. Could explain why you keep throwing irrelevant crap at me...
Your understanding of libertarian thinking is incorrect. Libertarians and other freedom loving people think that personal responsibility and restraint is preferable to forceful restraint by the government. Ultimately if the citizens don't have a desire to govern themselves, based on their own values, then you will end up with a totalitarian state. Notice how many people today are willing to vote their and everyone else's rights away.
The freedom libertarians refer to is is the freedom from coerced compliance with what a majority and the state decides you should or should not do. Nobody suggests that people should not regulate their own lives, and obviously activity which harms other people is subject to the same type of laws as those that exist today.
With the freedom comes responsibility.
Good point. People who argue over these things don't often agree about what libertarianism is. For some people it's sex, drugs, and rock and roll, but for many others, it means a sober ethic of individual responsibility and self-reliance.
Some social conservatives blame libertarians for the social changes of the last 50 years, but back in the 1960s, when these changes were underway, libertarianism was just a twinkle in John Hospers's eye (there were also clusters of Randians in the big cities, but they never counted for anything poltically). In the 1970s, when the first wave of social changes came to fruition, libertarianism was still very much a fringe movement.
Some of those changes came about because of dedicated liberal or leftist ideologues or people who'd absorbed their ideologies. Some of the changes happened because the country was rich and wanted to experiment or to appease the young. And then, people were too tired or busy to say no. People want to think that there was a strong, united conservative opposition to those changes, but there wasn't and that's why the country changed so much.
Today we're used to thinking of the country as permanently and deeply divided into hostile camps. What we may not understand is how there are times when the whole country lurches in one direction or another. In the 1930s the whole political system veered in the direction of government control of the economy. In the 1960s and 1970s, even people who were very apolitical were carried along by a tide of permissiveness. In the 1980s the trend was towards less government in the economy (at least in theory).
There's also a belief that libertarians stole the conservatives' philosophy of freedom and illegitimately applied it to lifestyle, drugs, and sexual practices. I'm thinking it was more likely the opposite. Society and culture were changing, had changed, and at the time conservatives didn't provide very effective opposition. Some libertarians advocated applying that spirit of cultural permissiveness or laissez-faire to the economy. They're the ones critics love to talk about. But even with them, the permissiveness and moral laxness wasn't something they created. It was already there.
Other libertarians were much more in the old spirit of American self-reliance. They had a lot in common plain, old-fashioned conservatives, but they didn't get the headlines or win much attention. There's a chicken or egg argument between libertarians and their conservative critics, but I'm not sure it can easily be resolved: libertarians had their own limited government traditions and thinkers that went back very far and paralleled the development of conservative thinking. In any case, widely disseminated libertarian and conservative ideas did change American thinking about the role of government at least for a time.
I don't know where that leaves us now, but I'm pretty sure that libertarians aren't the only thing holding back a return to older moral ideas and practices. Behaviors and attitudes social conservatives deplore have acquired a large constituency. Converting every libertarian won't change that.
The corollary is that an individual who does not care for that can move to where he's more accepting of their ways ~ and just leave his old neighbors alone!
Democrats believe it is acceptable to crush communities and destroy their most ancient rights of self government. So do Libertarians. This is one of the reasons the right of self defense and the second amendment expression of same are so important ~ to keep you people off our lawn!
“The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.”
* The University of New Hampshire did a study that showed that the states with the highest readership of pornographic magazines like Playboy and Penthouse, also have the highest rape rates (2).
*The Michigan State Police Department found that pornography is used or imitated in 41 percent of the sex crimes they have investigated (3).
*Dr. Victor Cline did research that showed how men who become addicted to pornographic materials begin to want more explicit or deviant material and end up acting out what they have seen (5).
* Now this one will make your skin crawl—Dr. James Dobson interviewed Ted Bundy, one of the nation’s most notorious serial killers, on the day before his execution. Bundy said that the “most damaging kinds of pornography are those that involve sexual violence . . . The wedding of those two forces, as I know only too well, brings about behavior that is just, just too terrible to describe” (1).
*Two doctors noted in their research-based book, Pornography and Sexual Aggression, that “Certain [aggressive] forms of pornography can affect aggressive attitudes toward women and can desensitize an individual’s perception of rape. These attitudes and perceptions are, furthermore, directly related to actual aggressive behavior against women.” They also found that adult pornography was connected with each of the 1,400 child sexual molestation cases in Louisville, Kentucky, and child pornography was connected with the majority of them (21).
*Another review of controlled studies found that extensive viewing of the type of pornographic material commonly sold at adult bookstores was positively correlated with an increased self-reported willingness to commit rape or other forced sexual acts (28).
*The Kingston Sexual Offenders Clinic in Canada found “an unexpected finding” when they conducted a study of their patients over a period of six years. “One of the rapists reported that he used consenting sex depictions to incite rape images in the process of preparing himself to attack a woman. Subsequent questioning revealed a further five rapists who made similar claims, and 10 of the 10 rapists who currently used (pornography) for enjoyment (not necessarily preparatory to offending) also said they used it to incite rape fantasies (22).
*Another study says that a non-rapist population will show increased sexual arousal after having been exposed to “media-presented images of rape,” especially when the female victim demonstrates signs of pleasure and arousal. This exposure, they further claim, may also lead to a lessened sensitivity toward rape, acceptance of rape myths, and increased self-reported likelihood of raping and self-generated rape fantasies (11)(12).
*Dr. Dolf Zillman and Dr. Jennings Bryant showed that continued exposure to pornography had serious negative effects on beliefs about sexuality in general, and on attitudes toward women in particular. They also found that pornography desensitizes people to rape as a criminal offense, and that massive exposure to pornography encourages a desire for increasingly deviant materials that depict violence (such as sadomasochism and rape) (29).
* Individuals with a predisposition for aggression (i.e., men who are at relatively high risk for aggression) have shown to be particularly drawn to images of pornography and are more likely to expose themselves to such images in the future than lower-risk individuals. Moreover, a number of priming studies have shown that men with earlier risk characteristics may interpret sexually explicit material differently than lower-risk individuals, such that pornography activates and reinforces inappropriate cognitive representations (e.g., hostility toward women) and fosters the development of sexual preoccupation in these men (14).
*A review study based on 81 research studies (35 using aggressive porn stimuli and 46 using non-aggressive porn stimuli), concluded that “the empirical research on the effects of aggressive pornography shows, with impressive consistency, that exposure to these materials has a negative effect on attitudes toward women and the perceived likelihood to rape.” The study also noted that 70 percent of the 46 non-aggressive studies reported clear evidence of negative effects of exposure (25).
*A meta-analysis, using the results of 24 original experimental studies, found that “violence within the pornography is not necessary to increase the acceptance of ‘rape myths’ (i.e., the myth that women secretly desire to be raped).” The study noted that the link between acceptance of rape myths and exposure to pornography stems from a simple premise—“that most pornography commodifies sex, that women become objects used for male pleasure, and that as objects of desire, they are to be acted on” (25).
*A study for the Canadian Department of Justice found that when they exposed individuals who were habitually “high-frequency porn consumers” to non-violent, dehumanizing porn, those individuals were particularly likely to report that they might rape, were more sexually callous, and reported engaging in more acts of sexual aggression. The authors noted that the porn the individuals were exposed to was the kind that may in fact be most prevalent in mainstream commercial entertainment videos. The study found that more than twice as many men indicated at least some likelihood of raping after exposure to this material—20.4 percent of those who were exposed, versus 9.4 percent of those who weren’t exposed (25).
*Another review of a series of studies of “common pornography” found that its consumption led to insensitivity towards victims of sexual violence, trivialization of rape as a criminal offense, trivialization of sexual child abuse as a criminal offense, increased belief that lack of sexual activity leads to health risks and increased acceptance of pre and extra-marital sexuality. The study noted, “habitual male consumers of common pornography appear to be at greater risk of becoming sexually callous towards female sexuality and concerns” (25).
I know nothing of the sort. What I do know is that the LP doesn't speak for all libertarians, any more than the Republican Party speaks for all those who support a republican form of government.
not getting involved in your circular reasoning ~
No circles, just facts you don't like.
but libertarians have a long track record when it comes to NOT supporting the rights of others to protect their communities and their standards and traditions.
So their communities and their standards and traditions are weak? Must be if they have to be "protected" from voluntary private acts of adults.
Circular reasoning again ~
You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means.
you guys just can't get away from it. As we all recall, it is elemental in the American system to hold to a belief in self-government BY communities, For communities, and Of communities.
The corollary is that an individual who does not care for that can move to where he's more accepting of their ways ~ and just leave his old neighbors alone!
Democrats believe it is acceptable to crush communities and destroy their most ancient rights of self government. So do Libertarians.
Whereas you support the right of communities to, say, legalize marijuana within their borders if they choose?
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.