I’m a little-l libertarian. I like to refer to myself as a “Goldwater Republican,” referring to the 1963 version of Barry, whose full-throated defense of individual liberty (and its flip-side, responsibility) combined with a vision of a government limited to its Constitutional duties such as a strong defense thrills my heart to this day.
It’s why I’m very much supportive of gay monogamy. If the term “marriage” is too incendiary, let’s find some other way of making it work, because government has no damn business telling you or anyone else who you can love.
It’s why I’m very much opposed to the Federal War On Drugs. At least with Prohibition we wrapped that exercise in futility in proper Constitutional garments. With the WOD, the Feds just took the power they wanted. Wrong.
It’s why I’m blue in the face opposing almost all of the DemocRat agenda (and, sorry to say, a significant hunk of the Republican agenda) for the past couple decades. Look to the Constitution: if it isn’t in there, the Feds have no damn business doing it, and no legal business frankly, or extracting money from my pocket and yours to fund it.
Simplistic? Sure. That’s its beauty.
Okay. Abortion. There I agree very much with the notion of applying individual liberty to the question. In this case (like Ron Paul, with whom I agree on domestic issues and disagree on most foreign-policy and defense issues) I apply the notion of “individual” to that genetically-distinct being popularly known as the fetus. If it has rights, then abortion is wrong. That’s the fulcrum, morally and, I hope someday, legally. So the question becomes: at what point does the fetus acquire rights. Science can help answer that question. If partial-birth abortion in Month 9 is an abomination (and I agree, it is), then what about Month 8.5? Month 7? ...and so on. Let’s let science answer that question. So it’s an unsettled question that a real leader would help answer by convening a critical mass of scientific thinkers, and ensure ongoing review keeps pace with unfolding scientific knowledge. Having said that, note that there’s no Federal law against manslaughter or murder. It’s a matter for the states. The Federal role would be in defining when the right-to-life commences.
Don’t confuse the above with the looneytunes gange of head-bangers who constitute the capital-L Libertarian Party. They’re nuts.
A perfect example of why libertarianism is a childish fantasy. Homosexuals themselves have no interest in monogamy. That's not why the homosexual agenda is pushing marriage. Many militant homosexual activists have directly said that they want marriage to dismantle and change society's view of what marriage and family mean. Giving them a paper won't make them monogamous, it hasn't in any state or country that does it. You're out of touch with reality.