Just like the pro-life democrats. Maybe they should differentiate themselves as pro-life or small "l" libertarians, otherwise they'll be labeled as such.
Of course that still leaves the "drug addled and boy-raping" position intact. Why would anyone want to create civil rights for the "gay death-style" child molesters?
“Maybe they should differentiate themselves as pro-life or small “l” libertarians, otherwise they’ll be labeled as such.”
They do. Most libertarians on this website are very much of the small letter persuasion.
“Of course that still leaves the “drug addled and boy-raping” position intact. Why would anyone want to create civil rights for the “gay death-style” child molesters?”
Well, let’s start with “drug addled.” Not a big issue for me: I don’t use illicit drugs. I’ve never viewed it as the government’s function to prevent people from engaging in their own folly. If people want to drink a bottle of drain cleaner, then I don’t think the government’s responsibility to stop them from doing so. Perhaps they should tell them it’s a really stupid idea, but it isn’t a law enforcement issue in my view.
The more sinister aspect of drug prohibition is the excuse that it gives the government to engage in all sorts of liberty destroying actions. Like smashing down doors, seizing assets, intrusive monitoring, killing family pets, etc. All in all I favor legalization at the Federal level not because I’m all that in favor of legalization per se, but because I view it as a state’s rights question. And it removes some of the incentive/excuse for law enforcement to act in an egregious manner.
As for “boy raping”, I’m not aware of any political party that is advocating that. So I assume that what you’re talking about homosexuality. Again, it’s not something that is all that big of an issue for me: I’m not homosexual. I disagree with the push to normalize so-called gay “marriage” but have repeatedly noted that the problem, in addition to moral rot, is that Christians have anything to do with the state licensed marriage scheme. A state issued license is NOT required to be married in the religious sense. I think that Christians will do better to simply reject state licensed marriages and let the state license scheme wither away.