Here it is again--that paradox of power and "liberation". Askel5 touched upon this gordian paradox on another thread concerning some apparently "insignificant" alteration of sodomy statues in Virginia.
Those of us who are tempermentally "libertarian" have to face up to this mystery. The use of the State to "liberate" an afflicted minority--or a lurking penumbra--is always a disaster in the long run. Of course, America being what it is, the "long run" is a much shorter time in coming than in most places on the planet. The State is further engorged with the solemn reponsibilty of shielding the oppressed from the instincts of the majority. The next thing you know statutes designed to fight organized crimeare gleefully used to fight organized resistance. All in the name of liberation
This paradox pops up in almost every confrontation on the so-called "conservative" side. It is a particular pickle for intelligent, strong women, because--oddly enough--without a self-confindent patriarchy wielding discreet power--intelligent, strong women cannot flourish. Another paradox!!!
And no Alexander around when we really need him.
Anyway, for the most part, libertarians seem content to remain safely ensconsed in infancy where no paradox looms to mock the turgid prose of John and Dagney and Howard and Dominique.....
Forget my name ... you failed to flag me on this?!?
Excellent!
Intelligent strong men cannot otherwise flourish either. The Gramscian principle rejecting objective truth in favor of self-centered emotion strikes again. Of course, the people who propose these stuff are far too illiterate to actually have heard of Gramsci. Which kinda blows away Curry's theory about "people far more clever than they", doesn't it?