Posted on 02/15/2002 6:50:19 AM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt
As I've said before, I'll say again: libertarianism would work fine in a society comprising highly moral, self-disciplined, God-fearing people.
On balance our society no longer meets that criteria, and on the whole the Libertarian Party is ruled by men and women who spurn and ridicule such indispensible notions as Judeo-Christian based morality.
The Libertarian Party has a fine automobile, but no engine; a comely body, but no soul. All it is fit for is self-indulgent rust and decay.
Treat people like children and they'll act like children. Treat them like subjects and they'll act like subject.
Or they'll revolt.
The Libertarians didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts as evidenced by this statement from the article:
"Even bigots have rights," said [Santa Barbara LP Secretary Robert Bakhaus].
Yuck. What an anti-religion bigoted thing to say, that those who think men smearing each other with excrement is wrong are somehow 'bigots.' Are we 'bigots' if we think rape is wrong? Or stealing? Or suicide? Or excessive taxation? Or government corruption?
I just wanted to point out that we aren't about promoting homosexuality, or sinful behavior in general, as we are constantly accused. I doubt gays in California right now would suggest we do.
The reason this occured isn't because a blind squirrel found a nut. It's due to principled defense of liberty for everyone.
Baloney. Tolerating evil makes one just as guilty as the doer of evil. The ideologues like to chime in that evil is so awful and terrible that the only worse thing is the societal discouragement of evil.
But there are issues, deeply threatened issues, that we can agree on, like free association and 2nd Amendment rights.
Even we can agree upon some issues. When it comes to these agreeable issues, we should bury the hatchet. These California libertarians and republicans set a good example.
Our government no longer meets that criteria, and on whole the Republican/Democratic parties are ruled by those who spurn & ridicule freedom.
Their success is continued by willing slaves.
Do you prefer to be called Toby, or Kunte-Kinte?
Your statement seems contradictory, although perhaps I am not understanding it. Do "people" have the "right" to determine that landlords and employers in fact don't have the right to rent to and hire whom they choose? If so, do they then have the right to decide, if they are so inclined, that the Boy Scouts can't refuse to associate with gays?
Or does the right to hire and employ and choose Scoutmasters as you choose trump the "people's...right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in"?
It seems to me that the two "rights" cannot both simultaneously exist.
The point of the article is that libertarians defend intolerance, at the private level.
Be as intolerant as you like. I don't mind. Kick people out of the Scouts, don't rent to them, don't hire them, don't sell to them. We defend your absolute right to do so.
You don't need government to practice intolerance. When personal intolerance is practiced through government force against people who haven't initiated force or fraud, the result isn't merely intolerance. It's oppression.
Excellent point!!! Thanks for bringing that up.
So, for the record, in this case, you side firmly with the people of Santa Barbara and their duly elected officials to " determine what kind of a society they are to live in and what the laws should say".
Gotcha! Just want to let everyone know what side you are on, CJ.
And Act Up should be forced to have homophobes as their den leaders.
Given the subject of the post, I assume you are referring to homosexuality. Since you say we cannot tolerate evil, what do you propose be done? Jail all homosexuals? Shoot them?
Are you saying that a person's morality is meaningless unless he backs it up with government force?
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.