No. But I'm sure you'd agree as a libertarian that people have the right not to associate with people they don't like or of whose behavior they do not approve. Unfortunately, a society is made up of people who share common resources. Court systems, the military, roads and so on. People form societies to do collectively what they cannot do alone. Therefore, aberrant behaviors by small groups of people affect the whole. If someone is a serious heroin addict, and blows through their money and ends up at the door of the county hospital with a severe OD and can't pay for it, the hospital will treat that person and society will have to pick up the tab.
Libertarians are all for secession. What if I want to secede from homosexuals? In other words, I live in society A, and homosexuals live in society B. That way, all of the huge costs related to homosexuality are isolated in society B, and don't touch me in society A.
What about that freeee? Don't I have a right to free association? To not be affected by homosexuals? If homosexuals are going to claim a "right" to engage in their destructive behavior, can't I claim a right to not be affected by it?
Chew on that one, dearie.
Your rights afford you the opportunity to condemn homoesuality.
They also afford you the opportunity to discriminate against homosexuals in commerce, in association, and in any manner which requires your consent.
They afford you the opportunity to deny them access to your personal and business property.
They afford you the opportunity to protest, or boycott homosexuality.
They also afford you the opportunity to join with others to do likewise.
What they do NOT afford you the opportunity to do, is prohibit or mandate the peaceful, private, sexual actions of consenting adults by force.
For that is a violation of THEIR rights.
This seems to be the problem in America today.
Activist homosexuals snivel about "inclusion" and "diversity" and therefore seek to subjugate the legitimate rights of free association, and property rights, in the name of false civil rights which are not rights at all. No one has a right to access the property of unwilling owners, or to force their unwanted association on others.
Likewise, no one has a right to mandate or prohibit the otherwise peaceful and private actions of consenting adults.
But rather than leave each other alone, left authoritarians, and right authoritarian wrestle for control of the big-government stick with which to beat their neighbors into submission, destroying legitimate rights in the process.
And so it goes.
Absolutely.
You say: aberrant behaviors by small groups of people affect the whole.
And give examples of: Court systems, the military, roads and so on.
While I agree those are legitimate public works, I'm curious, how does sodomy affect any of them?
If someone is a serious heroin addict, and blows through their money and ends up at the door of the county hospital with a severe OD and can't pay for it, the hospital will treat that person and society will have to pick up the tab.
Wait a minute, you just switched from legitimate public works to socialist entitlement. The two are not the same. Not even close, no matter how much Democrats say they are. If the OD guy can't pay, and private charity won't pay, out the door and into the gutter he goes. Tough. Personal responsibility is necessary for libertarianism. (BTW, I'd prefer this not turn into a drug thread)
What if I want to secede from homosexuals? Don't I have a right to free association? To not be affected by homosexuals? If homosexuals are going to claim a "right" to engage in their destructive behavior, can't I claim a right to not be affected by it?
The only cost incurred to you by homosexuals is in health care. Being in that I wouldn't make you pay a thin dime for their care, you would be free to entirely disassociate yourself from them. Fire them, shun them, refuse to do any sort of business with them for all I care.
I think you're starting to get the point: in the absence of socialism, their behavior is none of your concern.