I've searched through you replies at FR and I do not see where you commonly defend libertarians on any grounds. The fact that you like the communists, socialists, fascists, monarchist, democrats, republicans, can find some areas of agreement from time to time does not prove that you "commonly defend libertarians" as you claim. As far as your original claim goes, that I responded to, that you "defend them in most threads" --- I don't see it. On the other hand libertarians do not need to be defended, and your claim of such accompanied with an attack on such a libertarian fundamental as the First Amendment is as hollow as it is dishonest.
However, as this thread has demonstrated, libertarians don't like to think about external costs in transactions (costs that are paid by third parties and not buyers or sellers).
Of course most libertarians are well aware of the external costs of living in a free society. You have not demonstrated one example on this thread otherwise. They well recognize that freedom is not free, which is something that you obviously have not quite internalized as yet. The second most common quote I've heard libertarians use over the past 30 years is that "utopia is not an option." Interestingly enough, the common measure over the past 15 years used to attack them is that they fail to measure up to the standards of a utopia. Which is precisely the form of attack you use.
It is true that problems faced by todays parents are different than those that past parents have had to endure. But they are no more severe, nor unendurable. You are also correct that "out-of-wedlock first birth rate has never been even a third as high as it is these past few decades." But that was not the topic of discussion that libertarians were answering when then say "block that channel," as you imply. Nor did I see any of them say that by blocking the channel "you'll be fine," as you also claim. I think they all would agree that a parent needs to do more than block channels on the TV set. Some would even say, don't block the channel, instead teach your children. But that kind of discourse didn't arise here as the topic of the thread was not how to raise children.
As far as causes for out of wedlock pregnancies among teenage girls goes, you already identified a primary cause that could be solved with of out interfering with the First Amendment. Maybe you recall it. Back on May 31st you wrote in We Must Not Pay Teens to be MUMS - #26" that:
...this behavior is a rational economic response to subsidizing out-of-wedlock childbirths. Parents can shift some of the burden of raising children to the state, and the girl gets a decent career. ...we really need to attack the root and get rid of these family-destroying subsidies.
But now it seem that you want to shave off some of our First Amendment rights to end teenage out of wedlock child births. In other words you want to immorally impose your private morality on others at the expense of the greater public morality.
Well, my pro-libertarian comments were most recently removed by the moderator in the "A libertarian constitution" thread. I have no idea why because I do not use profanity. But here is the response to my post. Hopefully it should make the context clear. And my posting history is pretty consistent with wanting to get back to a pre-FDR size Federal Government.
You are also correct that "out-of-wedlock first birth rate has never been even a third as high as it is these past few decades." But that was not the topic of discussion that libertarians were answering when then say "block that channel," as you imply.
Sure they are, posts 42, 81, 89, 97, 104 and plenty of others in this thread a few examples. I think they all would agree that a parent needs to do more than block channels on the TV set. Some would even say, don't block the channel, instead teach your children. But that kind of discourse didn't arise here as the topic of the thread was not how to raise children.
My wife was raised in a Christian household and her mothers solution was to watch MTV with her children. But again, we have to face the choice to either isolate our children socially, or to give in to the corrupting influences of society. I don't want my daughters to have to come home crying because the other girls tease them for not dressing fashionable (read: like a prostitute). But I know plenty of parents that face that every day.
You are also correct that "out-of-wedlock first birth rate has never been even a third as high as it is these past few decades." But that was not the topic of discussion that libertarians were answering when then say "block that channel," as you imply.
This comes from what libertarian economists such as the Austrians often refer to as "What is seen, and what is not seen." We don't have two independent trends in the United States: liberal economics and liberal morals. We have one trend towards liberalism and they reinforce each other.
As far as causes for out of wedlock pregnancies among teenage girls goes, you already identified a primary cause that could be solved with of out interfering with the First Amendment. Maybe you recall it. Back on May 31st you wrote in We Must Not Pay Teens to be MUMS - #26"
Good research! But like it or not, there are parents that are out there raising kids in a hostile environment today. There are daughters that today are being socially isolated from their peers because they don't dress like the girls in a booty video.