[little jeremiah]

One of the many ways libertarians (large L or small) debate duplicitously is by pretending that because there were no Federal laws against, for instance, sodomy, porngoraphy/obscenity, adultery and the like, that the states had not laws against immoral acts. They completely ignore the fact that the Founders did not promote licentiousness, in fact spoke and wrote against immoral behavior, and thought nothing wrong or unconstitutional against State laws against various immoral behaviors.

[freeandfreezing]

And one of the most common ways people mischaracterize libertarians, or those who want a smaller, less invasive government, is to falsely claim that they "promote licentiousness."

It is hard to understand the underlying opposition regularly found here on FR to reducing the role of government when as it stands today the government is one of the largest promoters of licentiousness.

[Gene Eric]

>> One of the many ways libertarians (large L or small) debate duplicitously

The statement on duplicity is inaccurate.

One is for statism if not for libertarianism, or somewhere between. Statism and libertarianism concern enforcement.

In debating morality, the contrast is drawn between liberalism and conservatism.

Homosexual 'marriage' law is Liberal Statism, or simply Leftism. It's advocates identify themselves as Progressives.

Just in comparison to the volume of law we contend with today, the FF were far closer to Conservative Libertarianism than the statist rule of today.

The depraved political elements of the Libertarian Party should not be a reflection on the definitive meaning of libertarianism.

Libertarianism: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

Statism: a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:

[Bikkuri]

(And I will not respond to Libs trying to redirect by what is in the pic...)