I believe that people may be getting off the track of the original thread. That is Libertarians. Libertarians seek the least government possible. I among others desire a smaller, less intrusive government. One of the things that a replier to this post stated that a government was necessary to insure contracts. I agree with this concept. The woman thought all marriage laws should be scrapped and people should be able to choose whatever life style appealed to them at any given time. The gay and lesbian communities are clamoring for the right to be married. I agree with both sides. No adult should be forced into a life time commitment with another adult if they don't want it but the government should have the authority to protect the rights of any minors that may be a part of any relationship. As for the gays and lesbians, the government should have the authority to protect the contracts that these people agree to and to protect the interest of any minors that may be involved. That is my view of one aspect of the necessity of having a limited government.
There's an interesting question embedded in Rat's reply: what's a sensible libertarian stance on minors? There seems to be, in modern society, some sort of role for government there that goes beyond the libertarian minimum. Does the child, as in ancient Rome, simply belong to the parents (in Rome, the father) who can do what they will - punish, even kill? To "society," who can dictate such things as schooling, medical care, sexual maturity? Or to the child's own self, who can be advised, but not compelled, not to jump out of that tree. Are the parents free to just turn the kid, unwashed, unfed, undisciplined (unvaccinated?) loose in the streets?
Part of my point about the industrial-democracy flavor of libertarianism is that its extreme individuality means that norms for childrearing and the social networks that enable it, are extremely weak - that's what keeps the labor force flexible - and to some extent the government simply has to step in.
There are interesting cases where social networks are so strong that governments actually do leave social welfare issues alone - the tribal areas of Pakistan, say, or the Amish communities of the United States (who are not part of the Social Security system and commonly stop education at 14, but really to take care of their own weak and sick and are famously industrious.)
the Teabaggers started out as libertarian and then went all right wing, almost bordering the far right.
Actually, they are not "almost bordering on the far right" they are the far right! Their positions are so from the majority of the Republican Party that they may very well splinter The Grand Ole Party in two.
The Republican presidential candidates must kiss the Tea Party's kissables in the primaries and then do a 180 degree left turn in the general elections. The Tea Party wants to bring back the day of the Pilgrims with white supremacy and an outdated view for America's future. If they are successful at gaining traction (which is difficult when they swoon to the intellectual wonders like Michele Bachmann, Sara Palin, andTed Cruz) they might just break the Republican Party in half. Should they succeed their very success will have the unintended consequence of ending their very existence. They are a fraction of a party. If they were on their own they wouldn't be able to get elected to dog catcher in a one dog town. If they tear apart the RepublicanParty they Republicans won't be able to win. So, they are very self-limiting.
But, they are fun to watch :)
We're talking about Libertarians, Republicans and Tea Partiers. Does anyone have any definite definitions of the three of them. It seems like things are rather confusing. Personally I vote for the person who I believe will do the right thing for the Country. Unfortunately it seems like few politicians can be trusted to keep their word. As much as I dislike Obama I have to give him credit for working hard to keep his promises. He is a master at getting people to break their promises to the voters and side with him.
desertrat, so you aren't really opposed to gays getting married, are you?
No, what two consenting adults want to do is fine with me as long as they don't step on the rights of others. They should be able to call their relationship by what ever name they desire but remember the key element here is the word two. I said that it's fine with me but in reality who am I to say what's right for anyone else. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it really is none of my business unless it infringes upon my rights or the rights of others. Any questions?
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!