Why I am a libertarian, and you should be too

I think that we should only be allowed to have intercourse in the search of pregnancy. Women should have to take a test to ensure they are currently at peak fertilization for the month, and then they can get a permission slip from the government for a supervised sexual encounter with their husband.

Time those wedding dates carefully, bridezillas!

/sarcasm

 

Because government needs to find as many ways as possible to separate you from your money. Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The marriage license for example is a tax which is unconstitutional, Government (state or federal) does not have the constitutional authority to tax a right. If a right is taxed, it violates the Bill of Rights because it is no longer protected but instead exploited.

 

I think it's a national issue. Marriage guides the future of our nation's foundation. The family Unit is important and affects our progeny and those that are vulnerable...children, the disabled and elderly. Our nation cant survive on a policies surrounding children and the vulnerable that protects the concept of self-gratification and anything goes and everything is equal or ignored by rule of law.

Then as society starts to head that direction where children are simply devalued into baggage...state rights become important allowing states to decide their own future.

 

So you believe that no state should have controls over what is dictated as marriage except for boundries you consider acceptable?? Doesnt that sound a bit totaltarian to you?

 

So, in essence, you are a libertarian because you don't think the Federal government should fund schools. Something about schools and getting an education stifling your individual rights.

Libertarian is the party for me, no need to educate, the less one knows, the more free one becomes.

 

As a recovering Libertarian, I feel qualified to say that the philosophy has little real world application and the movement is filled with nutballs. Let me give in example of the type of incoherence typical among libertarians in regards to immigration. From a libertarian site:

...But let’s assume for the moment that today’s immigrants – those immigrants recently arrived and those who would arrive under a more liberalized immigration regime – are indeed as likely as my concerned friends fear to vote overwhelmingly to move American economic policy in a much more dirigiste direction. Such a move would, I emphatically and unconditionally agree, be very bad. Very. Bad. Indeed.

I still support open immigration. I cannot bring myself to abandon support of my foundational principles just because following those principles might prove fatal. I cannot tolerate state power to interfere with my and others’ freedom of association, and with people’s freedom of migration, on the grounds that scaling back such state power might lead to more state power wielded in other dimensions.

Crazy right?

 

Nope, what you do in your bedroom is your business assuming it is consensual. What you do in public you have perforce made everyone's business. Societies in which everything goes almost invariably become societies in which everything does and women and children are usually the chief victims.

 

All State issues. They can put mechanisms in place to address those issues.

 

Agree totally.

 

So you think that if governemnt didnt issue marriage licenses, that it would breakdown the family unit?

 

Again... rights.

The right to incest and pedophilia imposes on the natural rights of children. Either through possibly deformity and development issues, or the innocence that prevents them from making the choice not to participate in pedophilia.

When it doesnt affect anybody else, I dont care and government should stay out of it.

 

Why does the federal government need fund education. Why not the states and local governments?

 

To level the playing field. When only local money is used to fund education, those in wealthy areas tend to get good schools while poor areas struggle with what they can get.

 

Government creates laws having to do with family, children, power of attorney, probate, and the list goes on. No boundaries to help manage that?

People through their elected officials want to guide their future and strengthening marriage helps a sound future. Let the people decide whether marriage is important instead of the courts.

And yes....it would further breakdown the family and create additional chaos for children and adults.

 

Because the government has an interest is supporting procreating couples.

 

Some people believe same sex marriage imposes on the rights of children. Shouldn't those people have a voice? Or is it only your opinion that matters.

 

I think that society has a vested interest in an educated citizenry. This is one of the primary reasons that I reject the libertarian and conservative ideology. They both seem to favor an uneducated underclass.

It makes me wonder. Y'all don't like the media or science because it they tell you things you don't want to know. I suppose it is the same with education. Can't have a bunch of people running around knowing what you don't want them to know. Enlightened does not seem to be a characteristic of the Right.

 

But not in seeing that the offspring are adequately educated?

 

Correct.

That is the job of the local community which understands the needs of its children much better than a bureaucrat in DC

 

I don't think that's the role of the federal government, and nor did the founders.

 

Government doesn't "strengthen" marriage.

Have you ever heard of somebody getting a divorce on the claim that the government didn't do enough to salvage their relationship? If the government just charged more for that marriage license, me and Karen wouldn't have got a divorce?

All the other issues you mentioned are perfectly addressable by states. No?

 

Why?

They aren't doing a very good job then.

 

How does gay parents impose on the rights of children?

 

Somehow you took "fund and control education at the state level" and got all the way to "you want people stood".

Lots of dots to connect there bub.

 

Even if you found one libertarian with that ridiculous position, qualifying all libertarians the same is stupid.

Mind sharing where you got that from?