I work at a small business and am fairly close with all of my co-workers. We don't talk politics much, but everyone was happy when gay marriage was legalized and I always assumed everyone was a liberal/democrat.
I was surprised when one of them told me recently that she was a libertarian. I always associated libertarians with the evilest qualities of republicans. Have I been wrong? Are the libertarian democrats or do they not fall into either republican or democrat labels?
they have always been pretty good on gay rights, but they are SO wrong about so many other things that, no.
She has always been very supportive of gay rights- why are libertarians so often vilified on here if they are pro-gay rights?
Do gays only care about gay issues?
Obviously she is a cunt. Kick her to the curb because otherwise she'll come to you for bail money when she's arrested on DUI.
Because, op. Any smart, normal gay person cares about A LOT more than just gay rights. Which is why any smart, decent gay person is neither a republican NOR a libertarian.
I would say "nice try' but it wasn't even....
What exactly IS a libertarian? Apparently this is the political inclination most discussed these past few months and all I read is "they're evil", yet I simply have no idea who they might be or what they might advocate.
I'm mostly apolitical, but if I ever do pay attention on the political front it will be about gay rights because that's what affects me.
Ask her to define libertarian (without referring to her notes) and see what happens.
Libertarians are often fairly liberal on certain social issues, such as gay marriage, birth control, etc. It's because they believe that the government is too intrusive and too powerful; government has become the ultimate "big brother". People should be free to make decisions for themselves as to whom to marry, or what type of firearm you choose to carry. They believe the federal government should be stripped of most its power to regulate and pass laws and fight wars overseas/meddle in other countries' problems. Republicans superficially espouse that view, hence the overlap. But Republicans don't want to lose the government sponsored corporate welfare and their pork goodies (the Bridge to Nowhere, farming subsidies, defense dollars, other government subsidies).
[quote] they have always been pretty good on gay rights, but they are SO wrong about so many other things that, no.
Where do people get this idea?
I'll grant you that they have supported marriage equality.
But the party doesn't support civil rights protection. That would include LGBT civil rights.
In other words - go ahead and get married. But if someone wants to fire or not hire you because you are gay - that's just too bad.
I'm not 15. I'm 30.
I guess I didn't really understand what a libertarian was. I'm not a wild fan of big government, but certainly support stricter gun control so I guess I wouldn't fit in well with them.
How do they feel about education? I mean don't they realize we need some public goods for the great good of society?
[quote] How do they feel about education?
They love homeschooling.
Libertarians notoriously stand for nothing.
Yes they espouse social liberal views yet are to the right of mod GOP policy. It is all about THEIR money, refusal to spend or support money for any social safety net or infrastructure for the greater good. They predated the wingnut side of the GOP.
Rand Paul. Ron Paul. Stupid and dangerous.
No principles, whichever way the wind blows to enrich themselves personally.
Does that help?
Most "libertarians" I've known have one big issue they care about - guns, weed, taxes, gay rights (in a few cases). They want "freedom" on that issue, but they don't really care about freedom for anyone else. They want their guns but don't care about gays. Or they want their weed and fuck everything else. They aren't a very consistent lot on what that "freedom" thing is.
The traditional abbreviation of libertarian is socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
Unlike Liz Lemon's ex, Duffy, who declared himself socially conservative, fiscally liberal...
[quote]I'm mostly apolitical, but if I ever do pay attention on the political front it will be about gay rights because that's what affects me.
The mind reels.
The Interstate Highway System
The Police and Fire Departments
The Public Library
Thank you r5.
Rand Paul is a fucking neocon. He's not a libertarian at all.ron paul is though.
Plenty of libertarians say they dont care about gay marriage but the states shoud decide it or they think the institution of marriage should just be ended alltogether.
r18, Traffic Lights kill more pedestrians and auto occupants than an intersection with stop signs or NOTHING at all.
BTW, Crosswalks kill too.
Don't libertarians believe in discrimination? As in, "If someone is a landlord he should be able to rent to anyone he wants to rent to and NOT rent to anyone he doesnt want to rent to and the government should have no say in that."
Ron Paul would eliminate:
Dept of Education
Dept of Energy
Those two should be enough to send chills down any thinking persons spine.
The Dept of Energy is far more than regulating the Nuclear Industry. It also conducts R&D into renewable energy, sets policy for energy security for states to follow.
Example US considers two items to be paramount when it comes to the security of our nation, prepared defense and reliable, means of powering our communities, hospitals, financial institutions, and police and first responders, etc.
The DOE, housed @ Oakridge US National Laboratory also houses CDAIC- Carbon Dioxide Analysis Information Center- one of 3 agencies charged with measuring the advances of Global Warming and the impact this has on life in our country (Midwest bread basket, drought in the South, etc). DOE/CDAIC is one of our country's pre-eminent Science institutions, along with NASA/GISS and NOAA.
This is why PIN HEAD IDIOTS like Ron Paul Libertarian, and GOP goons want to defund the DOE... marching orders from the 7 Sister Oil companies no doubt.
The US without the DOE would be a disaster.
The US without the Dept of Education, simply means the the Bush Family would privatize and reinvent Education Tools and Testing until they owned the entire bankroll dedicated to the public education of our nations children.
Oh, r21? It's the first I've heard of it.
It must be the all powerful white line painting cabal keeping us all addicted to those deadly cross walks!
Did she come to the wedding? Did she support you?
[quote]Any smart, normal gay person cares about A LOT more than just gay rights.
Yes, R5, since we can see beyond our own lives we recognize that libertarianism - aka, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, don't kill- is the only peaceful political system.
Libertarian philosophy says, even if I don't like it, the state shouldn't be involved--marry who you want. There are some hypocrites who feel different. Most of the fellow Libertarians I've known have either been pro-gay marriage or neutral but I've come across some online that are against it. I have no idea where you got the idea Libertarian= against gay marriage. The position here where most would agree is that it's not a state/federal issue.
Libertarians would stop issuing any marriage certificates wouldn't they R27? Oh no they wouldn't. Just gay ones. FAIL.
Libertarians are idiots. Some are nice and some are evil. But all are intellectually unfinished, immature people.
Those who finally do mature usually face palm and become democrats.
Libertarians hate the poor more than anything.
Well, of course you could go to the Libertarian Party's website to find out the "official" position:
[quote]Libertarian Gary Johnson’s Bold and Consistent Stand on Gay Marriage
[quote]Posted on May 11, 2012
[quote]The Gary Johnson for President campaign released the following statements this week:
[quote]May 10, 2012, New York, NY – Libertarian nominee for President and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson today said he’s “disappointed” with President Obama’s position on gay marriage. Obama told ABC Wednesday he would let each individual state decide the gay marriage question instead of seeking federal protection of the right to marry. Johnson noted that more than 30 states already ban same sex marriage in one way or another.
[quote]In a statement, Johnson said, “Instead of insisting on equality as a U.S. Constitutional guarantee, the President has thrown this question back to the states. When the smoke clears, Gay Americans will realize the President’s words have gained them nothing today, and that millions of Americans in most states will continue to be denied true marriage equality . I guess the President is still more worried about losing Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia than he is in doing the right thing. What is the President saying — that he would eat a piece of cake at a gay wedding if the state the happy couple lives in allows it ?. Where is the leadership? While I commend him for supporting the concept of gay marriage equality, I am profoundly disappointed in the President.”
R9 and R23 have put it best. Libertarianism is a dangerous ideology, but even psychopathic ignoramuses have a right to spew out destructive ideas in a democracy - you know,t he same democracy that they want to destroy to serve their corporate masters... Er, I meant to say "the market".
R2/OP, you realize there are about ten thousand other issues than gay marriage/rights, right?
Libertarians are awful on issues of regulation, social safety nets, economics, monetary policy, and a whole host of other issues.
Libertarian, any color question, answer always 'green'
[quote] They love homeschooling.
I know. When did this start?
All of sudden I'm reading opinion pieces from libertarians about how great home schooling is.
"Libertarian" is a term that has become just as warped on the left as "communism" has on the right. Virtually nobody is a "pure" libertarian (or communist, for that matter); the end of communism is the destruction of capitalism, and the end of libertarianism is the destruction of government. Both are extreme and both are only hypothetical.
My oldest friend considers himself to be a libertarian. He thinks government should take completely the fuck out of gay marriage, abortion, religion, and most victimless crimes (and, incidentally, does not consider either Ron or Rand Paul to be a true libertarian because both believe marriage equality and abortion should be restricted by the government). To him, the biggest evil inside America today is the military-industrial complex; he thinks most of it should be dismantled, and that the funds now used for it should instead go towards doubling the nation's education budget -- including paying for post-high school education -- and eliminating debt. He is a believer in "small government" in the Jeffersonian sense, not the Grover Norquist sense. He voted for Obama (twice) but has become increasingly disenchanted with him because he has continued the ridiculous War on Drugs, is prosecuting illegal immigrants at a rate far exceeding that of the Bush administration, almost went to war with Libya, and hasn't closed Gitmo.
OP, you sound a little like people who are "afraid" of gays and jump to tons of erroneous conclusions about them only because they've never met one before. Educate yourself. Talk to your co-worker about her views. You will quickly see that libertarians are not the evil automatons DL loves to shit on.
P.S. I am not personally a libertarian.
R36... dinging Obama on Gitmo is annoyingly stupid. He's tried MULTIPLE TIMES to close it, and has been blocked at every turn.
R21 traffic lights make traffic go faster. Roundabouts without signals can reduce accidents, but at the cost of slowing everybody down.
Read this article:
How libertarians failed gay rights.
In our country's founding, The anti-federalists were the ancestors of today's libertarians (economically speaking).The federalists were, economically speaking, the liberals and conservatives of today. Although I agree with some social issues according to libertarians, I could NEVER agree with them when it comes to economics and issues like education and the environment.
"almost went to war with Libya"
There is no reasoning with someone who hates a politician for almost doing something (whatever that means) but didn't.
You can have equality where everyone is treated like shit; and equality where everyone is treated well.
Libertarians always support the former solution.
The anti-federalists were agriculturists, which is something else entirely. Not the slightest bit libertarian.
Here's a clue: The Constitution is a strong Federalist document (the non-Federalist document was the Articles of Confederation).
We had this argument. We had a WAR over it.
The Federalists won.
It's time for the other side to stand down. Long past time. And if you can't, leave.
Libertarians are backstabbers!
Is your coworker southern, OP?
Quite a few years ago I found myself travelling through the south in the lead up to the election in 2008. We'd stopped to eat at one of the chain restaurants somewhere in Alabama and were seated next to a group of Ron Paul supporters having a meeting, so of course I eavesdropped.
The group was filled with young people and it quickly became apparent that almost all of them should have been Democrats.
My guess is that in the south, Democrats have been so vilified that some young people don't see supporting them as an option, and "libertarianism" gives them an opportunity to engage with socially liberal issues without bringing down the wrath of their socially conservative parents. But they aren't really libertarians at all.
R44, I concur.It is SO ironic to hear today's libertarians disparage liberals and conservatives for not respecting the constitution, when basically, they are arguing AGAINST a strong constitution and more for states rights (i.e. like the Articles of Confederation).
Stop trying to make libertarians happen.
I'm from AZ, we've got a lot of libertarians here (myself included, tbh). Never met one that wasn't for gay marriage. Quite a few that had no particular passion for gay rights in general, but adding new laws to restrict marriage to 'one man, one woman' flies in the face of everything libertarians work for. We want the government out of this kind of thing entirely - and yeah, I know getting the government out of the marriage is a pipe dream, but we certainly don't want to add any more layers to that shit cake.
Libertarians are socially liberal, in that "and ye harm none, do what ye will" kind of way. The conservative angle comes from the financial end - as a group, they want virtually no government oversight of business or industry, taxes, etc. Their approach to business, treating it like an individual citizen with rights, is imho naive. There's some serious flaws in how they conceptualize business - I think it's more accurate to treat corporations like tiny goverments without armies, rather than as if they were citizens. So I can't say I always vote with them, but ideologically I identify more with them than Democrats or Republicans.
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. Ron Paul may have sympathies in that direction, but he runs as a Republican. Gary Johnson was the libertarian presidential candidate this last time around, not one of the Pauls.
[quote]We want the government out of this kind of thing entirely - and yeah, I know getting the government out of the marriage is a pipe dream,
It's not just a pipe-dream, it's utterly nonsensical. Marriage is a contract between a couple and the state. The purpose of that is to treat what was once two strangers as the closest of family, for the purposes of the law. How the fuck do you take the government out of that? You can't. It doesn't make any sense to even suggest it. What it does show is a completely thoughtless naiveté and cluelessness... basically parroting something that sounds good without actually THINKING about it or understanding the consequences.
It also bespeaks of confusing a marriage (which is a license, a secular document, that any couple can go down to City Hall and get... well, straight couples anyway), with "weddings", which are the religious ceremony performed in churches.
It doesn't surprise me to hear yet another libertarian with really shallow, un-thought-out, naïve, and ridiculously unworkable ideas and opinions.
It's part of what makes Libertarians so damn tedious to deal with.
I had a colleague who was as libertarian as you can get. She is a lovely person and was one of the best employees at the company.
And she's deeply ignorant on the issue of economics, and how societies function, R52.
Exactly my point. You *are* confusing religious ceremony with a contract with the state, which is exactly the problem.
The legal advantages of marriage - communal property, right of inheritance, power of attorney - there's no reason not to let any two people share this that want to. Let any of them sign these same contracts instead of tying it up in state-regulated marriage.
And I get that it's a totally impractical goal to separate these things now, when they've been tied together for centuries. Which is why I called it a pipe dream in the first place.
R54, that's disingenuous. You cast aspersions on my reading comprehension when YOU said that you wanted to get "the government out of the marriage".
I'm not the one that confused the two. If you want to be understood, you're going to need to be a lot more clear. You're not against the marriage license at all, and in fact think the state should be fundamentally involved in it... yet that's the exact OPPOSITE of what you said.
At least own your own inability to communicate your thoughts effectively.
I'd have no problem with what you proposed in your clarification. Re-reading your original post, it still something that is ridiculous, and in fact, is the same thing I hear from a LOT of Libertarians.... and conservatives. Basically "Gays want marriage? Well fuck it, let's completely abandon the concept in civilized society so that it's not an issue any more, and just let religion control it all"
R55 "You're not against the marriage license at all, and in fact think the state should be fundamentally involved in it... yet that's the exact OPPOSITE of what you said."
Where are you getting that? Seriously, if I've been unclear I apologize, but I really can't see where you're getting this from. Sorry I was overly snarky, I guess I was being defensive.
As for your second point, well I can't speak for the Libertarians you've been speaking to and I'm sure we've got our own nutcases running around saying assholic things, but I can say that the core idea of "the State has no right legislating marriage" has been kicking around long before heteros even cottoned on to the idea of gays coming out and wanting to marry each other.
I will say I haven't myself met anyone *actually* trying to legislate the government out of marriage, although I assume there are some people out there really trying to do this. (I'd also assume that if they're out of touch with reality to the point that they think this is achievable, then they've also got some other screws loose.) It's more of a "if you were designing the perfect goverment from scratch, how would you do it" idea, than it is a realistic change to work for. From both a gay rights and a Libertarian perspective, I'm more concerned with halting these attempts to write new laws and amendments to ban gay marriage. And concerned about what will happen under this patchwork system we're building now, where a marriage is valid in states X, Y, and C but not A, B, and Z.
Again, I think you're confused. The state DOES regulate Marriage.... because that's what marriage IS. You use extremely confusing and unclear language if what you [italic]mean[/italic] to say is that marriage licenses should be available to any two people who want them. Marriage IS the state... you can't take the state out of Marriage, because that's meaningless. Getting the government out of marriage sounds exactly as stupid as when a tea-bagger says "keep the government out of my medicare!"
You absolutely need to stop phrasing it that way because you're not saying what you mean at all, and what you ARE saying is incredibly stupid and nonsensical.
It's like saying "I want to get all the judges out of our judicial system". Marriage is a contract between a couple and the State. And the State enforces it. How the hell do you take the government out of Marriage and have anything left that means anything at all??
No government involvement means there's no such thing as marriage, just like no government involvement means there's no Medicare, and no judges means there's no judicial system.
Marriage has only EVER been about the state. Even before it was co-opted as a religious sacrament. It's about taxes and property and all that fun stuff... it is now and has always been a legal framework. I know religious people love to claim to own it and love to confuse things, but come on, this isn't rocket science.
But why should it be a contract between the couple AND the state? Why not just the couple?
And I don't buy the 'marriage is only about the state' business, for much of history only the upper classes could afford to get a legal marriage - peasants got 'married' in a religious ceremony without the state involved at all.
Just between the couple? How exactly would that be enforced? To whom would you turn if the terms were not met?
I believe in the libertarian viewpoints far more than Democrap views.
Great, r60. Now try to make an actual contribution to the discussion.
R60, I would expect nothing less from someone who uses the word Democrap.
Libertarians seek freedom, but shirk responsibility.
R39, that "article" is laughably stupid. Did you post it as a joke?
Wow, r63, that is so false.
R9, birth control is not liberal. Abortion is liberal and any real libertarian (not misogynists like Ron and Rand Paul who oppose women's rights) would allow a woman to control her own body.
R23, he's also the first to remove women's rights.
R59 exhibits the ignorance & cluelessness typical of libertarians. It's called "Magical thinking".
Ron and Rand are homophobes who do not support marriage equality and have said so many times.
The Pauls are shit, but I believe this thread is about Libertarians?
The Pauls *are* today's libertarianism. Every fucking libertarian I know has one of those stupid "Ron Paul Revolution" bumper stickers on their cars...
Every single Ron Paul supporter I ever met is a young, uneducated 'liberal' - which usually means they called themselves a democrat until they thought Ron Paul was cooler.
Never met a single Lib who followed them. Get some better friends.
R73, they're all pretty conservative, sorry to burst your bubble. They basically left the Republican party over Dubbya's wars and spending, and became Ron Paul 'libertarians'.
[quote]The group was filled with young people and it quickly became apparent that almost all of them should have been Democrats.
I assume you think this because they wanted to end the serial warmongering, the totalitarian NSA spying, the drug war, the evisceration of civil liberty, the symbiosis of government and banks/big business.
Show me one, just one, democrat president that has even tried to do those things.
They are libertarian because they aren't retarded and can see how evil, corrupt and destructive our government is, and that there is no chance to reform it- it must be destroyed, and the Keynesian grounds it grew on must be salted.
If you don't think Ron Paul is a libertarian...well, then you know nothing about libertarianism.
Please read up on Dr P, and what he believes.
His son, Rand, is a duplicitous piece of shit, and real libertarians hate him for using his dad's name to get elected and then stabbing him in the back.
Just look at this site @link and see how disappointed real libertarians are with Rand.
Your inability to comprehend a world without the government holding your dick while you piss is typical of government Edumacationing.
Why should the government be involved in a religious ceremony?
Congratulations. You are smarter than 99% of the people on this site.
The people that worship the power of the government make me sad. How can anyone love and respect an entity that is constantly holding a gun to their head, and then lying about it?
This is a fucked up thread.
When it is so obvious that Obama is just a patsy for the Elite, why do so many people support him?
[quote]Libertarians seek freedom, but shirk responsibility.
Precisely and just to put too fine a point on it, they'd rather cut off their own dicks than pay taxes. They're basically useless, selfish shitheads and leeches on the body politic.