This piece is not necessarily meant to bash Libertarians , especially not all people who find that their values seem most closely aligned to the values presented as the platform of the Libertarian Party. I have found myself , more frequently in the last year or two than ever before, wondering if the Libertarian Party might be a more natural fit for me than the Republican Party. It seems that when I really start to wonder if I am in the wrong party and if I am more of a Libertarian than a Republican, something happens that knocks me back into reality. These reality checks provide opportunities to ponder what appears to be either hypocrisy or an unbelievable level of naivete among those who take up Libertarian causes.
The impetus of the most recent Libertarian reality check was the decision of the New York Senate to approve homosexual marriage. This issue provides an opportunity to examine just how liberty minded Libertarians are and if their love of liberty ought to be accompanied by a gargantuan asterisk. This piece is written from a perspective of annoyed curiosity regarding the thinking and motives of the Libertarian. Comments are welcome, as I would really like to understand what makes these people tick.
Perhaps it doesn't matter what Libertarians, as members of a political party, are. The two dominant parties have plenty of power and money to ensure that no other party rains on their parade. Until at least two unlikely societal steps are taken, a party such as the Libertarian Party can put forth candidates who may give the disenchanted someone to support and give losing Republicans someone to blame. The two societal steps, which I don't believe will ever be taken are:
- A large enough portion of the electorate pays more than cursory attention to the actions, words, legislative offerings, benefactors, and beneficiaries of the elected members of the two primary parties (and their top-tier candidates aka heirs to the nominations).
- If number one, thanks to some miraculous mass epiphany, were to occur, the next step would be for a significant portion of the electorate to have the courage to defy the conventional wisdom and self-fulfilling prophecies which the hacks of the two primary parties deftly wield against principled voters.
Again, these two steps are likely to happen right after Porky the winged swine soars through an ice-encased Hell. So until the devil invests in a pair of ice-skates, questions about libertarianism might not matter much when it comes to supporting candidates on a state-wide or national level, but I would still like to understand it.
Is liberty the goal? If so, for whom? The Libertarian Party website header proclaims it as "The Party of Principal" with a sub-heading of "Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom." Those words certainly represent an ideal situation, but one must wonder if they are truly meant. Too often it seems that Libertarians are like the ACLU and only seek liberty, or at least only really care about liberty for fad victim groups. If this is not the case, perhaps they should put more thought into the causes they champion.
You may be thinking that it is nice for Libertarians to have something other than the plight of the oppressed pot-head on which to focus. You could have a point, but it would be nicer if their pet causes did not require favored status or special benefits for small groups of people (fad victim groups). It would also be nice if the object of their activism did not treat deviant behavior as something to be forcibly imposed on those who do not choose to engage in or associate with that behavior.
Two points should be made here for the sake of the narrow-minded, dishonest, or just plain stupid defender of the libertarian position. First, I use the term deviant, not with malice, but as a word with a meaning. Second, I am not prepared to buy the (insulting to black people) standard position of the homosexual marriage pusher that sexual behavior is the same as skin color. I don't know if this second point can be made clear enough, as the degrading elements of society so often get away with this comparison. Think about what they seem to be implying: 'heterosexuals are the equivalent of white people and homosexuals are equivalent to black people!' It is unfortunate that we live in an age of politically correct nonsense, but perhaps it is even more unfortunate that the PC police seem to have prioritized victim classes such that it is acceptable to say something offensive about an otherwise protected group as long it is on behalf of a protected group of preferred status.
Back to the point of "Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom." How do the proponents of homosexual marriage, at least the ones who approach it from a libertarian standpoint, reconcile the unintended consequences of their goals with their supposed beliefs? Some say that government should have no role in marriage whatsoever. The Libertarian Party had a press release Friday June 10, 2011 regarding so-called "marriage-equality." From the release:
WASHINGTON - While supporting steps taken over the past several years to end the unequal treatment of gays in the area of marriage, Libertarians say a just society is one in which no law depends on one's sexual identity.
"Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all," said LP Chair Mark Hinkle. "Frankly, the idea that someone's legal rights should depend on whether they've entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us."
Do the members of the Libertarian Party believe we reside in a vacuum? Are their positions based in reality? How exactly would the Libertarian view the plight of the bed and breakfast owner who does not host homosexual marriage or "civil union" ceremonies? Is the Libertarian opinion that any private entity that hosts wedding ceremonies must be forced by government to host homosexual marriage ceremonies or at least pay stiff legal penalties? Again, liberty for who? Is it that achieving some level of being "cool," "intellectual," or "vogue" is the primary goal of those taking such "libertarian" positions? At least this would explain how they can seek the trampling of private property ownership rights and the liberty of those who might find themselves on the wrong side of their newly passed laws.
How is it not viewed as contradictory to support the passage of laws which will punish citizens for their beliefs or operating in line with common sense, traditional norms... for the sake of having "no law depend on one's sexual identity?" I believe the answer lies in the word "traditional." Traditional isn't cool and the enlightened libertarian or liberal will likely tell us that "traditional" does not necessarily mean good or right. They will likely ignore the fact that traditional does not necessarily mean bad or wrong! They will also point to some travesty that was once considered traditional and in so doing, equate whatever group suffered the travesty to the fad group of the moment (in this case, homosexuals).
Of course, the dishonest or ignorant will proclaim that my concerns are "hate" or "bigotry." The type that out of one side of his mouth bashes the religious for their perceived lack of relying on science, will out of the other side ignore the science of reproduction and the purpose of specific portions of human anatomy. In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that it has been approximately 16 or 17 years since I have had Anatomy and Physiology I and II. I still have my lab textbook, which has a plethora of diagrams, pictures, and actual anatomical information. I will have to go back and check, but I don't recall the anus and the rectum being included in anything other than the digestive system. I must be remembering incorrectly because the institution wasn't an icky religious school, but a public community college. Oh wait... perhaps, the proper, enlightened version of science wasn't taught because it was only a community college and not an Ivy League indoctrination center. This must be, because they did not teach that the unborn child was nothing more than a tumor. Maybe later I'll go look up how Darwin explained homosexual reproduction... that ought to be interesting. Surely someone as brilliant as Darwin would have explained it quite well.
A local radio host sent me a link to a 2008 blog post by an NPR contributor, which summarizes some of the legal issues that have resulted from the implementation of the homosexual agenda. Please visit the following link for the post: https://philosophicalimperialism.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-gay-rights-and-religious-liberties_06.html
Of course, here in the underage abortion capital of the United States, Illinois (thanks to AG Lisa Madigan - D - NARAL), Catholic Charities has been warned, by our devious Democrat attorney general, that they are violating human rights by not facilitating the adoptions of children by homosexuals. Maybe Madigan is a closet Libertarian.
I ask again, liberty for who?
I hope you enjoy this repost of this topical cartoon by Jack Geng: