Why I am a libertarian, and you should be too

I think OP (and probably I as well) just disagree with you on how 'United' we should be.

 

Sure. On a very limited level.

As per the constitution, the federal governement is tasked with defense, international diplomacy, and ensuring free trade among the states.

That's about it.

They need to stick to that and let the states handle the rest.

 

Your argument is interesting & well stated, but fails to recognize that there are different levels of government for a reason, & each of them excels in handling certain issues. Take the current pandemic for example. This is an international problem in scope, & for a full resolution, requires substantial international cooperation, but the next best choice for any solution would be a national government controlling & coordinating the efforts in various locations across the nation. That keeps the effort under one single central authority. Trump's effort to distribute authority for controlling the pandemic to the governors of 50 states, simply magnified the problem from one pandemic to 50 separate ones with limited coordination among the various states. That resulted in having less cooperation, more confusion, less impact, less coordination, & far less overall ability to assure a safe re-opening of the economy. Every level of government serves a purpose, & it's nonsense to claim one level is inherently evil or unnecessary.

 

The president per the constitution has the capability to declare a National Emergency which then Grant's additional powers to the fed for a limited time. I am ok with this in these situations. My point, under normal operating processes, I think the federal government massively oversteps its powers.

 

demonstrably false. It's why the words say "all persons" and not "former slaves".

this same argument didn't work for interracial marriage bans either. It's why loving v virginia overturned them.

 

Since I don't approve of huge federal govenrment I would recommend it turn the grand canyon over to the state of Arizona where it is located. There are inconsistencies by the jillions among major political party supporters. You can find crackpot ideas anywhere.

 

The amendment was put in place 1868 because former slaves ...considered persons. were being treated differently by the law.
As per the Library of Congress:
THE 14TH amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights...

I dont think any normal interpetion can twist that to assume they planned on unlimited choice in marriage arrangements based on the participants chosen behavior, wants and fetishes...which is where that twisted ruling will go to. I'm waiting for the activists to sue against gender specific bathrooms now.....just because it's against our constitution. A twisted constitution is a joke.

It's really a slam and an insult against minorities to twist this into gay marriage.

 

then the amendment would have said "former slaves" and not "all persons".
As per the Library of Congress:

yes, former slaves fall into the category "all persons" very good.

again, it's written in crystal clear plain english. "All persons" does not just mean former slaves, or heterosexuals

only if you are a bigot. The rest of us, believe in equality for all persons.

 

The 14th Amendment was always intended to apply to the children of immigrants as well. Always. The word "included" means included . . . not only.

 

The constitution is meant for all people and persons...not just slaves. It's not written for one segment. But can be amended to make sure a segment is not left out of its protection...in this case people of color. It is meant to protect people...not behaviors. It protects men and women ...not the behaviors they wish to indulge in.

Homosexuality isn't a different gender or race to protect. It's a decision. As is heterosexuality. Beastiality. Paedophilia. All decisions are not equal.

Sexual preferences are not equal and the ruling for the court to decide it is, was wrong. The court should keep that where it belonged...with the states.
Race is not the same thing as fetishes or sexual attractions. And to dictate a precedent that behaviors are equal and protected over all the US has already hurt women in the athlete world and will hurt others down the road.

You can always tell a bad ruling by the havoc it sparks down the road.

 

Most everybody has at least some libertarian sentiments. But very few people share all libertarian sentiments. I, for instance a staunch Christian who also happens to be a conservative, find the creeping federalization of law enforcement a major problem, as well as the way asset forfeiture is handled at the local level. There are, however places where I have significant differences, with libertarians one of which is the laissez faire approach to human sexuality.

 

And almost always makes things worse instead of better. Sorry but we don't have fifty pandemics. We have a handful of cities with major issues and whole states with a hand full of cases. Meanwhile random testing over 3k people in San Diego indicates that the death toll make actually be closer to 1 in a 1000 than 3 in 100.

 

The fact that you think government has any business in the bedroom makes you the exact opposite of a libertarian.

Blech... would you like the government to install cameras in all of our bedrooms to ensure we are doing it with the right people in the right positions for the right reasons?

 

Here is my question. Why is that a federal issue?

Can the States not adopt their own legislation based on the desires of their citizens?

Why does something like marriage need to be defined at all in the Constitution. Better yet, why is the government invested in marriage at all? What purpose does that serve? Why cant government just stay out of it?

 

You mean State governments too? So anyone can decide to get married? Is that what you mean?

 

Exactly.

What if government mandated that only missionary style is acceptable? That all others of sexual position could be purported as unnecessary fetishes?

Why is government invested at all? Why do they need to define what marriage is and the parameters that people need to comply?

How does 2 men having a relationship, at any capacity (friends, lovers, spouse) affect you? It doesnt.

I believe people's rights end when they start to infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to marry and have a relationship with anybody you like. If you only believe in heterosexual relationships, then you can hold that standard for yourself. Why do you get to dictate that preference to others? Why do you get to use the government to enforce your preference?

 

I won't argue that rationality, but I will argue a point you didn't mention. In order for the concept to work, people have to accept the responsibility to use that liberty and freedom, whether it be moving to a state with better conditions or being willing to produce more or better, and be able to offer a better price. While it is true that FDR opened the door to government power, that was because people were demanding government do something more. At a time of dire need, I don't disagree- but two things happen. One, governments are extremely reluctant to give up power once gained- and people who have found they can vote themselves money or benefits from the federal treasury by electing politicians who promise them benefits seem to be growing as a percentage of our society, and they too refuse to become less dependent on government support, once they have had it. Both are addicted, you might say.

Freedom is independence from power- not reliance on it for things we should do for ourselves. Dependence is the sacrifice of freedom, usually in return for promises of security or a better lifestyle paid for by someone else.

When people fail to understand that their economy is tied to the economy of government, that government debt IS their debt, that gains in government power reflect losses in their own power- The problem is not in the politicians, because we choose those who pander to our weaknesses, and vote them into power.

 

Sure.

I think the larger question, is why does the government care at all who marries who?

 

I'd go along with that in general. What about the health risks of marrying close relatives, like first cousins? And would everyone get the tax breaks, inheritance rights etc?

 

Yes. How does who somebody else marry affect anybody else?

 

I dont think tax policy should be based on marriage.

I also think some safeguards regarding incest and pedophilia need to be instituted to protect children, but again that should be a state enforceable law, not federal.

 

What about inheritance rights, hospital visits etc?

 

I never really paid much attention to Libs because you have a such a small % of the vote, you'll never get to influence policy, but this seems like a good idea.

 

I think government has a vested financial interest in what they choose to allow or not. I think the simplest answer is usually the most correct when you're dealing with human government. When government is faced with a choice between less revenue or trodding on civil rights, I think trodding on civil rights always wins. We all have vested personal liberties. The fact is that government should be there to ensure that we do not trespass on the rights of others, but, often times, the mob would make government do just that. If you take a purely libertarian view of things like marriage, then from governments perspective, there is no value in regulating it unless there is a tax implication. Passing property or wealth is always the tasty financial treat that governments always try to attack because it is essentially free money that can be consumed by government, and it's beneficiaries can claim a moral position suggesting that familial wealth is somehow bad for society because they point back to aristocracy as if it is the same thing (which clearly it is not).

So, you end up getting folks who would shackle citizens with their own inherent greed for both the power of government that they wish to attack our basic rights with as well as using government to dictate a kind of morality that limits civil actions. That is the democratic party in a nutshell. If we ascribe to a libertarian perspective, their practice effectively attacks our rights and attempts to insert government where frankly it never belonged.

If you come to the conclusion that all men are equal and free, things like marriage must be uniformly available to any that would enter into it. That might be an uncomfortable position for those of religious faith for whom those things have been otherwise defined for them. It does not, however, change the political view of it from the libertarian perspective. The real question is whether folks who are religious can accept that. I find that as time has passed that folks today are much less interested in whom you share your bed with. Folks, I think, recognize that the world doesn't end if two women. or men create a deep abiding love. For those who still must react poorly to seeing it in public, I would remind them that if they truly are religious that they respect their own admonition against casting the first stone as it were. I say this, not to attempt to advocate or influence an opinion here. just pointing out the fundamental logic of liberty.

 

How do Libs deal with the disadvantaged? Those with mental or physical disabilities, drug addicts homeless people etc? Intervention via gov't spending or leave them to their fate?