Thanks to the underlying homophobia evidenced by the likes of Bob Barr and Wayne Root (both of whom conveniently believe that States have rights when it comes to policies like same-sex marriage), the Libertarian Party is missing its opportunity to pick up the undying loyalty of one of the most activist segments of the electorate: the LGBQT community.
As Waldo puts it:
Waldo then goes on to cite Americablog's well-documented list of nearly forty Obama administration slights and broken promises to the gay community, including such winners as
Here's the thing: the Libertarian Party could become the party of civil rights for all Americans, and still remain true to its core principles.
Just think
1. We want the government out of marriage all together in a best case scenario, but as a stop along the way require the government to play by the Constitution and allow any two consenting adults to get hitched without examining their genitalia.
2. Libertarians may differ over defense and foreign policy, but how about supporting the equal rights of all willing American citizens to join the US military?
3. Libertarians acknowledge personal liberty as the major lynchpin of our philosophy. How about adding a spirited defense of the personal liberties of LGBQT Americans to our daily lexicon, and pointing out the inconsistencies of the two mainstream parties?
4. Actively campaign for equality in contract and family law for LGBQT families.
The irony is this: it would be in keeping with our stated philosophy, but it will never happen because--as Waldo points out from time to time--the Libertarian identification with Republicans allows us to bring homophobic social conservatives into the tent at the expense of those who actually need our advocacy.
As Waldo puts it:
Waldo admits: he got suckered by the Traditional Democratic Party Approach to gay rights: do the dinners, promise the moon, and kick the can down the road to the election cycle that, like Godot, never comes. We hang one simply because indifference is better than the active hate the GOP would be pursuing if they were in power.Time to, as Pam Spaulding says, cut off the gayTM.
Waldo then goes on to cite Americablog's well-documented list of nearly forty Obama administration slights and broken promises to the gay community, including such winners as
Asking a religious right activist who claims to have been “cured” of his homosexuality to headline campaign events in South Carolina. Then letting the anti-gay bigot spend half an hour, on stage, haranguing gays at the Obama event.
Refusing for months to interview with LGBT newspapers during the campaign, while his opponent did repeatedly.
Flubbing question on whether gays are immoral.
Inviting anti-gay activist Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to give the invocation at the inaugural.
Inviting a gay bishop to the inaugural festivities, then not beginning the TV broadcast until the gay bishop has finished and left.
Here's the thing: the Libertarian Party could become the party of civil rights for all Americans, and still remain true to its core principles.
Just think
1. We want the government out of marriage all together in a best case scenario, but as a stop along the way require the government to play by the Constitution and allow any two consenting adults to get hitched without examining their genitalia.
2. Libertarians may differ over defense and foreign policy, but how about supporting the equal rights of all willing American citizens to join the US military?
3. Libertarians acknowledge personal liberty as the major lynchpin of our philosophy. How about adding a spirited defense of the personal liberties of LGBQT Americans to our daily lexicon, and pointing out the inconsistencies of the two mainstream parties?
4. Actively campaign for equality in contract and family law for LGBQT families.
The irony is this: it would be in keeping with our stated philosophy, but it will never happen because--as Waldo points out from time to time--the Libertarian identification with Republicans allows us to bring homophobic social conservatives into the tent at the expense of those who actually need our advocacy.
Comments
Another irony is this:
You joined a religious institution as an adult that has a millenniums-long history of oppression, genocide, torture, killing non-believers, bigotry, lying, and child abuse. Many of these practices continue to this very day. Yet you support that institution as a member.
Meanwhile, you advocate for a political philosophy and form of government that would place the absolute rights of individuals and private collectivist groups supremely above the general welfare of society, thus leading to the rollback of many if not most laws and regulations around environmental protection, consumer protection, safety and health, civil rights, education, and protection of children, to name a few.
Why would any LGBT person possibly want to join a political movement that would legalize the right of individuals and private collectivist groups, such as businesses, to discriminate against them?
In light of both those sets of facts, please excuse your readers if they take protestations such as this one less seriously than you might like.
anonone
L.O.L.
What are families now? Non-governmental inter-personal loyalty collectives?
Don't bother feeding the troll who now attacks your religious faith by your chosen denomination as an absolute and damnable expression of your political beliefs.
There appear to be no lump/mass group identity condemnations or purely-associative guilt accusations that this anonymous scum will not foist on anyone (PRIVATELY) affiliated with any group it deems counter to its twisted monolithic agenda.
This person is truly emblembatic of the leftist mind that cannot abide individualism and individual identity (witness the running fear of personally identifying itself). It's all about the collective, as big and profound as this faceless fool needs to conflate to trash and destroy individual distinction.
For our resident anon-ummist, like any good totalitarian-minded statist pig, either believe what it believes or you are an evil heretic, along with any organization of which you are a member...and all of that organization's members.
I get the sense that this person is even more miserable in real life than this sour online non-identity...thus the craven cloak.
“Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.”
But I don't hate you, and I hope that one day you'll respond to my comments with some rational substance and not just with name calling and these lunatic ravings against my anonymity. What's the point?
The fact is that Libertarianism advocates for making discrimination for any reason by private individuals and private collectivist groups (such as businesses and corporations) legal again. Calling me names doesn't make that go away, now does it?
(For the record, Steve has written that he is uncomfortable with this area of Libertarianism. Are you, Tyler?)
I happen to think that discrimination by both governments and businesses should be illegal. If that makes me a "totalitarian-minded statist pig" in your eyes, fine I would not be a member of an institution that practices and advocates for discrimination by governments, groups, and individuals like the Catholic Church does and has since its inception.
I think it is ironic that Steve thinks GLBT's should join the Libertarian party when they would clearly face much more legal discrimination by private businesses under a Libertarian government than they do today. Furthermore, he is a member of perhaps the major institution in America that is fighting against equal rights for GLBTs, yet he complains about Bob Barr. You may not think that is relevant or ironic, but I do.
anonone
Give me a break. You continue as an adult to be the citizen of a country with a centuries long history of oppression [toward Native Americans, African-Americans, women, gays]; genocide [Native Americans, to include forced sterilization of Indian women in the past thirty years], killing non-believers [the State has on many cases executed the objectively innocent], bigotry [do I even need to detail it?], lying [ever listen to a Presidential press conference? Any Presidential press conference?], and child abuse [our so-called child welfare agencies have, time and again, refused to investigate or take action in cases of child abuse, and most of those bureaucrats still have jobs], and yet you have not renounced your citizenship.
Shorter version of what this snark deserves: you're a hypocrite.
You confuse my utter and total contempt for you with hatred.
I personally dislike you.
But hatred is just your narcissism flying. I don't care enough about you to hate you, even if I was so inclined.
It it amusing you would quote Richard Nixon, for whom you have oft written your own utter contempt and vilification. Just another example of your rigid compartmentalized pseudo-intellectual nonsensery.
I was born in this country. I did not choose to become a citizen as an adult. Many of the injustices and horrors you cited happened long before I was even born. Furthermore, I am not writing a blog trying to recruit people to become Americans as you are trying to recruit people to become Libertarians
And, you're right, I have not chosen to renounce it, although I have considered leaving. Being an American citizen is something that we both share, so if you want to call me a hypocrite for that, fine. If you really believe that, than write a post about how being an American citizen is hypocritical to anyone and tell us when you're going to renounce your citizenship.
Like your co-writer on this blog, you have failed to respond to the point of my original comment, which is not surprising as calling on LGBTs to join the Libertarian party is pretty indefensible. Particularly when you support the biggest organization in the world fighting against the rights of the LGBTs and women.
anonone
You have banned me from commenting on your blog posts, you write that you "intensely dislike" me, and you never respond with any real substance to my comments.
Then why do you bother responding to my comments?
anonone
Steve or I must agree with your twisted premise, which certainly is not the case with me, to even bother answering your conclusions.
Ain't gonna happen.
Your argument is pretty much reductio ad absurdum. Because your tortured reasoning concludes that a libertarian-driven American society would be one greater in discrimination against non-heterosexual citizens, we are supposed to answer for why GLBT citizens should go libertarian.
However, in typical predictable fashion, you seem quite casually to believe this identity group is monolithic and driven strictly driven by that by which you define it. Drivel.
So please spare us any more of your hokey "answer my argument" protestations. You have none that doesn't require assuming the truth of your extraordinarily attenuated thinking.
The GLBT community would be better off under libertarians who would leave them alone to pursue their own paths in life, than your type of statism that would tell them what it should be, whether they want it or not.
Shits and giggles. Your overly dramatic take on everything and your argumentative hyperbolies are fun to dissect and dispatch.
No need to engage on "substance". You have none. Just absurdities masqueraded as intellectual points.
One cannot "pursue their own paths in life" if they are denied equal opportunity to publicly-offered services by private businesses, including healthcare, education, and public accommodations.
Libertarian philosophy places the right of property owners to discriminate for any reason whatsoever over the basic human right to be free of public discrimination under civil rights laws. You can look it up.
I think that position is abhorrent and morally indefensible. It isn't the LGBTs that would be better off under Libertarians, it is those who would like discriminate against them.
And it doesn't take "tortured logic" to see that discrimination would be rampant and widespread without civil rights laws. You only have to scratch the surface of American society to see that bigotry and prejudice of all types is still very much alive.
anonone
So responding to me is "fun" and gives you "shits and giggles," but nevertheless you have banned me and dislike me intensely.
Got it.
anonone
Obviously your rigid mind can't conceive that one can have shits and giggles at your expense in Steve's posts, without letting you stink up their own posts by allowing your bizarre charade of non-reasoning.
And nothing is more fun than puncturing the asshattery of those one intensely dislikes. It is the type of reaction that distinguishes between disliking someone versus hating them.
Glad you "got it".
Another example of the massive leap in logic and law that you require we assume to be true, and thus answer to your absurd reductions about libertarianism that flow therefrom.
I find your hubris and self-righteousness morally abhorrent, especially when coupled with your authoritarian impetus and animus.
In regards to "basic human right to be free of public discrimination under civil rights laws":
Despite my "hubris and self-righteousness" as well as "authoritarian impetus and animus" can you tell me specifically what part of that do you disagree with?
By the way, since you seem to have difficulty looking things up, the Libertarian platform includes "The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever" under the "Property and Contract" section.
Furthermore, the "Economic Liberty" section states "The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected."
No civil rights protections there, either.
anonone
anonone
Move along, troll.
But I'll ask you, Tyler, even though I don't expect a straight answer: Do you believe governments should have civil rights laws protecting individuals from discrimination by private business owners?
anonone
You should ask the question from premises of fact rather than from premises of wishful thinking. Here, I'll help:
"Do you believe that discrimination should be reduced -- maybe even ended -- through vigorous application of voluntary market interaction; or would you instead prefer that it be simultaneously strengthened in its institutionalization and made harder to detect and combat by using force of government to theoretically 'outlaw' it?"
Those are the two options -- the only two options. If you support laws against private discrimination, you're not serious about ending it -- you're either naive, or you're just looking to create a political knife that you hope will never dull because it perpetuates the problem it purports to solve.
Tell me when was the last time you saw a "Coloreds Only" sign outside of a business? They aren't there anymore because of enforced civil rights laws, not your mythical "vigorous application of voluntary market interaction."
"Voluntary market interaction" had from the end of the Civil War to the 1960s to work. Did it? Of course not.
It is Libertarianism that is the definition of "wishful thinking."
anonone
My philosophy would free over 100,000 black men from prison, yet I am the racist while your barbaric and murderous government destroys those lives. I think most of those guys would gladly give up the ability to eat in a handful of restaurants if it got them out of jail.
I think it is ironic that Steve thinks GLBT's should join the Libertarian party when they would clearly face much more legal discrimination by private businesses under a Libertarian government than they do today.
In addition to the fact that I don't think "clearly" quite means what you think it means, I'll point out that the keyword there is "private". They would face far less legal discrimination from their own government.
I don't disagree with you that the American government acts in "barbaric and murderous" ways.
We do not live in a free country, but our anti-discrimination laws are not the problem. It is not a free country that has the largest percentage of its population in prison than any other western country. It is not a free country that spies on and tortures it citizens. It is not a free country that has a government that slants the table to transfer the wealth of its workers to those who do nothing to earn it.
I don't think that you need to legalize private discrimination in order to free people, black or white, that are unjustly imprisoned. Writing that "most of those guys would gladly give up the ability to eat in a handful of restaurants if it got them out of jail" makes no sense as getting out of jail and eating in restaurants are unrelated. I say get them out of jail and let them eat in any restaurant they choose.
By the way, I don't think that people who are against civil rights legislation on principle are necessarily racist, just terribly misguided in their judgement of what the results would be. For example, people would be prosecuted by the government for trespassing based on their skin color and the legal discriminatory practices of the property owner. In Libertarianism, this would fall under the government's role of protecting property rights.
anonone
I think that is is naive of you to think that civil rights laws have everything to do with the absence of segrigation. If there were no civil rights laws, how many businesses do you actually think would exist that would be whites only, or straights only? People really are not that racist any more. It might have something to do with the civil rights laws, but I wouldn't say that this is the main factor. You also said that between the end of the civil war and 1960, Libertarian philosophy failed to end racism. You fail to mention that southern states actually passed laws that mandated segregation of blacks and whites in all public places, public transportation, and even private restauraunts. This was not a creation of the free market, it was due to the fact that the southern states passed extremely unconstitutional laws. Although you may try to deny it, segregation is a very bad business policy. If there were no civil rights laws, there may be a hand full of whites only businesses, but they would never last. Discrimination will never go away, no matter how many laws are passed. Some people will always be closet racist, and closet homophobes, but civil rights laws are not going to fix that. Free speech, free trade, and the freedom to be financially ruined because you are a racist or a homophobe will. Discrimination by government should be illegal, but illegelizing discrimination by "business" or individuals is really just forcing people to do something they might not want to do. Should we force a prostitute to "not discriminate" against someone who has HIV? Although free speech and free enterprise is sometimes painful, we must let people make their own decisions and learn for themselves. The vast majority of businesses will never discriminate anyway.
You also don't understand how issues such as environmental protection, consumer protection, safety and health, civil rights, education, and protection of children have been politicized through the laws that the government passes. Agencies such as the EPA, and the FDA set arbitrary guidelines that are heavily influenced by politics, not science, and actually provide immunity in court to businesses that pollute or sell faulty products. Consumer protection is mostly bullshit when you study economics and collective intelligence. The reason that libertarians place the rights of individuals above the "welfare of society" is that is has pretty much been proven by economists that in a free market economy, the "welfare of society" is much better than it would be in socialist economy. Again, it would be good for you to study about the collective intelligence. It is very naive of you to think that there are not people in the LGBT community who understand the virtues of freedom and the free market economy. It is naive of you to think that an LGBT person would not want to join a political movement that places their individual rights above the "welfare of society." What if the government determined that for the "welfare of society", marrige rights should only be given to heterosexual couples. That is why we place the constitutional rights of an individual above the welfare of society. The welfare of society is just whatever the flavor of the month is to whatever party is in power. Some LGBT people realize that no matter how fucked up somebody is, it is not right to force them to think or act a certain way. That just causes these people to hunker down and cling to their delusions of bigotry. It is naive of you to think that every LGBT person perceives the world in the same way that you do. It is naive of you to think that an LGBT person would not want to be a libertarian.