Skip to main content

You won't believe why "Libertarians on the Left are troubling, too"

At least according to the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune.

It's because we're also Darwinian, like those Libertarians on the right.

How do they know we're Darwinian?

Because we support marriage equality.

I'm not kidding.

That's the only reason they cite:

This is social Darwinism of just the sort depicted by Steve Young -- destructive outcomes for the poor, inflicted by ruthless commercial forces in an unregulated environment. It is enabled by libertarianism on the cultural left.
The left very properly advocates government regulation to promote a clean environment, workplace safety and many other social goods. But when sex comes into issue, the left takes exactly the opposite position. It fiercely resists regulation, insists on laissez-faire, and ignores the human cost.
Redefining marriage (the latest left-libertarian project) only would compound our social crisis. Disassociating marriage from biological fatherhood increases the tendency of fathers not to marry. The more that we elevate choice and individual desire as trump values, the more we compromise the welfare of children.
Go figure, as my brother is fond of saying.

OK, if that's the definition of Social Darwinism, put me down for it.


Comments

tom said…
perhaps if John D. Hagen Jr could pull his head out of his ass long enough to look around, and maybe study some history, he would realize that aside from Victorian era England and the U.S. during the middle third of the 20th century, "Uncommitted, recreational sex" has been a norm throughout pretty much the entire history of western culture.

and far from being the latest fad, equal rights for gays has been a plank in the Libertarian platform since the party was founded 40 years ago.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...