Did you even read why there would not be sex on the street corners? I hope people will not simply dismiss the possibility that a libertarian society could be more civilized–even more moral–than the sick and degenerating society that we live in. Here is a little more for whoever is interested:Reep
**For all the hand wringers who fear that a libertarian future would look like some some drug-addled freak show–straight out of a futuristic dystopian movie–where pierced/tattooed couples fornicate in the streets, the opposite may be true: We would have MORE control over our streets and neighborhoods, not less. **
The main reason you don’t see sex in public places is that you can be arrested for it. Remove the State’s prohibition of it, and it may well flourish, as has pornography and abortion since the Courts approved both in the 1960s.
I’d guess older than most people here, but thanks.Legalized pornography has done far more damage to society than it was able to do before it was legalized. You apparently are not old enough to remember before the floodgates were opened?
From the example you gave [Amsterdam], you still don’t get what a libertarian society might look like. Correct me if I wrongly assume that you refer to publicly-owned streets in Amsterdam. The three posts I cited lay out the private property basis for moral public spaces. If you are just going to ignore this aspect, then I can’t help you understand.A stroll down the streets of Amsterdam would cure you of the notion that a libertarian society is more civilized than ours.
No. Absolutely not. I don’t know how everything would sort it itself out, but as to marriage, I suspect things would revert to the way it was a few hundred years ago when marriage was a social & religious matter, but not a governmental matter.Do you agree that a Libertarian society would espouse the legalization of same-sex marriage? Do you agree that a Libertarian society would support incestuous marriage? Do you agree that a Libertarian society would legalize bestiality?
now this may not be the case for all libertarians but from what I have seen libertarians discuss and what would make sense to me (using a libertarian mindset) is that there would be no such thing as civil marriages, this would be something religious only, or it would be left up to the local governments to decide not something on the federal level.No. Absolutely not. I don’t know how everything would sort it itself out, but as to marriage, I suspect things would revert to the way it was a few hundred years ago when marriage was a social & religious matter, but not a governmental matter.
It is government that has brought us to the point of shoving same-sex marriage down our throats. (mainly by stealing from some people and then divvying up the loot in inequitable shares). Even homosexuals dislike getting ripped off.
Obviously, a marriage is what it is: one man, one woman. No political philosophy can alter this fact. A man can no more marry a man than I could baptize a dog or my bishop could ordain a woman.
catholictiger;10074049 . . . from what I have seen libertarians discuss and what would make sense to me (using a libertarian mindset) is that there would be no such thing as civil marriages said:Yes.
I would add that non-religious people would no doubt marry, following whatever lights they have. Depending on the extent that Christians are able to influence society, I expect to see the continuing division between conventional marriage and those who adopting immoral living arrangements. We see the same today: Two men together, A man and two women, etc. This will not change until people change, regardless of whether the society is totalitarian, libertarian or something on the spectrum between the two.
It seems to me that explains only why under libertarianism there will be no sex on *some *streets. What about all those who cannot afford the fees for private guards to act violently to eject trespassers? They’re stuck outside the walls I mentioned in my last post.Did you even read why there would not be sex on the street corners? I hope people will not simply dismiss the possibility that a libertarian society could be more civilized–even more moral–than the sick and degenerating society that we live in. Here is a little more for whoever is interested:
** – Libertarian society or drug-addled, obscene freak show?**
– Private property and a moral society
– Freedom to live a moral life
so in a libertarian society in the name of freedom two gay men or two gay women would be allowed to live together and raise children?Yes.
I would add that non-religious people would no doubt marry, following whatever lights they have. Depending on the extent that Christians are able to influence society, I expect to see the continuing division between conventional marriage and those who adopting immoral living arrangements. We see the same today: Two men together, A man and two women, etc. This will not change until people change, regardless of whether the society is totalitarian, libertarian or something on the spectrum between the two.
I assume that if such things happen in our unfree society, then they would also happen in a free society. At least the government would not be approving it, as they do now.so in a libertarian society in the name of freedom two gay men or two gay women would be allowed to live together and raise children?
in-vitro fertilization , and there is actual harm not potential non-consensual harm in the raisingI assume that if such things happen in our unfree society, then they would also happen in a free society. At least the government would not be approving it, as they do now.
You raise the complication of raising children, which is more serious because it involves potential non-consensual harm to a third party (and a helpless one at that). Fortunately, biology naturally limits reproduction by homosexuals. In a free society there would be no grounds to intervene in any same sex child-rearing situation unless there was actual harm, molestation or other abuse, which is also the status quo today.
2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”
How much good is that argument doing NOW. This government (that so many here think is so great, or at least think it can be great if we can just vote . . . .) is not going to reverse this sickness The truth is that this government has grown monstrous and out of control. We are being played for fools.in-vitro fertilization , and there is actual harm not potential non-consensual harm in the raising of children by same sex couples.
where in that page does it refute what he says because it clearly doesn’t atleast from my brief reading.Reep
**
No. Absolutely not. I don’t know how everything would sort it itself out, but as to marriage, I suspect things would revert to the way it was a few hundred years ago when marriage was a social & religious matter, but not a governmental matter. **
This is not the Libertarian view.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights
I agree with your proposition that the government is out of control, and that it exerts too much authority in all the wrong directions.How much good is that argument doing NOW. This government (that so many here think is so great, or at least think it can be great if we can just vote . . . .) is not going to reverse this sickness The truth is that this government has grown monstrous and out of control. We are being played for fools.
My thoughs about the necessity for Catholicism aside, it seems that libertarianism would end up being a situation of exclusion. First, it seems that libertarianism has no thought to limiting business other than if it engages in outright fraud. Second, it proposes that people with money will be able to live in safe enclaves while excluding everyone else.Look, I know that a free society will be as deeply flawed as we ourselves are, but take a look around. The present society is in a downward spiral. Change is coming and we can try to make things better or we can content ourselves with electing new masters every four years and waiting for total collapse…
You may be referring to my comments about your description of a liberatarian area, in which some people with money would gather together and form their own well-protected communities, and outside of which would exist chaos. You seem to think that te chaos would somehow vanish? Have no effect on the protected communities?…Someone complained that even if a libertarian society cleaned up some of the streets, it didn’t clean up every street! I think we can do better and any improvement is better than the universal cesspool we live in today.