3
4

Why Are Libertarians Mostly Dudes? (newrepublic.com)

peanutcrackers が 投稿

全 125 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]despisedlove2 40ポイント41ポイント  (12子コメント)

Kind of obvious, isn't it? Most women support state interventions in several issues important to them. That is antithetic to libertarianism.

[–]gregsg -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

The lion's share of state intervention, by far, goes toward subsidizing large corporations -- predominantly owned and managed by men, by the way. Take, for example, the far-and-away most interventionist post-war administration in America's history: Ronald Reagan's. Behind the paper-thin cover of he-who-works-not "small government" rhetoric, the policy was rabid protectionism, like colossal trade barriers, direct and indirect handouts, etc. And that applies clean across every major industry, not just the obvious ones like auto, energy and finance: computers, internet, telecom, aerospace -- all reared by suckling on the teat of the nanny state, with state R&D, subsidy, procurement, tariffs, bailouts, and on and on and on.

It's absolutely embarrassing to suggest that the meager set of social welfare programs in the US are somehow the major object of state intervention.

[–]despisedlove2 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Did I?

[–]gregsg -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

just in a roundabout sort of way...

If more intervention goes toward subsidizing men, while many women are stuck with unpaid home labor, would it not make more sense to turn your argument 180 degrees?

[–]despisedlove2 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I made no argument.

Just an observation borne out by facts.

Why do facts make you so unhinged?

[–]gregsg -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Pardon? What makes you think I'm "unhinged"?

You stated zero facts, by the way. You stated an assertion. The facts, for which I can give you references, support the exact opposite position.

[–]despisedlove2 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think you have it reversed. Facts: most social state interventions are supported enthusiastically by women. Family and medical leave act, child insurance, medicaid, covering birth control under insurance, etc. Men are split on them.

You brought in the red herring of subsidization of corporations. No libertarian I know supports that. They want the state completely out of the marketplace, and the business of picking economic winners and losers. They rail against the military industrial complex, which is the biggest beneficiary of state interventions.

So, yes you come across as an unhinged person. Sorry.

[–]gregsg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe you're getting way too emotional about this, because you seem to have a lot of trouble parsing the difference between facts and assertions. Facts have evidence supporting them, like, for example, the evidence that your assumption about most state interventions is categorically false. Most state intervention does not go toward child insurance or medicaid (neither of which is a benefit for women, anyway); it goes toward subsidizing capitalists' profits.

What you said about neoliberal "libertarians" is also laughable, but we don't even have to discuss it because one of your assumptions is false and for the other piled on top of it you've offered no supporting evidence.

[–]Xavierathrowaway 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because Libertarianism is espoused almost exclusively by people who were born on third base and think they hit a triple. Women and people of color have a whole lot more on-the-ground experience with discrimination and don't buy the BS that the Libertarians try to peddle.

[–]ChrisJames420 21ポイント22ポイント  (13子コメント)

Many people align their ideology with what benefits them personally. Men receive less government assistance + money then women and are thus incentivized to lessen government power. However this stereotyping of an ideology is uncalled for - attack the ideas, not the race/gender of the people involved. Its akin to someone asking why so many feminists are fat, unattractive females, in that its besides the point.

[–]Audrake [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

TwoX should never have become a default sub. I can't believe saying "DAE think feminists are fat and ugly" is upvoted here.

[–]Kernunno 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do you have any proof for your claims that one, men are less likely to receive assistance and two, the feminists are likely to be fat unattractive females?

[–]gregsg 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

actual libertarians are definitionally feminists

[–]Gorilla_Presser [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Nothing exposes lack of intelligence like incorrectly using then and than.

[–]ak47_enthusiast -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

>tfw you're a fit, tall, athletic, good-looking male feminist and libertarian socialist

My partner is a thin, fit, tall good-looking female feminist. I've actually never met any fat feminists, to be honest. Most of them are pretty attractive in my experience. The only fat feminists I've heard of are the keyboard warrior types who likely aren't involved in any IRL feminist groups or projects. They probably don't even really value feminist theory and just use it as an excuse to not go on a diet.

[–]Audrake [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Who the fuck cares if a feminist is fat or not? Aren't you kind of proving their point that people judge women for looks first and foremost and if they aren't sufficiently attractive than they aren't taken seriously and their opinions and viewpoints aren't valued?

Shitting on fat women makes you a piss-poor feminist and you're making nasty generalizations of them right now by doubting their feminism just because they're overweight. You should probably be the one rereading feminist theory.

[–]ak47_enthusiast [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Health and self-discipline are important to me, sorry if that offends you. User ignored.

[–]Audrake [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

What a great feminist this guy is, completely disregarding what I said and ignoring me rather than admitting that he was acting in a misogynistic manner and disrespecting women for not conforming to his desired body type. It's fine for "health and self-discipline" to be your own personal mantra, but not when you tear down women for not living their lives how you want them to as well as not taking into consideration health problems and situations that are less privileged than yours making weight loss difficult. Utterly pathetic ignorant behavior indicative of a sorry excuse for a male ally, a feminist in name only.

[–]ak47_enthusiast [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

audrake is an ignored user. show anyway?

Still pretty mad, huh?

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]dftxc 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Kinda proving their point...

    [–]♡scoobertron 10ポイント11ポイント  (12子コメント)

    Young men are taught that they have value if they are 'winners', and have no value if they are 'losers'. This is particularly true when it comes to economic success, which they are taught will determine how attractive they are to the opposite sex (this may not always be true, but it is a prevalent trope). Libertarianism, particularly the prioritising of individual competition over collaborative activity is an extension of this line of thought, so given how we socialise young men, it is not entirely surprising they they make up the majority of libertarians.

    [–]ViskerRatio 5ポイント6ポイント  (10子コメント)

    Libertarianism doesn't prioritize individual competition over collaborative activity. It prioritizes personal independence over tyranny.

    I'm not sure why so many people are confused about libertarianism - it's a fairly simple philosophy. When government passes a law, it is imposing force on the people. Minimizing the force government imposes on people is a good thing.

    [–]mercurygirl 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    seriously?

    I want somebody (and not the free market) to protect me against corporations and other individuals who imposing their force on people and me. I dont want a explosive factory built around residential property, I dont want a pharmaceutical company releasing a drug that has been untested, and I can go on and on. The free market is far from perfect at addressing these issues.

    People/ humans / corporations/ (and even governments) do not hold themselves accountable - for the damages they do, for greed or for taking responsibility for their externalities - and although government is not perfect - its the best we have to protect us.

    [–]kamakie 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Libertarianism the core idea and libertarianism the collective viewpoints of those who call themselves libertarians are vastly different in scope.

    The idea of the "strong independent self-made man who don't need no handouts" is a recurring theme of Ayn Rand's novels, for instance. And it aligns with what young males are taught to value.

    [–]sickpharaoh 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    [any ideological position] the core idea and [any ideological position] the collective viewpoints of those who call themselves [ideological position] are vastly different in scope.

    [–]scivolo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Libertarianism the core idea and libertarianism the collective viewpoints of those who call themselves libertarians are vastly different in scope.

    Unfortunately, a lot of self-described libertarians are merely Republicans who have become too embarrassed by their party to continue describing themselves as Republicans.

    [–]AttheCrux 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

    A government is just a body of people. Laws outdate the state.

    Let's say I wanted to throw a firebomb through your window, naturally you are against this. One of us is going to lose our choice, so whose personal freedom is to be protected? Yours naturally, I'm clearly crazy but as the act is me expressing my personal freedom this decision is where the crack begins.

    Who decides what is clear in this case? If it's just you and me it is just a difference of opinion, one I'll win because I'm not telling you it's coming so you'll invariably be dead. Only with the consensus of other people does my wanting to murder you become wrong. The morality of a society is not enforced by a government but by the people in it. This is why despite being the best set up governments in history the US is still really corrupt, it's not the government it's you and if you take away the government it's still you.

    The constitution only outlines 3 crimes, treason, Piracy and counterfeiting everything else is fair game with government no longer enforcing laws.When two groups have conflicting but absolute philosophies on things (like abortion) the majority will become the law society would uphold it, that or civil war.

    Oh and if your thinking that people just won't allow it, you'll be surprised what people are willing to let happen, I lived in Derry in 96, I've seen lawlessness first hand, it's bloody.

    Personal Freedom isn't just freedom to, it's also freedom from.

    [–]flood-lights 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    You surely cannot believe this? Have you even read the constitution before?

    All of our laws to this day are based off of that document. Everyday, laws are created and overturned based off its adherence to this document.

    For your absurd hypothetical. You would be arrested for Arson. As in, destroying my property, obstructing my right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, More formally know as Arson and Assault.

    Personal freedoms are guaranteed until they impede on another's freedom.

    [–]AttheCrux 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Seriously only 3 are mentioned. The rest is covered under article 1 section 8 or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Which, basically says to uphold laws the congress and the federal government and those upheld by the judiciary. But by removing these mechanisms that constitute central government this clause is invalidated. Arson is defined by government laws without them, no arson.

    Get arrested. By who? local police forces exist sure, but when our directly paying them rather than a centralized system, you'll be amazed how quick they'll be to take advantage of that. The Japanese Yakuza started as a protection service, so did the Sicilian Mob, The Black Panthers and most other racketeering operations (though I personally quite like the Panthers). It is a terrible Idea to have people directly pay their security forces. Private security stop becoming this because another police force will arrest it if it does but you've removed that threat so small roaming armies are going to pop up, bandits, warlords, and other shit we haven't even seen yet because every 1st world nation has a central government. Mobs are OK with killing if it earns them money, I pay them, I can kill you.

    funny thing on this one, the US police forces are already showing some of these traits, which is interesting.

    J.S.Mills concept of freedom, the one you state. Yes this is the point. Abortion is a good issue to outline when two conflicting groups each believe their personal freedoms are being impeded by the other. One sees the freedom from the burden of children the other murder. So whose right? that is what a judiciary is for.

    Local judiciary is a bad idea in a homogenised setting, like many US states. After all judiciary or laws are the consensus of a body of people. I am from Ireland which is homogenised as hell on this issue. It is illegal to have an abortion here, people die from illegal procedures people go to the UK for a tourist abortion, Our government then tries to have those doctors arrested, it's crazy. And we have a government. We are getting there but it's slow.

    The problem isn't that governments exist. It's that it can only be as good as the people that constitute it, scale doesn't change that.

    [–]flood-lights 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Are you going to continue and misrepresent? Nobody is advocating the abolishment of police forces, don't be obtuse.

    US police forces are showing some of these traits

    please point this out somewhere. some form of source.

    Only 3 are explicitly mentioned you dolt. The rest of the laws are derived from what the Supreme Court can uphold as implicit.

    Local Jucidiary is hardly a bad idea, especially in a homogenised setting. A homogenized society one with an undiluted culture. And if culture of this homogenized society agrees on something, they should be, within their power able to enforce it. Do you respect other cultures? Or only when its convenient to you?

    I don't see where you're going with this. Just a big strawman you built up(based on general ignorance of a political party), so you can easily knock it down. You continue to equate this with anarchy for some reason.

    [–]AttheCrux -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Nobody is advocating the abolition of police forces.

    True but your also not outlining how you intend to pay for or train them. A local Levy? who controls the levy? a private organisation? What mechanism will you put in place to stop it becoming a mercenary army that will subsequently engage in racketeering and hierarchical control?

    (While the increasing militarisation and mob mentality is defensible, you could read Police Ethics: The Corruption of Noble Cause if you're interested it takes too long to outline properly. It was an aside anyway.)

    The supreme court is the highest bastion of big government in the whole judicial arm, to expect them to continue to exist in a small government setting seems counter-intuitive, especially considering they tell people what they can and can't do all the time. The right to deny birth control based on religious freedom thing is good to highlight the issue of personal freedom, one doesn't want to offer because it harms them the other feels not being offered is also harmful. (The Impossibility of Religious Freedom is a good book on this)

    If a homogenised culture agrees on something it's OK, really? Tyranny of the Majority much? trying to have an Abortion campaign in for example Alabama with only local judiciary would be futile despite that being against the personal freedoms ethos your proposing.

    Sure I respect cultures but sometimes the prevailing morality of those cultures can be skewed. Baby Throwing, Bullet Ant Gloves, Female General Mutilation (and male really but morality is too arbitrarily enforced for my liking). We all pick and choose what we like and don't like about other people's cultures, it's up to us to provide a grounded logical bases for those objections. Asking for government hands off on some personal freedoms but then using law to shut down others is arbitrary, it barely works when a government does that you can deflect by using the institution and national diversity of belief. When you attempt that locally you'll have local conflict and little to no outside arbiter to diffuse tension and deal with it.

    Interesting thing in UK (which doesn't have the death penalty) there is always a bump in those who want it back when a murdered child is shown on the news. People's emotions affect how they view morality, as 50% is where the poll sits usually, this bump could theoretically let them reinstall the death penalty. A brief emotion could create a law that get's people killed, this is a small example of why distance isn't always a bad idea when it comes to making laws.

    On that last point you are kinda right. I do see differences between Anarchy and Libertarianism, but not really between Libertarianism and Anarcho-Syndicalism opposites certainly but two sides of the same coin to me.

    P.S. don't call me a dolt, we are having a discussion insults aren't needed.

    [–]flood-lights 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Why would the police forces be privatized? and why would there be any change to how police forces run beyond maybe a better economic strategy to funding local, state funded police forces? I don't see where this is coming from?

    As for Death penalty, which is legal in my state, it isn't issued very often. and even when it is, it drags on very long most often ending in a governor's pardon.

    I respect your very long write up. I'll look into the texts you mentioned. Perhaps our views of Libertarianism are different. Perhaps I see them as less...rigid than you. While I believe in smaller government, I don't necessarily believe in bare-bones government. And I do apologize, I was frustrated. Normal venues for discussion I visit are a lot more lax pejorative use.

    [–]ashmagic487 6ポイント7ポイント  (31子コメント)

    True libertarians are small government and I find "libertarian dudes" are generally conservative in nature, but consider themselves to be libertarian because they're opposed to taxes and pro pot. Calling Rand Paul a libertarian is misleading, because his views are conservative.

    On abortion:

    *Coarsening of our culture led to 50 million unborn deaths. (Sep 2012) *My opponents call me libertarian but I'm pro-life. (Feb 2011) *Life begins at conception. (Jul 2010) Opposes federal abortion funding. (Aug 2010) Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)

    On civil liberties: Women won the "war on women": they're no longer downtrodden. (Jan 2014) Redefining marriage leads to economic and moral problems. (Jun 2013) *No national law on same-sex marriage; leave it to states. (May 2013) Let states decide same-sex marriage; don't federalize it. (Mar 2013) Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010) *Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009) Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013) Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010) *Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)

    Source: on the issues Eta: opinions

    [–]IwasShadowbanned_AMA 7ポイント8ポイント  (30子コメント)

    It always kills me when a libertarian comes out as anti-abortion. That should be the poster issue of a libertarian movement, but because young white libertarians (men and women) are judgemental fucks their argument is, "You make a mistake it's your problem, don't bring society into it." Which is just fully biased pretzel logic and mind-blowingly ignorant.

    [–]dewarr 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

    However, it is worth noting that the big L Libertarian Party does indeed support abortion rights--and in general, it is my understanding that the position is generally (though I'm sure not exclusively) a part of most libertarian thought.

    [–]scivolo 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    From the Libertarian Party platform:

    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

    I read this as 'Let the doctors offer the procedure if they want, and let women have the procedure if they want.'

    It's worth noting that abortion is probably one of the most difficult issues for libertarians because it pits the right of the woman to live as she chooses with the the right of the child to exist (to the extent that it does) and these two cannot be separated. From their Statement of Principles:

    We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

    It essentially boils down to at what point a fetus/child qualifies as 'an individual', which is a complicated question.

    [–]Vaphell 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's possible that the party has an official stance on it, but in general the libertarian thought has no unified voice on it and it cannot be decided. You have the basic non aggression principle but depending on which axiom you accept (fetus being considered human or not), logical consequences of NAP lead you to different outcomes. If human then abortion is aggression against it ergo not cool, if not then abortion is a-ok.

    [–]ashmagic487 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I find it to be the absolute example of hypocrisy of libertarianism because it violates the core point of libertarianism...your personal freedoms and privacy. In the US abortion and birth control are protected by HIPAA and doctor patient confidentiality. The fact that people oppose a persons choice of medical treatment when it is protected information kind violates this ideology.

    [–]IwasShadowbanned_AMA -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Exactly. Do they even understand what their political ideology is supposed to be about? Nope.

    [–]ashmagic487 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Judging by the downvotes this comment received, I'd imagine that abortion rights aren't even on their scope.

    [–]Diesel-66 1ポイント2ポイント  (22子コメント)

    Huge issue is when they believe life starts. If you believe life starts at conception or very early on, there's no way to support abortion.

    If you believe it doesn't start until much later, then there's no reason to oppose it.

    [–]IwasShadowbanned_AMA 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Nope. A libertarian with that view would then see one life with potential taking over the life of a fully developed person for nine months, and prioritize the woman over the fetus. Her bodily autonomy is a fundamental right in which the government has no say. When life begins does not factor into it.

    Even more so when you consider the numerous religions practiced in the U.S. that don't consider life begins at conception. To say it does would be the government imposing a different religious belief onto them. Which no libertarian should stand for. Frankly, no American at all should stand for because it's in direct opposition to the separation of church and state.

    [–]Diesel-66 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    If you believe it's merely a potential life, you fit in the second category. At that point, I 100% agree with your argument.

    But it does not approach the issue I brought up first. The idea that it is alive now.

    Also FYI, there is no such thing as separation of church and state. There were state religions when the Constitution was signed and for years after.

    [–]IwasShadowbanned_AMA 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    I did address the issue you brought up. You're pretending I didn't so we can enter into some ouroborus of debate in which you keep moving goalposts and I get frustrated. Denied.

    [–]Diesel-66 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I didn't change my argument.

    Either you believe it's alive now or not.

    [–]IwasShadowbanned_AMA 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    That's not the issue though. Stop trying to say it is.

    [–]Diesel-66 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    You cant say my argument doesn't exist. You can disagree with it all you want but it's still there.

    [–]IwasShadowbanned_AMA 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's not relevant. It's important, but bodily autonomy trumps it. Or should, but isn't. That's what we're saying.

    [–]Lily_May [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    Untrue. The "life starts at conception" argument only works if you believe that all humanoid life has some kind of special value, and, by extension, that ending that life in any way is wrong.

    Plenty of humans kill other humans and even human children and infants because they do not give a fuck, not because they don't think those people are actually "alive".

    [–]Diesel-66 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    OK but you are missing the point. If it's alive, the state should protect it just like they do children and the elderly

    [–]omega_res_novae 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

    If you believe life starts at conception or very early on, there's no way to support abortion.

    Sure there is - if you believe a woman has an absolute right to control how her body is used, then you can support abortion regardless of your opinion on fetal personhood. I am not a libertarian, but it seems likely to me that a libertarian might support absolute bodily autonomy.

    [–]Diesel-66 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

    If it's alive, it deserves protection too

    [–]omega_res_novae 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

    (First of all, I'm assuming when you say "alive", you are referring specifically to an idea of "personhood" rather than just biological life, since a fetus is undeniably alive in the biological sense - as are cows, trees, fungi, etc.)

    One can construct a coherent libertarian philosophy wherein fetuses have full rights as humans and yet abortion is still morally permitted. Just because a fetus has a right to life doesn't necessarily imply it has the right to co-opt the body of the woman carrying it. An analogy might be if your friend needed a kidney transplant and you were the only person in the whole world with a matching kidney. Your friend has a right to life, but you are not legally or morally required to donate your kidney (in most libertarian philosophies I have encountered). Even if that choice leads to the death of your friend, your right of bodily autonomy trumps your friend's right to life.

    You may not agree with this comparison, and certainly the argument can be debated. I am just trying to illustrate a way in which fetal personhood can coexist with an acceptance of abortion, especially when approached from a libertarian perspective. Personally I do not accept fetal personhood and am probably less gung-ho about bodily autonomy than most libertarians (I am not a libertarian), so I am not describing my own beliefs in this post.

    [–]scivolo 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    I appreciate your argument, but there is a subtle difference between those two scenarios: the kidney example results in death of Person A if Person B does nothing, whereas the abortion example (assuming fetal personhood) results in the death of Person A if Person B makes a deliberate choice. The latter case sounds an awful lot like murder, or at least some form of manslaughter. So if someone thinks of a fetus as a person, I'm not sure they really do have a choice, if they're going to be consistent.

    [–]omega_res_novae 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Sure, it's not a perfect comparison. There are more complicated scenarios like "The Violinist", where your circulatory system is hooked up to someone else's against your will and you are then given the option of unhooking yourself, knowing that doing so will kill the person. I chose kidneys because it's simpler to describe. If you believe there is a moral difference between making a choice to do something and making a choice to do nothing, you can use the violinist example instead.

    Even this comparison might not do it for you - most of the time pregnancy results from consensual sex, while in the violinist scenario the initial hooking-up was not consensual. Of course, you could then imagine a modification of the scenario where you had initially consented to the procedure but later changed your mind. Should you be forced to remain plugged-in to the other person for the entire nine months under these conditions?

    Even then you might say "yes", but many will say "no". There is no a priori reason to privilege one person's right to life over another person's right to bodily autonomy, and there is no a priori reason to assume that choosing to allow someone to die is morally distinct from choosing an action that will cause someone's death - for example from a utilitarian perspective the distinction is absurd. Of course you are free to decide these issues one way or another in your own personal ethics - if you follow a moral system which focuses on which actions are acceptable rather than on total utility, and you personally believe that right-to-life trumps right-to-bodily-autonomy at least in this instance, then you can perfectly coherently oppose abortion if you assume fetal personhood. My point is simply that many libertarians have different assumptions, and so arrive at a different conclusion, namely that abortion is acceptable even if fetuses are accorded personhood.

    [–]scivolo 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That is a good point, and I think that we're generally on the same page. My intent in this thread was merely to push back against the idea that libertarians must necessarily be abortion maximalists or else be hypocrites.

    [–]ashmagic487 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    If you truly believe this, you're a conservative. Not a libertarian.

    [–]scivolo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Why do you say that? Libertarianism doesn't mean 'no rules'; that is actually anarchy. While libertarians scoff at the so-called 'victimless crimes'--drugs, prostitution, etc.--killing people is still very much frowned upon. From the Libertarian Party platform:

    Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.

    So, if you believe that a fetus qualifies as a person, then abortion certainly qualifies as a 'deliberate action that place[s]' the fetus 'involuntarily at significant risk or harm', and a 'violation of the right' to 'life [and] liberty' of the fetus 'through force', all of which is totally libertarian.

    [–]ashmagic487 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    They cannot be alive if they are unborn.

    [–]Diesel-66 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well that's just rediculous. Passing through the vagina doesn't grant life

    [–]ashmagic487 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The issue is whether or not women can be trusted with their medical decisions, none of these people actually care about the unborn.

    [–]Diesel-66 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You are really miscategorizing 50% of the population.

    [–]xWETROCKx 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    As a libertarian this post and its comments, particularly from women, made me very sad.

    [–]folieadeuxxmachinam 5ポイント6ポイント  (28子コメント)

    TLDR: Libertarians don't like to think about the socioeconomic realities of a statehood which lacks any women's social policy.

    I know libertarians in real life. None, I mean NONE, even pretend to give a solitary, state rights fuck about women's health or welfare. I really don't think they like to admit women's health and wellness issues require government intervention to protect and uphold. If you ask them about reproductive health and assert states rights will result in half the US states outlawing abortion and most forms of birth control, or criminalizing it, then they just say yes, as if that's okay and not completely at odds with libertarian values like shrinking government interference. If you counter that fewer reproductive options will lead to certain neighboring states becoming abortion war zones, they'll just kind of tune out what that means for the US. It's not libertarianism that's bad, it's the lack of balance it fosters.

    Say we go more libertarian in the US. Let's say Wisconsin stays the course and my state, Minnesota, does too. Let's see what could happen if one state took libertarianism and ran with it to the right while one went left of center.

    Minnesota becomes more left of center while Wisconsin not only outlaws abortion completely and enshrined fetal personhood, it outlaws funding of things like the IUD and the morning after pill too, while eventually seeking to outlaw these as well as "aborcificants" since they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Suddenly Minnesota has a huge influx of "abortion tourusm" and reproductive tourism. Doctors send women out of state to miscarry or abort when it's a medical nessesscity. Wisconsin responds to this by not only criminalizing abortion, but criminalizing going across state lines to do so. Then it goes after Minnesota for "killing it's citizens" because in Wisconsin, fetuses are people. It arrests several abortion activists and one Minnesotan doctor traveling to Chicago on suspicion of providing Wisconsin citizens with abortion and killing Wisconsin babies in uetero. Minnesota's governor demands the release of its residents while Wisconsin demands Minnesota cease providing out of state abortion care, and it's joined in this demand by Minnesota's righter neighbors South Dakota, North Dakota, and Iowa. If Minnesota agrees, those right wing states see a greater influx of under the table and illegal abortion networks but Minnesota really doesn't suffer too much in the short term. If Minnesota refuses, it's neighbors start quizzing women at the border to see if they're traveling to Minnesota to secure an illegal abortion. Wisconsin prosecutors demand Minnesota abortion clinics hand over names of Wisconsin citizens who abort so they can be prosecuted for illegally crossing the border to "kill" a state citizen.

    The cumulative effect results in Minnesota being surrounded by states with lower social safety nets, higher crime rates, and stratified income. As the crime pours over Minnesota gets a huge population influx of women and men who are "on the lam" from their neighbors for either obtaining an abortion or aiding one. More disturbing, Wisconsin has had a huge increase in unwanted children which results in the minimal state aid being stressed beyond reason. It regresses further while Wisconsin families and especially young people of education and means flee the state because it's getting more dangerous, more poor, and more hostile to women of reproductive age.

    Let's say women in Wisconsin tried to stop all of this. Their numbers are decreasing as women flee, the governor and state are stacked to the right, and no one will fight with them. Women's rights groups don't have much success appealing to young men even now. Why would that change overnight? Meanwhile the older population with the most money just see their taxes massively decreasing, so they support the libertarian right and ignore the problems as a small bump in the world, because they are removed from its effects. Should their daughters get pregnant they'll just send them out of state or shame them into carrying the baby and try to get the father involved and married. Either way they don't see the immediate harms in the future.

    It can't convince many women to go to college there because if they do, they get zero legal reproductive care. Wisconsin can't convince many educated women to stay there and work because if they do, they have fewer job options. Remember, this is a right wing libertarian state, which means employers can fire woman for being pregnant, if they hire them at all. Wisconsin can't convince young men of means to stay there or go there for college either as it quickly grows a reputation for being a state where young women get pregnant and stay pregnant. Income, education and experience further stratified. Cue the increase in crime as college aged women die or are injured from illegal abortion side effects but are notoriously difficult to draw information from. Cue the increase in crime as prosecutors must go after women who miscarry as possible abortion suspects. Cue the increase in crime as desperate young men flee the state to prevent paying chil- oh wait, child support was outlawed because it's not libertarian. The mother must prove the man wanted to be a father and not just have sex (libertarians usually co-advocate to eliminate state intervention in child support). In that case, cue either a massive increase in child poverty or a massive increase in taxes to pay for unwanted children... which being a libertarian state, won't happen. Cue the church-sponsered charity stopgap and all the restrictions which come with them.

    On the other hand, taxes are low. Enjoy your libertarian paradise, ladies!

    [–]CleanseWithFire 14ポイント15ポイント  (13子コメント)

    I really don't think they like to admit women's health and wellness issues require government intervention to protect and uphold.

    Why would it? Isn't government the primary historical source of oppression against women? It's government that decides women aren't full members of society, that they can't inherit, own property, and so on.

    If you ask them about reproductive health and assert states rights will result in half the US states outlawing abortion and most forms of birth control, or criminalizing it, then they just say yes

    Libertarianism is against government overreach. A libertarian position is that there shouldn't be a state enforcement against abortion to begin with. Your example is literally why government being in charge of the issue doesn't solve it - even now there's a massive push against abortion rights in the US with more than half the voting population being women. Why hasn't more government solved the issue?

    The rest of your post is a series of unsupported assertions in a slippery slope format. Because the only choice is between more government or Mad Max.

    [–]folieadeuxxmachinam 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Government overreach can help solve a lot of things, and make some worse. But government is needed and does help solve many social ills. For example: the Supreme Court did need to rule in Roe vs. Wade because the many should not get to dictate the more immediate need for rights of the few. Libertarians may say they want no one involved in abortion, but how quickly do you think the far right will toe the libertarian party line? Libertarians have HUGE Republican overlap, they'll want this issue addressed. How quickly will corporations limit their worker freedoms, especially if not hiring or supporting women can save them money ? You can't be hands off on this issue, women literally need an outside force to protect their rights.

    You may say I offer only hypotheticals, but look it up. Right now, Wisconsin is moving in exactly this direction. Minnesota and Wisconsin are already facing these issues to a smaller degree of right vs. left. And Wisconsin is not doing well. At all. Their economy is shit and every woman I know from Wisconsin is seriously pissed their rights are being limited.

    If libertarianism becomes government policy, you mark my words, women's policy will be the first thing to degrade. Its made too many bedfellows on the right for it not to suffer. And it won't be because libertarianism didn't do anything to stop women protecting their rights, it'll be because it took a hands off policy to it.

    [–]CleanseWithFire 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

    For example: the Supreme Court did need to rule in Roe vs. Wade because the many should not get to dictate the more immediate need for rights of the few.

    That grand rewriting is not what the ruling was about. The ruling concluded abortion falls under the constitutional right to privacy under the 14th amendment. It's a clutch ruling that wouldn't be needed if you didn't have government reaching into women's decisions on the state level in the first place.

    how quickly do you think the far right will toe the libertarian party line Libertarians have HUGE Republican overlap

    Libertarianism is a minority view that straddles the political spectrum, nobody is in any rush to "toe the line". If you're counting libertarian leaning republicans, why not count libertarian leaning democrats? This rush to pigeonhole libertarians as the conservative enemy will bite you in the ass in the long run.

    How quickly will corporations limit their worker freedoms

    It's shocking you think either party works against corporations rather than with or for them. The lip service of the far left doesn't translate into action and every politician is bought and paid by some corporation already either with direct campaign contributions or the promise of a well paid position upon retirement.

    If libertarianism becomes government policy

    This is really funny when you think about it. The whole "policy" is that government should limit you as little as possible. Because the best people to decide women's issues are the women in question.

    You keep returning to shitty business practices (where more competition and a freer market would help) or government failure, as reasons for trusting in more government rules and regulations to fix it. That seems ass backwards to me. Can you explain why women can't be trusted to run their own lives and businesses in a way that benefits women without government interference?

    [–]folieadeuxxmachinam 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    We need government interference to retain our rights. That's the world we live in. Look, if you want to run off to Somalia or start your own country wherever to prove you are a strong powerful person who don't need no government, be my guest. But for actual women in the actual US, as is, we need to work with the Devils we know. And I know the government enough to know what we need to do to effectively protect our rights. Essentially, what you are saying is we shouldn't have a need to utilize the government or limit business practices to protect our rights. And that may be true. But it's not the real world. In the real world, we need to work with the government to protect our rights. Because I promise you no libertarians ever had any care to protect mine. They just want to topple the table. It is ignorance to think that can end well for women.

    [–]blowsephmishegoss 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

    You seem to be arguing that libertarians believe there should be no government. Most libertarians I know, including myself, believe in a government that is limited in power, especially at the federal level. I don't understand your argument about going to Somalia.

    You might be confusing libertarians with anarchists?

    [–]folieadeuxxmachinam 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Haha, not even a little. I think that I do understand the complete breakdown of libertarianism sociology a little better than they do, however. After all, I used to be one. Well read, confident... then came Ron Paul. He seemed so nice back then. He came to us with the speeches I attended at the University of Minnesota, paid for with Libertarian coffers.

    The anti abortionists set up tables and were in attendance both times at the front door. They had equal space at two libertarian paid conventions. They were not only INVITED to be there, they didn't have to pay. They were welcomed and so was their literature. The local Planned Parenthood, NARAL, none of them were invited. Nope, just the baby savers! How many babies did they save when they called me a baby killer when I confronted them on the lies in their literature?

    They were welcomed. They were invited. They knew they were in control. And still libertarians have the balls to tell me this is just... a coincidence? A personal choice? A courtesy? To me it looks more like a threat: vote for us and watch how few fucks we will give when individual statehood annihilates your bodily integrity. Ask the Fed to step in, and we'll hem and haw about our top down policy of non interference in state matters. And since women's rights is already a state matter (at least partially if state-dependent reproductive restrictions are anything to go after) is just business as usual for the Libertarians.

    And yet they want my support to fund their complete hands off approach to my rights. And be happy the government isn't doing it. That is beyond idiocy. That's willfull ignorance.

    But by all means : keep saying that the libertarianism alliance with the worst fuckery of the right is just a coincidence. I know them from old and I know how quickly they'll sell us out.

    Or, ya know, stick to the party line talking points and see how many more women fail to see how different libertarians are from their rightist masters.

    You understand my point about Somalia, by the way. No way I'll credit you ignorance of that.

    [–]flood-lights 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Wow, all kinds of logical fallacies here. Completely ignoring any real point, and instead spewing out many different personal anecdotes about your specific encounters.

    Then comes the misrepresentation! Ron Paul is a Republican, no matter how much you'd like to shove every person into one box, he is simply a Republican, with some libertarian values.

    This isn't another website, so I can't just point out your blatant ignorance, lacing each sentence with insults to make you feel bad about posting such trite garbage, whilst calling it a rebuttal. But here you go. Read a fucking book holy shit. Libertarians aren't against abortion, maybe you could spare a 3 second google search to the party's webpage and find out what its about before you make baseless assumptions. oh wait, they aren't baseless, they're based on personal anecdotes, mixed with all kinds of ignorant misrepresentation.

    And then you have the Somalia thing. How can you possibly type that with a straight face. Somalia was ruled an Anarchist nation for a short while in the 2000's iirc. It was never recognized as libertarian, because libertarian doesn't mean no government. It means limited government, limited as in upholding rights, whilst allowing autonomy and self governance.

    Really. please refrain from making ridiculously uninformed, ignorant posts here.

    [–]blowsephmishegoss -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I think I have a good understanding of your stance on abortion, but I am still confused about your view of libertarianism as it relates to the formation of government.

    [–]folieadeuxxmachinam -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well, that's too bad then , but I can't carry you all the way.

    [–]lead_far 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

    There isn't a primary historical source of oppression against women. Women have been oppressed throughout history by tribes, their own families, businesses, governments, breakdowns of governments, religion, armies.... Basically any group unless there is a damn good reason (like a law) to stop them. Pretending that government is women's main problem is willfully obtuse.

    [–]CleanseWithFire 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Basically any group unless there is a damn good reason (like a law) to stop them.

    I'm sorry, but if you agree there has been more oppression than liberation of women in history the majority of law has held women back, not promoted them.

    Pretending that government is women's main problem is willfully obtuse.

    I'm objecting to the idea that government is women's main solution. Government is a codified restriction on freedom in a much greater extent than it has given you rights. It'd be just as foolish to pretend individuals haven't objected to this mistreatment of women but been powerless to change the state view on what (for example) inheritances available to daughters should be.

    It's a lot harder to be more progressive than society allows when government is actively working against you. It's very easy to be less progressive than society allows.

    Regardless the argument is that people are better served when they create their own rules and contracts from an individual basis. It's harder to oppress women as free agents in society. The more freedom women get, the better. They shouldn't have to wait for government to dictate what freedom is allotted them, as is the case with abortion rights for example.

    [–]roninmuffins 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I think the point here is that governments have been oppressive of women historically to the extent that the societies those governments represent have been oppressive of women.

    The benefit of government for women in a democracy is that it allows them to co-opt the power of government to protect their liberty.

    [–]ChrisJames420 17ポイント18ポイント  (13子コメント)

    Wall of text discussing how libertarians will impose laws that limit the freedom of people.

    libertarian.... implementing laws........ Republican "libertarians" =/= libertarians bae

    [–]NSojac 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Its a common tactic for libertarians to hide behind the lofty and idealistic rhetoric of True Libertarianism; however the sad fact is that True Libertarians hold absolutely no power and will not for the predictable future. The only sitting politician who comes close is Ron Paul, and yet even he is not Truly Libertarian enough.

    Instead, the libertarianism which we have, and which is well understood by women and minorities and ignored by internet libertarians, is one where the libertarian ideals are used by republicans as a shield against accusation of hypocrisy which being both the party of small government and of the religious right exposed them to (Ronald Reagan). Or, perhaps more insidiously, a libertarianism which emphasizes only a subset of libertarian ideals (namely, the infallibility of the free market and the inherent evil of government regulation) in order to undo consumer and environmental protection laws, thereby benefiting a small handful of rich capitalists (the tea party).

    The reality is that all libertarians for the foreseeable future will be republicans, and this should give anyone to whom the republican party has not been exactly a friend (women, and minorities) some slight pause.

    [–]folieadeuxxmachinam -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Wall of text yes, but it's a wall of text Republicans and libertarians never address. I mean seriously, why is this never a problem they address?

    [–]Qapiojg 12ポイント13ポイント  (7子コメント)

    It isn't addressed because it's largely a strawman. Libertarians don't want to impose laws, they want less laws. Trying to assert that libertarians, which by definition work for personal freedoms will impose laws which restrict personal freedoms is nonsensical. Hence the poster before you:

    Republican "libertarians" =/= libertarians bae

    [–]So-I-says-to-Mabel 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Some libertarians believe the fetus is deserving of personal freedoms as well. So those libertarians wish to expand the defintion of murder, expand upon an existing law, and impose upon the personal freedom of another, as if the woman were simply a barn to keep a horse in for nine months.

    [–]GenericUsername1236 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Some libertarians believe the fetus is deserving of personal freedoms as well. So those libertarians wish to expand the defintion of murder, expand upon an existing law, and impose upon the personal freedom of another, as if the woman were simply a barn to keep a horse in for nine months.

    Some feminists want to kill all men. Are we now allowed to use that as a case against feminism?

    If no, then why are you using this logic to try and talk shit on libertarians while feminism is an exception?

    [–]So-I-says-to-Mabel 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I am not 'shitting on libertarians', I am saying within the party are varying opinions on the subject of personal freedom and abortion.

    Yes, a radical feminist that wants to kill all men is still technically a feminist (because that is probably not her only feminist opinion) just as a pro-life libertarian is still technically a libertarian. Both deviate from the official definition and the organizations that set platforms and position on such things, but both have at least some acceptance into such groups.

    This isn't tough people, very rarely are political groups homogeneous. Getting two people to agree on anything is an accomplishment.

    Feminism is an exception.

    You really need to try not to project upon someone's comment more than what is actually there. I never mentioned feminism.

    [–]boredcentsless -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Probably because you've done what literally everyone else in the world has done when discussing abortion that has made any real discourse all but impossible.

    [–]mightyflynn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It begins with them removing laws that currently preserve freedom.

    [–]folieadeuxxmachinam -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    sounds true

    [–]rosymagpie 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I think a lot want it that way. I worked a Ron Paul booth at the state fair once when he first ran for president. I really believed in him at the time. I was young and idealistic. This one guy really knocked the wind out of my sails when he told me and another girl that was working the booth "he will never win if he keeps letting bimbos run his booths". We hadn't done anything to deserve that. We were just getting info on the caucus out to his suporters, which that guy was. And thus began my path to seeing what a lot of libertarians really are... and while I might agree with a lot of libertarian principles i really don't like being associated with libertarians. A lot are just shitty, angry men.

    [–]Lily_May [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Honestly? Because men don't seem to get how shit works.

    Let's say your grandmother had dementia. Your options are to care for her yourself (full-time job, she moves into your house) or you find an assistive living facility for her.

    Now, if you care for her, you can't really have a job. You don't get paid, you don't get breaks or vacation, you work 24/7 till she dies pouring money into her care. Hope you're independently wealthy.

    You put her a care facility and you want kind, highly trained people. That costs money. You want background checks and accountability so no one steals or beats or rapes or neglects your grandmother. I hope you have a shit-ton of money and there's some kind of overarching organization with the ability to employ real consequences if they find people being abused or neglected.

    So, rich people are pretty good. But anyone who's not independently wealthy is boned.

    And, for the most part, women are both familial and professional caregivers. Figuring this shit out is our job. We want a government that helps pay for care, that maintains and watches care facilities, that subsidizes care and makes it accessible and affordable. Big Government seems to be the only way to do that.

    Same argument applies for education, childcare, healthcare, and police and fire services.

    [–]flood-lights 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

    I personally don't understand, as libertarianism is largely egalitarian. However, it may be this. They do not have rallies and campaigns to get more women involved. If one wants to be involved, they are free to join on their own accord. They aren't trying to market, and advertise and target women as a group just to get votes. They cater to all, market to all, not just women. Perhaps the fact other parties do in fact market to specifically women has normalized this. Many seem to take offense that women aren't being targeted specifically, despite also advocating equality.

    A simplistic summary of libertarianism would be "You can do whatever you want, so long as you dont violate rights of citizens", including being racist, sexist, or whatever -ist there is. Being a bigot of any kind would be allowed, and it would be up to society to not condone that type of behavior, not the government. And I think this is where it drops off. Many people would equate racism or sexism with murder, when in reality, racism or sexism, come down to personal opinion. The irony is when such a person claims to advocate 'tolerance', while being intolerant of another's opinion they do not agree with.

    I would also say there's the typical uninformed, misrepresenting Libertarianism due to lack of understanding. The comments of the article prove it. Many half-baked attempts at insult. "LOL do all libertarians just not get laid. Are they all angry bitter women hating virgins? " Apparently, political stance has plenty to do with how much sex you have. And how much sex you have is a measure of value.

    To answer the OP I would narrow it down to: Lack of womens' interest in politics(generalization), let alone "fringe" politics as compared to males, the enabling of bigotry, leaving society at the reigns on how to handle it rather than the government, lack of marketing to females, but mostly, I believe its the fact that the government would stay out of social issues, whilst it would seem most men and women want the government to tell others how to think, or live their lives, rather than society.

    [–]NSojac 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    A simplistic summary of libertarianism would be "You can do whatever you want, so long as you dont violate rights of citizens", including being racist, sexist, or whatever -ist there is.

    This is precisely the concern, and the reason why liberatarianism is not only overwhelmingly male but white as well. Libertarianism as a cultural phenonemon simply does not care about, and will sometimes actively trivialize (as you do in this post) issues facing women and minorities. I doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out why people who have experienced firsthand the realities of systemic discrimination may not want to be part of an ideology that condones it.

    when in reality, racism or sexism, come down to personal opinion

    Yeah, say that when you've been passed over for job opportunities because of your gender or race.

    [–]flood-lights -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    In what way does it trivialize. Placing issues on an equal plane of importance does not = trivialization. It sounds exactly like what feminism wants(hopefully). It places responsibility on yourself to deal with whatever issues you may be facing, unless its a matter of law. Is there freedom of expression? Do you value being able to make these posts? or posts that criticize the state? That is guaranteed by the Constitution. And to attack the very right that allows you to attack it is just asinine. Just because you don't agree with somebody, doesn't mean their opinion should be banned, illegal or otherwise. What happened to tolerance? or equality? Equality is a double edged sword.

    Say that when you've been passed over for job opportunities because your gender or race

    this happens all the time. Gender quotas have kept me out of scholarships, jobs, internships, and other positions. These quotas assume that all conditions equal(50/50 gender) that the outcome will also be equal. Regardless, this is a large violation of a merit based society, as the one(not necessarily myself always) truly best for the job wasn't chosen. The reason I was overlooked wasn't because somebody was much better than I. I wasn't given the position because a competitor had two X chromosomes. Not only is this unfair, its awful to women. It gives women the position not because they're good at the job, or position, but because they have a vagina. They're reduced simply to that. They're acknowledged and placed simply for that fact. This same situation applies for race.

    The ideology does not condone "discrimination". It simply does not feel that the governments place is to enforce punishments for thought crime. It assumes all citizens equal in rights and legal status and personal responsibility. Women are equal to men no? or should be?

    [–]duck-duck--grayduck 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Can you show me an example of women being put off because libertarianism isn't being marketed to them specifically? Because that strikes me as condescending as fuck, as someone who isn't a libertarian because my thoughts and experiences have lead me to different opinions than you, not because I'm not being targeted by marketing.

    [–]flood-lights 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I cannot provide nonexistent examples. Have you seen a "We need more women libertarians" campaign? or anything similar? This isn't meant to assume you align with whatever political party simply because you're being pandered to. But this is a tactic. Its deceitful really. Many groups, corporations, parties, etc use women as a tactic. While some may have genuine concerns, women are also a large group of people who can vote. And thus some with lesser intentions may "align" with women in hopes of more votes, while offering vague promises that truly may not be kept.

    This is an advertising tactic, and its used often. Whether its affected either of us is hard to say. My point was the lack of outreach programs towards any group may lead to a lack of persons in that group, compared to those that do.

    [–]duck-duck--grayduck 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Many seem to take offense that women aren't being targeted specifically, despite also advocating equality.

    This is what I'm asking for an example of. Who is taking offense?

    [–]flood-lights [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    The article linked is a prime example. "Why are Libertarians mostly dudes?"

    [–]D7inlofi -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's a less overhead form of government, I don't think any of us believe it's an easy feat, but I think it has a lot of benefits. Anyways obligated preemptive retort ; Ron Paul was a republican.