See other Pious Perverts Articles
Title: The Dilemma of the Libertarian Homosexual
Source:
Unclebob's Treehouse
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 19, 2010
Author: Bob Wallace
Post Date: 2010-09-19 13:49:33 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 1234
Comments: 52
Quite a few "pure," anarchist libertarians are homosexuals. Specifically, the leftist libertarians. They are stuck in a dilemma. Like the Marxists they so strongly resemble, they believe that once the State "withers way," then all will be equal – there will be no prejudice, no sexism, no ageism, no "homophobia," no racism. This is why they are leftist. The words they use -- "sexism," "homophobia," etc. -- ultimately mean nothing because they can mean anything. This "equality" is the leftist, utopian, never-will-exist pipe-dream. The Left exacerbates what problems that do exist by setting people at each other’s throats; the Right ameliorates them, because they know the free market and liberty tends toward toleration. What leftist-libertarians believe would happen is not what would happen. Like all leftists, they don’t merely misunderstand human nature; they don’t understand it at all. Under a totally free market, people will arrange themselves into loose hierarchies, with many different tribes, with the leaders at the top and the lazy and stupid at the bottom. This places homosexuals in a quandary. Their tribe has never been accepted as the equal of heterosexuals, and never will be. That’s why there is such an uproar over gay marriage. The most homosexuals can expect is tolerance, and little else. The fact they’re never been totally accepted is why so many of them (the leftist ones) wish to use the power of government to pass laws granting them what they see as equal rights, but everyone else sees as special ones. I have worked with homosexuals, blacks, Jews, Asians, whatever. We all got along just fine, because it was work. However, afterward, everyone went back to his or her own tribe. After all, you don’t see straight guys hanging out at gay bars. That’s the good thing about the free market and liberty: everyone can associate with who they want. It’s why so many homosexuals have moved to San Francisco, to be with their own tribe. That’s the why it should be; it minimizes conflict. My experience with a fair amount of homosexuals is that they can’t comprehend that straight guys can’t be turned. Some seem to think if you catch them as kids, they can be raised gay. Sorry, they can’t. It’s so strongly genetic it can’t be overcome, contrary to the hallucinations of the NAMBLA crowd. The hard left doesn’t really believe there is a human nature. Male, female, straight, gay…they believe it just depends on the way you’re raised because human nature is (they delude themselves) infinitely malleable and plastic. If that was true, then homosexuals, who are raised in straight society, would be straight. But they’re not, just as heterosexuals raised in a homosexual society would still turn out straight. Ever since I was a teenager, I wondered why anyone would care if a guy (or girl) had sex with someone of the same sex. Later, I realized for the most part, that wasn’t the problem. The problem is that a substantial number of homosexuals are pederasts – they like boys in their early teens. That’s the reason why the fashion industry, which is dominated by homosexuals, uses female models who have the build of 12- and 13-year-old boys. The women who complain about such things apparently don’t realize what the real problem is. It’s not heterosexual men. Then there is the problem that homosexuals, who make up two percent of the population, are responsible for at least one-third of all child sex crimes – murder, rape, molestation. I see no reason why it was any different in the past. Or why it will be any different in the future. I had half-a-dozen homosexuals hit on me in my teens. It happened to most of my friends, too. Suddenly, at the age of 21, it stopped. Damning coincidence, isn’t it? I wasn’t a teenager anymore. This tendency toward pederasty, and self-destruction, and child sex crimes, are the real reasons societies have always frowned on homosexuality. And it doesn’t help that these self-destructive tendencies are the reason that two-thirds of all AIDS cases are among homosexuals. And it also certainly doesn’t help when they refuse to admit these things about themselves. What leftist-homosexuals hope to do is expel the right wing from libertarianism, thinking they can impose their agenda. It won’t work. They’re wasting their time. They’re fighting battles they’ve already lost. What exactly do they expect to do? Use social pressure and ostracism? Or, in the long run, will their statist/fascist/Nazi porn beliefs finally surface, after which they’ll give up any pretense of being libertarians and become just plain leftists? Most of them can’t really support the Right, because they realize that leads to vast majority of people will only tolerating them, or at best, find them amusing, the way the late Paul Lynde was amusing. Or Richard Simmons, or Liberace. If they support the Left, then they’re stuck heading back into trying to use the State and law, something that libertarians are supposed to see as one of the worst sins of all. So, they are stuck in a dilemma to which there really is no solution. Under complete liberty, they can only expect tolerance but not complete acceptance, (as one tribe will tolerate but ever really accept another) or under statism they can expect special rights but resentment and dislike from nearly everyone.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 47.
#1. To: Turtle (#0)
(Edited)
Libertarianism is nonsense. It requires something powerful to define and protect its nebulously defined freedoms. In practice, that something is usually a powerful central government. Some libertarians call themselves anarchist, which is nonsense. A true anarchist is someone that rejects all forms of government. Since government is the use of force, a true anarchist would reject the use of force and be a pacifist. Virtually all libertarians are gun nuts, so they obviously don't renounce the use of force. In effect, the libertarian purist is a very weak and primitive form of local government.
It requires something powerful to define and protect its nebulously defined freedoms. In practice, that something is usually a powerful central government. Some libertarians call themselves anarchist, which is nonsense. A true anarchist is someone that rejects all forms of government. Since government is the use of force, a true anarchist would reject the use of force and be a pacifist. Virtually all libertarians are gun nuts, so they obviously don't renounce the use of force. In effect, the libertarian purist is a very weak and primitive form of local government. THis is true, imo. Except that .gov is not just the use of force. It's how force is used that we have a problem with. Force is neutral. It's why I call myself "leave me the fuck alone small "l" libertarian anarchist". Because if you don't leave me the fuck alone, there will be problems. There is no renouncing the use of force. And I call myself an anarchist because government as we know it is destructive and needs to be done away with. If everyone was that way, there would be no problems, imo, because force could be used against me if I got too big for my britches. It depends on the morality of the people involved though. There would be a "weeding out" process. That weeding out process is long overdue. .
A man with a gun, and the guts to use it in defense of some code, is a local government....definitely weak and primitive. In the real world, a government can survive only through compromise and negotiation with its neighbors.
Yes, if the neighbors are reasonable and are concerned with their neighbors well being. Otherwise you can compromise and negotiate yourself right out of existence. I see nothing wrong with a weak and primitive government. .
Nothing is wrong with a one-man government if you live on an uninhabited, uncharted island. Otherwise, you'll have to compromise, and form a coalition local government, for survival purposes. Survival can be threatened by both internal and external forces.
So, who said "each man a government unto himself" that is anarchism not Libertarianism i.e., Classical Liberalism i.e., a government sharply constrained and restricted to within firm boundaries or as Jefferson put it "bound firmly by the shackles of the Constitution". It is at its essence the decent people banding together to provide for a bulwark against those who have no respect for the rights or property of others - no more. And no more is needed. When government is allowed to grow beyond those tight bounds then you wind up with the kind of situation which we have now - with the predators running the government. Some people desire more because they wish to enforce their personal prejudices, practices, and norms upon others and in free society they are not at liberty to do so. A good example of such would be the old "blue laws" which forbade broad categories of commerce upon the Christian Sabbath - by law. Most of them have been at this point struck down or repealed, but when I lived in South Carolina it was illegal to sell women's underwear on Sunday, and Kansas had a law forbidding the consumption of Rattlesnake meat on Sunday (tastes like fried chicken to me). Government can be allowed to grow beyond strictly defined boundaries at the peril of liberty, and that is where we find ourselves today. Increasingly the United States is one of the most fascistic governments on the planet conducting wars for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. Smedley Butler was quite right when he said "War IS a Racket". The foreign wars which we are currently engaged in, at great expense, is not for the benefit or protection of the American nation but for the benefit of pecuniary interests who have found a tool which they can expropriate under the false guise of patriotism and then use it to engage in brigandage. As well their are increasing levels of repression and restriction upon the liberties of the individual citizen all under the false pretext of "keeping us safe" from a threat concocted and created by that same government. One could also point out the use of tax laws as punitive measures not merely to rob people of their earnings but to use economic pressure to force them to behave as others feel they should. Tobacco taxes on a product for which the farmer gets about 2 dollars per pound make that same pound of tobacco about 70 dollars per pound by the time it reaches the consumer. Is that the kind of "necessary" government you have in mind?
You obviously have a hard time comprehending the concept of local, state, and central governments. Your confusion is typical of libertarian ideologues. The classical liberal idea of limited government is applied only to central and state governments, not local governments. The 10th amendment makes this idea clear, where it says all powers not delegated to state and central government are RESERVED by the people. "RESERVED" means the people, aka local governments, posess all undelegated law-making power, and can exercise or not exercise reserved powers as they see fit. This is not a hard concept to grasp. Libertarian ideologues deny the truth of the 10th amendment. That's why they are not constitutionalist.
This is not a hard concept to grasp. It is for the government. That is why we have such unconstitutional things as Presidential Executive Orders, A Supreme Court that bends the Interstate Commerce Clause into a perverted pretzel, etc., ... It is also why we have at least two enforced "amendments" that were never legally ratified - the 16th and the 17th. Do your homework before you try lecturing me on being an ideologue. I stand upon principles, history, and pragmatism. I would not be a slave nor would see any other made a slave. Your knowledge of the Constitution would seem to be about an inch deep and you listen to too much Schlock Radio. Hint: Rush Limbaugh is not a constitutionalist, and Neil BOORtz is a Libertarian in name only. As well as there are different flavors of conservatives from NeoCon Trotskyites such as Kristol to the real thing such as an actual Russel Kirk Conservative and there are different views as to what constitutes Libertarian. If you prefer I also fall into the Paleocon/Paleolibertarian category, but what the hey you have your mind made up and facts be damned.
The reason we have unconstitutional government is because of people like you, who believe the US is merely a republic, a representative democracy. You have not admitted that strong and sophisticated local government is the real meaning of classical liberalism, as codified in the 10th amendment. Your discordance with the true meaning of the 10th amendment is a real indication that you are not a classical liberal. You seem fixated on labels. I have no idea what the label "paleocon/paleolibertarian means", and its likely you have no idea as well, as there is no objective definition. I venture a guess that most paleo-whatever believe in so-called states rights, where states are supposedly the owners of all undelegated reserved power. This idea is not in accordance with the 10th amendment. There are other paleo-whatever that believe individuals are the owner of all undelegated reserved power, yet another idea not in accordance with the 10th amendment. On the surface, your self-identified label appears to be an oxymoron. I have never been impressed by your sympathies toward Diversity, which is a ongoing national conspiracy that holds a death grip on the United States and Israeli governments. Your sympathy for Diversity ideology indicates to me that you are part of a larger problem, and it's likely you'll never be part of the solution.
I've never seen any member here who supported diversity. Trust me, the Zionists are not given to diversity. Ask any other country in the ME, or any of the Palestinians, or any of the Orthodox Jews living under their Talmudic, Satanic regime.
Trust me, the Zionists are not given to diversity. Ask any other country in the ME, or any of the Palestinians, or any of the Orthodox Jews living under their Talmudic, Satanic regime. OI has admitted in the past that he is very sympathetic to Diversity, calling it "beautiful whatever it might be". You are absolutely wrong about zionist not being given to Diversity; Zionism is Diversity, victim cultism. Zionism is the bifurcation of a whole nation of people into victims and oppressors, good versus evil. Zionism is where the majority of voters are designated victim class, and where the national government is a representative democracy, expressing the will of the victim cult majority. What is truly puzzling is the wholesale inability to understand this idea, because it ain't complicated.
Got Link? I didn't think so. I have never uttered such a phrase. Not that I have a kneejerk irrational hatred of someone because of their race, creed, or origin. And you make the concept of Zionism into, I suspect, an intentionally abstruse conglomeration which in essence is gobbledygook. Zionism is very simply a Secular Political Movement, funded by the Rothschilds for their own ends, which purports, falsely, to be aimed at establishing a "Jewish Vaterland". At its core it is racist and ethnophobic toward anyone not a White Turkic Khazar, and ultimately seeks dominion over all the peoples of the earth. There is no Rocket Science behind it. You have only to read their materials and quote their leaders.
I didn't think so. I have never uttered such a phrase. Here's your link buddy... freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...i? ArtNum=116321&Disp=7#C7 "But diversity is beautiful - whatever it is. But then of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, only the good die young." The thread subject matter was Diversity quotes, buddy. Don't try to claim it was taken out of context.
And when you quote the entire line, which you did not do, the satirical intent becomes clear: So, what you actually doing is quoting out of context which is one of the logical fallacies.
I didn't think so. I have never uttered such a phrase. Your previous claim was that you "have never uttered such a phrase". I caught you on that little lie, buddy. The original context of your remark, the thread subject matter, was Diversity Quotes. When I challenged your remark later within the original thread, you stayed silent, implying there was no satire intended by you. Try to get your crap straight. Your alleged satire sucks.
You caught nothing. You quoted out of context and so I simply did not recognize it. I well know that "diversity" as used by the left and such is simply a code word for "whites need not apply". However, as is obvious from the full line, in context, that I was satirizing the concept. So, my statement was true as I did not recall the comment based on your distorted quotation and attempt to infer, imply, and impute a meaning which was not present. In short please to place your alleged "gotcha" where sun does not provide illumination.
You are dumb and a liar, and anyone with half a brain can see it. Now go write another screed on how that is a logical fallacy.
#50. To: Googolplex (#47)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: Googolplex (#1)
(Edited)
Libertarianism is nonsense.
#11. To: PSUSA (#7)
#13. To: Googolplex (#11)
In the real world, a government can survive only through compromise and negotiation with its neighbors.
#14. To: PSUSA (#13)
#18. To: Googolplex, Critter (#14)
#21. To: Original_Intent (#18)
#22. To: Googolplex (#21)
(Edited)
The 10th amendment makes this idea clear, where it says all powers not delegated to state and central government are RESERVED by the people. "RESERVED" means the people, aka local governments, posess all undelegated law-making power, and can exercise or not exercise reserved powers as they see fit.
#23. To: Original_Intent (#22)
(Edited)
#24. To: Googolplex, 4 (#23)
I have never been impressed by your sympathies toward Diversity, which is a ongoing national conspiracy that holds a death grip on the United States and Israeli governments.
#25. To: Lod (#24)
(Edited)
I've never seen any member here who supported diversity.
#27. To: Googolplex, Lod, Critter (#25)
OI has admitted in the past that he is very sympathetic to Diversity, calling it "beautiful whatever it might be".
"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own." (You Gentiles, by Jewish Author Maurice Samuels, p. 155).
"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." - Israeli prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parliament] quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982
#36. To: Original_Intent (#27)
Got Link?
#38. To: Googolplex, Lod, Critter (#36)
"But diversity is beautiful - whatever it is. But then of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, only the good die young."
"Exposition:
To quote out of context is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its meaning. The context in which a passage occurs always contributes to its meaning, and the shorter the passage the larger the contribution. For this reason, the quoter must always be careful to quote enough of the context not to misrepresent the meaning of the quote. ..."
#41. To: Original_Intent (#38)
Got Link?
#46. To: Googolplex (#41)
(Edited)
#47. To: Original_Intent (#46)
Replies to Comment # 47.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 47.