The real "by the book" libertarian on PJM would be Glenn Reynolds or Stephen Green. Klavan is a bit of a surprise.
David On Jun 4, 2014, at 2:44 PM, BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> wrote: > > My notes, in brackets, discuss some serious objections to the libertarian > view of social issues. However, on the issue of free speech here is an > argument that has real weight and that deserves to be known to a wide > audience. > > Billy Rojas > > =============================================== > > > Klavan On The Culture > Homofascism Should Be Crushed > > June 2nd, 2014 > > This blog is -- was, shall remain -- a friend to gay people. I hope it's a > friend to any person who wants to do whatever gives him joy and hurts no one > else. > > [But it does harm others, many others, unless you somehow think that > indulgence in a mental illness that is causally related to a host of serious > physical illnesses, to violence, to child abuse, to substance abuse, and > still other pathologies is harmless. But , hey, what else would a libertarian > say? Like yellow dogs and rock ribs, hard core libertarians are just as > uninformed and just as ideological and closed minded. However, read on, there > is some good stuff regardless, that Klavan says] > > Many of my fellow Christians tell me that homosexuality is a sin. Maybe so, > but it's not my sin. And on the off-chance the Gospels mean what they say > [That sodomites will roast in hell and be utterly destroyed at the Judgement, > see Matthew 10 etc, but I don't expect any libertarian "Christian" to > actually know what is in the Bible] and I will one day stand before the > throne of God and be judged on whether I loved Him and my neighbor, [whether > I detested and hated one of the worst imaginable sins] whether I did what I > could for the hungry, thirsty, sick, weak, enchained... well, let's say I've > got approximately a lifetime's worth of other things to think about before I > start worrying myself over other people's sins.[Well, OK, as long as you > admit that you are a universalist or Unitarian and anything but a Christian] > > Anyway, though our laws are steeped in Judeo-Christian principles, one of > those principles happens to be the divide between Caesar and God. We are not, > nor are we meant to be, a theocracy. Gluttony is a sin, one of the seven > deadlies, but Mayor Bloomberg was still an overbearing idiot when he tried to > tell us what sort of sodas to drink. Sin is not the government's business, no > matter what clever rationales you come up with to make it so. > > So should gay people be allowed to marry by law? I look at it this way. There > are going to be gay people. They are going to have relationships. Is it > better for the state that those relationships be brief, brutish and > meaningless or committed, affectionate and long-lasting? You figure it out. > [That's easy: I guess there will always be criminals , like pederasts, > rapists, wife beaters,, etc but whether there will always be criminals is no > excuse for the state not seeking to prosecute them and, as well, the state > should do all it can to prevent these criminals from causing harm. Why is > this so difficult for libertarians to understand?] > > [But now we get to the good part of the essay] > > Having said all this, I think Homofascism -- this current movement to > regulate and restrict opinions and outlooks toward homosexuality -- indeed, > toward anything -- should be crushed. Lawsuits against photographers who > won't shoot gay weddings. Television show cancellations because the hosts > oppose gay marriage. Attempts to silence anti-gay preaching or force churches > to recognize gay marriages. Crushed, all of it. Crushed by the united voice > of the people, crushed in courts of law, in legislatures, in businesses and > in conversation. When someone is sued, attacked, shamed, boycotted or fired > for opposing gay marriage or just opposing gayness in general, straight and > gay people alike should protest. No one should lose his television show, no > one should be dragged before a judge, no one should have his business > threatened. Don't tell me about a company's right to fire its employees. It > has the right, but it isn't right. It's unAmerican and it's despicable. > > Gay rights, like all rights, do not in any way supersede the rights of > others. A free person may have any opinion about homosexuality he chooses -- > or about blackness or about Judaism or any other damned thing -- and he > should be able to speak that opinion out loud and act on that opinion if he > does no immediate harm. Basically, as long as he keeps his hands to himself, > he should be able to believe and say whatever he wants without paying any > price whatsoever for it other than the disagreement -- and possibly dislike > and disdain -- of his fellow Americans. > > Does he believe that homosexuality is a sin that degrades the practitioner? > He should be able to say so. Does he feel it would be a sin for him to > participate in a gay wedding as a baker or photographer? He should be allowed > to follow his lights in peace. Does he feel male-female marriage is a pillar > of freedom? Let him fight to preserve it. Does he find gay sex disgusting? > Rude to say out loud maybe, but still, within his rights. Maybe he finds it > unnatural (whatever that means). Or maybe he's a leftist and feels that all > gender behaviors are pure social constructs... hey, there's no law against > being an idiot. Me, I feel that heterosexuality is the human norm, but there > are harmless variants outside the norm and, you know, who cares? I'll say the > same to anyone. We should all be able to say -- and vote -- what we please. > It's called freedom. It's a beautiful thing, even when it gets ugly. > > The next time a business -- a TV network or restaurant or anything -- finds > itself under attack or boycott because one of its employees disapproves of > gays, they should issue the following statement. "Our employees' opinions do > not represent our opinion. Our opinion is this: it's a free country; to each > his own. And in keeping with that philosophy, we are taking no action in this > matter. Have a chicken sandwich." > > How hard is this? How did we lose this idea? You can be free, but so is the > next guy. America. Simple. > > > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
