Libertarians are misogynist draft dodging ideologists;Ideologists are always irrelevant

I've mentioned my view points aligned with those of a centrist republican. Republicans, or the true conservatives are the most tolerant group and I believe that centrists represent that better than anyone else. Before reconstruction, african american men were elected into Republican seats in Congress. Centrists are tolerant to women and minorities in the workplace and elsewhere. The reason why I'm not a democrat is because I dislike their use of women and minorities as cash cows. I also disagree with affirmative action, but I'll address that later.

The promoters of the modern libertarian party were by women with the likes of Ayn Rand.

I would consider them Republican centrists much like myself if they had written the material today. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Unfortunately, the promoted party libertarainism is used to distort facts for political power of those with the likes of neocons.

From the Mises, page 3 on Adobe:
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_02.pdf


Libertarians blame women in the workplace for increasing our tax burden and the cost of living. Which goes against the practice of Objectivity, which these libertarians pride themselves. They claim women are a tax free service to the household. This is misleading. If you want to be a stepford wife, then fine if she cooks and cleans. But then again, libertarians are often status quo seekers, they'll use a maid and a nanny and skip on taxes if the maid is an illegal alien. It's nothing new, I'm just showing how reality will not support their ideological diatribes.

But not all women want or can be stepford wives. The whole married housewife nuclear family theme is not always an option for everyone. And definately not in a capitalist society. Feminism is a means of survival, libertarians treat it as a threat to men. So I supposed surviving in this world is a threat to man. ??? Whoever thought that up is a big turkey.

As a fiscal republican and a social liberal; I prefer to acknowledge the reality (vs. irrelevant ideologies) in our country. The households in our country that make up the majority of the poor are African American single mother households. One can say that women have multiple "baby daddies" for that "meal ticket" or welfare check. On a more realistic level, fathers sometimes become rolling stones, they're don't always stick around to raise their babies. Unfortunately, the children suffer. Child support and alimony are always an issue.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/pov/new03_50_01.htm
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/pov/new03_50_05.htm

But just as typical of a Neocon who also brings up the all to convenient abortion distraction issue; why are women the targets? If people did not like abortions, why do these religious nutjobs think it's okay for status quo to objectify women in the first place? Anyone can already get free birth control at any Planned Parenthood if you don't make enough money. Any woman who gets knocked up after the age of 25 did it on purpose.

But here's a crazy concept. If you want to lower the number of abortions, why not just show your daughters or sisters (or even mothers) what self respect is? It's a lot more effective than any laws you can put on the books. Otherwise, women are just subject to yet another policy/government infringement of their rights because of government's own political incentives. This is just the same infringement of inalienable rights as criticizing women for being in the workplace for survival purposes.

Infringement of rights actually the opposite of laissez faire. Anyone who blames women for the increase in tax and cost of living burdens cannot be considered a "free market capitalist". I'm not sure which part of Austrian economics acknowledges that. Or which turkey interprets it that way.

A free market theorist such that a libertarian would call themselves will blame the welfare system for giving women incentives to have babies they cannot otherwise afford. But what about the women who trapped men into marriage by becoming pregnant? Realistically, most people today were raised by Boomers and Gen X, as the divorce rates skyrocketed. Most young adults now barely know what to expect from being married. We have to deal with reality of human relationships. And many times, single mothers are out in the workforce. Single mothers or working women did not raise taxes, democrats raised our taxes. As a multi generational native of San Diego, I know that mothers had to work to help their husbands pay the excessively high real estate prices. No, working women didn't have the ability to raise real estate prices. Realtors used ARM loans to speculate and create an artificial housing bubble that created an even bigger need for married women to work. Just a basic, rational cause and effect logic applied to explain reality.

So yet again, like neocons; libertarians are putting forth misguided, irrelevant, wasteful and useless anger to serve their own cause. It's too important to fact check politicians anymore.


It's 2009. At this point, why are we even questioning whether or not women should be respected in the workplace? Libertarians = Neocons who dodge drafts and wants to legalize drugs. Sheep in wolves's clothing.

Again on libertarians who call themselves "patriots"...Libertarians pride themselves on "Constitutionalism" and "Freedom", meanwhile they discourage use of a military (a more liberal view).
Anyone who attempts to weaken our military cannot be considered a patriot.
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/governments.htm
It's inaccurate to consider the abuses committed by Halliburton with the troops. The troops only spend 5% of our federal budget during peace times, they are efficient and worthy of our tax dollars. We need a strong military DEFENSE.

Lastly, I like Ron Paul for voting against the Stimulus and the Bailout. He however has not shown any pragmatism with his political career. He preaches the evils of the Federal Reserve, while he confuses many facts (ie. blaming CRA policies for sub prime meltdown which is horribly inaccurate and an intolerant neocon view). Actually Ron Paul has no fundamental knowledge of economics. He's a bright guy who read up on Austrian economics and his professional experience was delivering babies in Nam. Has he ever run a business? He's a great speaker, but it's too easy to call him crazy. I don't think he's crazy, he's one hell of a salesman who uses ideologies to gain power for himself. In other words, Ron Paul is just another politician.