Whether or not the BSA allows openly gay members should be left up to the BSA, but I think anyone who, like B. Daniel, claims to be libertarian should support the BSA keeping it’s gay ban as a way of supporting freedom of association and opposing the Left’s totalitarianism and lust for cultural conquest.

Hmmm. A lot of libertarians would argue that there’s no contradiction at all in supporting Larry Flynt’s constitutional right to publish a (faked) photo of a woman going through a giant meat grinder, while simultaneously wishing that Flynt would VOLUNTARILY STOP publishing such photos.

And the notoriously prudish Ayn Rand, for one, placed great emphasis on the right to boycott, ostracize, and criticize private organizations that you disagree with — you just have no right to stop their private behavior at gunpoint, nor ask the government/police to use guns on your behalf.

So there’s nothing inherently sneaky about a self-described libertarian personally deploring the BSA policy and wishing that the BSA would voluntarily change its policy. Just because the left has fascist tendencies doesn’t mean a libertarian is obliged to do the exact opposite of what the left wants.

Comment by Duke of URL — May 23, 2013 @ 6:08 pm – May 23, 2013

Wow. I think Daniel just found something that pisses the libs off more than Limbaugh, Breitbart, the Pope and Ayn Rand put together.

Must mean they’re doing something right.

At one time, the Muslim world was perhaps the most advanced part of the world, and Muslims were very tolerant of other religions. Meanwhile, Christian Europe was stuck in the dark ages. What happened centuries ago has no inherent relevance to today.

…because as should be obvious to an objective observer, Muslims are the ones who are intolerant and stuck in the dark ages today (not all of them, mind you. But if there is any major group of people who fits that description more than others, it is Mulsims). On the other hand, Christians are generally friendly and well integrated into modern society.

Jeff @ 14:

Meanwhile, about one toddler per day has been killed by an unsecured firearm over the past few weeks. But hey, guns are awesome! And if you want to look to an example of before-and-after gun control statistics, check Australia. Inevitably, ewer guns = fewer suicides, fewer murders, far fewer accidental deaths. The odds of actually stopping someone who aims to kill you from doing so by carrying a firearm are infinitismal, and far, far, far, FAR lower than the odds of an innocent child using that same firearm to kill or maim him or herself, or a third party. If you play the odds, and care about your family’s welfare, you are far more likely to protect your family from harm, statistically speaking, by refusing to purchase a firearm. That’s not an opinion. That is a fact.

That is why you should put your guns in a safe. And if people want to kill themselves, that is my concern why? And you mentioned Australia, but how about Switzerland or Brazil?

Cinesnatch @ 50:

Calling someone a jerk to calling someone a n!gger or f@ggot.

It isn’t illegal to call someone either of those things, because of something called free speech. Therefore, it is incredibly immoral to add to the punishment based on something that was said, because it would be a violation of the protection of free speech.

Cinesnatch @ 58:

Come on EVERYBODY … join in … let’s pretend The Crusades NEVER happened!!!!!!!!

At one time, the Muslim world was perhaps the most advanced part of the world, and Muslims were very tolerant of other religions. Meanwhile, Christian Europe was stuck in the dark ages. What happened centuries ago has no inherent relevance to today.

Let the BSA do whatever it wants, including disappear.

Well, just who pissed in your corn flakes, Mr. Man?

The simple fact is that “we, as a society” do offer parenting classes.

Also, if you belong to a good church or a synagogue, they and the people who are also members should be helping you with teh parenting.

It can be done without the state. It is done without the state; and much better than the state does it.

The Boy Scouts can have whatever rules they want. If you don’t like it, lobby them, form your own scout troop and put them out of business, etc. Do NOT try to force them to change via government power.

Which is exactly his argument if you bothered to read it.

…anyone who, like B. Daniel, claims to be libertarian should support the BSA keeping it’s gay ban…

Wrong. A conservative and/or libertartian viewpoint would be to not make the government force the BSA, but to allow the BSA to choose for themselves whether to allow gay people. If you can’t understand that difference, please re-read it. Dan is arguing that the government should not force them to do so, that they should continue to have the right of free association, but that they should choose to allow gay scouts and leaders.

And they should. Because there is no reason a gay scout cannot be “morally straight”, and really the Scouts should welcome the opportunity to have a positive influence on the future of even the gay community. That’s being conservative first and gay second…or third or fourth or somewhere farther down the list.

We can’t always know what someone else’s motive was for committing a horrible act. We can enable other people to keep such an act from being committed against them.

New York City deserves the Darwin Award — the whole city — for stupidity so heinous it makes me wonder if evolution really does continue to move the human race forward.

Punishing people for acting on their beliefs: That is the leftie wet dream…

And the right-wing wet dream is just to be left the Hell alone.

Look at someone like Randy Weaver, a person who held appallingly racist beliefs. But all he wanted to do was live apart from society in a remote part of Idaho. For that, the Feds shot his wife, his dog, and his 14 year old son.

Compare him, though, to someone like Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, or Barack Obama; fascists who aren’t content to go and live quietly according to their beliefs, but believe they are so right and everyone else is so wrong that they should use the power of the state to crush anyone who doesn’t believe as they do.