Talk:Outright Libertarians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

As a non-registered Wiki user and member of Outright Libertarians, it's a shame to see a propagandist like Alienus hijack the Outright Libertarians description to not only lie about the goals of our group and spread patently false information, but also use it to promote his own narrow political agenda. Anonymous, 20:16, 28 April 2006 (GMT)

From Ayn Rand: "Her politics have been described as minarchism and libertarianism, though she never used the first term and detested the second." [1]

The "settled fact" that Ayn Rand was a homophobe does not at all reflect on libertarianism, the Libertarian Party, and especially not on the mission and vision of Outright Libertarians.

The claim that libertarians, the Libertarian Party, and especially Outright Libertarians, are in any way homophobic, is clearly POV by a devout Ayn Rand hater who has lumped libertarians in via guilt by association.

Robpower 00:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue has a whole article dedicated to it: Libertarianism and Objectivism, but the gist is that her stance regarding gay rights was identical to the mainstream Libertarian one, regardless of whether you want to admit she was herself a libertarian. A more relevant article, though, is Objectivism and homosexuality..

Even more relevant is the Libertarian perspectives on gay rights article, where it is recognized that libertarians support certain aspects of gay rights while opposing others. (Your addition of "major gay rights organizations" is of mixed value and may wind up reverted.)

From the point of view of the gay rights movement as a whole (including those major organizations), the libertarian stance is very much a mixed bag, so neither category is a perfect fit. After a lot of debate, some edit wars, page protects and other admin intervention, we arrived at the simple compromise of listing libertarians as both pro and con gay rights. Let's not reopen this can of worms. Alienus 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If what it takes is admin intervention, I'm game. If the Democratic Party, and notably its last Presidential nominee, John Kerry, can oppose marriage equality, yet Stonewall Democrats isn't listed as LGBT rights opposition, then I'll be darned if I'll let anyone force their POV that Outright Libertarians is part of LGBT rights opposition, when our Party, our Presidential nominee, and most importantly our own organizational mission and vision are explicitly pro-gay-rights. Let's take it to the admins. Robpower 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. All that's going to happen is that they'll suggest you talk to the other editors and try to seek a consensus. But you seem to be uninterested in such cooperative action, though, which is too bad.

I understand your POV, but I don't happen to agree. I also don't see why the article should reflect your POV instead of the neutral POV. Sure, the libertarians support their version of gay marriage, but they oppose all private sector protections, so their notion of pro-gay is at odds with, say, the ideas of the gay rights movement as a whole. Alienus 05:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edit comment on your recent revert is misleading, if not simply false. There's no meaningful distinction between the generic libertarian view and the one that the Outright Libertarians espouse. Both are a mixed bag for gay rights, qualifying as both pro and con. Alienus 06:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to get the admins to block me. As it turns out, that didn't work for you, which leaves us back where we started.

As I've explained a whole bunch of times, we've got a consensus on this. Do you have anything to offer us that is powerful enough to overturn this consensus? Alienus 18:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, you brought up the Log Cabin Republicans. I was familiar with them but wasn't sure exactly how far their support for gay rights went, particularly whether it was limited in the way libertarians are. Apparently not. Check out this page, and you'll see that they support protections against discrimination in the private sector. As for the Stonewall Democrats, I'm going to take a wild guess and say they also don't limit gay rights in the libertarian way. Alienus 22:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I had to move your text because it was interweaved with mine in a way that was confusing and apparently violates Wikipedia rules. Alienus 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Very true. I give up. You win. You have control. Not only of the Outright_Libertarians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article, but apparently even of my Talk page. I have no further recourse. The Wikipedia admins refuse to do anything about the blatanly false assertion that the LGBT-rights caucus of the Libertarian party is somehow anti-LGBT-rights. I guess I now have first-hand experience as to why public ownership of anything is a bad idea. When something is owned by nobody/everybody, then nobody has/takes responsibility for it when it goes wrong. All I can do is post a response to the Wikipedia article on our Outright Libertarians website and hope that any young queer person who thinks that big government is more harmful than helpful to LGBT folks will get a chance to read it before just giving up on the political process altogether. Robpower 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than making this an all-or-nothing matter, then running away when you can't get all your demands met, why not stick around and contribute your knowledge? If you're the same Rob Power who chairs the org, then you have some input to offer that might be valuable. If nothing else, you could update the article with current events and issues. Think about it.

As it happens, Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder, is is quite sympathetic to libertarianism and apparently sees this site as an extension of the free market, so your characterization of it is a bit odd. Alienus 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This so-called consensus (which I highly doubt actually included a single gay libertarian, so it's a bit like a wolf and a hyena coming to consensus that a sheep is for dinner) only applied to Objectivism_and_homosexuality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). It most certainly did not include Outright_Libertarians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), which you unilaterally added after-the-fact on February 17, 2006. Robpower 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't asked anyone what their sexual orientation was, nor commented on my own. I don't see how it matters, frankly. I do know that the consensus includes people who consider themselves to be Objectivists and/or libertarians. Alienus 19:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You've actually got it backwards. If you look at the Stonewall Democrats' endorsements (including John Kerry), you'll see that they have no problem supporting Democrats who oppose same-sex marriage equality. And if you look at their leadership (Barney Frank, who criticized San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for legalizing same-sex marriage), you'll see that Stonewall Democrats are much more about getting Democrats elected than advancing LGBT rights. However, the only glimmer of hope in this past Presidential election was when the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse George W. Bush, due to his support for a ban on same-sex marriage. While I, like most Libertarians, have serious disagreements with Log Cabin on a number of issues (Iraq war, drug war, separation of church and state, etc.), on the issue of same-sex marriage equality, they are clearly more principled in their stand than the Stonewall Democrats are. Robpower 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe you're mixing apples and oranges. First of all, your group has a very different goal from either of those. Whereas the Stonewalls and Log Cabins are trying to get their respective parties to support gay rights (as they see them), the Outrights are trying to market libertarianism to gays who are unhappy with the support they're getting from the two major parties.

In other words, they're more a pro-libertarian outreach program than a pro-gay faction within the Libertarian party. So far, it's not really working, as less than 5% of gays vote libertarian (with the majority, quite understandably, supporting the Democrats over the Republicans).

Second, the libertarian notion of marriage is very different from the conventional one and cannot be directly compared. If they had their way, libertarians would get rid of marriage entirely, replacing it with a contract. Unfortunately, those who enter such a libertarian "marriage" may only gain the rights granted to them by their partners, not by the government.

So, for example, if I contracted for a "marriage" with you and I was not a citizen, you could not grant me the right to stay in America. In contrast, if America had federally-recognized gay marriage (along the lines of Canada) and we wed in Massachusetts, then I'd be allowed by the government to stay, just as if I had married an American woman.

Fundamentally, it's not so much that the libertarians support gay marriage, but that they oppose marriage entirely, but are willing to extend their inferior replacement to gays and straights alike. That's my POV. Alienus 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the lying I'm talking about. Far from the fake contrast where you say "Stonewalls and Log Cabins are trying to get their respective parties to support gay rights (as they see them), the Outrights are trying to market libertarianism to gays who are unhappy with the support they're getting from the two major parties," one of the three primary missions of Outright Libertarians as laid out in the platform and the web site is "To monitor the Libertarian Party's continuing support for Equal Rights for everyone including GLBTQ individuals." It's the primary lobby for gay rights in the Libertarian Party.

All your other commentary is mostly off-topic and also a lie. Not only did the Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential candidate Michael Badnarik support marriage equality as is commonly supported (and not the bizarre mischaracterization of the Libertarian position you're constantly repeating), but Libertarians absolutely support the rights of gays to bring in their foreign partners. As an frequent Wiki reader, I'm disgusted that you'd so patently abuse Wiki to promote a political viewpoint as fact -- an uninformed viewpoint which has serious factual errors, at that. Anonymous, 20:23, 28 April 2006 (GMT)

On a related side note, I have some original research to contribute, purely for context. A while back, I attended a meet-and-greet between a local politican and LMF. It was held at the home of a well-off male couple with strong libertarian leanings (as testified to by their comments about the immorality of taxation, and the prominant placement of Atlas Shrugged and other Randian and libertarian books). Despite this, the sort of gay marriage they supported was not the contractual type. In fact, they had already contracted for all the rights they were able to grant each other mutually, but were not content with that. Consider what this means for the libertarian party. Alienus 19:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And I know plenty of well-to-do homophobic liberals. Consider what that means for the Democratic Party. Some "research." Anonymous, 20:25, 28 April 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Support for ex-gay camps

The article on Libertarian Perspective on gay rights states the following: “Libertarians oppose public education and feel that parents have every right to send their children to an ex-gay camp, or to a school that teaches discrimination against gays, unless such camps or schools engage in physical abuse of the childre .”

This claim needs to be supported. The article cites the Libertarian Party Platform, but the cited reference does not fully support the claim. It states:

”Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children. … Children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.”

The article says that parents may send their children to ex-gay camps “unless such camps or schools engage in physical abuse.” The Platform does not limit abuse to “physical abuse,” but rather “abuse.” If Libertarians have said that abuse is always physical then that should be cited, if not the article should be changed. Further, the platform does not contain any specific reference to the issue of ex-gay camps. Is there any specific reference by the Party, its leaders or other prominent Libertarians specifically referring to ex-camps? If so, that should be cited. If not, I believe that this may be an open question among Libertarians. The platform recognizes strong parental control and limits on the child’s right to exercise his or her rights, but it also affirms the existence of those rights. Unless there is some specific position taken by Libertarians on this issue, I think that this article should not make such a definitive statement. The Platform does contain this: “We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community.” This could imply that “abuse” is determined upon some kind of “community standard” basis. This could result in very disparate results (e.g. parents from San Francisco convicted of abusing their children when they send a child to an ex-gay camp, while those from a more socially conservative community would not be). Anyway, I think that the claim in the article needs to be better supported.

I posted a question on the artilce's talk page questioning the claim, as is set forth above. As I am unsure of the exact stand on the issue, I have decided to see if anyone who contributes to this page has a reference, one way or the other regarding this issue. If so let me know. Franklin Moore 05:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)