Trump and Gaetz have the same sexual mores as Republicans have had for my entire life.
The difference isn’t how Republican politicians are acting, it’s how Republican voters are responding. It was only 15 years ago that Larry Craig was forced to resign over sexual behavior that was at least consensual.
In the past the behavior that Trump was found liable for and Gaetz has been accused of (with evidence) would have been a death sentence for a political career. These days… Meh.
If “burn the country to the ground and rebuild as a feudal society where I’m at the top.” counts as acting in good faith, I’d hate to see what you would consider acting in bad faith.
I love that, one of my dad’s many quirky sayings was, “No matter where you go, there you are.” It brings back some happy memories.
I cannot comprehend how you got “conservatives are acting in good faith” out of anything I said. It’s probably the polar opposite of what I meant.
Lemme try my comment again in bullet form.
-
True libertarians are not conservatives. They’re a different brand of loonies each with their personal hobby horse issues. Marijuana or free sex prominent among them.
-
Lotta libertarians despair of becoming a popular force in politics in their lifetime and moving the needle democratically in their desired direction.
-
Destroying the current order is therefore the only way to achieve a libertarian ideal society
-
Therefore tactically voting for a destroyer makes sense to their loony minds. Regardless of which party banner the destroyer is carrying.
-
The R nominee seems like a pretty good choice for destroyer this time around.
As a separate matter, many conservatives claim to be libertarians. They’re usually lying to you, and they’re often lying to themselves. But my syllogism was meant to apply to genuine libertarians, not the fake kind.
“The choice is made. The Traveler has come.”
The difference being that craig was having gay sex. Consent is not important or interesting to them.
At least the Stay Puft was cute.
Being gay isn’t an impediment to being accepted in the Republican Party anymore (which I reluctantly admit is an actual good change in the party).
IMHO yes it is, it’s just not such an insuperable obstacle as it used to be. But being an openly gay politician will still lose you tons of Republican votes in many places.
That’s my point. Previously the idea of being an openly gay Republican was an oxymoron.
I like the Kim Stanley Robinson quote from Green Mars:
“That’s libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.”
They want government to have one function: to forbid anyone else from resisting them. The point of the so-called “non-aggression principle” is that they want to remove all non-violent means of seeking recompense or protection from them, then retain just enough of the government to serve as an iron boot to crush anyone who goes for the last option of trying to rest or escape with violence.
And many of them certainly do have an affection for the idea of slavery, especially enslaving women. As seen in yet another libertarian story, the novel Freehold which among other things postulates that slavery is perfectly fine under libertarians as long as it’s “voluntary”; by which they mean giving people they choice of “voluntarily” signing a sex slave contract or dying of starvation.
The problem with government in general and the judicial system in particular is that they are administered by humans. Humans are fallible and prone to bias.
After a few more generation updates, I believe our judicial system and law enforcement will be best served with AI and robotics.
Imagine a world where our judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys are AI and the bailiffs are robots. And let’s not forget the jury – a panel of unbiased, emotionless machines, deliberating over verdicts with the speed of a supercomputer.
And, who wouldn’t love to see Boston Dynamics police and canine units in hot pursuit—in style! It’s a future that’s both efficient and entertaining, as long as the robots don’t decide to unionize! 
I think it’s been 20 years or more when the left-libertarian flavor represented any meaningful fraction of the overall movement. Currently they appear to be extremists in terms of property rights, gun rights, and freedom of speech. At the core, this seems to oriented toward avoiding taxes and alimony, sustaining some sort of quasi-legal or illegal racket like gun-running or drug-running, or building militias to rival the local police. It’s also the home of conservatives who feel the Republicans compromise too much, or conservatives who are just dodging the label because they feel it’s clever (See also: “Actually I’m A Classical Liberal”).
Essentially, modern libertarians are like an out-of-control biker gang with delusions of political effectiveness. They don’t seriously care about drug legalization anymore. It would cut into their business. Of course they don’t want to be prosecuted themselves! The law is for others. That’s why they favor a world where if you’re heavily-armed, you prevail in all disputes and aren’t subject to justice.
Great, so we’ll have judges who look like this on a Zoom call.
Sounds like maybe I need to get out more. My impressions of the movement haven’t been updated in awhile.
Assuming you’re spot-on, and I’m not disputing you, then @Measure_for_Measure’s misreading of my post makes a lot more sense.
This is my experience. Libertarian arguments fall apart when you walk them down the road of consequences of what they promote. “I can do ANYTHING I want on MY land!” Ok…so I live next door to you. Can I run a carnival in my front yard? What about a pig farm with all its effluent? It’s MY property…I can do what I want, right? Of course not they say…you are impacting my land now and I will sue you! Ok…isn’t that what happens today?
Better her than this guy:
Well, sure, but rhe rest of the statement is “And you can do anything with your land that I want as well”.
There is no equity and fairness. The Libertarian gets everything and no one else gets anything, if it infringes on the Libertarian’s prerogatives, wealth, or happiness. Arguing from a perspective of anyone besides the Libertarian is arguing with a psychopath about the value of other beings. Which is to say, “none whatsoever unless they have some utility to the psychopath.”
It just punts the problem up one layer.
AI is only as good as the people who initially design it. And those people have biases that, even subconsciously, get built in. Worse, if these AI are to stand in judgment of us, we need to agree to that and the people who have conscious biases will want/demand their biases get built in.
Ultimately, we still need people to be better. Expecting/hoping machines will get there in one (or even two or three) steps is unrealistic because the way ‘better’ gets defined is also by people, many of whom are terrible.