My problem with the likes of the LP both here & in the Us is the hostility towards geolibertarians many in those parties often illustrate

Just got a chance to read this and the responses on Facebook. Jeesh! I can't believe the guy calls himself a libertarian! Holy smoke! I'm stunned by the fact that he actually worries his mind over the nuances of a military system that is so titanically out of control, killing innocent people all over the map, and sucking up huge portions of the industry of innocent US citizens and generally being used in ways that should be much more vexing than whether a gay person happens to pick up a gun.

Incredible. His prejudices are only matched by the soporific ways he tries to justify them through convolutions of what he thinks are libertarian rhetoric.

Glad you posted this, Jackie!

G

The guy's whole arguement about sexual advancements in the military are fallicious.  First off, if I was ever in a foxhole with someone who was a homosexual, I'm pretty sure the first thing on both our minds is survival.  Hell, I had 3 females in my shop, and we had to do combatives (basicly wrestling in uniform trying to force the other person into submission without punches or whatnot).  I wrestled with them often, and not once did it turn into anything sexual (had about 50 guys and 5 females in my platoon). 

Also, the military is just littered with gay jokes and invasion of "personal space".  I remember we got back from a 7-day field exercise (in SC, so everyone smelled pretty horrible) and the showers got backed up pretty quick.  Now these showers didnt have curtains, but it had tiled walls between the shower heads.  My platoon guide got tired of someone taking a long shower and just jumped in there with him.  We called the guy Mikey, and he was one of those short, aggressive charismatic people.  Sure it was stacked naked men, but there was no sexual advances and one thought of it as such.

"The right to be free from unwanted sexual advances".  That line just cracks me up.  At what point is it the person's responsiblity to take control of the situation?  If the advances don't stop after the person is asked to stop, thats pretty much harassment. 

This guy has some obscure definition of "special interest groups" that I just don't understand.  If a special interest group doesn't use government to get what they want, then can they be called a special interest group?  And isn't the LP considered a special interest group?  Isn't it pushing for some agenda and hoping to use the power of gov't to reach their end-goal?  Maybe my use of this term is too broad, but I'm definately not comprehending his argument.

As a side note, I hate the portrayal of the military in whole as killers.  Yes, thats the main objective of the infantry units, but there is quite alot of people who joined the military with no intentions of killing anybody.  For example, I have a friend I worked with who I gave some of John Taylor Gatto's books to, and he read them and agreed on alot of the issues.  He also wanted to get out of the army but he couldn't.  The army puts young enlisted soldiers in debt (IE, banks will give out high-rate loans for cars, etc without hestiation because they know they will get the money), those soldiers get married, then when retention comes around, they get scared into "the job market is terrible and you have a steady life here so you should stay" bit, and they end up staying in for 20 years+.  Hell, I had a senior NCO who home-schooled his kids because of what he saw in public schools (he had been in for 15 years).  He was in charge of the mechanics/maintenance and he never had any intentions of killing anyone.  The small arms repairer I worked with hated firing weapons and going to the range even.

I can open up a new thread and go into more detail if need be, but this kindof thing always irks me when I hear about how the military is full of killers, etc.  It is this lumping thing that needs to be avoided.