Lybertine

As someone who believes in a lot libertarianism has to offer, I understand that. But I think that the extent of the principle is really no different than the principles of other parties. A sense of rationality needs to be applied to the ideology. I believe in (some) tenets of libertarian ideology because I believe that government regulation should not supersede liberty unless necessary.

For example, I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms. Does that mean I think that a convicted criminal with a history of violence should be allowed that right? Of course not, because logic and rationality come into play. The same could be applied to the aforementioned environmental rights. A libertarian can believe in environmental protection because some people infringe upon the well being of others by polluting. Does that mean extreme laws should be passed to hamper them? No. Moderation is key.

Granted, there are going to be the extreme libertarians that will disagree with me and say government shouldnt exist at all, but they are foolish and no better than extreme Republicans or extreme Democrats. I for one hope you can still appreciate libertarianism in some manner!

In my opinion, the way divorce and child support are handled in this country are quite archaic. Alimony especially is a practice I think has no place in a society where men and women are supposed to be treated as equals.

Most libertarians would likely agree that personal liberty should extend until it absolutely hurts people in a detrimental way, and that those being hurt grossly outweighs those utilizing the freedom. Your black and white point of view is short-sighted and a perfect example of why politics in the US is suffering from extreme divisiveness.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand it is obviously a complicated matter and not easily summed up in a quick response. I hope to get a chance to take a look at it.

Is the ceasefire initiative you are referring to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002? Because if so, I was under the impression that it is widely held that that initiative lost footing due to the Passover Massacre of March, 2002.

Yet laws vary state by state. You may know men who receive alimony from former wives, but you seem to misunderstand that your particular examples are not a proper reflection of the whole.

You can see here that men comprise 97% of alimony payers in a time when women make up half of the workforce. Clearly the archaic laws are weighted in favor of women.