In a Military Embracing Social Change, Troops Increasingly Identify as Libertarian

[NACBA]

Shifts in social attitudes, politics, and attitudes toward government are seeping from the civilian world into the U.S. military. The military is quickly adapting to increased tolerance toward gays and lesbians in American life, expanding roles for women, and growing distaste for the established political parties and the performance of the U.S. government. And, like many Americans, soldiers, sailors, and marines are drifting away from the major parties, increasingly identifying themseves as independents and libertarians.

A survey of active-duty armed forces personnel among the readership of Military Times finds that support for gays and lesbians openly serving in the military rose from 35 percent in 2009 to 60 percent in 2014. Overt disapproval fell from 49 percent to 19 percent in the same time.

Support for opening at least some combat-arms jobs to women rose from 34 percent in 2011 to 41 percent in 2014, with opposition falling from 43 percent to 28 percent.

So military personnel match civilians in their increasing social tolerance and embrace of expanding opportunities for everybody. Honestly, why wouldn't they when they're recruited from the same population?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/22/in-a-military-embracing-social-change-tr

[Christian Liberty]

"libertarian" or just socially liberal?

Homosexuality is not criminal but it is repulsive, and it borders on treasonous to the institution of the family, which is FAR worse than betraying the State. If by "tolerance" we just mean not criminalizing I agree with that, but we should not let it become socially acceptable.

And, any society that lets women fight to defend it is shameful. Call me whatever you want for saying that, but I think its awful. Of course, I don't think that's the biggest problem with our military, which is bad enough as it is.

Why is there any such thing as a "libertarian troop." "Ex-troop libertarian" I understand, but why are any of them still "troops?"

I don't really like the term libertarian anymore, its way too broad and is more focused on bashing social conservatives than authoritarians these days (and yes, I realize that many social conservatives are authoritarians.) The #1 biggest issue for a serious libertarian (or voluntarist, or whatever the right term is) is opposition to non-defensive wars, since they are the ultimate in collectivism and the ultimate means of giving the government more power. If a person does not realize that these things are true, they aren't much of a libertarian. And if a person does realize it and is still willing to be a part of it, they aren't much of a decent person.

[DamianTV]

Libertarian is another Label. Hopefully the Label applied to the Group of our Military Troops is in fact an indicator that their thinking is in line with the ideas and foundations of Liberty in ALL of its forms, not just the ones that Meda Outlets deem fit to cast Illusions with.

[twomp]

"libertarian" or just socially liberal?

Homosexuality is not criminal but it is repulsive, and it borders on treasonous to the institution of the family, which is FAR worse than betraying the State. If by "tolerance" we just mean not criminalizing I agree with that, but we should not let it become socially acceptable.

And, any society that lets women fight to defend it is shameful. Call me whatever you want for saying that, but I think its awful. Of course, I don't think that's the biggest problem with our military, which is bad enough as it is.

Why is there any such thing as a "libertarian troop." "Ex-troop libertarian" I understand, but why are any of them still "troops?"

I don't really like the term libertarian anymore, its way too broad and is more focused on bashing social conservatives than authoritarians these days (and yes, I realize that many social conservatives are authoritarians.) The #1 biggest issue for a serious libertarian (or voluntarist, or whatever the right term is) is opposition to non-defensive wars, since they are the ultimate in collectivism and the ultimate means of giving the government more power. If a person does not realize that these things are true, they aren't much of a libertarian. And if a person does realize it and is still willing to be a part of it, they aren't much of a decent person.

I think it should be socially unacceptable for you stuff your religious rules in my face. You find homosexuality repulsive? You are entitled to your opinion just like i find bible thumpers annoying.

[Christian Liberty]

I think it should be socially unacceptable for you stuff your religious rules in my face. You find homosexuality repulsive? You are entitled to your opinion just like i find bible thumpers annoying.

I am OK with you having a different view of the ideal way to construct a peaceful society than me. The main point on my post is that being "socially tolerant" is nowhere near enough to be a libertarian, nor is being culturally conservative an inherent inconsistency with libertarianism.

Also, I don't really care what people think about me for talking about religion. I'm unpopular in today's society and I can deal with being unpopular in a peaceful one. In fact, I'm better off that way.

[Origanalist]

Libertarian is another Label. Hopefully the Label applied to the Group of our Military Troops is in fact an indicator that their thinking is in line with the ideas and foundations of Liberty in ALL of its forms, not just the ones that Meda Outlets deem fit to cast Illusions with.

this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Christian Liberty]

this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

They aren't principled voluntarists if they are in the military.

[Origanalist]

They aren't principled voluntarists if they are in the military.

Who said anything about voluntarists?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Homosexuality is not criminal but it is repulsive, and it borders on treasonous to the institution of the family, which is FAR worse than betraying the State. If by "tolerance" we just mean not criminalizing I agree with that, but we should not let it become socially acceptable.

And, any society that lets women fight to defend it is shameful. Call me whatever you want for saying that, but I think its awful. Of course, I don't think that's the biggest problem with our military, which is bad enough as it is.

You make it sound as if two guys sucking each others' dicks or two women scissoring is somehow worse than the actions of the State, which include theft and destruction. Gays will not be the downfall of civilization. If you don't want to criminalize gay behavior, why do you care so much about making it socially unacceptable? Does that behavior affect YOU personally?

And in regards to women taking up arms, there are countless historical examples of women fighting in wars, including the American & French Revolutions, not too mention recent independence movements. Why can't a woman step out of the home & participate in a struggle that affects her personally?

[Origanalist]

You make it sound as if two guys sucking each others' dicks or two women scissoring is somehow worse than the actions of the State, which include theft and destruction. Gays will not be the downfall of civilization. If you don't want to criminalize gay behavior, why do you care so much about making it socially unacceptable? Does that behavior affect YOU personally?

And in regards to women taking up arms, there are countless historical examples of women fighting in wars, including the American & French Revolutions, not too mention recent membership in the IRA. Why can't a woman step out of the home & participate in a struggle that affects her personally?

They always will if the need arises.

[Christian Liberty]

You make it sound as if two guys sucking each others' dicks or two women scissoring is somehow worse than the actions of the State, which include theft and destruction. Gays will not be the downfall of civilization. If you don't want to criminalize gay behavior, why do you care so much about making it socially unacceptable? Does that behavior affect YOU personally?

And in regards to women taking up arms, there are countless historical examples of women fighting in wars, including the American & French Revolutions, not too mention recent membership in the IRA. Why can't a woman step out of the home & participate in a struggle that affects her personally?

Its funny, when I compare cops to prostitutes I tick off two different types of people. I tick off Christian conservatives, who can't fathom how I could compare a police officer to a sexual deviant. And I tick off secular libertarians who can't fathom how I could compare a prostitute to a violent agent of the State.

I don't really care when two people outside the church "suck each others dicks" in their own homes. I do care when such behavior becomes public, and government indoctrination centers start teaching kids that its OK and "normal". Obviously I recognize that that problem would be solved by abolition of taxation and private property.

As for women fighting, well, call me old fashioned I guess. I believe in traditional gender roles and I believe men should protect women.

Did women engage in combat in the American revolution? There is a difference between "participating" and being in combat.

[Christian Liberty]

Who said anything about voluntarists?

Voluntarists are consistent libertarians. "libertarian" is such a broad term these days so I wanted to use a term that would describe only the ideologically at least semi-consistent ones.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I don't really care when two people outside the church "suck each others dicks" in their own homes. I do care when such behavior becomes public, and government indoctrination centers start teaching kids that its OK and "normal". Obviously I recognize that that problem would be solved by abolition of taxation and private property.

As for women fighting, well, call me old fashioned I guess. I believe in traditional gender roles and I believe men should protect women.

But do you really expect gays to just conceal their identities when they leave their homes? Because when you say the behavior goes "public", I don't know what you and other Christians want to do about it without making a law.

And yes, women did actually serve in combat during those wars. In the American Revolution they had to conceal their identities while in the French Revolution women were clearly seen on the battle field or in the streets.

[amy31416]

"libertarian" or just socially liberal?

Homosexuality is not criminal but it is repulsive, and it borders on treasonous to the institution of the family, which is FAR worse than betraying the State. If by "tolerance" we just mean not criminalizing I agree with that, but we should not let it become socially acceptable.

And, any society that lets women fight to defend it is shameful. Call me whatever you want for saying that, but I think its awful. Of course, I don't think that's the biggest problem with our military, which is bad enough as it is.

Why is there any such thing as a "libertarian troop." "Ex-troop libertarian" I understand, but why are any of them still "troops?"

I don't really like the term libertarian anymore, its way too broad and is more focused on bashing social conservatives than authoritarians these days (and yes, I realize that many social conservatives are authoritarians.) The #1 biggest issue for a serious libertarian (or voluntarist, or whatever the right term is) is opposition to non-defensive wars, since they are the ultimate in collectivism and the ultimate means of giving the government more power. If a person does not realize that these things are true, they aren't much of a libertarian. And if a person does realize it and is still willing to be a part of it, they aren't much of a decent person.

Okay, so there's your point of view, which would have gays lurking in the closets, marrying women for cover (as has often happened in the past.) That makes for an entirely unsustainable family, where there may be kids involved, cheating (not that it doesn't happen in straight relationships), diseases, lies, deception. Any time you ask someone to make who they are "socially unacceptable," you are asking them to hide, you are demanding that they find surreptitious ways to be who they are.

I want to know what a person is about, and I am not anyone important enough to effect some final judgment on them for the entirety of society--only myself. It's one of the things I dislike about feminism and political correctness--if a person can be punished (legally or societally) for disliking blacks, women, Catholics, Asians, etc. you will be preventing the truth about that person, and in order to make good decisions, people need the truth, even if it rattles your cage a bit.

I dislike misogynists, I've run into a few--and that's fine. But there's nothing worse than a misogynist who can't just tell me outright what he thinks of me. You have to guess, observe and waste your time on bullshit. You don't like gays. Fine. Wouldn't you rather know who they are and learn to deal with these situations? Not all gays come sashaying in a room doing vogue poses. Not all misogynists are uneducated boobs missing a couple teeth.

Stop demanding that people be dishonest about themselves.

[Christian Liberty]

But do you really expect gays to just conceal their identities when they leave their homes? Because when you say the behavior goes "public", I don't know what you and other Christians want to do about it without making a law.



I can't speak for other Christians. But I'll speak for me.

There will always be people that are gay. That's fine as far as it goes. I disapprove of the behavior, but I know some people are not going to agree with me on that and that's OK. I wish it was culturally accepted that homosexuality is abnormal and that people who were gay would be discreet about it like they used to be rather than flaunting it like is now generally accepted now.

If I were running a business, I wouldn't tolerate gay "couples" openly showing affection on my property, and I see nothing wrong with that.


Okay, so there's your point of view, which would have gays lurking in the closets, marrying women for cover (as has often happened in the past.) That makes for an entirely unsustainable family, where there may be kids involved, cheating (not that it doesn't happen in straight relationships), diseases, lies, deception. Any time you ask someone to make who they are "socially unacceptable," you are asking them to hide, you are demanding that they find surreptitious ways to be who they are.

I want to know what a person is about, and I am not anyone important enough to effect some final judgment on them for the entirety of society--only myself. It's one of the things I dislike about feminism and political correctness--if a person can be punished (legally or societally) for disliking blacks, women, Catholics, Asians, etc. you will be preventing the truth about that person, and in order to make good decisions, people need the truth, even if it rattles your cage a bit.

I dislike misogynists, I've run into a few--and that's fine. But there's nothing worse than a misogynist who can't just tell me outright what he thinks of me. You have to guess, observe and waste your time on bullshit. You don't like gays. Fine. Wouldn't you rather know who they are and learn to deal with these situations? Not all gays come sashaying in a room doing vogue poses. Not all misogynists are uneducated boobs missing a couple teeth.

Stop demanding that people be dishonest about themselves.

I wouldn't say they should be dishonest about their behavior, just don't flaunt it. I don't necessarily "dislike" someone just for being gay, though I am probably what you would qualify as "anti-gay." I don't think children should be exposed to that type of behavior and I don't think that American society with cultural norms that we had in the past would have been a friendly climate for people to flaunt their homosexuality even if there were no "laws" against it.

I want to win without force. I am a peaceful person.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Well...

National Review Online: Obama Support among Military Plummets to 15 Percent (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/395212/obama-support-among-military-plummets-15-percent-john-fund)


For the last nine years, the Military Times newspaper has surveyed an average of 2,300 active-duty service members. Their latest poll has just been released and concludes that (http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2014/12/21/americas-military-a-conservative-militarys-cultural-evolution/18959975/) “Obama’s popularity — never high to begin with — has crumbled, falling from 35 percent in 2009 to just 15 percent this year, while his disapproval ratings have increased to 55 percent from 40 percent over that time.”

[idiom]

Wow, I can't imagine being active duty and only having 15% support for upper management. That's a serious morale problem.

[oyarde]

Well...

National Review Online: Obama Support among Military Plummets to 15 Percent (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/395212/obama-support-among-military-plummets-15-percent-john-fund)
That support must be non combat personal .

[oyarde]

Wow, I can't imagine being active duty and only having 15% support for upper management. That's a serious morale problem.

Not really , in a ten yrs or more wars , I would expect that to be slightly above avg of what a combat vet NCO and enlisted would rate most Jr. officers, My guess .