AlbertHodges, what you wrote about kids needing male and female expertise makes sense. I wish more people used common sense in remembering how babies are made.
tomhartnell, I've never heard libertarians care much about our southern border. They usually say that we should embrace illegal immigrant naturalization in order to tolerate free labor. That way, bottom feeder jobs get done which nobody wants to do. What you said was very interesting. Also, I agree with what you said about drug crime, but people use drugs since they're socially alienated. If society had bolstered family and social values, we wouldn't need drugs to compensate. Instead, drug use gets victims stuck on a vicious cycle where they get high to escape their problems rather than living in a society where problems are solved.
Externalities are subjective in that they presume the definition of a market failure in the first place. Nobody has the right to project the appropriate quantity or price of a market upon anyone else unless they're trying to discriminate against weirdos behind an appeal to pragmatism. The definition of a problematic side effect to someone isn't automatically a problematic side effect to everyone. Therefore, people who live creative lifestyles become condemned when social democracy labels externalities against how they see things.
What's more important, however, is that many people who acknowledge externalities only acknowledge material forms of pollution. For example, if you ask social democrats about information pollution regarding freedom of speech, they'll look at you like you have two heads. Social democracy does not have deep considerations towards discourse ethics or attention economy. Instead, it expects people in hectic environments to embrace the chaotic stimulus around them rather than being able to depend on the government for preserving social fabric.
The free market can deal with externalities, but only if it recognizes that you can't have property without properness, and you can't have customers without customs. Free markets need to recognize that they have a social responsibility to sustainable lifestyles, and this means producing and consuming products such that people remain psychologically intact with their communities. That way, everyone is on the same page in practicing a heritage which defines bad side-effects together.
Homosexual marriage is a complicated issue. I'm going to answer you in two parts. One part is about how I see it. Another part is how I see why conservatives in general oppose it.
FIRST, I agree, homosexuality is natural. It's an emotion, and emotions are physically derived from our genetics, hormones, and neurology when stimulated by our environments. The problem with marriage, however, deals with why marriage exists - to ensure duty of care towards children. The fact of the matter is homosexuals are technologically dependent if they want to have children, but we don't live in technology. We live in society. Society is composed of males and females, it takes males and females to reproduce, and children can be male or female. Therefore, children are entitled to dimorphic expertise.
If we define marriage outside of childbearing, that's insulting on two grounds. First, it insults unmarried couples in love as if their love doesn't count. Second, it insults sensitive people who don't consent to observe public displays of affection.
Additionally, marriage can be traced back to paleolithic times even long before the Christian tradition was around. This was used in order to make sure that future generations were taken care of, and so fellow tribesmen and clansmen weren't cuckolded into taking care of children which weren't theirs. The idea of homosexuality just doesn't make sense in this regard.
Again, this isn't to say there's a problem with homosexual relationships. It's just it doesn't make sense to communicate them getting married, and considering that communication is the foundation of community by which people unite in common, it's vital to preserve marriage's definition.
SECOND, many conservatives struggle with how homosexuals identify with being "gay". "Gayness" is actually a condition in itself, and some would compare it to social anxiety disorder or histrionic personality disorder. It's actually a little offensive to people with these conditions that they're presumed to be homosexual despite how they're not, so it would be a good idea for the "gay" community to consider not embracing the label so eagerly.
Regardless, conservatives observe how homosexuals who are ashamed of their condition behave in a socially anxious/histrionic manner, and many conservatives (and non-conservatives) believe in rugged individualism where social anxiety and histrionics are self-imposed from cowardice. In other words, when conservatives believe that homosexuality is chosen, they believe it's because people aren't willing to face their fears of approaching the opposite sex.
Additionally, women have been shown to be more bisexual and homosexually inclined than men, so sometimes, conservatives oppose homosexuality in cases of sexual frustration when the women around seem to be excessively introspective. This is especially due to how conservatism is a methodologically individualist ideology which sometimes leads to conservatives having overanalyzing personalities. When people analyze too much, it's difficult to be funny, so it's difficult to court the opposite sex.
That said, sometimes, conservatives overanalyze things because of having traumatizing childhoods. They're told to be introspective in being well-behaved, and the implication is they lose their sense of humor. It isn't something they want to have happened, but when people are traumatized, it's embarrassing to admit they're hurt. Furthermore, if people admit being hurt, they come off as "gay", so they call others "gay" derogatorily to feel good about themselves, especially when they appear to be cowards. The implication is those who are called "gay" appear to be choosing to be non-confrontational, and therefore, homosexual.
I hope this helps. It's a lot, but it's the best I could do.
People advocate redistributive justice for a couple reasons.
One, some people are ignorant. They believe it's impractical for wealth to be concentrated in the hands of the few, and forget that capitalism is what built Western Civilization since the 1600s, and that free trade advanced the world since WW2.
Two, some people are brainwashed. Politicians will say what they want in order to get elected, and they intimidate voters into believing that capitalists don't know how hard it is for workers who struggle on a day to day basis. Also, politicians build their careers by spending other people's wealth. In order to become powerful, they need the authority to take wealth away from others who earned it.
However, the most dangerous reason is how many people are manipulative. They believe that life is a freeforall, and that there's nothing wrong with lying, cheating, and stealing in order to get what they want. They don't appreciate how society depends on freedom of assembly so people can choose how to live their lives. Instead, they appeal to emotion in order to rile up the mob. Many people aren't confident with themselves, and only feel good about themselves when living on top of others, and forcing others to do what they want.
Also, many people don't want to be held responsible for their actions. They instantly think it's crazy to downsize government and expect people to live within their means. Instead, they think society is irrational, and the best thing we can do is institutionalize people into social safety nets and catch them after they get hurt.
The bottomline is people who advocate redistribution don't want to think for themselves. They want the government to think for them, and want to punish independent thinkers for being arrogant in trying to overcome the state of nature where might makes right.
