https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-libertarians-press-congress-on-doma-dont-ask-dont-tell/
With them electing a non Mises candidate, I thought I would dig for their official stance on an issue that had a very socially engineered public discourse surrounding it. Ron Paul was right that don't ask don't tell was a fine policy. Our pre-boomer ancestors knew faggotry oft enough resulted in degenerate behavior outside the bedroom. This policy made the point to fuck who you want, but dont be a retard with no opsec, or a narcissist who puts oneself before your fellow servicemen. Also, don't engage in witch-hunts.
I utterly despise how the gay agenda was actually a thing, not the bugbear we made fun of . This goes beyond letting Peter Thiel and Dave Rubin sex up their husbands; even then I have mixed opinions on both of them I didn't have 6 years prior. The self-righteous, dogmatic language the lgb-t-map+ "community" embraces to force their preferences without responsible society's consent should be reason enough to fall back to early 20th century policy. Doesn't matter what the movement is, such tactics cause societal collapse, just waiting for the inevitable trigger.
Point is, right-wing libertarians really need to find a new label that also separates them from the soccer-moms for Bush/Trump. That the hippie LPUSA suffers from so much Gramscian damage that they would lend any lip service to what is substantially and morally bankrupt has invalidated the uniparty alternative. If for the simple reason that there is no right to serve in the military, only equal opportunity to all civilians.
I think it really might be a gene in that there is some kind autism or other mental issue in their heads that treats real life like a computer program or mathematical model. Like if they can find the 1 in a million situation that proves contrary to a rule, it invalidates the entire rule in all situations. You present them a premise that would lead to the good working order of society for 999,999 people 999,999 times, and their brains instantly start working on trying to figure out that 1 case where the rule ended up hurting someone 1 time and then they've got their "aha! If you support that, you support hurting that person!" moment to throw in your face with a smirk.