Libertarian is not left on social issues

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because it is an important social institution that people value and grants certain privileges and stability to raise children (the next generation)? There's many reasons to ban marriage, and many reasons to not do it - Ultimately, if people want to get married the State shouldn't stop it from happening.

The state doesn't stop it from happening, nor does it promulgate it. Procreation long predates the creation of nation-states, and the species has never had to rely on laws in order to enjoy fucking.

Is it?

Wait, you're asking if reproduction is or isn't a deep-seated urge?

But doesn't the number of children you have depend on many variables? If so, why is it that my country has a lack of young people and if it wasn't for immigrants we wouldn't have a significant young workforce (Europe has these problems)?

Generally speaking, there is an inverse relationship between per capita income and family size. That means that folks in poorer countries tend to have more children, regardless of the ease or difficulty of marriage, whereas in wealthier countries, the tend to have fewer children. Reproduction is a deep-seated urge. We all like a piece of ass, and that tends to produce children. The institution of marriage is not needed to produce children; all you need to do is look at history. Up until 8000 years ago, there were no states to institutionalize marriage at all, and yet people still reproduced.The state

Of course it is a necessity as the demographics and age of the population interact with employment rates, inflation, etc, and the State has the duty to run society the best possible way to make us all minimally satisfied.

The state has a duty to ensure that laws are enforced, borders are secured, internal safety is promulgated (fire services, sewage, etc) -- but I don't think the state has any responsibility at all for my personal satisfaction. I am completely responsible for that myself.

First things first - Would never accept forcing anyone to do anything - But that doesn't mean the government can't pursue policies depending on the demographics - Again, using the example of Portugal, we have too many old people because back in the day people had 7-8 kids and some had 30 kids (seriously my mom knew an old lady who had literally 33 kids) and now with the emancipation of women and unemployment, etc, we have fewer young people - What should my government do? Just stand there and not give two shits? Economic planning isn't just about promoting and funding private enterprise to boost profits and the GDP, it's also about playing with other variables and knowing how to predict issues in the future that will arise if you don't do anything about it.

I have a deep distrust of any government attempting to manipulate the personal lives of its citizens.

This does not mean I support extremist measures like forcing people to have X or Y kids, but it is possible to take some minimal measures to boost some variable you'd like to see growing - I don't see anything wrong about it - Not to mention that the benefits you have in taxes with kids exist for other reasons such as the fact married people spend a lot more of their income with children duties like diapers and food - It seems fair to me.

And yet childless couples, or single persons, are forced to bear the burden of such subsidies. Is it fair to penalize someone because they don't want children, or don't want to get married, simply because someone in some capital city has determined that that is what is good for the country as a whole?

In my country, there are benefits marriage gives you that you can't get with any other contract. For example, if you are married to someone and they just die, you have a right to 50% of their belongings (Unless you have kids because then it's only 30-33%) even if they didn't sign a testimony saying so, but if you're not married to them you need to sign a contract before otherwise you won't get that percentage of belongings. Obviously there's other legal benefits like matrimonial regimes that allow a different and more pragmatic management of your personal goods and belongings that you can't get without a marriage contract. 

Of course, and that is the same here. I simply think that one can handle those contractual arrangements without involving the government outside the happenstance of breach.

Indeed, but sometimes it should - Specially life-changing super important contracts like marriage and even employment contracts. I don't know what you think, but IMO the most important contracts people ever sign are matrimony and employment (long-time) contracts - Those contracts shape your life and allow you to fulfil your most important desires - Because these contracts are so important and it would be a shame if someone used the law to abuse, twist and hurt others trough those contracts, there's a need for the government to regulate.

I think the government should be able to regulate the abuses, but not lay out conditions a priori. Here in America, the past practice of defining marriage as "one man and one woman" is a perfect example. What purpose of governance is aided by such a stipulation? None. It is only in place because venial politicians chase votes. But in so doing, the government trampled the rights of how many millions?

Let them sign a contract, and if it is violated, then bring the government in to adjudicate. That's my view.

That's why my country has a law saying husbands and wives are equal to prevent old school patriarchs from doing their thing - There's also laws saying a minimum salary must exist to prevent extreme poverty or saying you can't fire someone because of their race without paying them a compensation in money.

Sure, and I've no argument with such broad measures as that. Well, I think that the last example should be improved, but the others, no problem.

I think I should reformulate my position - Only when someone does something like Adolf Hitler should they be arrested because they are effectively endangering public sphere and possibly causing riots and violence - I don't think your opinion should be a crime, or hate, I think inciting something that already is a crime should be illegal.

I think the crime should be punished, not the speech which incited it. Prosecuting the speaker for encouraging violence implies that the perpetrator had no choice in the matter, when in actual fact we all have the power to act upon or ignore free speech as we see fit.

Now, I certainly don't think inciting hate per se should be illegal, but if someone incites hate and then the result is other people doing harm to others because of the hater, this person should be punished because they basically act as one of the main sources of the crime's motives. I mean, if I told you to kill someone of your family for money and incited you to do it infinitely, shouldn't I be punished in court if you end up doing it (Of course you would be punished as well)?

I'm not sure what "inciting to do it infinitely" might entail. You'll need to clarify that. In terms of contracting murder, certainly the payer should be prosecuted, not because they advocated murder, but because they provided material support for it.

I hold that outside of speech that materially aids in the loss of life (shouting "fire" in a theater, for instance), speech should not be regulated.

The best answer to obnoxious speech is not censorship, it is reasoned reply. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.