Remember that apostrophes go in the possessive. "...does not pay our writer's at this time." (Incorrect. "Writers" without, the apostrophe, is correct in that context. You use an apostrophe if you're referring to a writer's pen, or when you say, "That writer's going places.") I know I sound like an incredible snob, but little things like that can alienate new people and give them the false impression that libertarians are illiterate.

anonymous

Since you've spent a paragraph analyzing the wrong problem (I'm familiar with the difference between possessive, plural, and contractions; that was a typographical error), perhaps you'd like to volunteer your gratis services as a grammarian and proofreader. I can't pay you, any more than I can directly pay our writers just now, but maybe someone would click a donation link for you. Of course, you might want to review your own use of commas: "... "Writers" without, the apostrophe, is correct ..."

Feedback: Think Free to Live Free Review

thinkfree rating = bad
general comments = Clearly there are some good points in this excerpt, but the author in my opinion has been in the trenches to long. If I want to be free then I have to pass that freedon on to the next generation, not slaughter it in the mothers womb. If I want to be free I can not except homosexuality, they produce no one to pass freedom to. If I want to be free, I have guns, because freedom comes from the end of a barrel. My true freedom comes from GOD, and what GOD has given to me no man can destroy. I trust in nothing less than JESUS Righteousness!

You're reading DF! in the first place, so I've no doubt that you mean well. But with darned near every government in the world currently bent upon enslaving all of us, can't we put comparatively minor issues like this aside long enough to win freedom? And while I certainly hope to pass freedom on to the next generation - truly doing it "for the children" - I want freedom for myself, too.

Feedback: The Freedom Advisor

Dear Editor,

I read your article "Looking for Libertarian Love" (The Advisor's column actually. -ed.) with more than a little interest. You see, I am a libertarian female, divorced, with small children; and am unable to find any libertarian males to connect with.

So, this libertarian gentleman is not alone in his quest for libertarian love. Potential mates of the libertarian persuasion are few and far between. I'm raising my sons with deeply held libertarian/anarcho-capitalist values. Some day, they'll add to the pool of available libertarian males.

I'd like to comment on this particular line in your editorial though "I've heard of women who seem to be libertarian, then when they meet "Mr. Right," a lot of pro-freedom attitudes seem to disappear (e.g., freedom to have relationships with other women, particularly sexual ones)."

As a libertarian, I am interested in freedom from government/collective/individual coercion. That does not mean that should I meet someone, that I cannot work out private agreement to be in a voluntary monogamous relationship (no sexual relations with other women). If it's discussed and he voluntarily agrees, that is not coercion. He can say no, and move on to someone who is more agreeable with his sexual values. So a pro-freedom attitude does not necessarily mean that either party must accept values that is personally unacceptable to him.

To me, there is nothing anti-freedom about not wanting to share your man, if he is agreeable to that.

libertarian lady

Hi Libertarian Lady,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me regarding my previous Freedom Advisor column. Let's cut straight to the chase here, and get to the comment you quoted: "I've heard of women who seem to be libertarian, then when they meet "Mr. Right," a lot of pro-freedom attitudes seem to disappear (e.g., freedom to have relationships with other women, particularly sexual ones)."

I'll admit I was sloppy with my words; I have seen this phenomenon happen more than once. Specifically, I have seen women agree to an open relationship, whether during dating, or in some kind of committed relationship (partnership or marriage), and then become upset when their partner develops an interest in someone else. I agree with you that there's nothing coercive about voluntary, consensual agreements to restrict activities. What I'm talking about is something different, however.

The reasons a person (males have been known to do this, too) gets into such a situation vary. I think it happens mostly because people have the expectation that such freedom will be okay with them, and then find out otherwise when the partner wants to exercise that freedom. Many people have problems with jealousy; others seem to think that love is zero-sum game. What I mean by that is that if your Sweetie is giving attention to someone else, it necessarily means less for you. Anyone with more than one child ought to be able to see how that isn't a very accurate view. Our culture is filled with unhealthy ideas about romantic love, sensuality, and sexuality, too, which makes romantic relationships an even larger potential minefield.

There is no incompatibility between complete freedom and love, contrary to popular belief. However, an individual must be secure in him- or herself, and know and articulate what is desired, and what can and cannot be given in romantic relationships, in order for things to work out. Sadly, this is largely not the case these days, which is why unhappy situations occur.

I hope you're able to find a pro-freedom man to share your life with. The other side is out-populating us, and we need to counter that! ;-)

The Freedom Advisor

(If all else fails, DF! will accept noncommercial personal ads for the Classifieds at no charge. - ed.)