If classical liberalism is fundamentally all about personal agency for everyone then it should follow that a libertarian and anyone wholly concerned with freedom would be unhappy with a relationship that exists on a master/slave basis.
This sounds obvious, but is it? Many traditional concepts of relationships and marriage depend on subservience and also on the male public world/ female domestic world roles. If this upsetting to you as a conservative female activist, pause and think that under some of these older roles, you would most probably not be an activist of any sort. It is also worth noting the long and noble history of radical libertarians in the 19th century fighting these norms, specifically marriage that absorbed women as legal entities and condoned rape.
I think that an activist, a person who is really trying to better the world, seeks a companion as an equal. It would be strange to demand liberty in the outside world and then to have a different standard in one's personal life. But what does that look like?
A few things most activists are probably looking for:
1. Someone that does not think they are nuts
2. Someone who understands what they are doing
3. Someone who understands why what they are doing is important to them.
I think this is summed up nicely in Rush's forgotten love song "Madrigal". Here are the lyrics:
So if you are having trouble finding someone this Valentines day, worry not. Nice guys and gals do not finish last. It is also true that plenty of jerks think they are nice guys/gals. So when approaching the puzzle of romance try approaching it not as a search for some sucker dumb enough to put up with you, but from the standpoint of seeking an equal partner in thought-crime.
Articles | Author's Page