Do Libertarians Really "Want a World Without Moral Judgments"?

Reason ^ | 03/22/2013 | Nick Gillespie

[PreciousLiberty]

"No matter how one cuts the pie, in practice the “Libertarian” position, devolves down to maximizing personal pleasure and the exercise of power over others."

Your pie cutter is broken.

[Responsibility2nd]

For example, the libertarian position is to support the right of a motel owner to refuse to rent to sodomites.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope. That is a CONSERVATIVE position. A lib would argue there is no need for a law for or against enforcing a motel owner to rent to sodomites.

In fact - if a state passes laws that require renting to sodomites - the lib places greater value on that law over his own personal convictions.

[DesScorp]

Yes. Libertarians are airy Utopians, as much fantasists as any Marxist, just in a different direction.

[GeronL]

libertopians

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Clearly the libertarian position is that those entities should be free to discriminate against or in favor of gay "married" couples, straight couples, interracial couples, singles, or whoever the want.

It’s a statist position to say they should not be free.

Libertarians agree - as do I.

[zigzagzoom]

Governments should not be using taxpayers' money on "moral judgments". They should stick to the few jobs for which they are granted authority (which boils down to "keeping the peace").

[JustSayNoToNannies]

if a state passes laws that require renting to sodomites - the lib places greater value on that law over his own personal convictions.

Can you offer any reason for anyone to believe your counterintuitive claim?

[Durus]

There is no liberty interest in the homosexual "marriage" movement. It is an authoritarian position, dedicated to using the police power of the state to force others to act against their moral or pragmatic beliefs about certain kinds of behavior.

Well said. Philosophically that should be the libertarian position but the Libertarian party rarely lets that get in their way of furthering "freedom" without consequence.

[Gene Eric]

>> Put simply, if you don’t self-govern,
you have to be governed.

One can only fight against those that desire to govern others. And that is essentially self-governance.

[Responsibility2nd]

...the lib places greater value on that law over his own personal convictions.

I posted that even before I knew you were on this thread. But it applies to you. You are the best example of a liberal supporting liberal agendas over you own personal convictions more than anyone else I know.

You claim you don't use drugs, but you are here every freaking day advocating for drug usage. You support the states who voted in legalized drugs, even though you claim you don't use them.

You are a hypocrite and you are immoral. You are the poster boy for Libertarianism.

[John Valentine]

Well said!

[zigzagzoom]

Ever see anybody discuss religion? Very rude. Very loud. No nuance. No real discussion.

Fixed it for you.

[IronJack]

The absence of a moral judgment is itself a moral judgment, just as the rejection of certain values is the expression of others.

This “moral neutrality” argument is as bankrupt as nihilism.

[John Valentine]

I am a libertarian at heart and I know that morals ARE norms. Morality does not exist for a man stranded on a desert island.

But, those moral norms must come from parents, teachers, mentors, priests, ministers, friends and relatives. NOT from the Government!

If there is one thing that I fervently pray for it is that these self-styled “Conservatives” would finally “get” is that the Government is NOT the arbiter of our morals - it never was and it never can be.

So called “Conservatives”, get over it, and take responsibility for your lives!

[JustSayNoToNannies]

if a state passes laws that require renting to sodomites - the lib places greater value on that law over his own personal convictions.

Can you offer any reason for anyone to believe your counterintuitive claim?

You are the best example of a liberal supporting liberal agendas over you own personal convictions more than anyone else I know.

You claim you don't use drugs, but you are here every freaking day advocating for drug usage.

No, I advocate for the liberty of adults to use drugs if they choose.

Aside from that, you've drawn a false parallel. My personal conviction is that I and every other adult should be free to choose whether or not to use drugs, and that the right choice for me is to not use drugs. The correct parallel would be to a law requiring people to use drugs - which libertarians and I would oppose as steadfastly as we oppose laws requiring them not to.

[Durus]

The founders never said “If you won't self rule we will rule you” as that would be inimical to the concept of a revolution predicated on individual liberty. What they did say is that if the general population is lawless and immoral then of course (being of the people) government will also be lawless and immoral. A lawless and immoral government leads to tyranny. Even if there happened to be a historical anomaly and a lawless society somehow ended up with a lawful moral government, they would have no way to govern as a immoral and lawless society simply cannot be governed.

[Gene Eric]

>> is that the Government is NOT the arbiter of our morals

Nor the enforcer.

[John Valentine]

I believe the author would argue that, if incest is your way of being in the world, then that is your moral judgment, and it is just as valid as anyone else's moral judgment and way of being in the world.

And just how in the name of the living Savior do you come to that mind-bending conclusion? Surely not baed on evidence of any kind.

[MrB]

The founders never said “If you won't self rule we will rule you”

I didn't intend to imply that. My understanding parallels yours, that our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution can only be for the governance of a moral and religious (ie, referencing a moral code not subject to human whims) people.

[John Valentine]

Nor the enforcer. Of course not. Sorry I omitted to make that clear. BUT, there are certain laws that have their basis in universal morality - like the law against murder for example, that I do want the State to enforce as preferable to the alternative - vendettas.