[HumanaeVitae]

I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing. The Federal government doesn't have a right to do much of what it does. But if you're arguing that the state governments don't have an interest in outlawing certain anti-social behaviors, then are you for:

Public displays of bestiality? Polygamy? I support the Second Amendment, but what about private ownership of anthrax? That's a weapon.

Libertarians always hit the reduction to absurdity at some point with maximalist freedom. I think you would agree with me that at some point government has to regulate people's behaviors. But what standard do we use?

Judeo-Christianity, IMHO.

[WyldKard]

I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing. The Federal government doesn't have a right to do much of what it does. But if you're arguing that the state governments don't have an interest in outlawing certain anti-social behaviors, then are you for:

Public displays of bestiality?

When it's public, it suddenly becomes a "disturbing the peace issue", and naturally, it is right and proper for the Government to interfere in this issue. Now, as sick and repugnant as I find the concept of beastiality, I can't find a compelling reason to make it illegal in the privacy of one's own home.

Polygamy?

I don't see a compelling State interest in banning poligamy at all. Certainly, the State may if it wants, but again, I don't see how banning it protects the inaliable rights of the individual.

I support the Second Amendment, but what about private ownership of anthrax? That's a weapon.

Any weapon of mass destruction is a clear and presant danger to the surrounding area. Because the private ownership of weapons of mass destruction endangers the rights and lives of those in the community, there is a compelling interest for the State to interfere.

Surely, you aren't about to compare doing a couple bong hits or reading Penthouse in your living room to owning a nuclear bomb in your basement, right?

Libertarians always hit the reduction to absurdity at some point with maximalist freedom. I think you would agree with me that at some point government has to regulate people's behaviors. But what standard do we use?

Judeo-Christianity, IMHO.

Using religion as a basis of Governance is called Theocracy, which we are not. We are a Republic. In the end, the only thing the Government should be doing is protecting the inaliable rights of the individual. You don't need the Bible to tell you that it is a compelling state interest to ban murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, etc etc etc.

It's very simple: the right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins. Only Socialist Governments care to try and ban people throwing their fists in the air in the privacy of their own homes.