[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.

[WyldKard]

BTW, I'm not trying to say there is a problem with religion. I think the instruction of religion/ethics/morals/whatever belongs in the home though. You should not expect the Government to impart religious or ethical beliefs into people. Only parents can do that. The individual makes up the Government. The Government does not define the individual...

[HumanaeVitae]

Well, if you're a libertarian, there's no reason to ban polygamy, is there? What if a guy has seven wives and 36 children, living paycheck to paycheck, and then he dies and the state gets stuck with supporting the children? I mean, if you're a libertarian why would you give any charity to these people because of their "voluntary" decisions? But if you don't want to help such people, then either the state has to do it or they starve in the street.

You talk about things going on in the privacy of people's homes; what about people who beat their children? If you're an atheist, you believe that people are just material, not created by God, and thus the parents (the physical creators of the children) can do whatever they want with them. But if you believe that children are to be protected, to what moral standard do you appeal to take them away from their parents?

[sweet_diane]

"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. "

I have a reason... An animal can not give consent to sex with a human.