[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "After all if we are going to look after in fact assume responsibility for others because they are too weak to assume responsibility for there own actions, or hand that responsibility over to the government why stop at just prostitution, gambling and drugs."

Your counterargument is based upon a straw man fallacy. I did not say that the role of government is to micromanage the moral choices of its people. I do argue, however, that a society that either passively abets or actively promotes behaviors that lead to the weakening of that society are ultimately (and self-evidently) destructive of that society. Those encouraged attributes collectively known as character--solid work ethic, honesty, sobriety, integrity, reliability--commonly and historically recognized as building blocks of a prosperous, healthy community or nation-state are devalued and undercut by public policies that legalize and culturally affirm their opposite. An individual making bad life choices is one thing; a polity that encourages the making of such choices is entirely another.

And lastly, about that 'I know many socialists who say the same thing' remark. It was a cheap shot, a smear by association. The context of my remarks established precisely what I meant by moral clarity. But I gather you're a libertarian, aren't you? Libertarians pride themselves as a hard-headed, pragmatic, utilitarian crowd, steering clear of arguments containing anything remotely hinting of intangibles like 'virtue' or 'morality'. Tell you what, if any libertarian anywhere actually wins election to something other than dog catcher, I might be persuaded to take your stance seriously.

[tonycavanagh]

lol smear by association, you used this as your closing line.

I say we draw the line here, now. Better to fight the good fight and lose than to passively acquiesce. That would be such a European thing to do.

Kettle Pot calling black an all that.

Ok lets get to the nub you stated "that a society that either passively abets or actively promotes behaviors". You got me coming and going

If we end the WOD does that mean we are actively promotes behaviors such as drug taking.

Many would argue not.

But your first part either passively abets means that by ending the WOD we are passively abbeting people making bad choices.

The only way to not be passive is to actually intervene in someones life style choice to make sure they make the right choices albeit the ones dictated by those with a serous moral and responsible attitude towards society.

[liberty2004]

An individual making bad life choices is one thing; a polity that encourages the making of such choices is entirely another.

I would suggest the Welfare state spending by our government over the past 40years have destroyed many times the lives. Governments are the biggest entities that threaten the family, liberty and general peace. It is disgusting how people always assume everyone's a libertarian and therefore a crackpot. I am not a libertarian; I am just someone who looks at government with a skeptical eye. Remember, most of our Founders had little faith in government to solve most problems. They wanted people to be left alone. I have ultimate faith that most people left alone, will make wise choices. I am sorry so many think through government action, we can be all be "made" to be happy and never do wrong.