I think that marriage is a construct of God and that it came before government. In the end government is not necessary to marriage so why give government power over it. I simply see more danger than benefit in government (especially federal) involvement in marriage.
With regards to slavery, I do not know a better way than using the force of government to punish those who steal, kidnap, and kill, especially in large scale (the essentials of slavery). In my mind the very essence of limited government is keep it small but recognize there are some things that cannot be done better privately.
Abortion I believe is something that I think will ultimately have to be under government control. The only way a person can justify abortion (or at least abortion where the pregnancy poses no danger to the mother) is to act as though a baby in the womb is not a person. While I am not prepared to call for federal legislation (states handle murder laws) I think that at some point it becomes like theft, murder, etc where the government actually is best equiped to control it.
In the end I guess my process boils down to: does something require the government and if it does, what is the lowest level of government that we can possibly grant power to. I don't claim to have all the answers but I simply don't trust power to government even if it is in pursuit of an agenda I agree with.
Thanks for your considered, cogent, well-thought response to my post. I’m honored my post garnered your excellent response.
I just want to emphasize that when we say the law has to intercede with societal issues, we need to ask on which code are these laws based? We who are happy to designate the obvious origins of the laws we follow state we come from a Judeo-Christian belief from which our English legal system derives. So, in other words, dead European white guys are responsible for the rules we follow.
So, moral code is what makes up our laws...no morality means screwy laws that accomplish squat...which we see today.
I enjoyed this exchange and think those of us who disagree should still acknowledge the validity of the opposite argument, if not the veracity.
Insults are not helpful....
“I think that marriage is a construct of God and that it came before government. In the end government is not necessary to marriage so why give government power over it.”
Marriage is a good idea to test one’s libertarianism on:
Axiom: A society of strong marriages needs less government than a society of weak marriages.
(Besides the huge rise of the welfare and Nanny state seen in the US in the last fifty years as marriage was dramatically weakened, this axiom is supported by the extreme example of tribalistic societies.)
So would a libertarian want the government to take a little power to support and enforce strong marriages-or a lot of power to support a society of weak marriages?
“Weak” marriage was a frequent hypothesis in the sci-fi I loved in my youth- such as Heinlein’s.