Replies

My experience has been that they have never given it much thought. Often if you can get a discussion going you can get them thinking about it.

Your "experience" is a lousy teacher, then. One of the foundational points of libertarianism is that it isn't possible, unless there is a strong, ethical and moral framework binding citizens together. This framework, made up of (traditional) families, churches, and civic organizations is a necessary per-requisite for individual liberty. As a libertarian, I can safely say that man is not inherently good. That is why strong societal judgement against unacceptable behavior is necessary. Contrary to the strawman argument that you apparently believe, the difference between you and libertarians (although not Libertarians) doesn't lie there. The difference is that you look to government to enforce that societal code. I look to churches, families, peers, neighbors, and local civic groups. My contention, is that by placing that kind of power in the hands of the government, it is more likely to backfire, and be used against traditional values. The only long-term protector of traditional values can be local, traditional, and oriented around religion.

Oh, and I don't need you to "get me thinking". (I am assuming you advocate an activist role for government, with respect to social issues -- if I am under the wrong impression, please ignore). Somebody needs to get you thinking, and to realize that all of that power you advocate in the hands of the government, will someday be used against what you believe in.