Replies

Philistone, is this your blog? Some interesting ideas, even if I don't necessarily agree with them all. I, like many others on this board, am a small-l libertarian and a registered big-R Republican, though I frequently vote big-L Libertarian as well. While I think there are other areas of disagreement between libertarians and social conservatives, namely free speech/censorship (including pornography), euthanasia, etc. However, I will limit discussion to the three issues mentioned here: abortion, gay marriage, and drug/prostitution legalization.

...[I]t is incumbent upon libertarians to come up with a definition of when state protection of the individual should commence. The problem here is that it will always be possible to come up with an example using this definition that would allow the state to kill an adult in the same circumstances.

What about this definiton: "Life begins when the fetus is no longer dependent on its mother for sustinence." Or this one: "Life begins when the umbilical cord is cut." Those seem pretty clear-cut to me and only could apply to a fetus, not an adult.

Note that this is not necessarily my position, but it counters your argument that such a defintion could not be reached. A fetus is different from any other life because it is dependent on another's life. Libertarians are split on the issue because of those who place highest value on the life of the fetus vs. those who place highest value on the liberty of the mother.

Public sanction of marriages (marriage licenses issued by the state) has historical roots and libertarians should be concentrating on reducing this state power (by trying to abolish state licensing of marriage altogether) rather than on increasing it by redefining the word "marriage" to include people who were heretofore not included.

I agree with the premise that we should abolish state licensing of marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious institution, and in the church is where it should remain. However, this is not the goal of most social conservatives. Passing a Constitional amendment creating a federal definition of the term marriage is the exact opposite of this position. I have other thoughts on this issue, but this is all that's needed to be said to show the disharmony between social conservatives and libertarians on this issue.

Amsterdam is a good example, and while the evidence is not strong, it does appear that libertarians are wrong. Amsterdam neighborhoods with high rates of drug use and prostitution, though legal, are not particularly safe for the general public.

Amsterdam is also a welfare state and attracts druggie tourists from around the globe. It's not a fair comparison. One example of something is not enough to predicate an argument on, because there may be other variables at work. This is why studying the social sciences is so difficult.

By acting to reduce the public space (by privatizing much of it), libertarians can drive these activities into private where they belong. The case of prostitution in Nevada is instructive. By limiting prostitution to private brothels, the general public is not confronted with the seemier side of it unless they choose to be.

Sounds to me like you're making the case for legalized prostitution by using the Nevada example.

So, as you can see, I still have quite a few issues with social conservatives, but I also have many issues with social progressives, so I will continue to vote mostly on economic issues.

What about this definiton: "Life begins when the fetus is no longer dependent on its mother for sustinence." Or this one: "Life begins when the umbilical cord is cut." Those seem pretty clear-cut to me and only could apply to a fetus, not an adult.

Presumably, most children are dependent upon their parents for sustinence until they leave the parental household. As for cutting the umbilical cord, I believe that most people would have difficulty accepting that a being goes from non-human to human over the course of a 2 second procedure.

Passing a Constitional amendment creating a federal definition of the term marriage is the exact opposite of this position. I have other thoughts on this issue, but this is all that's needed to be said to show the disharmony between social conservatives and libertarians on this issue.

As I have stated in previous posts, many of these problems would fall out of the equation in a libertarian society. The only purpose for requiring public sanction of marriage is that the tax system, legal system and Social Security system is structured in such a way as to require it. As long as that is the case, then social conservatives will fight to limit the types of couples that the public sanction can be applied to. As I stated in the blog, it is also simply another attempt by liberals to change the meaning of words for their own purposes and should be opposed by all who believe that the world can be understood and manipulated using reason and not simply by having politically correct thoughts.

One example of something is not enough to predicate an argument on, because there may be other variables at work. This is why studying the social sciences is so difficult.

You are correct. I did state that the subject was a difficult one, but the libertarian argument that, e.g. legalizing drug use will eliminate third party harm is a theoretical one. It should be an empirical one. The case for prostitution is similar.

Again, most social conservatives today are resigned to an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude. They don't want to take their kids to the park to play among used hypodermic needles and condoms. They don't want to sit down to a nice football game with their kids and see Janet Jackson's breast. They don't want their children being taught masturbation techniques in school. They could care less about San Francisco culture, but don't want it imposed on them in Boise or Plano or Fresno.

As for free speech, it is under attack from the "hate speech" left much more so than from the conservative right.

If you're interested, I've set up a discussion board at Multiple Utopias to address these questions in further detail.