What is wrong with Libertarianism.

Conservative Commentary ^ | 28 July 2002 | Peter Cuthbertson

[FateAmenableToChange]

Great post. The problem I have with many fellow libertarians is that they refuse to accept that morality is important to the state. I forget who said that humanity must be controlled by God or by the state, but that statement perfectly encapsulates the dilemma facing libertarians - there has to be some means of controlling bad actors. The more morality you have, the fewer bad actors. The less morality, the more bad actors, and the greater need for laws to crush them beneath the heel of the state.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Well, that's the big question: Is it possible to have a moral society without that morality being reflected in and enforced by the law/state?

[Tomalak]

Indeed. The answer given here is that a small state is only possible if people are moral enough not to require government coercion.

[AdamSelene235]

Indeed. The answer given here is that a small state is only possible if people are moral enough not to require government coercion.

You're assuming the state will coerce people to do "good" things. States that acquire the power to control every detail of their subjects lives rarely use the power wisely.

Cromwell's England, the Taliban, the USSR, and Saudi Arabia spring to mind as examples.

[Tomalak]

Wasn't that the whole point of the article? That people need to be good all on their own, and you can only have a small state if they do.

[decimon]

There is something to be said for moral suasion but the U.S. has never been a particularly moral nation, in the religious sense, and has done just fine with minimal government. U.S. history is far more Barbary Coast than Norman Rockwell.

[ChadGore]

What is wrong with Libertarianism. ?

BOTH Libertarians will continue to argue that point while they BOTH loose elections.

[Lightnin]

Not to mention Cuba, China, most of sub-Saharan Africa and the state of Vermont in recent years.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

What's the William Penn quote?

Those who will not be ruled by God
will be ruled by tyrants.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

So you want to work for the repeal of all drug laws, laws against sodomy, oral sex, etc. and have people go "tsk tsk" instead?

[Tokhtamish]

To have a society of stigma, you must have a society where "what the neighbors will say" actually matters. You must have a society where most people spend their whole lives in one place surrounded by their families instead of a mobile, anonymous society. A society where reputations are fixed and once set can never really be changed. Where ostracism has terrible socioeconomic consequences.

It is not possible to restore Victorian social relations or the concept of "scandal". People do not want crime. But then again, they do not want to be stuck all their lives in miserable marriages, to be constantly watched and judged, or see the bastard stigma restored.

[AdamSelene235]

Wasn't that the whole point of the article?

The article is either obtuse or deliberately dishonest.

Given that they deliberately took Dr. Szasz's remarks on the nature of mental "illness" out of context to smear libertarians makes me think it is the later.

FYI, Szasz was arguing that the offending priests should have been charged with crimes rather than placed in treatments centers as they were not suffering from "illness" but were criminals.

Szasz's article is here :

http://reason.com/0208/fe.ts.sins.shtml

[AdamSelene235]

That people need to be good all on their own, and you can only have a small state if they do.

So you think a large, powerful state full of evil people will be just hunky dory?

I reject the dillema.

[Tomalak]

Those who will not be ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants.

Now there's wisdom.

I don't see how the article quoted the Libertarian out of context. He was implying that paedophilia is not an issue, only raping kids is. In fact, wanting to rape kids is immoral, and it is an issue, as the Thought for the day noted.

[tpaine]

Tell it to BOTH the RLC and JR:

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT

Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/721810/posts

[Tomalak]

You are pretty dumb if you don't understand what the article said. Pretty simply:

'You can have an immoral people, or you can have a small state, but you can't have both.'

The article was not advocating a big state and bad people: it wanted a small state and good people. Can't you see that?

[steve-b]

This argument assumes that the alternatives are limited to 1)convincing people to do X voluntarily or 2)having the state compel people to do X by force. However, in those areas which impinge upon mere preferences, not fundamental rights, one must admit the additional alternative of 3)accepting the fact that some people are going to do Y instead.

The basic moral principle that needs to be inclucated is found in the Notebooks of Lazarus Long:

The correct way to punctuate a sentence that starts: "Of course it is none of my business but--" is to place a period after the word "but."

[steve-b]

One mistake far too many libertarians make is to associate traditional morality with big government, and hostility to freedom.

This is not a mistake made by libertarians, but rather a fraud perpetrated by authoritarians who wish to elevate their personal preferences to the stature of moral law. To take obvious historical examples, prohibiting the sale of pictures of nekked wimmen and requiring stores to close on Sunday on spurious "moral" grounds degrades the term "morality", and thus makes it more difficult to invoke the concept legitimately.

Those who do wish to advocate real moral objections to (for example) businesses tied to organized crime then find themselves with the burden of cleaning the clintonized semantic swamp gunk off the term.

[steve-b]

Additionally, the basic point "The issue is not sexual attraction; it is sexual action..." ought to be considered an obvious truism. I could have sworn that I'd read dozens of threads on this forum denouncing, in the most strident terms, the concept of "Thought Crime".