What is wrong with Libertarianism.

Conservative Commentary ^ | 28 July 2002 | Peter Cuthbertson

[Tomalak]

So you think Somalia and today's Russia are good models for the world?

Sigh. No.

Okay - so can you name a few countries where the state is small and the people are immoral that are worth living in then? I think every conservative and libertarian would agree that the best combination is a moral people plus a small state. But you can't have a small state without a people moral enough to manage without big government.

[riley1992]

that humanity must be controlled by God or by the state

Libertarians do not believe it free and total reign let loose on the populace. You seem to believe that people are incapable of living out a life of decency and morality without either believing in God or having the government tell them what is correct to do and how to behave. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

[Tomalak]

Yup. Whatever some libertarians think, the law is no substitute for morality.

[Tomalak]

I can only speak for myself, but I think there only are two ways to behave well. The first is if the government forces you to. The second is if you choose to freely. If people don't choose to, the government steps in. That is why libertarians *need* morality.

But I don't think you need to be religious to be moral.

[AdamSelene235]

Define Morality.

[Tomalak]

Morality is what a person ought to do, how a person ought to operate. It means helping others when they need you, working hard when you would rather be lazy, doing your duty even if it is a difficult one, and providing for yourself and your family, rather than looking to others.

[AdamSelene235]

In those days, the state didn't need to crack down on such things because the American people were so moral that almost no one did them.

Oh really, I wish I had a time machine so I could see the look on your face.

[David Cannady]

Libertarians don't expect to substitute law for morality. They expect that, absent a bunch of mommies in blue, we'd police ourselves.

The death of respect for each other has come from overreaching authoritarianism.

Respect was born of the certain knowledge that, if you went to far with someone, you could expect to get a knuckle sandwich. Not now! NO! People can be as insulting as they want to, but if you even threaten to respond with violence, you get arrested. That has been the death of civility and the downfall of morality. And adding more laws upon laws will never replace it. Only a return to individual sovereignty will bring us back.

[Cultural Jihad]

For example, pornography is immoral. It should not be available in a decent society. But the controls on pornogrpahy ought not come from the State; they should be internal to us all. Were we all raised to believe that it's wrong to view pornography, we'd avoid it for fear of getting caught and shamed. The market for it wouldn't exist. But that moral teaching no longer exists. Instead, we placed the State in the role of the arbiter of morality. And there's the problem. The State has no moral sense. It is an amoral being. It hasn't the ability to see pornography as inherently evil. Thus, it cannot decern a difference between "Debbie Does Dallas" and "Gone With The Wind". In the libertarian society that the author describes, shame allows us to see the difference and to accept one while rejecting the other. But so long as moral opprobrium comes down to us in the form of a State edict, libertarians will resist attempts to impose it.

I don't understand your point. Neither the Founders nor any of our ancestors exhibited any great difficulty in differentiating a brothel from an opera. There was no flood of pornography in the first 200 years of our nation's culture, the nation's store shelves were devoid of intaglio etchings of people copulating, and yet the laws were so written to discourage it. The flood of pornography came only recently, with the moral-liberal court rulings striking down the age-old obscenity laws. Hence your 'Woe is us, the state is to blame for porn' doesn't really fly.

Or maybe your point is that the laws which provide legal protection to porn should be rescinded so as to allow citizens their right to close down the porn industry.

[AdamSelene235]

Morality is what a person ought to do, how a person ought to operate.

Can you provide me a complete list of everything I must and must not due or am I going to have to figure this out myself. If I have to figure it out, it will subject to my judgement. Since, my judgement is so poor that I've actually read folks like the evil Dr. Szasz, obviously we'll need someone else to make decisions for me. Gee, I hope they have my best interests in mind.

It means helping others when they need you,

What if they have brought suffering on themselves?

working hard when you would rather be lazy,

What if I am not allowed to enjoy the fruits of my own labor?

doing your duty even if it is a difficult one,

Who defines my duties?

and providing for yourself and your family, rather than looking to others.

Housing is too expensive to form a family. Marriage puts a husband in danger of losing his home, salary, children and 2nd Amendment rights.

The same was true in Rome in later days.

[Tomalak]

Oh I see. You lost the original argument so now you turn to moral relativism. Sorry, but there is such a thing as right and wrong, and you can only have a small state if people in general do what is right.

[AdamSelene235]

Oh I see. You lost the original argument so now you turn to moral relativism.

No, I'm just asking how you arrive at moral judgements.

Sorry, but there is such a thing as right and wrong, and you can only have a small state if people in general do what is right.

No actually, you can have a small state full of bad people. I've seen them first hand. They're just kinda sketchy. They do nevertheless exists. And there are some good people in them. Some of the good people like the chaos, most do not.

[Cultural Jihad]

Yup. Whatever some libertarians think, the law is no substitute for morality.

Well said. The law is not a religion. The law cannot give one a conscience. The law cannot compel one to stop and help another. We need much more than mere human laws in order to have a healthy, functioning society. But the law does have an important role to play.

[Kevin Curry]

Why should the government have any say as to what sexual activity is appropriate in the privacy of one's bedroom with one's wife?

If the wife is 10 years old? As pedophilia continues to be normalized--and it will--you will either embrace it or regret your moral relativism. It all flows from the same mindset--and you have it.

Policing the bedroom is bad government and feckless politics, but that does not mean that what some people do behind closed doors ought to be applauded or tolerated in public discourse. You honor it by impliedly defending it. You ought to feel ashamed. But shame over sexual sickness is in short supply in the nation, especially since Bubba and Monica did their thing in the "privacy" of the Oval Office.

[Sci Fi Guy]

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

This statement is utterly false:

I think that you misunderstood what he's trying to say. It's not saying that you cannot have large gov't with good people or a small gov't and bad people. He is saying that if you want a orderly, peaceful law biding society, then you either need to have a large gov't to ensure order(on an irresponsible people), or a moral society that will demand good behavior from its neighbors.

His point is that if we are going to achieve the libertarian ideal of extremely small or no gov't, we need to have a moral influence in society to maintain order or we will turn into a somalia (no gov't, no moral influence = total chaos). I dont' think that Somalia is any libertarian's ideal society.

Look at our nation's founding. It would be considered very libertarian compared to what we have today. And our founding fathers considered a religous (moral) influence necessary for maintaining a free society.

[AdamSelene235]

He is saying that if you want a orderly, peaceful law biding society, then you either need to have a large gov't to ensure order(on an irresponsible people),

Nope, that won't work. But that's what we going to do. Once you divorce the individual from personal responsibility your society will become increasingly disorderly.

I concur with your other points.

[steve-b]

I clearly described examples of mere personal preference which have been falsely conflated with morality and enacted into law on that fraudulent basis (e.g. Sunday-closing blue laws).

Conflating examples of genuine moral issues (e.g. irresponsibility and laziness) with my point is either stupidity or dishonesty on your part -- which is it?

[Tomalak]

I think that you misunderstood what he's trying to say. It's not saying that you cannot have large gov't with good people or a small gov't and bad people. He is saying that if you want a orderly, peaceful law biding society, then you either need to have a large gov't to ensure order(on an irresponsible people), or a moral society that will demand good behavior from its neighbors.

Thank you, yes. That is my point exactly. And like most Americans, I think the second option is far better than the first.

[Tomalak]

It is arrogance on your part. If you don't respect the Sabbath, then that is your choice, and it shouldn't be a matter for the law, but don't pretend it isn't seen as a moral issue by a great number of people.