“I will say that you do not realize the danger to your own purposes in kicking the struts of your culture away.”
Who’s talking about kicking the struts of culture way? Libertarianism isn’t about the role of culture, it’s about the role of government. I’m not talking about eliminating religion from the sphere of public discourse. I am talking about removing it from the sphere of government enforcement (i.e. the Law, i.e. brute force).
It’a very weak religion or ideology that relies upon government enforcment to underpin it anyway. Religions and ideologies if they have any REAL value should be able to stand on thier own in the marketplace of free ideas. If the notion that a particular vice/sin is bad and aught not to be done is worthwhile then you should be able to CONVINCE people not to engage in it...... you shouldn’t need the government standing behind you leveling a gun at peoples heads to back up that idea.... and if you do, then either your idea has no real value...or you really need to work on your skill at expressing it.
I have been defending John Paul’s statement that freedom: “consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” ...
I think it is as good a definition of freedom as I’ve seen in a single sentence. We obviously cannot live without laws restricting ourselves and our neighbors. So what is the basis for enacting a law that restricts your freedom of action, and what is the basis for asserting an absolute right to do something free of constraint by the law? John Paul’s definition makes clear that it is a moral judgment. If the freedom asserted is not something we “ought” to do, then it is not a critical freedom and defending that right is far less important than defending the right to do something we “ought” to do.
You say “If the notion that a particular vice/sin is bad and aught not to be done is worthwhile then you should be able to CONVINCE people not to engage in it...... you shouldn’t need the government standing behind you leveling a gun at peoples heads to back up that idea ...”
Let’s take the extreme example. Child pornography. There is no law against taking and using pictures of children. Thus consent to take photographs is not the issue, the parent is entitled to authorize ordinary photographs for commercial use on behalf of the child and cannot authorize pornographic ones even for private use. The issue is abuse of a child, an abhorrent practice, inserting sexuality where it doesn’t belong. We “ought” not abuse or desire to abuse children sexually. Therefore we outlaw it and are right to do so. The harm is too great to allow inflaming a perverse desire and the practice itself is too abhorent to allow in even a single case regardless of social consequences. So we level a police man’s gun at the child pornographer and cart him off to jail. Taken to the extreme your argument would be that we should persuade the child pornographer not to do it.
Take a less clear case. Heroin. We “ought” not become inebriated (my source — the Bible). It does great harm to the user and to anyone around the user, wife, children, parents, co-workers. Since the fellow “ought” not be using it, if the cost/benefit of enforcement is such that it makes sense to outlaw it, we are free to. So we level a police man’s gun at a seller of heroin and cart him off to jail because voters have decided that it makes sense to do so.
Take an example of something we “ought” to do. Say, speak out against oppression. There the government has no right to restrict your speech, since you “ought” to speak out. So we should all jump to protect the right of anyone to speak out on political matters as a right.
It’s not about establishing a state religion or theocracy, it’s about religious (and non-religious) citizens thinking through their values and where they are entitled to restrict each other through law and where they are not.
The left has attacked Christians for over 200 years now. The Christians are the greatest bulwark of your rights, because the Christian can’t be moved by a relativist argument on those things that are absolute through the word of God, and frankly, because the Christian will die rather than give up his freedom to obey God. We are good and we aren’t going away . . . : )
Libertarianism isn’t about the role of culture, it’s about the role of government.
_________________________________________
Seriously, seriously, if you haven’t read about him, do a study of Gramsci and his intellectual progeny. The culture war is where the left is crushing us, and you still haven’t figured out where the pressure is coming from. You’ve brought a knife to a gun fight. You’re trying to build a Maginot line, and the Germans are already in Paris. You’ve lost the ball in the sun. You’ve . . . well, you get my point. They are coming at freedom through a flank attack, not a head on assault. First the culture . . . then the government.