Do Libertarians Really "Want a World Without Moral Judgments"?

Reason ^ | 03/22/2013 | Nick Gillespie

[Gene Eric]

I concur.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Thankee! I’m surprised I haven’t received any Loserdopian arrows yet...

[JustSayNoToNannies]

There is nothing in the libertarian philosophy where they LIMIT anything to adults.

Then I must not be a libertarian.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

No, I advocate for the liberty of adults to use drugs if they choose.

Do you advocate for the liberty of adults to murder if they choose

No, because murder unlike drug use violates an individual's rights.

You use drugs, or murder or steal and guess what? That affects me and our nation.

The "effect" on the nation of Joe's drug use is not the proper object of government force, since it unlike murder and stealing is an "effect" that violates nobody's rights.

And because you support a law making dope smoking legal, don't be suprised when they pass a law making abortion legal.

Unlike drug use, abortion by definition violates the most basic right of the unborn person.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

For years, I've called for a return to a time when all 50 states had Sodomy Laws. When murder of the pre-born was illegal. When you couldn't say works like f--- and s--- on prime time TV.

Let me get this straight:

You think that if all 50 states would just re-enact anti-homo laws, and if abortion was banished from the land, and if you couldn't say "f*ck" and "sh*t" on Tee Vee then all of a sudden birds would sing, the economy would explode in an orgy of awesomeness, and the world would proclaim the USA #1 again?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Once government is limited in that way (no longer a crutch) then I am all in favor of lifting rules on raising children, taking drugs, etc. Maybe it's OK if "anything goes" -- so long as the person making those decisions is fully responsible for the outcomes.

But, in general, I don't see a lot of Libertarians trying to limit government so much on the economic side of things. It's mostly: legalize drugs, open the borders, easy abortion, legal prostitution. Let's do the fun stuff first.

And THEN we'll try to take away the free money and social goodies which allow people to behave in any way they like.

I say that's backwards. It won't work.

I say we do them both* - using one as a justification not to do the other is not a liberty-respecting position.

(*Except "open the borders, easy abortion" - they have nothing to do with true liberty and are in fact antithetical to it.)

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I’ll leave it to the others reading this to decide who “looks foolish”.

You're going to have to try a lot harder in the foolish department if you want to beat that idiot in a game of looking foolish.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

For years, I've called for a return to a time when all 50 states had Sodomy Laws. When murder of the pre-born was illegal.

So you put mass murder on par with where Bruce puts his pee-pee. Strange "value" system you have there.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

That affects me and our nation.

The "effect" on the nation of Joe's drug use is not the proper object of government force, since it unlike murder and stealing is an "effect" that violates nobody's rights.

Isn't it amusing how Responsibility2nd employs the same reasoning as the majority in Wickard v. Filburn? I mean, on any conservative litmus test, a love of Wickard v. Filburn has to be first and foremost, no?

[GeronL]

if they just kept it in their bedroom, this would not be an issue, but its in schools being shoved down the throats of kids, its all over TV and they want to punish those who have differing opinions.... hardly “in their bedrooms”

[MHGinTN]

The post did not try to do what you scurrilously accused, but we are learning that to mischaracterize is your modus operendi.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

[Responsibility2nd:] For years, I've called for a return to a time when all 50 states had Sodomy Laws. When murder of the pre-born was illegal.

So you put mass murder on par with where Bruce puts his pee-pee. Strange "value" system you have there.

if they just kept it in their bedroom, this would not be an issue, but its in schools being shoved down the throats of kids, its all over TV and they want to punish those who have differing opinions.... hardly “in their bedrooms”

I agree that forced "tolerance" "education" and forced "nondiscrimination" are wrong and should be opposed. Do you agree that sodomy behind bedroom doors should remain none of the government's business?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

For years, I've called for a return to a time when all 50 states had Sodomy Laws. When murder of the pre-born was illegal.

So you put mass murder on par with where Bruce puts his pee-pee. Strange "value" system you have there.

The post did not try to do what you scurrilously accused

You're right - it gave top billing and thus higher priority to where Bruce puts his pee-pee.

[GeronL]

if the government doesn’t know about it, how would it be their business?

[Tax-chick]

Clearly the libertarian position is that those entities should be free to discriminate against or in favor of gay "married" couples, straight couples, interracial couples, singles, or whoever the want - and that there should be no government schools.

I would say that is YOUR libertarian position, but there is no more an agreed-upon doctrine of "libertarian" than there is an agreed-upon doctrine of "conservative." Some self-identified libertarians support government enforcement of approval toward homosexuality, just as some self-identified libertarians support the universal abortion license.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

[Responsibility2nd:] For years, I've called for a return to a time when all 50 states had Sodomy Laws. When murder of the pre-born was illegal.

So you put mass murder on par with where Bruce puts his pee-pee. Strange "value" system you have there.

if they just kept it in their bedroom, this would not be an issue, but its in schools being shoved down the throats of kids, its all over TV and they want to punish those who have differing opinions.... hardly “in their bedrooms”

I agree that forced "tolerance" "education" and forced "nondiscrimination" are wrong and should be opposed. Do you agree that sodomy behind bedroom doors should remain none of the government's business?

if the government doesn’t know about it, how would it be their business?

The sodomy laws Responsibility2nd calls for would make it government's business. Favor or oppose?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Clearly the libertarian position is that those entities should be free to discriminate against or in favor of gay "married" couples, straight couples, interracial couples, singles, or whoever the want - and that there should be no government schools.

I would say that is YOUR libertarian position,

My position - but I don't claim to be a libertarian.

but there is no more an agreed-upon doctrine of "libertarian" than there is an agreed-upon doctrine of "conservative."

True.

Some self-identified libertarians support government enforcement of approval toward homosexuality

Such as?

[GeronL]

Keep it in the closet and there is no problem

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The sodomy laws Responsibility2nd calls for would make it government's business. Favor or oppose?

Keep it in the closet and there is no problem

Wrong. The situation that ultimately brought sodomy laws before the USSC was people caught in the act of sodomy when the police executed a warrant on an unrelated matter. And for that matter, nothing prevents authorities from seeking a search warrant on the basis of probable cause to suspect violation of sodomy laws.

Again, do you favor or oppose sodomy laws?

[Tax-chick]

David Boaz, author of Libertarianism: A Primer. He supports both unlimited abortion and enforcement of homosexual "tolerance," as well as special treatment for favored minorities.

He is far from the only one. Our self-proclaimed libertarian on the FR North Carolina Forum is all about "gay marriage" and free abortion, and how dare anyone even mention any moral norms, that's "flaming." These are also the positions of many Libertarian Party candidates for office.

I voted for Libertarians for County Commissioners a couple of times, on the assumption that, if nothing else, they'd be against higher county taxes and some of the idiotic county spending. They didn't win, though.