According to this writer, what they don't like is moral norms, which come from outside the individual - indeed, outside the State - and apply to everyone, regardless of how any individual feels about them.
We just have this crazy notion that the government shouldn't need to be mommy & daddy & R. Lee Ermy to a citizenry of grown adults.
Where the hell does that come from? I just don’t want moral judgements handed down to me from the ruling elite.
Everyone makes moral judgments...they’re just not always the same.
A surprisingly pathetic analysis of libertarianism in light of the extreme degrees of statism being established before our eyes.
>> But it’s time to start swatting away random accusations of libertarians as nihilists simply because we don’t sign on to every given moralistic agenda that is proposed or enacted in the name of the greater good.
Examples, Nick? Abortion, homosexual “marriage”? The former killing nascent human life; the latter requiring law to enforce compliance. A true libertarian is for the life of the unborn and opposes any law that forces citizens to service and support homosexuality.
Feel free to embrace your liberalism, Nick, but libertarianism is about enforcement, not morality.
This person will not toss the god talk and judgments at them from the right, or the PC “the village†caused this and will take care of it from the left. This person will say OK it is yours, you take care of it. I do not feel it is my responsibility to pay for your mistake or support this child for the next 18 years.
The biggest motivation for finding a job is hunger.
You got it, I am one of those people. If you feed the feral Americans forever and provide them with medical and housing then they will fail in taking care of them selves. We are proving this as I type.
This will be a fun thread.
No matter how one cuts the pie, in practice the “Libertarian” position, devolves down to maximizing personal pleasure and the exercise of power over others.
Libertarians (at least small-l libertarians) want a GOVERNMENT that stays out of private matters, and specifically PERMITS individuals and companies to MAKE MORAL JUDGMENTS.
For example, the libertarian position is to support the right of a motel owner to refuse to rent to sodomites.
People confuddle government and private actors.
I can't separate the fact that law enforcement is government, and government is at best a necessary evil in of itself. Most people who are killed are killed by government.
As far as shame goes, I'm not a real fan of societal shame for stupidity. Evil is another matter. A lot of things that aren't moral are things regarding stupidity. They harm, but those who enact in that behavior often don't intend to cause harm. With teen pregnancy, shame (along with parental pressure, and boyfriend pressure) often leads to an unintended consequence that 10 times worse. Abortion.
Always think of the unintended consequences.
Stop subsidizing immoral behavior, and the rest will pretty well sort itself out. Let the individual bear the costs of his/her behavior, and reap the benefits. Interestingly, traditional (Christian) morality ends up being pretty efficient.
Do Libertarians Really “Want a World Without Moral Judgments”?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DEFINATELY!
Most libertarians are immoral as they resist and resent SoCon values. But worse than that, they delude themselves thinking the Constitution is not a moral document and that government should not take a moral stand on things.
Yes. Libertarians are airy Utopians, as much fantasists as any Marxist, just in a different direction.
The absence of a moral judgment is itself a moral judgment, just as the rejection of certain values is the expression of others.
This “moral neutrality” argument is as bankrupt as nihilism.
Since there’s so much confusion on these matters:
Libertarian is not the same as anarchist. Liberals love this confusion (and some “conservatives” around here). Limited government is not the absence of government.
Libertarian is not the same as atheist. It’s amazing that it needs to be said, but apparently it does.
Libertarian is not the same as Objectivist. One can be both. I suppose an Objectivist would almost have to be a libertarian, but not vice versa.
Libertarian is not the same as libertine. Again, it’s amazing that this needs to be said, but it does. I don’t want a government that wastes its time and resources worrying about what two (or more) adults voluntarily do behind closed doors on private property. I assure you, I really don’t want to participate.
Substituting the non-coercion principle for morality is a rejection of ethics. It destroys any explicit ethical standard. Since ethics is necessary and unavoidable, a gap is left. The void must be filled, though. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, there is no choice about having a moral standard. The only question is whether it is left implicit and contradictory, or made explicit and rational. Substituting the non-coercion principle for ethics is an attempt to deny this need. The attempt must fail, though. Ignoring the need won’t make it go away; it just leaves you without control.
In the 20th Century, it was the big government advocates who undermined the established social norms; the social values that mandated individual responsibility & accountability; that stigmatized having children out of wedlock; that ostracized those who engaged in anti-social behavior, of many forms.
The confusion, here, also reflects in part the effects of over-dependence on Government. People have the ridiculous notion that only via big-Government can we deal with anti-social behavior. This is because the big government crowd has basically undermined the whole effect of social stigmas, by suggesting that Government is society's only effective answer. It isn't, and wasn't.
William Flax [Truth Based Logic]
Many people who want less government realize that governments don't have much interest in encouraging responsible, moral behavior by citizens. That is the job of families, churches, and other institutions. Which is why government is so busy trying to undermine their authority and role in society.
Does anyone posting here really believe that the top priority of our current government leadership is to encourage and grow a more moral population capable of self government and self reliance so that the federal government can shrink its role in society?
Government shouldn't be in the business of creating morals, since as we have all seen they will seek to overturn the proven morality and substitute Marxism, National Socialism, eugenics, apartheid, single parent families, gay marriage, and an endless series of other bad ideas.
Western Civilization is based upon the Ten Commandments. If we throw them out to create our own rules we will abolish Western Civilization. And do we really want to do that? Take a look at those societies that have abandoned or never really had the Ten Commandments; or just study the Nazi regime which was based on the idea of evolution and Darwinism. We can only succeed at all by living the Judeo/Christian Ideal. What we are witnessing today is the decline and fall of American(Western) Civilization.