Replies

That sounds like something from the Rothbard book, to wit the beginning of the Libertarian Creed:

If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression, then this at once implies that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as “civil liberties”: the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to engage in such “victimless crimes” as pornography, sexual deviation, and prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as “crimes” at all, since he defines a “crime” as violent invasion of someone else’s person or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass murder and therefore totally illegitimate. …

Think such positions might grossly offend a conservative? especially a pro-family one that sees the so-called “victimless crimes” for the attack on the family that they are? Never mind the views on war that just do not jibe with George Washington’s notions of readiness for same.

Think such positions might grossly offend a conservative?

Lets look at them one by one:

* freedom to speak and publish - widely supported by voters.
* freedom to assemble - widely supported by voters.
* pornography - legal already, internet traffic data shows large percentages of the population view pornography. Little political support for changing those laws apparent among current voters, regardless of the moral issues many of us feel about the topic.
* sexual deviation - in the context of the times when the book was written the term included behavior which few in our society now think should be illegal, including what President Clinton liked to do. Obviously a contentious issue still for other kinds of sexual behavior, but politically speaking the position expressed by Rothbard is not far different from that espoused by many politicians today.
* prostitution - Ask the citizens of Nevada.
* violent invasion of someone else’s person or property is a crime - widely supported by voters.
* conscription as slavery on a massive scale - how many conservatives would support a mandatory 2 year "community service" requirement if President Obama proposed it?
* the mass slaughter of civilians is totally illegitimate - widely supported by voters, it is one reason our rules of engagement are so strict. Would the voters today support a candidate who proposed simply bombing the cities of an enemy to "break the will of the people"?