Replies

Another point that you spoke of in your other post was that just because governments cannot/should not regulate certain behavious (ie drug use, homosexuality, etc) DOES NOT mean that one cant have an opinion on these matters.

I bring this up in debates on homosexuality all the time. I am well aware, as the libertarians note, that having the state outlaw homosexuality, gay marraige, and the likes may be dangerous and impringe on certain freedoms. No debate there. But to then turn around and chastize me for holding a differing opinion on the morality of these matters is nothing but bigotry.

I know gay people and I am friendly and compassionate towards all of them. I simply disagree and believe that what they do is wrong. But that doesnt mean I hate them, I want to destroy them. I simply have a disagreement on it. The same with smoking. I know full well the government cannot outlaw smoking. Its a dumb idea. But I dont agree with smoking, I speak out against it. Yet, I seem to find a way to make friends with (and uh hm date!) people who smoke.

Society regulates many aspects of human behavior by speaking out against and preventing society from doing certain things. That is why no one walks around the street naked, barfs in the middle of the road...etc. Society, according to Hayek, is perfectly capable of imposing its OWN rules on society. Many times they are right, some times they are wrong...but alas, I will stop here as this is the topic of a future essay.

It is the libertarians hatred of people who do not agree with them prevents them from seriousely gaining representation in government. Libertarians and conservatives agree on ALOT, even if they do not want to admit it.

Good points all. I take the position that *most* of our morality should not be imposed on us by the gov. But I also take the position that all great nations must remain moral to survive. I walk the line between libertarian and contemporary conservative - I'm opposed to the drug war, public education, social security, welfare, corporate subsidies, and the income tax. But then again, I'm not very anti-establishment, I'm not opposed to the draft (when our national security is *actually* threatened, that is. I think the Vietnam draft was unjust) and I'm fine with some "victimless" crimes being crimes (ie, prostitution, child pornography).
Basically, libertarians who believe morality is best left to the people instead of the gov are fine with me. Libertarians (like Bill Maher) who are identicle to liberals when it comes to society's morality (ie, supporting radical individualism) I have a huge problem with (in fact, I prefer to call them libertines.
And by the way, I don't personally have a problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with the gay rights movement and promiscuous sex, but I don't have a problem with the act itself. But still, I don't think outlawing gay marriage is wrong in any way. Outlawing sadomy, yes that's wrong. But not gay marriage. Nobody has a right to special allowments from the gov. Marriage is recognized by the state because it is in our interest to promote the traditional family. Since homosexuals don't (naturally) have children together, they don't deserve the status of marriage.