Cool Libertarians

reasononline ^ | July 30, 2002 | By Jeremy Lott

[mindprism.com]

I read an article about CNN reporters showing Afghani youth pictures of Brittany Spears in her - ahem - full glory... and getting their reactions.

One could look at this as a type of inverse child pornography - 'porn' FOR kids. I wonder what G. Washington would think of us.

Now, from a libertarian perspective my objections are not so much about the porn-for-kids aspect of the situation, it is about force-of-culture and disrespect for how people choose to live.

This is the essence of libertarian morality.

Im awfully curious as to your view of this type of phenomena.

[mindprism.com]

Moral liberals seek to encourage immoral and unwise behaviors and protect individuals from the natural consequences of their own immoral behavior. Conservatives often fail to oppose such protections, but instead seek to enforce artificial consequences for certain types of immoral behavior. What libertarians want is for people who engage in immoral or unwise behaviors to suffer the natural consequences of their own actions.

Bingo.

Comments on 141?

[BlessingInDisguise]

At this point, libertarians are the only hope this nation has left.

[nopardons]

If that were true ( which thank GOD, it most assuredly is NOT ! ) , then this nation is utterly doomed. OTOH, your specious premise is entirely incorrect, soooooooooo , this nation may not be utterly doomed. :-)

[BlessingInDisguise]

Say what hey?

[Clint N. Suhks]

You sound like another sex obsessed kevin klone.

And you sound like the typical Liberaltarian that protects one perversion over another.

-- Tell me, are you a gun grabber like tex too?

Heck no, former concealed carry permit holder till I moved to the peoples republic of Maryland.

[Willie Green]

Generally, we believe that government hasn't been given the power to interfere in non-criminal areas such as abortion. -

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

In the libertarian paradigm, the Right-to-Life is not a self-evident, unalienable right.
Instead of defending this most precious of fundamental rights, spineless libertarians hide behind the very laws that permit the atrocity of mass-infanticide to continue.

[Cultural Jihad]

What libertarians want is for people who engage in immoral or unwise behaviors to suffer the natural consequences of their own actions.

People always suffer the natural consequences of their own actions. That is not the same as shrugging and allowing the drunk driver to just die by the side of the road. "He got himself there, now he will just have to learn to lump it!" No. We rush him to a hospital for care and to heal the broken bones, and then we throw him in jail! This is because we are a Christian culture; we as a society see worth and value in each and every human being. Even before the moment he slammed into the tree, we had done a lot to discourage his unneeded suffering, too. We chose to regulate the sale of the alcohol he had consumed. We discouraged public intoxication through various laws. We made sure he was a licensed, insured driver, and was fully informed that driving while under the influence was wrong and actionable. As he now sits in jail, he is suffering even more consequences to his actions. I can't imagine anything more asinine than mandating the ignoring of a man with a broken femur, but then I am not an ideologue.

[Willie Green]

If you would put away your broad brush, it might be a little easier for you to see the truth. Or aren't you interested in dealing in the truth?

The truth is that the "broad brush" is valid as a general criticism of the laisezz-faire, anything-goes platform of the Libertarian Party.
If you don't like being painted with this broad brush, I would suggest that you reexamine your priorities and either change your affiliation or work to change the Party Platform.

[ellery]

It's not that harming society is of no consequence to me. It's that "harming society" is so vague that it can be turned to any would-be dictator's purpose. During the Klintoon years, remember, it was republicans who were "harming society." To the politically correct who are plaguing our country, free speech is "harm to society." It's very dangerous to forget that when you open the door to vague government mandates, it can be used against you as well as for you.

[Willie Green]

They still BELIEVE in the words and concepts that this Nation was founded upon.

Disproven in reply #147

[DrCarl]

Remember: When the Republicans tell you that you aren't reading the First Amendment correctly and the DemocRats tell you that you aren't reading the Second Amendment correctly, it's time to start voting Libertarian.

[Willie Green]

So...pray tell...is the moral conviction of the Republican Party???

Undermined and cast aside by libertarian influences.
It is why, after close to 30 years, I disaffiliated from the GOP.

[DrCarl]

Remember: When the Republicans tell you that you aren't reading the First Amendment correctly and the DemocRats tell you that you aren't reading the Second Amendment correctly, it's time to start voting Libertarian.

[steve-b]

Based on this post, I would say you know very little about what libertarians believe.

Now, now, now; you need to base an opinion on WG's entire body of posts. That would reveal that his ignorance is far more wide-ranging than that.

[ellery]

I just don't get it...I can sympathize with folks who rightly point out the dangers of moral decay such as the victim mentality, irresponsibility, etc. What I can't understand is why they think government enforcement is the way to fix it. Can they truly not realize that it is in the government's interest to create group after group of subsidized victim classes who will then cast their votes accordingly? Why, in the face of all evidence, do they ignore the fact that a government with the freedom to decide and enforce what's moral can claim that *anything* is immoral then use it as an excuse to take away the bill of rights?

[ellery]

Thank you for a civil and informative discussion point -- I enjoy discussing this stuff honestly and without vitriol. I'm interested in seeing the pro-morality laws Jefferson wrote -- do you have a link?

[Willie Green]

and now you are seeking minor ones on which to vent an aggression rather than have any real impact.

I have no idea where you get this impression.
The mass-infanticide that has occured in this nation since Roe v. Wade dwarves the Holocaust in sheer magnitude. I am a staunch advocate of the harshest of penalties that society may impose on those committing the atrocities of abortion, rape and pedophilia.

The libertarians are right on this one, personal condemnation of immorality is the way to uphold human dignity --

In case you haven't noticed, the libertarian cockroaches are the ones whining because they're being held up to the harsh light of personal condemnation.

[steve-b]

I read an article about CNN reporters showing Afghani youth pictures of Brittany Spears in her - ahem - full glory... and getting their reactions.... my objections are not so much about the porn-for-kids aspect of the situation, it is about force-of-culture and disrespect for how people choose to live.

When you lose a war, you end up living the way the victor tells you to live. Given that the war itself was just, and that cultures that breed terrorists deserve no respect, I fail to see the problem here.

[Kevin Curry]

I can't imagine anything more asinine than mandating the ignoring of a man with a broken femur, but then I am not an ideologue.

It's libertarian freeloading at its worst. They want to allow people to freely destroy themselves even though this imposes enormous external costs on eveyone else (i.e., socializes the consequential damages and costs of the behavior). They strive to enable behavior that invariably gives rise to a nanny state but they claim to despise the nanny state.

How do they deal with the cognitive dissonance? One of two ways: 1) they deny that the externalized costs exist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, or 2) they just complain about the externalized costs being picked up by the state while doing everything they can to make that happen.