'You can have an immoral people, or you can have a small state, but you can't have both.'
The article was not advocating a big state and bad people: it wanted a small state and good people. Can't you see that?
Yes, I actually understood the article. As I pointed out the author was engaging in calculated deception.
'You can have an immoral people, or you can have a small state, but you can't have both.'
This statement is utterly false:
The possible combinations are:
Small state, bad people --Modern Russia, Somalia
Small state, good people -- United States 1800's
Big State, bad people -- USSR
Big State, good people -- Modern China
Its a false dillema, people are good and bad as individuals not as groups. There are cultural environments that healthier than others but ultimately they reflect the values of the individuals who comprise the society.
How exactly do you judge if a State is good or bad. Saddam Hussain's speechs read like a Baptist sermon.
America one the "nicer" countries on Earth has killed millions of innocent people. Usually we've had good intentions. But when you're 5 years old and covered in burning Napalm, the fact that the pilot attends Bible study every Wed. doesn't help.
LOL! So you think Somalia and today's Russia are good models for the world? Obviously you can try to have no real morals and no real state, but it will be anarchy.
If you want a working country, you can have the state to restrain people, or you can have morality.
If you choose the state, you get mega-government and very high taxes.
If you choose neither, anarchy is what you get.
If you choose morality, that is when you get a truly great country, like America in the 1800s, as you mentioned.
As for the person who thought it a "truism" that sexual attraction to kids was not a moral issue, I just hope you don't work with children.
This statement is utterly false:
I think that you misunderstood what he's trying to say. It's not saying that you cannot have large gov't with good people or a small gov't and bad people. He is saying that if you want a orderly, peaceful law biding society, then you either need to have a large gov't to ensure order(on an irresponsible people), or a moral society that will demand good behavior from its neighbors.
His point is that if we are going to achieve the libertarian ideal of extremely small or no gov't, we need to have a moral influence in society to maintain order or we will turn into a somalia (no gov't, no moral influence = total chaos). I dont' think that Somalia is any libertarian's ideal society.
Look at our nation's founding. It would be considered very libertarian compared to what we have today. And our founding fathers considered a religous (moral) influence necessary for maintaining a free society.