POLICE SCAN ALLEGED INTERNET SEX CANNIBAL'S VIDEOS

I never said the were unable to make a choice, I said that because they were freaking lunatics their "choice" doesn't matter. I don't think you're question was as innocent as you proclaimed. Starting to look like you were errecting a strawman to trash on libertarianism with. Choice or not the guys were freaking nuts, the survivor should go to jail, and no libertarian would say otherwise. Only people that have an unreasoning bigotry against libertarianism would think they'd want the freak to go free.

Oh ye of little faith :) Actually, I have, in the past, been a registered Libertarian and, while no longer a Libertarian, have great respect for the many thoughtful Libertarians here on FR.

I think your and the other responses by Libertarians on this thread are encouraging and good. What I hear is that, no matter how consensual this looks, there are some things that are just too evil to allow and Libertarians are going to figure out a way to invalidate his consent, no matter what.

And that is good. There are some private, consensual things that are just too evil to allow.

What I think is worth asking about is what that says about Libertarianism on other private, moral issues.

For example, is this case really that different from Euthanasia. Stylistically, the victim's choice of how to die in the article was horrible. But isn't that form over substance? He chose to die and Dr. Kevorkian's victims chose to die. So Kevorkian's victims weren't perverts in addition to wanting to die. Is that a reason to say that Libertarians should treat the two cases differently?

Regarding drug use. I have seen it up close. A junkie has no more ability to act voluntarily than you think the victim in the article had. Both of them will eventually die of the very problem that produces the inabilty to act voluntarily. Why should Libertarians treat the two differently?

Similarly, with prostitutes. Most of them are very messed up young girls with a history of physical and sexual abuse in the family whose ability to voluntarily adopt their 'lifestyle' is dubious, just as you argue that the victims consent in the article is invalid.

What this really says is that conservatives and Libertarians really share more than the Libertarians usually admit in public. Both believe there should be some limit to the private, voluntary behavior of people. They just draw the line in different places.

Libertarians like to think the difference between them and conservatives on moral regulation is one of principle--the principle being 'no regulation of private, voluntary behavior.' But that is not really the difference. It is actually one of line-drawing--where is the line across which behavior is so unacceptable that it should be regulated. I would suggest that the line is not nearly so clear as Libertarians often think.

Actually I'm not a Libertarian, but I am a libertarian sympathizer. I agree with them on a lot of core ideas, but I think they get confused in implementation.

I don't think this relates to euthenasia. That's about terminal illness and chosing quality of life over quantity. It's important to note in any discussion on that subject that ALL of the pro-euthenasia groups DESPISE Kevorkian (OK, there's probably one or two groups that are total nuts that like him, but all the ones that count hate him). The bad doctor is nothing more than a death obsessed wierdo who glommed onto the euthenasia movement so he could kill people.

The euthenasia movement is basically a rebellion against the current medical belief that you should keep the patient alive as long as possible regardless of how much they're suffering. If you've ever been in the lockdown section of an old folks home you'd know why that philosophy is losing popularity. There are a lot of people in those places that are funcitonally dead, never move, brain gone, but the heart is still beating so we keep them going. Lower down the misery chain you have the people in terrible pain from some disease who spend all their life in a drugged out stupor to make the pain mildly tolerable. That's what euthenasia is all about, whne the only reason your still alive is because the doctors won't let you die but no reasonable person would want to live that way.

The punchline on drugs is that people recover. Not every junkie keeps sticking the needle in their arm until they die, some (most actually) have the moment of clarity and work to fix they're lives. That's really the core difference between long term self destructive behavior and outright suicide.

As for prostitute, there's LOTS of deadend brain and body destroying jobs in this world. You really can't outlaw a job because of the background a person brings into it, best to tackle that on the supply side, because not everyone in the job brings that messed up background. The main problem with anti-prostitution laws is they outlaw capitalism for sex, but still allow barter (presents for sex = legal, dinner and a movie for sex = legal, booze for sex = college, financial security (husband with a good job) for sex = legal, $20 for sex = illegal). That's hypcritical and silly. Even sillier when you add porn to the mix, where suddenly it IS ok to pay for sex so long as the payer isn't actually getting laid but merely filming it for sale to other perverts.

I think the primary difference is that libertarian grock that SOCIETY can enforce rules without laws. Shame used to the favorite weapon for enforcing a societies rules, and there's really no reason it shouldn't still be. Once you start legislating values you get into bizaare contradictions. Why is it sex between a 50 year old man and 15 year old girl is illegal, but you add 5 years to both and it's perfectly legal; all sensible people can agree that a 35 year age difference is just yucky and people shouldn't do that, but because of how we've defined these things it's the age of the youngest participant that triggers the law even though for most people it's the GAP between the ages that triggers repulsion.

"The only exceptions to taking human life are in self-defense and those powers granted to government by the people under the law. Murder isn't defined by the willingness or unwillingness of the victim, although perhaps some in the euthanasia crowd believe it should be."

Aren't libertarians in favor of "assisted suicide"? Did This man not commit suicide? Just wondering.

"Libertarians like to think the difference between them and conservatives on moral regulation is one of principle--the principle being 'no regulation of private, voluntary behavior.' But that is not really the difference. It is actually one of line-drawing--where is the line across which behavior is so unacceptable that it should be regulated. I would suggest that the line is not nearly so clear as Libertarians often think."

And the lines are always arbitrary. I think this is called 'moral relativism', but I may be wrong. But probably not.

Aren't libertarians in favor of "assisted suicide"? Did This man not commit suicide?

Exactly. It was a fully consensual assisted suicide. Strict libertarian dogma can find no fault with it.