Replies

"So, you're limiting their liberty."

Me? Libertarians recognize that limit with their initiation of force standard.
It's been there all along- I don't know how you missed it.

"Gunga Diner"

That's one of the drawbacks of liberty.
People can use it to do things that you or I disapprove of.

There is a bar in the Yukon, Skagway, I believe where the special of the house is a shot of whiskey with a pickled human toe in it.
The toe was amputated due to frostbite and they thought that it would be funny to serve it to customers.( as far as I know, the toe does this voluntarily as do the patrons of the bar)

Now if you want to go up there and make them stop doing that, be my guest.
I think that they would just toss you out in the snow. Why? Because their little prank with the pickled toe doesn't hurt anybody else.

There are people who eat human placenta. Should there be laws against that?

The point is that no matter how much you dissaprove of someone's actions, you you can't justifiably impose your will on them unless they are hurting others.

It is not possible to force morality on others without being immoral yourself.

Ehhh...kayyy.....I like liberarian's stance on the WOD; I think they have some valid gripes about search and seizure, unlawful entry...etc...BUT....

I think I've seen enough. This, is a bit extreme, imo. Umm...if a person's political ideology can't allow for the outlawing of cannibalism, then I think there's something wrong with that ideology.

And you can protest all you want artisan, but the consumption of human flesh by another human is, by all accepted rational defintions, "cannibalism". I don't care what's done in Alaska; maybe it should be stopped. Just because it hasn't been stopped already, does that make it "right"? So what if it doesn't harm someone. Beastiality doesn't "harm anyone" either, I guess that's ok too? (what am I even bothering asking for; if cannibalism is ok.........etc.....)

Besides, the whole argument to justify cannibalism is based on a commonly accepted defintion of "harm", is it not? What if I find a group of insane people who don't think it's "harmful" to kill someone themselves before eating them? How could you possibly convince an insane person that that's not right? You couldn't. That's where this system fails.

In this purely "no force or fraud" scenario you could easily have a group of people that could take it to insane extremes, and there'd be no intellectual way you could convince them otherwise. Then where would you be? I guess you'd have to use "force" against them to stop them wouldn't you?

But then, they'd cry "no force or fraud, no force or fraud! YOU are not a true libertarian!"

Damn those vicious cycles.