Replies

Of course, your Libertarian ideas of "live and let live" sound good in theory, but inevitably fail in actual practice. Why? Basic human nature. A nature which God Almighty says is depraved, and wholly fallen, unable to think or to act in any truly good manner. Hence, laws.

Nobdysfool, i suspect that you need to put some fences around that statement. Both OP and i are card carrying, dues paying, Libertarians. Neither of us are calling for a society with out laws. i believe that you might have been looking for the word Anarchist which is IMO, self refuting nonsense. A Libertarian would pass laws that prevent and /or punish the illegitimate use of force. In such a system, Government is recognised as the only legitimate instrument of force (aside from legitimate self defense), which is why Libertarians wish it to be severely limited.

Ity was not my intent to malign legitimaten libertarian views, and the ones you've mentioned briefly here are well within what I consider to be right and legitmate. My objection to Sentis' "live and let live" philosphy is that he applies it unevenly. He wants me to leave him alone, but he won't accord me the same courtesy, because he believes that his lack of belief in God trumps my faith. On that basis, my statement about human nature would stand, because live and let live will never be equally applied. There are always some who will say, "We are equal, but I reckon I'm a little more equal than you."

I believe a clear case can be made for laws to protect the public good and well-being. Obviously, laws against murder, rape, and theft are legitmate, to protect society as a whole from it's more uncontrollable and undisciplined members. Punishment and curtailment of that sort of activity is a legitmate use of force by the government, in the interest of its citizens, not its own self-interest. We could get into quite a long discussion about it, I'd wager. Might have to do that sometime....