Replies

libertarians not unlike Rinos (liberals/libertarians in republican clothing) and leftists all enthusiastically support dope legalization, pornography, perversion, abortion, flag burning/desecration, that is a fact. libertarians just support it in the name of "liberty" like that's a legitimate excuse.

And who defines "perversion"? Oh wait, in a nanny state, the Government defines what constitutes "perversion."

The typical approach of a short-sighted, outcome-based social conservative (and this is not meant to construe that all social conservatives are short-sighted and outcome-based) is to just turn over the keys to the Government. The problem is that the Government is not always guaranteed to be controlled by social conservatives, but occasionally falls into the hands of social liberals, who then proceed to commit all sorts of acts of "perversion" whilst social conservatives wail and moan and gnash their teeth.

If someone wants to watch pornography or smoke pot in their basement, that's their own judgement call, so long as they don't come running to me to pay for any unintended consequences of their lifestyle choices. Note very well that I am not endorsing the use of pornography or marijuana here but am simply endorsing the right of the individual to make the choice for himself, so long as he or she also accepts personal responsibility for any unintended consequences to himself or herself stemming from said choices.

Oh wait, in a nanny state, the Government defines what constitutes "perversion."

Nailed it. Once the power is handed over to the state to define what is, and what is not 'moral', from a political perspective, all bets are off.

If you are willing to allow the state to dictate morals, then you can't rightly be upset when they start dictating a set of morals that are not part of your fabric, if you argued that government reserves this right to begin with.

Better to establish laws that are CONSTITUTIONAL. A moral people will gladly get behind a set of laws that they feel are, at the core, morally based in limited power over the individual.

This all of course, depends on the unfettering belief that the individual is responsible for the entire consequence of his actions, and noone else. A belief held by neither liberals, nor SoCons, unfortunately.

The result Harry described, which we have today, is a direct result of government having been given an extra-constitutional moral authority to begin with.