Replies

To libertarians, morals are relative, so if it feels good do it. Who cares if people are sticking needles in their veins on street corners with prostitutes working the high schools tricking for horny teen boys.

While I'm not a libertarian, and think it is ultimately at odds with basic human nature, I do admire the fact that it is the one political philosophy out there which treats grown-ups like grown-ups, and demands that they bear the sole cost for their decisions. For every outcry over "liberty to be licentious", there's a liberal decrying "liberty to be greedy" or "liberty to pollute the earth", and both sides keep long lists of things that need to be outlawed. And the amount of personal liberty to be found keeps on shrinking.

Crimes such as murder and child abuse are clear crimes against others and must be punished by the law. Drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana are acts done to one's self which have a small chance to indirectly result in harm to others (and we as a society have made that risk very clear, along with the punishments). We're better off both as individuals and as a society if we're very judicious about slapping on laws against such things.

Child abuse is a relative term. Libertarians generally agree sex with children is acceptable.

The left propose straw men arguments to further their cause. “Greedy” is the straw man. Bill Gates by creating Billions in new wealth and thousands of jobs is “greedy” by reaping the rewards of his implemented ideas aka, being rich.

Liberty to pollute? They`ve created the Big Lie that CO2, a natural substance required for life on Earth, is pollution.

While I’m not a libertarian, and think it is ultimately at odds with basic human nature, I do admire the fact that it is the one political philosophy out there which treats grown-ups like grown-ups, and demands that they bear the sole cost for their decisions.

The main argument against “free will” (outside of morality) in America is that government programs subsidize bad behavior and life choices. Therefore, until the government programs are removed and each person truly has to survive on their own merits those who work (make good choices) will pay for the freewill of others (who make bad choices). This is not freedom.

A morbidly obese person in America can receive free housing, food, and health care. Remove the government and they would have to change their lifestyle.

A fornicating drug user receives free housing, food, and health care. Remove the government and they would have to change their lifestyle.

Career criminals are provided for while incarcerated and provided the same when free to commit more crimes. Remove the government and society would remove them permanently. A career of crime would end the life of the criminal.

Single mothers no longer require a working father because government has removed the consequences.

The lazy are paid to be.... lazy.

Etc - etc.

I was raised by parent’s who told me “actions have consequences”. This is no longer true in America. Libertarians promote an argument that ignores reality.

My neighbor’s life-choices in the United States impact my life because government and society hold us both in the same web. The choices of one affects the other as he and I both travel on the same roads, but only one of us pays for it. His refusal to work raises my taxes. His refusal to care for himself raises my health care costs.

The old ways before government programs were very effective. Families (traditional) took care of family members. Each person receiving help had to face those helping him/her each and every day. The pressure existed to shame others to make good choices.

Our redistributive government destroyed the traditional family and removed the moral pressure to contribute. Meanwhile, modern libertarians are stuck on legalization as some kind of mythical path to freedom?