Posted on 08/01/2002 3:27:45 PM PDT by Tomalak
This is not a mistake made by libertarians, but rather a fraud perpetrated by authoritarians who wish to elevate their personal preferences to the stature of moral law.
Absurd. Read through any number of FR threads and you find libertarians condemning virtually any sort of morality as equivalent to government mandates and a police state. In fact, almost every time a moral issue is brought up on a thread, some libertarians leap to the presumption that traditional morality implies the laws to enforce it. This is almost as common as the use of the word "statist" (or "authoritarian" I suppose) toward someone disagreeing with a libertarian's position.
Not to disparage every libertarian, I have certainly conversed with those whose concern was with government enacted moral law, but who recognized the necessity of a non-governmental common morality. But Tomalak's point is valid: Far too many (though not all) libertarians abandon traditional morality due to a fear that it is the enemy of freedom.
You are missing that the "choose freely" depends entirely upon fear of ostracism, upon societal coercion. Upon a relatively closed society where disgrace and gossip can ruin lives. Upon "what the neighbors will say". Lets take an example. Libertarians go on and on about the superiority of militia to a standing army. They seem to believe that militias were raised voluntarily. Hey guys, if your father and brother were strapping on their guns you certainly had the freedom to develop a head cold and stay home. Provided you don't mind being labelled a coward, an outcast for life. Provided you don't mind a lifetime of humiliation and insults. Like being a dork in high school for the rest of your life. "Volunteers" knew that the risk of physical death was prefereable to the certainty of social death. Just as a "voluntary" militia system could only function in a society where shirkers are disgraced for life, so "choosing freely" depends upon a village society where reputations are in concrete and no one can sneeze without someone offering him a handkerchief.
But I don't think you need to be religious to be moral.
You cannot have a societal moral consensus strong enough to punish "victimless" offenses (like viewing pornography) without religion. In the absence of religion there are no hard and fast rules that anyone has any real right to punish or ostracize anyone for disobeying. The existentialists were absolutely right about that. No God, no moral rules.
Why? Any community can ostracize anyone. It doesn't have to be religious.
In part you understood me correctly, in part not. First, God is the source of all moral norms, and that natural law describes the decent and moral life regardless of whether the person living that life accepts or rejects God. Consequently, someone who rejects God but wishes to live a decent and moral life does so by "borrowing" the natural law already laid down by God. So in the sense of the secular world, it is possible to live what is perceived by the secular world to be a decent and moral life according to the world's perspective. Christians use the example of the Jewish Pharisees, who in the sense of the world were righteous but in pursuing their sense of righteousness had lost sight of God. It is not possible to live a moral life according to God's perspective, unless a person has accepted God as his or her moral sovereign. In other words, without an outside sovereign (and this could mean either God or the state), human beings are incapable of creating consistent, long-term, moral judgments. Instead, we end up with people unable to distinguish between right and wrong. If you need proof, look to Peter Singer at Princeton, with his human ethic of baby slaying. I would also submit that even the state is incapable of enforcing any kind of objectively just, consistent morality long term because it is fundamentally subject to capture by non-moral people.
Second, as the article asserted, however, libertarianism only works in a community that shares a similar moral compass. That moral compass - whether God-given or created by people - can't be forced on someone, so the only means of achieving such a community is to keep it small. The larger the community, the greater the need to enforce what is perceived as God's law by imposing that law on people at the fringes. In the end, you end up with a human theocracy rather than a libertarian state.
Third, I'm pretty sure that the quote could be expanded to include societal morals and standards. And I'll even submit that there are individuals who - through reason and self-control - have adopted worldly standards of just and decent behavior while rejecting God and His laws. But the problem is that without an objective standard, it is impossible to maintain purely worldly morals. Once you open the door for relativist, non-objective morality then shame and moral opprobrium lose their ability to control behavior a priori, which in turn opens the door for the state to step in and control behavior post hoc.
This is not a mistake made by libertarians, but rather a fraud perpetrated by authoritarians who wish to elevate their personal preferences to the stature of moral law. - steve_b
Absurd. Read through any number of FR threads and you find libertarians condemning virtually any sort of morality as equivalent to government mandates and a police state.
And read, -- anti-libertarian 'moral majority' advocates urging governmental solutions to moral problems.
In fact, almost every time a moral issue is brought up on a thread, some libertarians leap to the presumption that traditional morality implies the laws to enforce it.
Rightly so. This is indeed how it is proposed that the WOD's, abortion, etc, be fought. With more government control.
This is almost as common as the use of the word "statist" (or "authoritarian" I suppose) toward someone disagreeing with a libertarian's position.
Again, rightly so. -- These words are being used in their correct meaning. Such governnmental control of life, liberty & property is unconstitutional, thus its advocacy IS authoritarian statism.
Why is behaving morally a threat to you? Why do you think morality is a tool of government?
In fact, morality is the only viable alternative to government control.
Why don't you understand that you're advocating giving the government the power to control things which aren't necessary for good governance?
Name one post in which I have advocated any increase in government power in this debate.
We have a constitution/BoR's to control exactly how the government is allowed to 'regulate' individual behavior.
It's being violated by the WoD's, for instance. -- and the moral majority urges that governments violate it in a war on abortion and 'porno', for instance.
Why can't you understand these constitutional principles?
Why is behaving morally a threat to you? Why do you think morality is a tool of government?
Snide comment. -- Such behavior is not a 'threat' to me, -- and I do not think so at all. - You are raising silly straw men. Why?
In fact, morality is the only viable alternative to government control.
So you say, -- but forcing government to comply to the constitution, and educating people to stop asking for evermore government controls, is the viable solution.
As it happens, that is also the goal of FR. Were you aware of that?
Exhibit A of my contention above: "In fact, almost every time a moral issue is brought up on a thread, some libertarians leap to the presumption that traditional morality implies the laws to enforce it. "
Tomalak hasn't argued in favor of expanded government power at all. Yet for some reason you leap to the conclusion that he must be advocating that, presumably based on his advocacy of moral restraint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.