Replies

I can only speak for myself, but I think there only are two ways to behave well. The first is if the government forces you to. The second is if you choose to freely. If people don't choose to, the government steps in. That is why libertarians *need* morality.

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.

I can only speak for myself, but I think there only are two ways to behave well. The first is if the government forces you to.

Can you cite any examples. You seem to have a highly idealized (and completely unconfirmable) view of 1800's America. The examples I can think of are Cromwell's England, the Taliban's Afghanistan, etc.

You are missing that the "choose freely" depends entirely upon fear of ostracism, upon societal coercion.

What a pathetic way to live. An adult should be capable of making decisions that his neighbors *hate* if he feels it is the right thing to do.

I'm still miffed at this deliberate misrepresentation of Szasz's views. The author of this article is essentially a liar. Lying via omission is just as bad as fabrication in my book.