libertarians and morality

[tyler34]

I am in no way trying to start anything just wanting to know out of personal curiosity. I'm not a huge political guy so forgive me if I paint broad strokes. all I ever see and hear about libertarians(here and other places) is they want everything legalized and without constraint or regulations. where does morality come into play or does it? is there limit on anything? I'm assuming it's more of a personal decision than a party "guideline". anyone wanna answer?

 

[eldirector]

Libertarians tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Here is an example (and ONLY an example) of this, in quiz form:
Advocates for Self Government

 

[Bunnykid68]

Just my opinion. I think a lot of what you hear about them concerns drugs and a lot of other victimless crimes to an extent. They see the huge wasted expense at trying to go after every Tom, Dick and Harry that is just using drugs or doing others things and prosecute these people to the full extent of some so called moral law. They want the crazy spending to stop. Some people do not realize the billions of dollars it cost to enforce these laws and in some cases incarcerate people for them.

The drug war and other victimless crimes are money makers for certain people. Just like filling up prison cells is about making money for these prisons. The state may be paying for the prsions but you can be assured plenty of people make millions off them. They Have to be built, managed, and mantained.....it is a whole stinking business.

 

[rambone]

What if a bunch of "moral" people got elected and wanted to ban adultery? That's immoral right? How about we make it a law that you have to pray at certain times every day, and the streets must be cleared at those times? That's what some people's morals tell them. How about if the moral crowd forced women to cover their legs in public? How about banning tattoos? How about banning pornography? How about fining people for saying naughty words? Ban violent video games and movies? Ban, ban, ban, ban, ban....

The idea is to get your morals out of the code of law. We should all practice morality on our own. If you are forced to act a certain way because of the law, I don't think that is a genuine display of morality anyways.

Morals are a personal decision. NOT a role of government. Proper government protects rights, not feelings.

Moral busybodies are the reason that certain businesses must be closed on Sundays and why we can't buy alcohol. Morality in law is destructive to freedom. Church and state are separate for a reason. Sharia law is an example of what happens when you let morality become the code by which everyone must live.

I'm a moral and religious person. But my morals tell me that tyrannizing my neighbors with a bunch of Nanny State laws is wrong.

 

[kevman65]

I find morality and politics in the same sentence hysterical

 

[Bond 281]

I am in no way trying to start anything just wanting to know out of personal curiosity. I'm not a huge political guy so forgive me if I paint broad strokes. all I ever see and hear about libertarians(here and other places) is they want everything legalized and without constraint or regulations. where does morality come into play or does it? is there limit on anything? I'm assuming it's more of a personal decision than a party "guideline". anyone wanna answer?

As I understand it, basic libertarian morality amounts to not using force against anyone else. This is of course broadly interpreted to also mean that fraud and such are also immoral, not just physical force. It's a belief in the right of every person to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's freedom. The idea of a 'victimless crime' is basically seen as absurd.

The desire of libertarians to legalize everything can be attributed to the idea that freedom is the highest moral goal. Charity, for example, is something that I would think many libertarians approve of, and even practice. However, we see a vast difference between taking 20 dollars out of your own pocket to give, and taking 20 dollars out of somebody else's pocket to give. The first is a non-issue, the second is theft. Likewise, suggesting somebody eat healthy is good, forcing somebody to do so isn't. The same line of reasoning applies to pretty much everything. In addition, this is backed up with evidence of how abysmally attempts to ban things end up. The negatives overall usually outweigh the benefits. But, even if they didn't, there's still the fundamental belief in freedom that trumps everything else.

That being said, most libertarians, including myself, have their own personal moral codes that go above and beyond that. I hope that answered your question, though I can't claim to be an expert on libertarian morality.

 

[A5guy]

Equal parts of "Live and Let Live", "Live and Let Die", "Love Thy Neighbor", And "Mind your own Goddamned Business".
What's more American than that?

 

[88GT]

Morality based on anything but freedom has no place in government. I believe this is the crux of the LP's stance, though they do a pathetic job of conveying it.

The idea that a government can be founded in a religious morality or a personal morality and refrain from infringing on the sovereignty of the individuals it is supposed to protect is grossly mistaken. The only acceptable moral code for government is that of liberty. Anything else is unacceptable.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I find morality and politics in the same sentence hysterical

Tried to rep this, been giving it away to much and BIG INGO says enough,.

 

[Bunnykid68]

A5guy and 88GT, I would have repped you also if they would let me.

 

[eldirector]

A5guy and 88GT, I would have repped you also if they would let me.

Got 'em for ya.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Got 'em for ya.

Damn, now I owe you one too. I should have the right to rep as many as I want, but only me

 

[chizzle]

Definition

The best explaination of a Libertarian that I've ever heard came from the radio host Neal Boortz, a Libertarian radio host out of Atlanta:

Here's a link to listen to his station (approximately 9-noon on weekdays)
http://streaming.boortz.com/_players/coxradio/index.php?callsign=BOORTZ

He explains a Libertarian as someone who believes in maxiumum freedom and personal responsibility, with the limits on your freedom being things that infringe upon other people. I really like the "maxiumum freedom AND personal responsibility" part, as I think most people could agree with it.

 

[Steeler]

There are some things with the libertarian stance that bother me, one being open borders.

 

[Fletch]

There are some things with the libertarian stance that bother me, one being open borders.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe addressed this in Democracy: The God That Failed. Essentially, get rid of public property and the security of borders rightly becomes a trespassing issue.

 

[Lex Concord]

To the OP: the libertarian (and not necessarily LP) stance on morality is (generally) that it is a personal thing, and should remain as such. There are however many different "flavors" of libertarianism, from beltway libertarians to staunch anarcho-capitalists.

Generally speaking, however, the basic concept is that the law should not defend moral principles (those who believe law should exist in the first place), but should be used to protect property rights, i.e. acts are criminal not based on morals, but based on their violation of private property rights. Self ownership is considered sacred among these rights.

These are broad-brush generalities covering a very deep subject.

I would strongly suggest that, to get a full picture full of nuance and detail, you read LewRockwell.com, mises.org and (for a more "beltway" flavor) Reason.com for a while to get an idea where people in the "libertarian" camp are coming from. I'm sure there are many other sites I have left out, or don't even know about that jsgolfman, mrjarrell, Fletch, lashicoN and others would be happy to suggest.

 

[88GT]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe addressed this in Democracy: The God That Failed. Essentially, get rid of public property and the security of borders rightly becomes a trespassing issue.

I think that's a myopic (and slightly utopian) approach to the issue. I think it addresses a single aspect to the issue while ignoring several others. And I think like most of the libertarian justifications for many of their platform planks, it ignores the reality of modern day geo-political relationships.

 

[Fletch]

I think that's a myopic (and slightly utopian) approach to the issue. I think it addresses a single aspect to the issue while ignoring several others. And I think like most of the libertarian justifications for many of their platform planks, it ignores the reality of modern day geo-political relationships.

I was responding to a particular point of a particular issue, and attempting to summarize the response. I wasn't attempting to summarize the entirety of the book, which lays out a far more comprehensive case.

 

[A5guy]

..modern day geo-political relationships.

Unneccesary 'entanglements'. We mostly create our enemies.

 

[Fletch]

There are some things with the libertarian stance that bother me, one being open borders.

I should also point out that libertarians are divided on the issue of open borders. Minarchists tend to oppose them, anarcho-capitalists tend to support them.