libertarians and morality

[Duncan]

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
George Bernard Shaw
Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)

This is why most people are not or should I say will not align themselves with the Libertarian party .
They will talk about it and want it ... but they want some one else to either pay for it or do the dying for it .

The country will not be free again unless people have no other choice than death .. and that may not even be motivation enough .

Thanks
Duncan

 

[Noland]

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

Judging by their actions, or lack thereof, the left and the right are for open borders as well.

I give libertarians credit for at least being honest about it.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

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?

I think we're done here...
Nice job.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

There have been some good responses in this thread to the OP. I remembered reading an artricle in Reason about libertarian morality recently-- here's a link to it:

The Science of Libertarian Morality - Reason Magazine

There is more information on the study scattered around the internet.

Objectivism and libertarian thought have many similarities, and although not all libertarians are objectivisits, there is much they have in common.

Objectivists believe that one must be moral in order to live. Morality is a matter of choices, and in order to be moral one must be free from physical coercion in order to choose one's own values and live one's life accordingly.

In other words, in order to be moral, you must first have liberty. One cannot be a moral agent in a society without first having liberty.

 

[exelh]

libertarians understand that you cant legislate morality. if you are not harming anyone, what you do is not the governments business.

 

[Fletch]

libertarians understand that you cant legislate morality. if you are not harming anyone, what you do is not the governments business.

Small correction: you are allowed to harm yourself, and others with their consent.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Small correction: you are allowed to harm yourself, and others with their consent.

I believe there's a shop on the west side with a lot of black leather outfits in the window that specializes in this.

 

[A5guy]

libertarians understand that you cant legislate morality. if you are not harming anyone, what you do is not the governments business.

Men in positions of power are corruptible and typically corrupt in the first place. The idea that they can legislate and KEEP God's law is ridiculous!

I'm not a big Bible Thumper, but I'm reminded of the story where the Pharesees tried to trick Jesus with the woman they supposedly caught commiting adultery. Jesus knew they were corrupt pukes trying to trick him. He told them to let the one among them who never broke God's law himself throw the first stone. None of them were up to the task, as they knew they were truly no better.
The truth hurt, so they then conspired to kill Jesus, and of course they were eventually successful.

 

[dross]

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?

Morality is a much broader concept than the petty rules one or another religion assigns to it, or one or another culture.

What's the highest level of morality? Don't murder, don't steal, don't assault, don't cheat.

In other words, don't initiate force.

Now, what about all this other "morality?" Much of it is a matter of opinion.

Don't eat pork. Pray five times per day. Don't imbibe caffeine. Don't work on Saturday. Don't work on Sunday. Multiple wives are okay. Mulitiple wives are a sin.

Don't confuse the principle not to legislate moral choices with not having morals. I'll bet that Fletch, for instance, who is a more extreme libertarian than I, probably conducts his life in a more traditionally moral way than many social conservatives. This is because he follows a set of religious beliefs. Is he less moral because he doesn't think the law should impose those religious beliefs on others?

There's a big difference between saying, "It's none of the government's business who I have sex with," than saying "It's perfectly okay to have sex with whomever you want."

Apply that to any number of other moral issues and you have the answer to your question.

 

[cbseniour]

The basis of libertarianism is that the government has no right to legislate morality.... a statement that most of us would agree with to some degree.
As with many high minded things it works a lot better in theory than in practice.

 

[Fletch]

I have always liked P.J. O'Rourke's "gun to mom's head test". If you would propose a policy or government action, ask yourself if you would put a gun to your own mother's head and force her to abide by it, even if she had some perfectly reasonable justification for not wanting to.

I'm a software engineer, and thus a big fan of 80/20 solutions. If we seriously applied the gun to mom's head test to everything government does, I would wager that 80% of government would go away, and the remaining 20% wouldn't be worth arguing about.

 

[ViperJock]

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.

^^^ This

When the founding fathers created our country they wanted to prevent the church from running the state and vice-versa. This for MANY reasons including the fact that the right to worship should be available in any form as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. If the state dictates what morality is, then the state has become the church. There are some areas in which the two overlap such as stealing. In many cases of morality, there is no reason for the state to enforce religious principles. That is God's jurisdiction, let Him judge morality in the next life. Let the state protect me from those who want to infringe on my constitutional rights, including the state.

 

[Fletch]

When the founding fathers created our country they wanted to prevent the church from running the state and vice-versa. This for MANY reasons including the fact that the right to worship should be available in any form as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. If the state dictates what morality is, then the state has become the church. There are some areas in which the two overlap such as stealing. In many cases of morality, there is no reason for the state to enforce religious principles. That is God's jurisdiction, let Him judge morality in the next life. Let the state protect me from those who want to infringe on my constitutional rights, including the state.

It's my perspective that conservatives want the Church to do the State's job, and liberals want the State to do the Church's job. Both are wrong.

 

[jdhaines]

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.

I'm in this boat as well....Should we pollute less, be more efficient, and try to reduce waste from an environmental standpoint? Sure, absolutely. But I'll fight you tooth and nail if you try to "force" me to because the polar bears are running out of ice. Should we try to limit abortions though all means possible including education, medical checks, protesting, etc.? Sure, but don't let the government tell a woman what she cannot control what happens to her own body. Should we make laws that gays can't get "married" just because you think it's gross and your religion doesn't allow it? No, that's insane. I don't agree with lots of the things people do, but I agree LESS that government should have control over them.

 

[Fletch]

"If you want to skydive naked into a vat of urine-soaked peanut butter, fine. Just don't get any on me."
-- Ted Nugent

 

[dross]

"If you want to skydive naked into a vat of urine-soaked peanut butter, fine. Just don't get any on me."
-- Ted Nugent

I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Two points worth expanding upon. First, abortion is an interesting topic when it comes to libertarians. I am not sure I see how the woman is able to apply force to the fetus to terminate the pregnancy. This would seem to violate the rights of the baby. Assuming this baby is the result of some consensual behavior, the parents should live with the responsibility that comes from their actions without harming the baby. I'd be interested to hear more on this from more knowledgeable than I.

Second, the entire concept of marriage is flawed. The problem is not in extending benefits to gay couples, but in extending benefits to straight couples. The government should be out of the business of sponsoring and regulating all forms of marriage and leave it to the churches to deal with. If you want the benefits of marriage, there are other legal means to accomplish them such as powers of attorneys and partnerships (in the contractual sense) to name a few.

Thanks,

I'm in this boat as well....Should we pollute less, be more efficient, and try to reduce waste from an environmental standpoint? Sure, absolutely. But I'll fight you tooth and nail if you try to "force" me to because the polar bears are running out of ice. Should we try to limit abortions though all means possible including education, medical checks, protesting, etc.? Sure, but don't let the government tell a woman what she cannot control what happens to her own body. Should we make laws that gays can't get "married" just because you think it's gross and your religion doesn't allow it? No, that's insane. I don't agree with lots of the things people do, but I agree LESS that government should have control over them.

 

[dross]

Two points worth expanding upon. First, abortion is an interesting topic when it comes to libertarians. I am not sure I see how the woman is able to apply force to the fetus to terminate the pregnancy. This would seem to violate the rights of the baby. Assuming this baby is the result of some consensual behavior, the parents should live with the responsibility that comes from their actions without harming the baby. I'd be interested to hear more on this from more knowledgeable than I.

Second, the entire concept of marriage is flawed. The problem is not in extending benefits to gay couples, but in extending benefits to straight couples. The government should be out of the business of sponsoring and regulating all forms of marriage and leave it to the churches to deal with. If you want the benefits of marriage, there are other legal means to accomplish them such as powers of attorneys and partnerships (in the contractual sense) to name a few.

Thanks,

On the abortion issue, I agree that it's not strictly a freedom issue. It's hard for me to see how the state has any business telling a woman she can't get an abortion in the first two or three months, and it's hard for me to see how the state shouldn't be involved after six months. It's a tricky, tricky issue.

Another part of the abortion debate that is rarely discussed is how it affects the father. We're told that as men, we have no say whatsoever in the choice. If the woman wants to have the child but I don't, I'm compelled to support the child for 18 years or more. If I want to have the child but the woman doesn't, she can end the pregnancy and I have no say. This strikes me as fundamentally unfair.

As to marriage, I agree with you. Get the government out of it, except as it pertains to contract law.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you're not religious, then how do you know what's moral and what's not? Is it up to public consensus? Who gets to choose? How do you know what you believe in is moral?

I understand and agree with the comments about minding your own XXX business; If it doesn't infringe upon another's rights, etc. But I have a hard time understanding how people can separate morality from religion. Without religion, objective frame of reference to base morality upon.

 

[dross]

If you're not religious, then how do you know what's moral and what's not? Is it up to public consensus? Who gets to choose? How do you know what you believe in is moral?

I understand and agree with the comments about minding your own XXX business; If it doesn't infringe upon another's rights, etc. But I have a hard time understanding how people can separate morality from religion. Without religion, objective frame of reference to base morality upon.

There are many religions, each has their own morality. There are many writings from atheist moralists. There are cultural norms and morals to draw from. Lots of writings on ethics that don't come from a religious basis, though much of the above has certainly been influenced by religious thought.

Just as technology has evolved, and communication, and standards of living, so has ethics and morals. I don't see how it's difficult at all to embrace moral standards without embracing religion.