<<Are you agreeing that the labels are accurate? It appears to me that you are agreeing and stating why you need to be "moral police".>>
In a sense, yes. Someone or some group will in fact dictate legislation which by its very nature affects morality. Have you heard of NAMBLA? That's the North American Man Boy Love Association. They are an actual group. Their agenda is to lower the age of consent for sexual activity so that their members can have unrestricted sex with young boys. Should they succeed there would be broad moral implications. Who will say no to them? The outrage expressed on this issue today may be equivalent to the outrage expressed 40 years ago should same sex marriage be the item in question. 40 years hence we may well find our collective morality in actual debate over their agenda. Is it wrong to police this group and their agenda?
<<Why do you think that freedom necessarily means "free personal expression of numerous vices"?>>
Freedom does not necessarily mean this. But freedom divorced from responsibility and restraint will always degenerate in a culture to vice. If it were not a crime to steal (Thou shalt not steal) then would there be more theft? Maybe not to those whose restraint is adequate to overcome the temptation but as a whole theft would rise.
<<The freedoms that you espouse would not be weakened or lost if we would return to a government based on the constitution.>>
I agree. But that same constitution, IMHO, would give the states broad powers to exercise their own laws. And I believe that there could well be a huge variance in these laws instead of the federally mandated homogenious legal texture that Washington wishes to paint across the nation in a broad stroke.
<<Does bringing up the likes of Stalin, Hitler et al make the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition go away? Your simply illustrating that man, whether religious or not, is capable of atrocities, and we need laws to protect us from each other.>>
The Inquisition and Crusades were wrong. Stalin and Hitler were wrong. But there is a damnable truth hidden in these two statements. The Inquisition and the Crusades were NOT religious wars nor were they religious tyranny. Both were political in nature. One was a desire to destroy inidividuals who were non-comformists to the powers-at-large (the Catholic Church) and the other was a desire to destroy enemies of the state. Neither the Crusades nor the Inquisition conformed to any of the basic tenets of Christianity (Love thy neighbor as thyself, bless those that persecute you, vengeance is Mine saith the Lord) and a host of others.
However, Stalin and Hitler's core system of thought embraced their bloodthirsty desire to eliminate their enemies and the 'morality' of their state was not at odds with the carnage that followed. Ie., the 'religious wars' were an abberation and a total mis-application of religious teaching. The 'atheist wars' basically followed the tenets of their 'faith'. The former was comprised of actions going counter to the cause. The latter was actions in concert with the cause.
<<Under libertarianism there certainly would be nothing to stop people from living the life style of their choice as long as it didn't interfere with the freedom of others to do the same.>>
What you seem to be saying then is that it is possible to build a strong building out of inherently weak bricks. A strong culture cannot be built from individuals whose lives are in disarray. While I tend to agree on some Libertarian points I think the basis for Libertarianism is not that different than liberalism. And that is the idea that people, left alone, will tend to do the right thing.
Jim |
