The American Spectator

aware| 9.6.11 @ 5:18PM

"Libertarianism is about what the state ought to do, not what people ought to do."

Breathtakingly brilliant!

But then "...there are sometimes conflicts between liberty and equality...". Sometimes? They are polar opposites. As one advances down the field the other has less territory.

"...eradicating Jim Crow required the regulation of a good deal of private conduct...". It's just unicorns and rainbows now that we are all one big happy family, huh? Are we really "better" or "nicer" now? The State "regulating" "private conduct" is certainly showing itself superior to that old community idea. Our schools are so much better, our neighborhoods, our morals, our economy....no wait. The State was created by and for war, but it even makes a mess out of that.

With the sterling record the State has with everything it touches, why not let it run everything and everybody.

NotALibertarian| 9.6.11 @ 5:38PM

Matt Welch: "As in so much of the gay marriage debate, I don't see how a single one of Antle's arguments here couldn't be used against interracial marriage as well."

Well I don't see how a single Libertarian argument in favor of gay marriage couldn't be used in favor of pedophilia as well.

If society is obligated to recognize the sexual rights of abnormal adults, why would we think it isn't obligated to recognize the sexual "rights" of children? How do libertarians justify laws that place children in a different "consent" category from adults?

Vangel| 9.6.11 @ 11:26PM

"How do libertarians justify laws that place children in a different "consent" category from adults?"

They don't. Libertarians do not distinguish between children and adults. They distinguish between the competent and incompetent. A mentally retarded adult is not more capable of making certain decisions than a young child. But there is no reason why a competent 16 year old could not consent to sex, be denied access to alcohol, etc.

NotALibertarian| 9.7.11 @ 12:30AM

"Libertarians do not distinguish between children and adults. They distinguish between the competent and incompetent."

And so some children are "competent" to consent to sexual relations with an adult, and some aren't? I'm not seeing your justification for laws against pedophilia here, Vangel.

Ignorance Repellant| 9.6.11 @ 11:37PM

Your seemingly plausible straw man argument on libertarianism is laughably ignorant. Had you understood libertarianism's philosophy and principles, you would not have drawn such a flatulent conclusion. Libertarianism can not and does not justify acts of violation like slavery, rape, and pedophilia; in fact, libertarianism's core principles vilify such immoral practices.

Libertarianism's core philosophy is that society and state should allow a man to live as he pleases as long as he does not violate others. This is rooted in the "natural law", the philosophy that demands respect for  every man's life, liberty, and wealth. In this socially egalitarian ideology, any acts committed by society or state that violate the "natural law" are not to be tolerated.

With this ideological mindset, it is impossibly to justify immoral acts
of violation. Pedophilia involves the molestation of a disadvantaged child: this can not be justified. Rape involves the violation of an unwilling adult: this can not be justified. Slavery involves the forcible, involuntary subordination of a human being for the luxury of another: this, likewise, can not be justified. Ultimately, your straw man argument falls apart in the face of libertarianism's ethics.

In regards to your statement about children partaking consensually in adult activities, libertarianism remains indifferent to the issue. One  must realize that libertarianism is merely a political philosophy by which everyone's consensual freedoms are protected and guaranteed; it is not a social gauge by which a child can be considered an adult. Age restrictions are set by parents and society, a practice that has existed since the dawn of civilization. Therefore, if society chooses to restrict alcohol beverages to twenty-one
year olds and those older, it is justified in doing so, while remaining fully compatible with libertarianism.

All of this considered, your straw man argument against libertarianism fails incredibly. 

NotALibertarian| 9.7.11 @ 12:09AM

" . . . This is rooted in the 'natural law' . . .
"In this socially egalitarian ideology, any acts committed by society or state that violate the 'natural law' are not to be tolerated."

Your understanding of Natural Law seems a bit limited. Homosexual sex is also a violation of Natural Law. Why don't Libertarians believe it should be illegal?

"Pedophilia involves the molestation of a disadvantaged child: this can not be justified. Rape involves the violation of an unwilling adult: this can not be justified. Slavery involves the forcible, involuntary subordination of a human being for the luxury of another . . "

Yeah, and gay adoption involves forcing a helpless child to participate in a "two mommies" farce, which is also against Natural Law.

Your last full paragraph is quite a collection of . . . ideas. First off, Libertarians are not known for their "indifference" to laws that prohibit alcohol consumption. They actually think they're dumb. Then there's this:

"[Libertarianism] is not a social gauge by which a child can be considered an adult." And is that why libertarians are so supportive of social cons who are trying to fill in these gaps?

"Age restrictions are set by parents and society, a practice that has existed since the dawn of civilization."

Really? Now THAT's MUCH MORE CONVINCING than people who believe "restrictions are set by religious leaders/holy books", another "practice that has existed since the dawn of civilization".

By all means don't let the arbitrariness of your own beliefs get in the way of you thinking they are better than my beliefs.

Quartermaster| 9.6.11 @ 5:57PM

Frankly, Welch is an idiot. The myopia that Libertarianism brings to almost any argument is astonishing. NotALibertarian is correct about the arguments and pedophilia. Same goes for Polygamy. Liberatrianism is utterly amoral, and, therefore, immoral.

Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 6:44PM

No society that has legalized gay marriage has a replacement birthrate. Anti-survival it therefore is, at least by association. Ron Paul supports the recognition of gay marriage, as he supports voluntary associations. As he supports legalization of Marijuana.

Vangel| 9.6.11 @ 11:32PM

I have no problem with Welch's support of gay marriage. Where I have a problem is with the government being in the marriage approval business. Marriage is a private arrangement that can be handled under contract law. The individuals concerned can choose to make their vows in church if that is what they wish to do but only if the church is willing to sanctify their choice. The fact that you or I may not approve of certain relationships in not relevant because in a free society it is not our business what other people choose to do voluntarily as long as they do not impact our own choices.

NotALibertarian| 9.7.11 @ 12:17AM

"Where I have a problem is with the government being in the marriage approval business. Marriage is a private arrangement that can be handled under contract law."

The government is in the "marriage approval business" because marriages result in offspring, which moral people believe should be legally protected. Since biological parents are without a doubt the best protection for them, efficient legal systems have historically made provisions for the husband/wife relationship. These provisions involve:
1) Making it difficult for husbands and wives to separate.
2) Giving special rights to married parents, fewer or no rights to unmarried parents.
3) Giving tax breaks to natural parents because they are shelling out resources to raise the State's future military.

These are just a few of the reasons it is overly-simplistic (foolish, actually) to insist that the government "get out of the marriage business", as Libertarians are so fond of doing.

c. j. acworth| 9.6.11 @ 6:34PM

In my experience, Libertarians can be devided into two groups. The "Thinkers", who are full of high-minded rhetoric about individual liberty and can make a compelling case for a very limited state, and the "Street-level" types who have picked up a few phrases to use in debate over things like legalizing drugs they want to ingest. The former can have a useful and important role in socioty, the latter (unfortunately in the majority) have a childs view of liberty. They just want to be free to say "bad" words, put whatever they want to into their mouths, and expose their private parts in public.

NotALibertarian| 9.6.11 @ 6:48PM

But the Thinkers' arguments for the benefits of liberty are just as arbitrary as social con arguments for regulating morality. Libertarian John Stossel (The Congenial Hypocrite) is a perfect example of this. He makes his case for less government intervention based on statistics and history; he uses them to show that more people benefit from his libertarian vision. But the arguments of social cons who use statistics and history to show why conservatism is better are brushed aside.

Vangel| 9.6.11 @ 11:35PM

But the Thinkers' arguments for the benefits of liberty are just as arbitrary as social con arguments for regulating morality.

No they are not. We own our own bodies. We own our own lives. That means that we are free to choose what to do with our own lives and our bodies. End of story. You have no right to tell others what they must do any more than they tell you what you must do. Nobody, and that includes the state, has the right to initiate violence and meddle with voluntary social transactions that do not initiate violence or commit fraud against others.

Conservative| 9.7.11 @ 12:12AM

"We own our own bodies. We own our own lives. That means we are free to choose what to do with our own lives and our bodies. End of story."

All well and good. Then, I trust, Vangel, that you would support the efforts of the pro-life movement to extend personhood to unborn children? I'm not being facetious, I'm just trying to follow it (there's quite a bit of "radio silence" on the pro-life movement in libertarian ranks): what happens when someone who "owns" her own body decides that, in the course of that ownership, that the "other owner" is...well, doesn't have that same "ownership" rights? Thank you.

NotALibertarian| 9.7.11 @ 12:24AM

Vangel,

Your entire political philosophy conveniently ignores the very real plight of children. America's founders believed in ordered liberty. They didn't believe in what you describe. What you describe has been tried in Amsterdam's Red Light district, and guess what? No one wants to raise a family there. That's how well your system works.