Libertarianism's Moral Value

Via the Mises blog, I hear about Professor Stephen Bainbridge's Law and Morality in America, which states in part:

In 11 states, proposals to ban same sex marriage were on the ballot. Voters passed all 11, most by substantial margins. In contrast, the Libertarian Party "would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."

The American people want their laws to reflect their morals and values. Conservatives get that; libertarians don't.

To which came Jude Blanchette's reply:

I would agree with Prof. Bainbridge's point that most Americans disagree with libertarians over the issue of morality. However, this is not because libertarians, in general, hold an alternative set of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. Instead, what separates libertarians is their understanding of the nature and function of a government. By granting extensive powers to a government we happen to agree with to enforce a given moral code, we also give these powers to a government in the future that we may not like.

Professor Bainbridge also ranted about this on his blog, saying libertarians were "annoying" for a number of utterly facile reasons. Note that he skipped entirely the substance of David Bernstein's remarks about conservatives not "tak[ing] the Constitution seriously" and just got pissed that he was included by implication.

While I don't claim to be a "Big-L Libertarian" in the sense that I'm a member of the Libertarian Party and want Libertarian candidates elected to office, I will say the Party's central principle is a profoundly powerful statement of morality:

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

In other words, Other People Are Not Your Property. In other words, We Stand Against Slavery, Both Interpersonal and Economic. How's THAT for a fucking morality, you ass? How about NOT endorsing the ritual theft, murder, and coercion of the American population? Where does he get off thinking he has the high ground in an argument on morality when what he wants is contradictory to basic morality itself?

Stuff him and this idea that government must legislate and enforce morality for us. I find it perfectly absurd on its face to think a government is needed to define, support, and advance morality.

Posted by Drizzten at November 08, 2004 02:32 PM