Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Relativist Roots of Libertarianism Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/the_relativist_roots_of_libertarianism#25560 Post contents: @ Roach, Here we go again. As I pointed out, and you ultimatley admitted, the "War on Drugs" was bad, not good because it didn't accomplish its goals, it cost lots of money, and violated the Constitution. You previously wrote: "Anyway, it’s not a question of institutionalizing the harmless. It’s about institutionalizing the harmful for those things which we can find them guilty of. I’d arrest these guys for having gold teeth, corn rows, and 25” rims if that were possible too." and "I’d just as soon have dangerous, low IQ young minority men locked up on pretextual charges so that we don’t have to worry about them carjacking us or raping our daughters." You felt the drug laws were good because they resulted in people you didn't like being locked up. There are lots of antecedents for that in history. My point was that USING DRUG LAWS as an excuse to lock people up was wrong----particularly when the Federal government was doing it. You have seen the error of your ways and now you want to reframe the discussion, to suit your needs. Fine. To use your standard, SMOKING is "objectively bad" for you (and others if you buy second hand somek). Yes or no: Would you, in your "moral culture" outlaw it? If not, why not? Drinking is also objectively bad for you (and others-drunk driving). Would you outlaw that? Why not? For crying out loud, EATING BACON IS BAD FOR YOU. Should that be illegal, too? You apparently want to live in a country where everyone's "morals" are exactly the same--to be decided by the majority. That's all well and good. But it's not the USofA. You write, "Much libertarianism expresses a lack of confidence that a republican government can set up a legal regime to stop citizens from engaging in immoral and self-destructive behavior without devolving into an oppressive and meddlesome tyranny." Well written. Then you digress to talk about how that wasn't a problem in the 19th century. Hey, Rip Van Winkle, we're in the 21st century now! The entire nation isn't white or Christian! In my view, that's what has caused the breakdown in government, which now seeks to legislate morality, political correctness and all the rest of that dross. WHY WOULD ANY SANE PERSON WANT THE GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE OF LEGISLATING MORALS? The United States of America has a Bill of Rights. You want to throw that out the window. Pleae, please, please, move to Singapore. You'd like it there. Sent at: 2008 07 24