Posted on | March 21, 2013 | 42 Comments
While a tremendous Nick Gillespie fan, I can’t suppress a guffaw at this:
I submit to you that few statements are more wrong than saying “libertarians might want a world without moral judgments.” From my vantage point, one of the things to which libertarianism is dedicated is the proliferation of moral judgments by freeing people up to the greatest degree possible to create their own ways of being in the world. To conflate the live and let live ethos at the heart of the classical liberal and libertarian project with an essentially nihilistic dismissal of pluralism and tolerance is a gigantic error. It’s like saying that because religious dissenters want to abolish a single state church that they are anti-god.
The libertarian, and, thus, highly rational, view seems more like a commitment to tolerating such promiscuous pantheism that “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law“.
The libertarian commitment to true pluralism and tolerance is not easy to maintain, but it remains exactly the sort of gesture that allows for differing moralities to flourish and, one hopes, new and better ways of living to emerge.
While technology varies, I’m more with Ancient Commenter Solomon,
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
I’m looking at any shiny new “differing moralities” and sensing a bill of goods on offer. However, I do want a separation between the court of law, and the court of public opinion, with a minimalist, ethical, low-common-denominator as a public standard. I’ll keep myself and raise my son to a higher, moral standard, and let the old school, traditional, no-surprises effectiveness of sobriety, boys as boys, girls as girls, and heterosexual monogamy both speak for itself as a strategy, and be the drum I beat in the court of public opinion.
It’s one thing to support the liberty to be an idiot, in the name of liberty. It’s quite another to lack the moral courage to label idiocy as such, in a firm manner, publicly, liberally garnished with humor and humility. Liberty untempered by maturity and morality does veer into hedonism and nihilism. That’s not Gillespie’s fault, personally. However, in that vein, the mess that is Social Security isn’t FDR’s fault, either. The Ponzi scheme was stable on his watch, after all; he merely planted the seeds of doom.
See how easy it is to avoid moral responsibility?
Update: Daily Pundit accuses me of ignorance, then, arguably, demonstrates some about Christianity (though maybe not Judaism–I’m ignorant.) However, the .pdf he links looks to include a number of great modern heads, so, thanks!