libertarians and morality

[23mar03]

I find morality and politics in the same sentence hysterical

I find it neccessary to have a government/elected official with morals so that they will not take all my money come tax time. The search continues......

Seriously, if we did have someone with actual morals, then we could actually believe them come election time.

 

[Fletch]

If you're not religious, then how do you know what's moral and what's not? Is it up to public consensus? Who gets to choose? How do you know what you believe in is moral?

I understand and agree with the comments about minding your own XXX business; If it doesn't infringe upon another's rights, etc. But I have a hard time understanding how people can separate morality from religion. Without religion, objective frame of reference to base morality upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

 

[Bill of Rights]

Two points worth expanding upon. First, abortion is an interesting topic when it comes to libertarians. I am not sure I see how the woman is able to apply force to the fetus to terminate the pregnancy. This would seem to violate the rights of the baby. Assuming this baby is the result of some consensual behavior, the parents should live with the responsibility that comes from their actions without harming the baby. I'd be interested to hear more on this from more knowledgeable than I.

...

Thanks,

The question of abortion centers IMHO on the humanity of the fetus; that is, at what point is the fetus human, with rights? Some believe conception, and some even extend that to a point prior to conception, such that interference with that conception occurring is a violation of those rights. Others consider the point of humanity as birth, while still others put the point as some arbitrary point in between. I know my opinion. Each of you knows yours as well. None of us are going to convince each other that we are right or wrong, however this should help explain how abortion can be seen to not violate the fetus.

Me, I don't see government having much authority to have a say in much of anything. I just wish they saw it that way, too.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[snapping turtle]

Morality as a pure hard core libratarian would be for that person for himself to decide and for himself and no other. True personal freedom. As each person would decied what would be moral or immoral. As long as it does not effect others right to do the same.

In your own home/property your choice, where the social aspects come into play is when these actions happen in public.

Like many say: It matters not what happens when people are looking, It is what happens when no one is looking.

 

[Fletch]

Like many say: It matters not what happens when people are looking, It is what happens when no one is looking.

Note to self: close the blinds.

 

[tyler34]

ok guys this is exactly what I was wondering, thanks! this has however brought up another ?. would your personal morals compel you to insert yourself into somebodies affairs even if it wasn't technically affecting you? fas an example your next door neighbor is a drunk and drinks himself stupid to passing out nightly in is backyard, he also has children that are negatively affected by this for whatever reason you want to think of. what if anything would do or feel compelled to do?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Let the kids come hang out out with you until dad sobers up

kick dads ass until he cant drink anymore

talk to his other family members

or just say it is not your problem. because it isnt until it affects you

 

[Fletch]

what if anything would do or feel compelled to do?

Anything that a libertarian would feel compelled to do would be the result of their own moral code, not due to any inherent feature of libertarianism.

 

[tyler34]

Let the kids come hang out out with you until dad sobers up

kick dads ass until he cant drink anymore

talk to his other family members

or just say it is not your problem. because it isnt until it affects you

so it wouldn't emotionally effect you? it would me.

Anything that a libertarian would feel compelled to do would be the result of their own moral code, not due to any inherent feature of libertarianism.

of course, but as a libertarian you are living by a code that would/could effect your morals aren't you?

 

[Denny347]

so it wouldn't emotionally effect you? it would me.




of course, but as a libertarian you are living by a code that would/could effect your morals aren't you?

Nope, I see it in various forms every day. Not going to lose a bit a sleep over it. If it was bad enough to harm the kids then I will notify CPS. Otherwise, if you want to kill yourself drinking...have at it. What you do on YOUR property to YOURSELF is YOUR business. There is a reason I will NEVER work vice or narcotics.

 

[Fletch]

of course, but as a libertarian you are living by a code that would/could effect your morals aren't you?

Actually that's the point. Libertarianism is no code of its own, beyond a basic prohibition against the initiation of force and fraud. Libertarianism in and of itself would not cause me to intervene in the situation described. It also does not direct me to stay out of it. It leaves the entire decision, and the rationale behind it, up to me.

Libertarianism is not a moral code. It is an open space for us to develop our own moral codes without the interference of the State attempting to impose its own idea of morality on us.

I would most likely see what I could do to help the situation, but I would not do so because I am a libertarian -- being a libertarian offers no guidance in the matter. I would do so because I am a Christian.

 

[tyler34]

so then what is libertarian"ism" to you other than a political stance?

 

[Fletch]

so then what is libertarian"ism" to you other than a political stance?

Nothing.

My simple definition of libertarianism, at the risk of offending the mods, is "Christianity as applied to politics".

Beyond that, it means absolutely nothing to me.

 

[dross]

so then what is libertarian"ism" to you other than a political stance?

You're actually honing in on one of the main problems with politics and morals converging.

Sequence:

1. There is a thing I think is bad, but it is not initiating force.
2. I won't do this bad thing.
3. My neighbor is doing the thing that I think is bad.
4. I tried to convince my neighbor to stop doing this bad thing, but he won't stop.

The libertarian stops at number 4. The statist goes on to number 5 and 6.

5. I must force my neighbor to stop doing this thing I think is bad.
6. I will use the legal system to make my neighbor to stop doing this bad thing.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

so then what is libertarian"ism" to you other than a political stance?

It's simply a political philosophy or ideology (if one can say there is anything simple about political philosophy or idealogy.)

That is all.

I'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for here...

 

[tyler34]

I'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for here...

I wasn't "looking" for any answer as in leading questions, just looking for honest answers out of genuine curiosity and lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

[Bunnykid68]

so it wouldn't emotionally effect you? it would me.

Of course it would. That is why I said I would bring the kids to my house, kick the dads ass for being one and talk to every family member of his that I could. But if I didnt do any of those things and the kids were not being beaten or starved it would be none of my business.

I am going to get stinking wasted friday night, my kids will be home, I will not beat them, starve them, or abuse them. Is it anyones business that I am doing such a thing? I think not.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I wasn't "looking" for any answer as in leading questions, just looking for honest answers out of genuine curiosity and lack of knowledge on the subject.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was a leading question, only that when someone asks such a broad question, they may actually be looking for more specific information. I guess I was just asking what the question means to you, or if you had a hypothesis about it that you were testing

 

[tyler34]

I didn't mean to suggest that it was a leading question, only that when someone asks such a broad question, they may actually be looking for more specific information. I guess I was just asking what the question means to you, or if you had a hypothesis about it that you were testing

I don't have a hypothesis, like I said I'm not a obsessed with politics just know enough to be in the know about most major things. it was just something that intrigued me as I'd been seeing a lot of thing about libertarians and the "none of your/my business" type approach to things and it was a question that kept coming up in my mind.

 

[dross]

I don't have a hypothesis, like I said I'm not a obsessed with politics just know enough to be in the know about most major things. it was just something that intrigued me as I'd been seeing a lot of thing about libertarians and the "none of your/my business" type approach to things and it was a question that kept coming up in my mind.

You should know a lot more about your question now.