Does Libertarianism address moral decay?

[winston84]

I'm not asking whether it should or should not, because I already know what the response will be; no. My question is, under a Libertarian form of government what affect would it have on the level of indecency or moral decay in America? More specifically what would happen, if anything, to the FCC and how it regulates the media? Does RP break with this issue?

[Kuldebar]

It does. Moral decay like any other type of degradation in human societies occurs when the foundations of a civil society become weakened and are gradually replaced by coercive doctrines and mandates.

When coercion and aggression are introduced into the affairs of people, morality, ethics and cooperation go out the window.

Constitutionally, the federal government has no authority governing free speech. Shall make no law...

Prosecuting the purveyors of fraud, scam artists and other criminals are more the role of proper government, not policing speech and classifying what can or can't be said.

But, one must realize the difference between prevention and prosecution in regards to government involvement. The former requires the apparatus of the police state, the latter requires only a Constitutional government.

[mdh]

Ron Paul said: "You cannot legislate morality."

Morality is a deeply personal issue. So long as you do not initiate force or aggress against another sovereign individual, you are fine, in a truly libertarian world.

[hard@work]

I'm not asking whether it should or should not, because I already know what the response will be; no. My question is, under a Libertarian form of government what affect would it have on the level of indecency or moral decay in America? More specifically what would happen, if anything, to the FCC and how it regulates the media? Does RP break with this issue?

I think a better question would be "How does a society address moral decay without sacrificing freedom?". Otherwise, who are you to tell me or define what I can and cannot do when I act?

[Kuldebar]

I think a better question would be "How does a society address moral decay without sacrificing freedom?". Otherwise, who are you to tell me or define what I can and cannot do when I act?

I tend to agree, but we must not consign the reality of "moral decay" too readily to the junk heap.

It is a reality. Not in the limited sense that we see often in the news, from the very same people who would wish to control us. But, in a for more real way.

The abdication of thought and responsibility. The moral vacuum perpetuated by those who would attack free will and human action.

For those who believe, even God himself valued free will and allowed choice.

Ultimately, a person's moral character can only be defined by the path freely chosen.

Beware the ones who claim to love freedom and still wish to control minds.

[jblosser]

Care for the poor and education are two places where this does come up often. The response of private charities and churches is just as valid for other forms of societal problems.

Churches do quite well at successfully telling people what they can and can't do. They don't need guns to help them. If anything, churches should be glad for less government oversight and prohibition of consensual sin given they'd also have freer association than they do now.

[Kuldebar]

Care for the poor and education are two places where this does come up often. The response of private charities and churches is just as valid for other forms of societal problems.

Churches do quite well at successfully telling people what they can and can't do. They don't need guns to help them. If anything, churches should be glad for less government oversight and prohibition of consensual sin given they'd also have freer association than they do now.

Unfortunately, religion these days has earned a bad name as a result of the politicization of our once civil society.

Once an association of free peoples becomes a mandatory club, all sort of things go awry.

A great book/film in recent years...Angela's Ashes has a scene where the family has to go to the local charity, uncomfortable questions are asked but specific aid is given.

A good book to remind folks what we had before:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/080782531X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[Gee]

Yes, it does, but not in an intentional, direct sense. Capitalism and free markets reward honest behavior systemically. In a free society, one can only get "ahead" in life by serving others in an honest manner. Hard work is rewarded, while laziness is penalized.

Consider the one profession where lying is assumed, and corruption is expected: politics. In the marketplace, dishonest people are shunned and avoided, but in politics they thrive.

Libertarianism does not reward or impact private behavior at all, though. So if you consider homosexuality to be a sign of moral decay, its certainly not going to help you there. But I'd say the initiation of violence is a far worse problem in civilization in general than anything else.

[jblosser]

Unfortunately, religion these days has earned a bad name as a result of the politicization of our once civil society.

Once an association of free peoples becomes a mandatory club, all sort of things go awry.

A great book/film in recent years...Angela's Ashes has a scene where the family has to go to the local charity, uncomfortable questions are asked but specific aid is given.

Yes, but this is far from the case among all charities, even today. And like many things it shows up the most when the people looking for the power to make things mandatory enjoy some privileged government status.

[Kuldebar]

Yes, but this is far from the case among all charities, even today. And like many things it shows up the most when the people looking for the power to make things mandatory enjoy some privileged government status.

Charities have suffered just like every other facet of society. A perversion and distortion occurs by the heavy mass of the coercive intrusion of statism.

[Mesogen]

Moral decay could merely be a moral shift.

Perhaps this country is moving away from its puritanical roots. I'd say we have moral growth in certain areas. There are no more lynchings. There are no more segregated societies (well, not racially anyway). Animal rights are now very important to the majority of people (the recent Vick incident is evidence of this). Environmental concerns have now become a sort of morality (and can be taken advantage of by certain interests).

But, yes, pornography is rampant and gambling is legal in many more states than before.

Can you call this a decay? I don't know. Maybe there is decay in some places and growth in others.

I'll just say that I agree with Ron Paul when he said that our greatest moral issue today is the popular acceptance of the concept of pre-emptive war. If there is any clear case of moral decay in this country, it is this.

[jblosser]

Moral decay could merely be a moral shift.

Perhaps this country is moving away from its puritanical roots. I'd say we have moral growth in certain areas. There are no more lynchings. There are no more segregated societies (well, not racially anyway). Animal rights are now very important to the majority of people (the recent Vick incident is evidence of this). Environmental concerns have now become a sort of morality (and can be taken advantage of by certain interests).

But, yes, pornography is rampant and gambling is legal in many more states than before.

Can you call this a decay? I don't know. Maybe there is decay in some places and growth in others.

If you live in an area where there's no more racial segregation and people care for each other and the things around them, great for you. I don't think the rest of us were talking about porn and gambling, though.

[Mesogen]

If you live in an area where there's no more racial segregation and people care for each other and the things around them, great for you. I don't think the rest of us were talking about porn and gambling, though.

I guess I was addressing the OP. Shoulda quoted maybe.

Of course, there is still "voluntary" racial segregation everywhere. There are black neighborhoods, white neighborhoods, hispanic ones, vietnamese ones.

But, the OP was talking about FCC regulation, and I would think porn fits into that.

Honestly, the only thing I can see RP doing to the FCC is not manning it. Or maybe manning it with like minded people, who would attempt to undo some of the ridiculous rules regarding curse words and buttshots.

[Kuldebar]

I think in a free society people have the right to be bigots and the right to not choose to associate with certain others.

It doesn't mean it's right or even moral...except for the fact that it would be immoral to force anything otherwise.

[winston84]

I'll just say that I agree with Ron Paul when he said that our greatest moral issue today is the popular acceptance of the concept of pre-emptive war. If there is any clear case of moral decay in this country, it is this.

I totally agree with that statement. IMO that was Ron Paul's brightest moment yet.

[hard@work]

I tend to agree, but we must not consign the reality of "moral decay" too readily to the junk heap.

I didn't even remotely do so. Should go back and answer the question!

:)

Morality is subjective, and it is a personal choice. You can believe in your set of morals firmly, but it can be debated as opinion no matter how debase the moral subject is. The question is how does society solve moral issues without sacrificing freedom? At what point do we say "We should have the government decide this, and enforce our views on others."? And when we do this, at what point do we lose our freedom to government control. The moment government, and not society, made a moral decision for us was the first moment our nation slipped backwards.

In my opinion if you do not place faith in society's general moral strength you must have government control. And how far has government control gotten us with morality? What system controls a people's morals that does not inherently destroy them at the same time through oppression? And above all, what human is so infallible that they can judge another group without themselves participating in either sin or hippocracy in doing so?

Morality comes from the heart, it is a choice. Spreading morality is a people's decision in the end. If the people choose to do so through government enforcement, they lose their own rights to choose to do otherwise. This sacrifice has never led us to freedom. If the people choose to spread morality through good will, teachings, and neighborly efforts isn't the end result community?

[Kuldebar]

I think a better question would be "How does a society address moral decay without sacrificing freedom?". Otherwise, who are you to tell me or define what I can and cannot do when I act?


My point, is that it is a false dichotomy.

There is no conflict between morality and freedom.

But, I only emphasize that there is indeed, moral decay. Not from the result of freedom, but from the forces that oppose it.

[hard@work]

Not from the result of freedom, but from the forces that oppose it.

Hmm.. well, such as?

[Kuldebar]

Hmm.. well, such as?

Such as?

From people that believe the end justifies the means.

From people who believe that coercion is the preferable method to create a moral world.

From the desire to do good at any cost.

[hard@work]

I meant actual examples or something. I mean ... I desire to do good at any cost. I would give my life to save anothers if it's what it comes down to. I think that's fairly noble.

:)

... actually wait I think that's "all costs" haha sorry nvm ...

[Brandybuck]

Much of the moral decay we see is the side effect of government and its policies. Government cannot mold societal mores, but it can certainly short circuit the natural workings of society. For example, poor single mothers get more welfare than poor married mothers, which unintentionally discourages marriage.

[R_Harris]

"Ron Paul said: "You cannot legislate morality."

Morality is a deeply personal issue. So long as you do not initiate force or aggress against another sovereign individual, you are fine, in a truly libertarian world."



This is why I left Libertarianism in 1982. Two issues: first, almost all legislation DOES address moral behaviour in one form or another, and second, I have never received an adequate definition from libertarians for the words "force," "aggress," or "sovereign."

There MUST be a transcendent morality for all people if a society or civilization is to exist for long without breaking down into anarchy. Are murder and theft not moral concepts??? If they are not, then what are they?? And thus, does not the government legislate prohibitions against such things?

If there is no transcendent morality, if there is no God, then as Dostoyovsky (sp) said in Crime and Punishment , everything ultimately is permissible. Libertarian philosophers (such as Ayn Rand) never adequately addressed how consensus morality can exist if everyone is simply "free" to do whatever they want to do that THEY PERCEIVE to be in their best interest. This is why I left libertarianism.

Douglas Wilson has written an excellent book rebutting the atheist Sam Harris entitled "Letter from a Christian Citizen." He deals with similar points as I have addressed above.

True Christianity has been so pulverized by the Falwells, Robertsons, and Hagees of the world that at times it is hardly recognizable. I really wish that people could get an understanding of the Reformed view of the Bible - it would clear up a lot of misconceptions, especially regarding foreign policy.

[Dary]

Everything about libertarianism addresses moral decay. That is what the whole thing is about.

For instance God supposedly gave us free will right? Well how are we supposed to practice it if government takes those rights away?

This is one of the things that I find particularly interesting about self righteous moralists who think they are somehow greater than god in that they decide for us by forcing laws on us as to how we should live when god gave us freewill.

Another thing, the collectivist mentality is one of altruism. They are doing it for the greater good of all. But forced charity isn’t virtue.

Only when we are free to do the right thing, and do it, are we moral.

If you have not seen this, it’s a great place to start.
http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf

[Brandybuck]

This is why I left Libertarianism in 1982.
Don't mistake libertarianism in general with the libertine wing of libertarianism.

A great mistake is to equate legislation with morality. Yet a few libertarians do exactly this, in reverse. They think that because something should be legal, then it must be moral. But that does not describe all libertarians, only a few.

The state has the authority to forbid the infringement of the rights of others, but the rest of morality is under the domain of the Church and society, to promote through persuasion and tradition.

Jesus told the prostitute to go and sin no more. He did not call the cops to have her busted. But all too many Christians today are impatient with God and seek the imposition of morality from the state instead. They have replace God with Caesar.

[Syren123]

Everything about libertarianism addresses moral decay. That is what the whole thing is about.

Only when we are free to do the right thing, and do it, are we moral.

If you have not seen this, it’s a great place to start.
http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf


That is truly beautiful. It will be playing on every computer in my classrooms tomorrow.

Thank you!!