A lightbulb came on for me in a conversation I was having with Mike Duran about sex zoos in Germany. Now, I’m not linking to the original article because I really don’t want to dwell on the fact that there are sex zoos in Germany where people can pay a horse pimp to let them have sex with the horse. But there are. And the Libertarians at Pajamas Media (I guess that’s still around, huh…) said that this “presents a perplexing situation for Libertarians.”
I am libertarian. I am not perplexed. Sex zoos are wrong. Anything that exploits another being is wrong. Anything that abuses a being without agency is clearly wrong under the Rule Of Law that Libertarians sign on for. But I’m ahead of myself.
Lately, since the last election, I’ve seen Libertarians getting more guff. This is good because it means we’re becoming a force to be reckoned with, but it’s also bad because it means people out there think we support NAMBLA and…sex zoos in Germany.
So I need to clear some stuff up for you folks. Most of this was already posted on Mike’s Facebook Status so I’m sorry for repeating myself. It’s just that I put it so well that first time…
1. The thing that makes a Libertarian a _libertarian_ is our core belief in limited government interference in private lives. So when it comes to politics you will hear any libertarian say things like “prostitution should be legal”; “gay state-sanctioned marriage should be legal”; “pot should be legal”.
2. We all have PERSONAL ETHICAL BELIEFS that differ wildly, even from other libertarians. When we say something should be “legal” we do not mean that we think it is okay or right or healthy. We merely mean that philosophically our belief in adults being allowed to make their own mistakes dictates that the law shouldn’t be interfering. So I will say that prostitution should be legal. I also think prostitution is wrong and exploits women and profanes sexuality. But those are my Christian beliefs and as a Christian I work to make changes in people’s lives individually through grace to make sure that prostitution really goes away and isn’t just hidden as it is when it is “illegal”.
3. As a libertarian my grounds for opposing things LEGALLY (as opposed to morally) are that they harm another individual. Libertarians agree that law is necessary when society is protecting an individual from harm. So you have libertarians and we think that prostitution should be legal but that child pornography and child-adult sex should not be legal. We all believe strongly the government is not the arbiter of morals. So we’re libertarians.
4. There is a split in the libertarian camp between anti-abortion libertarians and pro-abortion libertarians. The split is along the issue of whether or not the fetus is a life and a being in need of protection from society or whether it is a part of the woman’s body over which the state has no legal right to interfere. Not all libertarians support abortion. Many, like myself, object to abortion but seek to address the societal problem of unwanted children through means other than legislation.
5. Respect for others is a key part of libertarianism. That man who wrote the thing about all Democrats being dead to him*…as far as I’m concerned he isn’t a libertarian. He’s a reactionary right-wing person who has seized the mantle of libertarianism because it is new and hip and sounds less controversial in some circles than “Republican”. We’re getting a lot more of these reactionary types in the libertarian camp, especially after this last election. I’m not happy about it, but they’re free to call themselves libertarians. I’m free to explain why they aren’t wanted in the libertarian camp.
In answer to the animal sex thing: No, my personal objection is that it is sinful and gross and disgusting and wrong. But my objection as a libertarian, when it comes to internal consistency about the laws, is that I can assert the relevance of the rule of law because the animals are harmed.
*I’m not linking to this fellow either. He doesn’t need any more traffic and I don’t like his nil siochain cluttering up my life.
The more you describe yourself, the more I nod in agreement.
So you’re a lesbian boyfriend thief too, huh?
(see what I did there?)
This makes me think of Jesus and slavery. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus do anything to legally abolish slavery. He tells slaves to obey their masters even. BUT….if we followed in Jesus’ footsteps and loved our neighbors and showed true compassion and put others before ourselves and all the other things He teaches, then slavery would go away because owning and abusing another human being does not fall under the umbrella of loving your neighbor as yourself.
Anyway, thank you for this post. I’ve kinda gathered this about Libertarianism from your FB posts and blog comments and such, but I’ve never really known exactly *what* a Libertarian actually is. This is a great clarification.
I can think of at least a dozen more problematic challenges for libertarians than sex zoos right off hand (and every philosophical viewpoint, including my own, has situations which are challenging for it to consistently resolve). It’s amazing how far off base people can be in their understanding of libertarianism.
Thank you. As always, thank you.
Katherine, so do Libertarians oppose anything on the grounds that it’s simply immoral. Polygamy and necrophilia don’t hurt anyone either. On what grounds, if any, would Libertarians oppose legalization? The reason I would oppose legalizing sex zoos is not because it hurts animals, but because it’s an abomination.
I’m in agreement with Mike on this. We differ on the whole “slippery slope” concept, but some things just can’t be justified. The “greater good” is a workable construct that is useful here. There is a sickness that is just apparent when considering these zoophiles. I think an animal cannot be a willing partner. This makes it animal rape, and is dehumanizing to the rapists themselves. The word depraved comes to mind.
Yes, it (bestiality) is depraved. It is wrong. But I’m a Christian. I think a lot of things are wrong that other people don’t think are wrong. Just because there’s a common set where we agree (eg. sex zoos) doesn’t mean that I think laws are for the establishment of morality.
See what Kat Heckenbach says above about slavery.
As a Christian I fully believe that the way we are called to change society is through the hearts and minds of individuals. You can tell people something is wrong and punish them for doing it. Or you can show them what is right.
And frankly, I’m not really eager to live in a world where anyone’s morality holds sway legally over another person. It’s all well and good when it’s your morality in charge, right, Mike? Because then gay people aren’t getting married and abortions don’t happen. But what happens when someone else’s morality comes along and trumps yours? I’ll tell you. Sharia Law. That’s what happens. You aren’t going to love having laws based on morality when they start stoning you for believing in Christ.
So no, libertarians are very much agains having “morality” make the laws because while everyone can agree that something is morally wrong, using that as a barometer of laws creates another sort of slippery slope.
I’ve got news for you, Mike. (Well, it’s not news, or it shouldn’t be.)
THIS IS NOT OUR WORLD. OUR MORALITY IS FOREIGN HERE. This realm was given over to darkness. We can’t march into this foreign territory and say “here is morality, do it.” Christianity does not happen by fiat. It happens only through redemption and the acceptance of Grace.
To me libertarianism is the only way to reconcile politics and Christianity.
Jim, yes. Libertarian is closer to anarchy than government. No libertarian denies that. In fact, many libertarians also consider themselves full anarchists. (I think Jay DiNitto is an anarcholibertarian, but I may be misremembering.) But anarchy does not mean disorder.
I’m a social contract libertarian. I believe that we have government to do the things that we can’t do ourselves. Defense, highway infrastructure, libraries…these are the responsibility of society.
I disagree with many of my statist/communitarian friends about the purpose of government.
But I will never mischaracterise them as immoral. And I appreciate it if those of you who are statists respect the fact that libertarians are as moral as the rest of you; we just prefer to engineer morality via means other than fiat.
I had this whole, big, long reply I was going to post here…and you beat me to the punch, Katherine. So I deleted it
. I can at least say I do understand where you are coming from with this regarding the subjectivity of morality, and I do agree on a lot of what you say. Very good point about *whose* morality is in control. We’re all for it when it matches our own.
And for the record, I got where you were coming from with regards to hurting the animals.
Your views remind me of the saying, which I’ll probably mess up and have no idea the source, so forgive me: “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.”
However, I do think determining whether or not something “hurts” someone else is dodgy business. Look at abortion. A woman can kill her own baby, provided it has not been born yet, even though technically it is a separate entity, but if she lopped off her own hand, she’d be locked up so she couldn’t harm HERSELF. But since it doesn’t hurt someone else, do we let people lop off their own hands?
Again, I know I’m the one who said the thing about Jesus and slavery–and I believe it. But I also know that in all this time, slavery still hasn’t gone away in this world.
Also, just because it seems to fit the topic, and because I love quoting this line from Men In Black:
Agent J: “Why don’t we just tell everyone? People are smart.”
Agent K: “A *person* is smart. *People* are stupid and panicky.”
That there is where I see cracks in Libertarianism. Persons can do this, but people cannot, or rather won’t, and in the process, a lot of innocents get hurt.
Just thoughts. Not even sure why I’m jumping in today. I never talk politics.
I try not to talk politics very much, but I’m realising that with all the soundbites I need to clarify some things because more and more people seem to be of the impression that I’m some priestess of lawlessness and damnation.
Believe me, I know Libertarianism has its cracks; as dolphin said, every political system does. I’ve just prayed long and hard for a lot of years. For me, with my views on non-aggressive Christianity, Free Will, Grace and nature, this is the political system that reconciles all of that the best. My first aim in everything is to serve the Gospel. Politics to me are tertiary at best. I find that I don’t serve the gospel as well when I’m focusing too much on political systems because that–in our present society–tends to build walls. Libertarianism is the one that leaves the door best open for me to keep the Gospel and my living of it front and center. It seems contrary at first because people think “how can you say your politics serve the gospel when you don’t believe morality should write the laws?” My response is that Christ has always respected MY free will to make the moral choices I have to make and the least I can do is follow that example by respecting the free will of others and asking Christ and the Holy Spirit to direct me to the best way to help those others on the occassions that the choices they make end up badly.
As for letting people cut off their own hands and abortion, I tried to cover that in point 4.
I do see why you believe what you believe, and I know you’ve gone about this prayerfully. I am certainly not trying to point out flaws in an attempt to change your mind
.
Also, the abortion and hand thing–that was just thinking out loud. I should have clarified that.
Anyway, again, I appreciate you posting about this. It’s definitely given me a better understanding. I, personally, am a bit of a political mutt. Can’t call myself anything in particular.
Oh, I didn’t think you were doing anything other than thinking outloud. I’m just piggybacking on that I guess.
Pardon the brevity and the typos. This was sent from my iPhone.
In regards to the Libertarian political belief system, I think it is short-sighted. I mean that in the most “not-a-personal-attack” way. I can easily identify with the desire for personal freedom that you describe. It’s all “well and good” as my mother used to say. But in practice, you are talking about the most minimal of social frameworks. Are we ancient Greece, where every city is a state, and every house in the city is it’s own domain? In it’s purest form, Libertarianism seems closer to Anarchy than Government.
Clearly, I am coming from the Liberal Left. But even I want limits on Government power and influence. Conversely, totally deregulating everything is like turning the clock back 5000 years. There has to be a reasonable compromise between Laws and Freedom.
The problem is that it’s really not about harm to a libertarian, not as much as you think. It’s about informed consent, and if it were really about harm, there’d be no “I think prostitution is morally wrong but should be allowed,” because the reason you think it’s wrong is because it’s harmful.
The argument is more like Jim says: as long as informed consent exists, regardless of self-harm, behaviors should be allowed under a person’s liberty. Kids can’t ever have informed consent, and no one consents to be murdered. As long as they know what they are getting into, they should be allowed to do something even if it harms them. Cigarettes come to mind; the only reason they are restricted at all was because of the discovery of secondhand smoke. Same with alcohol, the only real restrictions in modern years was due to the specter of drunk driving, which has the potential to harm others directly.
This also brings to mind the real reason many libertarians want these to be legal. Believe me, it has nothing to do with liberty, but the ability to consume, sell, and tax prohibited behaviors to make money. Scratch many of them deep enough, and you’ll find people willing to cause harm or chase it. I think that’s why you’ll probably get jaded with libertarianism in a few years, Katherine; the theory isn’t the real reason behind why they push it.
Well, I’ve been libertarian for well more than a decade and a half. Not jaded yet.
Pardon the brevity and the typos. This was sent from my iPhone.
And that is why it all falls apart for me. The IDEA of Libertarianism is personally satisfying. It makes sense in logical and ethical ways. But then you say “second hand smoke” and “drunk driving” and then you add “you must have insurance” and then it’s schools and roads and OSHA and Bank Regulation and before you know it, you’ve got me in a Liberal semi-socialist euphoria…
But who pays for all that? I consider myself fically conservative. But socially, I have a hard time with a society that walks on by while it’s citizens starve or are disenfranchised by millionaires and billionaires.
Here in California there was a law passed via proposition that prohibited undocumented children of illegal immigrants from attending public school. Overnight, hundreds of thousands of school-age children would have been thrown out of school. I was personally aghast. Not because I think it’s terrific to spend my tax money on non-citizens. My feeling was that we were going to create hundreds of thousands of criminal gang members, instantly, by removing hope and the possibility of a “good life” from these kids.
The law was found to be unconstitutional, and was never implemented. Thankfully. But many of my acquaintances were outraged. They pegged me as socially liberal on the subject, when I think I was really being completely self-serving. I’m raising children in this society. I want them to be safe.
my bad for underestimating you then.
Oh I get jaded easily enough with general humanity. I’m under no illusion that libertarianism is flawless or that libertarians are all saints who walk among the damned. I know enough Randians to understand why many people write of libertarianism as callous and self-serving.
I’ve been on this ship long enough to know how she lists in the wind and where the ballast is tacked.
I just think it’s the best vessel to get my views in play and effect sustainable governance in a fractious republic.
I don’t think it will work. The social cons simply cannot vote affirmatively for any movement which plans to legalize what libertarians aim for. If you think making those things legal will somehow make it easier for you to mitigate them, I’d ask what you are doing to stop divorce or strip clubs. Or to notice that any idea of Christian temperance is as dead as disco.
If you’re going to mitigate it, you’re going to need to accept that it’s going to ghettoize Christianity by removing its ability to affect the culture on a macro scale. I accept this, but then I wonder why on earth bother with libertarianism at all then? Why even bother to affirm the movement when we get nothing at all in return? Even libertarian fiscal conservatism is pointless now, since jobs are destroyed and it’s really only government propping up the middle class.
“So you have libertarians and we think that prostitution should be legal but that child pornography and child-adult sex should not be legal.”
False claim lovey….
From the 1982 Platform of the Libertarian Party:
” “We believe that ‘children’ are human beings and, as
such, have the same rights as any other human beings. Any
reference in this Platform to the rights of human beings includes
children.”
Prostitution and porno are rights of adults, and also shockingly under objective ((non subjective rhetoric)), the rights of children who have the same rights… I mean a bag of candy as payment for a blow job from a child is simply a “business transaction” in libertarian objective view…. you can’t say children are to be given the same rights as adults except in this instance…where you suddenly deam a child a sub being. You have to look to your philosophies ugly points, not try to cover them with falsehoods.
“We oppose all legally created or sanctioned discrimination
against (or in favor of) children, just as we oppose government
discrimination directed at any other artificially defined sub-
category of human beings.”
“We also support the repeal of all laws establishing any
category of crimes applicable to children for which adults would
not be similarly vulnerable, such as curfew, smoking and
alcoholic beverage laws, and other status offenses. (…) We
seek the repeal of all ‘children’s codes’ of statutes which
abridge due process protections for young people.”
“Children should always have the right to establish their
maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own
rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians
and assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood.”
and as recent as 2008 ….”Mary J. Ruwart, the candidate with perhaps the deepest, purest libertarian roots (her rejection of government is so complete that some party moderates have begun warning of the anarchical dangers of “Ruwarchy”). In April, a rival called her out for her thoughts in a 1999 book called Short Answers to the Tough Questions. “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally,” Ruwart wrote. “When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
Ruwart’s is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for “child performers”) and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind. It’s also political poison.
“When we say something should be “legal” we do not mean that we think it is okay or right or healthy. We merely mean that philosophically our belief in adults being allowed to make their own mistakes dictates that the law shouldn’t be interfering.”
Those that stand against nothing, stand for everything… a society that permits everything, stops nothing.
Of course I’m waiting with baited breath for the inevitable quote
http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Child_prostitution
is clearly the party stance…. however the consistency of the good ship liptopia is starting fail….. the party is now growing into opposite ends…. heck as a Christian Missy, you seem to have missed out the whole part whereby most libertarians will attack any organized religion…Penn and Teller, Matt Stone and Trey Parker believe that libertarians should not be religious and that religious morality is bad for you…. how does being a christian at a libertarian debate make you feel?… You’re going to have to abandon one or the other, you’re young, maybe you’ll grow up and abandon belief in both systems.
So yeah I’m in favor of keeping child porn and child prostitution a crime and a punishable offense. However, I know libertarians want it out there as something permissible…sure you can tell a peado he’s going to a fiery hell if you like….and try to show him “God’s Glory”… and “Pray ” really hard for him….personally, I’d rather he be taken off the streets and not destroy any more innocent lives.
I know, it sounds crazy, but hey, I’m not the one who believes in invisible beings and thinks that child prostitution = freedom.
Nothing better to do today than be rude to strangers?
Pardon the brevity and the typos. This was sent from my iPhone.