Ah, the sound of someone furiously side-stepping to no avail.

So it’s not relativist to dictate a moral path based on the qualities of the actor? Hmmm…morality relative to ability is now “not relativist?” Sounds pretty relativist to me, since morality in such a system is relative to the individual in question.

The problem with this statement is that it ASSUMES that which is not universally agreed upon — that a fetus is a human being. Certainly we all agree that the death of a sperm is not murder, nor the death of an egg. How about a zygote? You might assume that a zygote qualifies as a human being deserving of rights, but I (and most others) would disagree. From the other direction, everyone would agree that a killing a newborn baby would be murder. How about a baby that is one minute away from being born? Some would say no, that’s not murder, while I (and I believe most people in general) would disagree. It is murder to premeditatively kill a human being, but the definition of “human being” is not absolutely precise when dealing with prenatal life. That a libertarian might have a definition of “human being” that is different from yours does not indicate an unwillingness to enforce social norms or to make personal moral choices.

I have no problem with people getting together on their own to promote morality. I’ve also been particularly tolerant of religion in the public sphere (consider http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/007491.php), much to the consternation of some atheistic libertarians. However, I do not support the government enforcement of such moral positions. Churches are fine by me, I just don’t want codification of religious doctrine or government money going to the churches. While some libertarians may indeed be skeptical of any group-based efforts, I’m not one of them.

However, given that the party is primarily filled with left-wing libertarians, we right-wing libertarians disassociate ourselves from the party. Indeed, at least in my case I refer to myself as a classical liberal while others know me as Conservatarian.

Mr. Markels’ references to abortion as a “novel moral issue” and a “special case” exemplify the problem I have with libertarians. Mr. Markels, if you are unwilling or unable to call premeditated murder, murder, why should we believe you are willing to enforce any morality, whether through government action or social norms. Despite your protests to the contrary, it appears evident, that you like all left-wing libertarians, will not enforce morality. Your view of a libertarian society allows for the enforcement of morality “only on a private individual-by-individual basis.”

Why should group boycotts, group judgments, and the judgments of social institutions not be allowed as a tool by which to control those who transgress? The answer I believe is that within every left-wing libertarian there is a fear not just of government, but of people and all of their institutions. Underlying left-wing libertarians’ views is an absolute belief in unrestrained freedom. In other words, left-wing libertarians do not ascribe to a philosophy concerning the proper limits of state action, but rather the absolute goodness of freedom. Left-wing libertarians are libertines.

It is this fear of social institutions and the dominance of the party by libertines, which not only drives me away from the party, but which inevitably makes the party a completely ineffective and laughable group. While I should expect the left to attack the institutions and traditions which are critical to human success (the church, marriage, etc), attacks from libertarians are entirely unwarranted. While Libertarian philosophy informs us as to the proper limits of state action, that philosophy was not intended to be, nor should it be extended to prescribe non-governmental action.

Initiating force against others (i.e. the use of force against someome who is not using force against you or threatening to do so) is always wrong.

Moral relativism is not needed to be a ibertarian; one only has to believe that it is wrong to enforce morality beyond natural rights, not that no such morality exists.

As some of the commentators have also posted, the issue isn’t necessarily that there is moral uncertainty, but that even with an objective morality, there is moral disagreement between people, and the chances of someone with incorrect morality (i.e. they believe other than the objectively correct way) being enforced are too great, and a bigger problem than that of a correct morality not being enforced.

On a very related issue, does this make Moses or God exactly this kind of relativist (Mark 10: 2 ff):

“Some Pharisees came to him and tried to trap him. “Tell us,” they asked, “does our Law allow a man to divorce his wife?” 3 Jesus answered with a question, “What law did Moses give you?” 4 Their answer was, “Moses gave permission for a man to write a divorce notice and send his wife away.” 5 Jesus said to them, “Moses wrote this law for you because you are so hard to teach. 6 But in the beginning, at the time of creation, ‘God made them male and female,’ as the scripture says. 7 ‘And for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, 8 and the two will become one.’ So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Man must not separate, then, what God has joined together.” 10 When they went back into the house, the disciples asked Jesus about this matter. 11 He said to them, “A man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against his wife. 12 In the same way, a woman who divorces her husband and marries another man commits adultery.”

“The best libertarian defense to me is that in a world with dissensus about morality, it’s better to establish a strong consensus on limited government, as even if I have certain moral knowledge, I would not want to establish a precedent whereby my neighbor, with whom I certainly disagree, could constrain me in the manner he sees fit. ”

I agree with you that I do not have a handy-dandy chart or some other mechanistic way to offer the possibility of abuse of government power, but neither do you or anyone else. At every stage of political life, individual character is the weak link of limited government whether we’re talking about judges, cops on the beat or the witness stand, high officials deciding on appointments, etc. Even a principled concept of how government should act or not act cannot avoid this issue. I think one mark of all rationalist and liberal political ideologies is the understandable quest to find a way out of this threat. But there is no easy way. We are obliged to struggle as best we can to balance liberty and order, division and unity, change and stasis, etc. We are obliged inasmuch as possible to select men of character and integrity for public office and other governmental positions of trust.

This is the political problem and it can only be approached with trembling and a thorough understanding of man and history to be done well. No shortcut is available, whether from the libertarian side of things–suggesting that all but highly limited exercises in government power are ever appropriate as a solution–nor from the right, where the attempt to frame certain “fail safe” institutions like a poll tax, a precise constitution, a gold standard or other similar precommitment measures will not necesarily stem the tide of decline, disorder, and related evils.

This is a false description of the political philosophy to which I subscribe. I don’t want to speak for Roach, but my guess is he would agree.

I believe that you are taking my comments on abortion too far, as I think abortion is a special case. It’s a novel moral issue with unclear boundaries as to what constitutes a “human being.” I used it as an example, but that does not mean that I view all other moral questions in the same regard.

No, you may not believe that the government must enforce every moral issue, but you willingly ascribe to a political philosophy that (1) demands a political question to every moral issue, and (2) calls for government involvement whenever you can be convinced that such involvement in the moral issue would, overall, benefit “society.” Seems like there’s not much preventing government from eventually getting involved in every moral question, at least to me. You appear to lack a cogent basis for refusing government intervention — cost/benefit is not a matter of principle, after all; it’s a matter of accounting.

You can “call BS” on me all you want, but it seems obvious to me that you’re just frustrated that I don’t fit into the little “relativist” box that you have relied on to tar your ideological opponents.

I also call you on using this stupid strawman that I think government should enforce all morality. You say, “You seem to be of the impression that without government enforcement there can be no morality. This is clearly wrong.” I’ve said no such things, and disclaimed as mcuh above in my last paragraph, though I think in certain traditional areas–areas of legislation common in the much more free era of the US founding–that such legislation can be useful in preserving social stability and preventing behavior that can be individually and socially destructive. What we’re discussing here is first principles, and it’s nearly impossible to do so with someone who won’t be honest about his views and the consequences of those views.

And I concede a political philosophy need not answer every question, but the problem is that when that philosophy’s skepticism of moral knowledge is so over-arching–an earlier interlocutor said for instance that “morality is totally subjective,” and J.S. Mill among others said similar things–it seems difficult for that skepticism not also to swallow its areas of putative certainty as both areas are founded ultimately on the same philosophical types of foundations.

Moreover, libertarianism doesn’t claim that we cannot achieve “certain moral knowledge” in areas beyond natural rights. I’m sure libertarians would agree that adultery is bad, being verbally abusive is bad, and even that most drug use is bad. But just because we have “certain moral knowledge” doesn’t mean that the government should get involved. Libertarianism defines the appropriate area for government involvement and then allows private actors to sort the rest out. A libertarian society would definitely have “certain moral knowledge” for things outside of the government’s purview and would act to punish those who transgress, but only on a private individual-by-individual basis. You seem to be of the impression that without government enforcement there can be no morality. This is clearly wrong. The adulterer, the blowhard, and the junkie will be shunned. It’s punishment; it’s just not the kind of punishment that satisfies you, evidently.