Potentially, but what I often feel is missed with the "isn't this the same as what we have now" argument is the most important: the content of the morality. In my opinion, the fact that government sometimes imposes morally based laws is not the problem, it's which morally based laws they impose.
Potentially, but what I often feel is missed with the "isn't this the same as what we have now" argument is the most important: the content of the morality. In my opinion, the fact that government sometimes imposes morally based laws is not the problem, it's which morally based laws they impose.
Vaccine mandates, gender madness and the other things you listed are principly poor morals. In fact, I think the generic libertarian idea of letting the free market determine where unvaccinated people should be free to go and allowing mentally ill people to mutilate themselves under the scope of "individual liberty" is a fundamentally flawed position. I would prefer to live in a society where governments actively prevented private entities from imposing vaccine-based restrictions and where physically healthy people mutilating themselves is not tolerated.
I understand the concern, but there are moral values which, if followed, lead to objectively better outcomes for society. Similarly, there are values which, if followed, objectively lead to the fragmentation and desecration of functioning society.
We should be advocating the former regardless of whether that may sometimes increase the size and scope of government.
This is probably a topic worthy of its own article. However, I think a succinct example of something, which followed, has desecrated functioning society is the gender madness.
To enable mental illness and allow people to mutilate their healthy bodies is a societal failure that has led to objectively worse outcomes. The libertarian response, while somewhat nebulous, typically opposes the chemical castration and genital mutilation of children but permits adults to do as they wish. In my opinion, this is an insufficient response.
Potentially, but what I often feel is missed with the "isn't this the same as what we have now" argument is the most important: the content of the morality. In my opinion, the fact that government sometimes imposes morally based laws is not the problem, it's which morally based laws they impose.
Vaccine mandates, gender madness and the other things you listed are principly poor morals. In fact, I think the generic libertarian idea of letting the free market determine where unvaccinated people should be free to go and allowing mentally ill people to mutilate themselves under the scope of "individual liberty" is a fundamentally flawed position. I would prefer to live in a society where governments actively prevented private entities from imposing vaccine-based restrictions and where physically healthy people mutilating themselves is not tolerated.
Well, if only it were the God-fearing libertarians and conservatives that wanted their morality enforced by government.
I understand the concern, but there are moral values which, if followed, lead to objectively better outcomes for society. Similarly, there are values which, if followed, objectively lead to the fragmentation and desecration of functioning society.
We should be advocating the former regardless of whether that may sometimes increase the size and scope of government.
Which moral values, if followed, lead to objectively better outcomes for society, James?
This is probably a topic worthy of its own article. However, I think a succinct example of something, which followed, has desecrated functioning society is the gender madness.
To enable mental illness and allow people to mutilate their healthy bodies is a societal failure that has led to objectively worse outcomes. The libertarian response, while somewhat nebulous, typically opposes the chemical castration and genital mutilation of children but permits adults to do as they wish. In my opinion, this is an insufficient response.