# Libertarianism and Moralism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010 "2012-02-25T23:32:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/21 "2012-02-26T17:51:57Z")
It is immoral to kill someone. A violent, coercive act. Libertarians are against murder. It is immoral for consenting adults to have anal sex\*. No coercion involved. Libertarians don’t give a shit about it, pun intended. To the extent that RP wants to legislate against scenario 2, he’s not being a Libertarian. To the extent that he thinks states should be able to legislate against it, he’s letting his Constitutionalism trump his Libertarianism. He’s a little of both, and they are not always compatible. \*according to some folks. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/22 "2012-02-26T18:01:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > A bad analogy. There was nothing wrong with the analogy. On the contrary, the only exceptional thing is that people failed to grasp the obvious fact that libertarianism was being associated with the failure to prevent a bad thing (child rape) and not with the bad thing itself. And this despite the fact that **Little Nemo** explicitly states that very thing. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/23 "2012-02-26T18:46:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Someone also once said “my post is my cite”. Guess how much weight that carries around here. No. In this thread, my cite is the Libertarians who are posting their inability to understand how an analogy works. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > A bad analogy. Only to the extent that it’s given some posters a convenient strawman to use in avoiding the real issues being raised. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Certain types of racial discrimination are illegal in the US and certain types would be illegal in Libertaria. We’re just talking about where to draw the line. In the US, I can open a private club and refuse to allow anyone of the Nemoid race to join. What I can’t do is open a public facility and do so. In both the US and Libertaria, the government is not allowed to discriminate. Where are you getting that from? I realize no two libertarians ever agree on what libertarianism is but there certainly are libertarians who say that the government cannot tell businesses they have to serve customers if they don’t want to. And we’re not talking about Nemoids. After all, people are complaining we’re not talking real world. So we’re talking about black people - a real world group of thirty-seven million people in this country. And a group which plenty of real world business owners have shown an intent to discriminate against. The American government has enacted laws which forbid business owners to discriminate against customers based on their race. So racial discrimination is illegal in the United States. In Libertaria? Well, here we’re unavoidably entering the realm of hypothetical. But can we assume that Libertaria would legally prohibit racial discrimination? Here’s what some Libertarians say: > [@](#): > > For obvious reasons libertarians are committed to freedom of association, which of course includes the freedom not to associate, and the right of property owners to set the rules on their property. > > But no libertarian I know relishes saying, “I disapprove of your bigotry, but I will defend to the death your right to live by it.” > > Yet that is the libertarian position, and we should not shrink from it. Defending the freedom of the virtuous is easy. The test is in defending it for the vicious. > > Let’s start with a question of some controversy. Should a libertarian even care about racism? (By racism here I mean nonviolent racist acts only.) I am not asking if people who are libertarians should care about racism, but rather: Are there specifically libertarian grounds to care about it? > > Some say no, arguing that since liberty is threatened only by the initiation of physical force (and fraud), nonviolent racist conduct – repugnant as it is — is not a libertarian concern. > > Sheldon Richman - editor of The Freeman [cite](http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/libertarianism-antiracism/) > [@](#): > > For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons, libertarians are presumptively strongly opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. It naturally follows that libertarians presumptively oppose restrictions on private sector discrimination. It’s hardly an indication of racial animus, or even insensitivity, for libertarians to enunciate the exact same position on antidiscrimination laws that they take in all other contexts. > > In short, to concede the general power of government to redress private discrimination through legislation would be to concede virtually unlimited power to the government. > > Rand, Friedman, and other libertarians, however, opposed on principle the application of antidiscrimination laws to private parties. > > David Bernstein - Cato Institute [cite](http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/06/16/david-bernstein/context-matters-a-better-libertarian-approach-to-antidiscrimination-law/) > [@](#): > > Thanks to Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky and son of maverick libertarian Republican Ron Paul, we find ourselves in an unlikely debate about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the legal permissibility of race discrimination in the private sector. Late last month on the Rachel Maddow MSNBC show, Paul opined that privately owned establishments should be able to decide whom to serve without government interference. > > Libertarian TV journalist John Stossel fanned the flames on Fox News by not only defending Paul’s initial remarks but explicitly suggesting that that portion of the law should be repealed. > > [Stossel’s] view is neither inherently racist (he has stressed that he would never patronize a restaurant that excluded blacks) nor “repugnant,” as Media Matters claims. It is an intellectually consistent and legitimate, if moot, argument. > > Cathy Young - Reason Foundation [cite](http://reason.org/news/show/racism-civil-rights-libertarianism) So here are self-proclaimed libertarians, saying the same thing that I said: that some libertarians have the position that racial discrimination is bad but laws prohibiting racial discrimination are worse. So you can’t assume that Libertaria would have laws banning racial discrimination. It might. But there are certainly libertarians who say otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/24 "2012-02-26T19:41:02Z")
Can we say _anything_ for sure about what laws (if any, heh-heh) Libertaria would have? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/25 "2012-02-26T20:26:40Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No. In this thread, my cite is the Libertarians who are posting their inability to understand how an analogy works. We understand your analogy. It’s just not a good one for reasons already pointed out. It’s what we in the trade call a “bad analogy”, and thus fallacious. > [@](#): > > Where are you getting that from? I realize no two libertarians ever agree on what libertarianism is but there certainly are libertarians who say that the government cannot tell businesses they have to serve customers if they don’t want to. I don’t know any Libertarians who would say the government can tell businesses whom they can and cannot serve. But you are incorrect when you say racial discrimination is illegal in the US. Certain instances are illegal, but I can racially discriminate like a mo-fo in my private club. > [@](#): > > And we’re not talking about Nemoids. After all, people are complaining we’re not talking real world. So we’re talking about black people - a real world group of thirty-seven million people in this country. And a group which plenty of real world business owners have shown an intent to discriminate against. Sorry you didn’t like the little pun on your username. Substitute any race you desire in my post. > [@](#): > > The American government has enacted laws which forbid business owners to discriminate against customers based on their race. So racial discrimination is illegal in the United States. See above. I am racially discriminating if I refuse to patronize black businesses, and that’s perfectly legal. You’re just defining “racial discrimination” narrowly, so you can use a No True Scotsman fallacy. > [@](#): > > In Libertaria? Well, here we’re unavoidably entering the realm of hypothetical. But can we assume that Libertaria would legally prohibit racial discrimination? It would prohibit government enforced racial discrimination like Jim Crow laws, but it would allow businesses to discriminate in exactly the way that private clubs can now in the US. > [@](#): > > Here’s what some Libertarians say: > > So here are self-proclaimed libertarians, saying the same thing that I said: that some libertarians have the position that racial discrimination is bad but laws prohibiting racial discrimination are worse. > > So you can’t assume that Libertaria would have laws banning racial discrimination. It might. But there are certainly libertarians who say otherwise. I never said it would ban all forms of discrimination. It would allow more than is legal now in the US. But it would not allow the codification of racial discrimination into law. **Bryan** : Murder, theft, fraud, assault, arson, rape, to name the first ones that come to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/26 "2012-02-26T21:35:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We understand your analogy. It’s just not a good one for reasons already pointed out. It’s what we in the trade call a “bad analogy”, and thus fallacious. No, it’s a good analogy. As I said, it’s not always enough to just avoid personally doing great wrongs as an individual. Sometimes, you should act to prevent people who would choose to do those great wrongs from doing so. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t know any Libertarians who would say the government can tell businesses whom they can and cannot serve. > > it would allow businesses to discriminate in exactly the way that private clubs can now in the US. > > I never said it would ban all forms of discrimination. It would allow more than is legal now in the US. Exactly. This is my point. This is the reason I don’t support libertarianism. Because it would allow this. As for government promoted discrimination, nobody - libertarian or non-libertarian - has advocated that. So I don’t see how it’s an issue here. It’s fine to say that Libertarians would be against government-supported discrimination. Big deal. The Democrats are against that. The Republicans are against that. The Greens and the Socialists and the Constitutionalists and pretty much everyone is against that. So it’s not like the Libertarians are distinct on that issue. The issue here is non-governmental discrimination. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re just defining “racial discrimination” narrowly, so you can use a No True Scotsman fallacy. Keeping with the real world theme, I’ve been talking about racial discrimination as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Not some hypothetical theoretical straw man. An actual law that’s on the books. I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some libertarians oppose it. That’s a reason why I do not support libertarianism. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/27 "2012-02-26T21:39:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You know what else annoys me about libertarians? Their inability to understand an analogy. > > Okay, let’s talk a real world example. Racism. Are people willing to agree that racism is a bad thing? > > Well, there are libertarians who agree that racism is a bad thing (like pedophilia). But they’re willing to stand by while racism happens (like Penn State). Because they figure if a bar owner doesn’t want to serve any black customers or a taxi company doesn’t want any black passengers or an apartment manager doesn’t want any black tenants, then it’s not their place to interfere. Let’s talk about a real world example. Rudeness. Are people willing to agree that rudeness is a bad thing? Well there are liberals who agree that rudeness is a bad thing. But they’re willing to stand by (that is, not pass any laws against it) while rudeness happens. Because they think it’s not their place to interfere. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/28 "2012-02-26T21:43:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We understand your analogy. It’s just not a good one for reasons already pointed out. It’s what we in the trade call a “bad analogy”, and thus fallacious. His analogy can’t be fallacious because it’s not an argument. It only explains his objection to libertarianism. Explanations can never be fallacies because they don’t have conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/29 "2012-02-26T22:30:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, it’s a good analogy. Yeah, because not serving someone at a lunch counter is just like raping children. :rolleyes: Look, every different society is going to have some things that are legal there, but illegal elsewhere. It was government sanctioned, institutionalized racism that created an apartheid like system in the American South before the Civil Rights Act. Most of the country was not like that, and so there is no reason to think that Libertaria would be more like Mississippi than Massachusetts when it comes to race relations. Libertarianism is an unrealistic political system because it assumes people are different than they really are. But there is nothing intrinsic in Libertarianism that would foster institutionalized racism. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/30 "2012-02-26T23:27:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Let’s talk about a real world example. Rudeness. Are people willing to agree that rudeness is a bad thing? > > Well there are liberals who agree that rudeness is a bad thing. But they’re willing to stand by (that is, not pass any laws against it) while rudeness happens. Because they think it’s not their place to interfere. I don’t think you’ll find many people who think rudeness rises to the level of a great wrong. I never said society has to address every wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/31 "2012-02-26T23:30:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yeah, because not serving someone at a lunch counter is just like raping children. In the sense that racial discrimination and rape are both serious problems, yes, I am saying there are things they have in common. I’m assuming you’d agree that racial discrimination (the kind of racial discrimination addressed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is a serious problem. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/32 "2012-02-26T23:53:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > In the sense that racial discrimination and rape are both serious problems, yes, I am saying there are things they have in common. > > I’m assuming you’d agree that racial discrimination (the kind of racial discrimination addressed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is a serious problem. I think government sanctioned, institutionalized racism is a serious problem. I think segregating children by schools is a serious problem, as is segregating people in the military. I think laws making it difficult for certain races to vote is a serious problem. I think the cops looking the other way when blacks are lynched is a serious problem I think people not serving certain races at lunch counters is bad business. Anyone who thinks that rises to the level of raping children needs to have his outrage meter calibrated. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/33 "2012-02-27T00:57:07Z")
Then we apparently disagree on how serious the problem is. Sure racial discrimination in voting and education and the military are all bad. But in my opinion racial discrimination in where a person can live or work or eat is just as bad. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/34 "2012-02-27T01:08:26Z")
I’m imagine a society where it was legal to rape children. And I’m also “imagining” Massachusetts prior to the Civil Rights act. Nope. Not seeing the parallel. And for all the illegality that discrimination has attached to it today, we sure live in a largely self-segragated society (at least along the black/white color line). You can’t legislate how people live their lives. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/35 "2012-02-27T01:21:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m imagine a society where it was legal to rape children. And I’m also “imagining” Massachusetts prior to the Civil Rights act. Nope. Not seeing the parallel. This is odd because the parallel only ever existed in **John Mace** ’s mind. If his imagination is creative enough to pretend **Little Nemo** equated child rape with racial discrimination in the first place it should be powerful enough for him to continue seeing it. Somehow it seems his imagination only works overtime when convenient. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/36 "2012-02-27T02:20:09Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > This is odd because the parallel only ever existed in **John Mace** ’s mind. If his imagination is creative enough to pretend **Little Nemo** equated child rape with racial discrimination in the first place it should be powerful enough for him to continue seeing it. Somehow it seems his imagination only works overtime when convenient. It was **Nemo’s** analogy, and he’s clinging it to. If you think it’s imaginary, take it up with him, not me. He said: > [@](#): > > No, it’s a good analogy. and: > [@Nemo](#): > > > [@John Mace](#): > > > > I think people not serving certain races at lunch counters is bad business. Anyone who thinks that rises to the level of raping children needs to have his outrage meter calibrated. > > Then we apparently disagree on how serious the problem is. This imaginary thing seems to have a whole lotta substance in his posts. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/37 "2012-02-27T02:23:05Z")
> [@Oly](#): > > I guess the basic question is: Is Libertarianism incompatible with moralism? I don’t know what “moralism” means exactly. But libertarianism just means that a person wants a very restricted government. If they personally believe that all sorts of stuff is immoral to do, then I don’t see that belief as incompatible with moralism. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Under a libertarian regime, if your employer demands that you have yourself sterilized, dress like Mother Hubbard and convert to his particular church, you’ll do so or starve. . . . or get a new job, or start your own business, etc. etc. Really, Der Trihs, after so many threads with people trying to educate you on what libertarianism means, you are still stuck here? Absolutely ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/38 "2012-02-27T02:30:39Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Let’s take a recent issue: the Penn State sex abuse scandal. > > Outside of Jerry Sandusky, nobody directly sexually abused any children. The scandal was that people like Mike McQueary, Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, and Graham Spanier were aware of what happened and didn’t take action to stop it. > > That to me is the problem with Libertarianism. Libertarianism is willing to stand by while bad things are happening on the dubious principle that interfering with a bad thing is somehow worse than the bad thing itself. Hi. I’m a libertarian who can understand an analogy. Let me show how yours is fucking ridiculous. First, “being poor” or “being discriminated against” (or whatever other wrongs you think libertarians don’t want to stop) are not great wrongs in the same way that “being raped” is. The two shouldn’t even be thought of in the same breath. Your analogy therefore starts from a ridiculous position. Second, you seem to be failing to grasp the vast difference between (i) doing something oneself and (ii) forcing others to do something. Many libertarians give to charity and volunteer at shelters, but the don’t want to force other people to do so. Your analogy says that people should do something themselves to right wrongs, and libertarians would not disagree with you. It’s the part about forcing others to do something that libertarians have a problem with. Your analogy doesn’t address this aspect. That’s all I have the stomach for. Your analogy sucks. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/39 "2012-02-27T06:36:35Z")
I said child rape and racial discrimination are both serious problems. I didn’t say they were equally serious problems. Murder and bank robbery are both serious crimes. But murder is a more serious crime. Does that mean that the police shouldn’t investigate bank robberies because it’s not as serious a crime as murder? I would say no. The police should investigate murders and bank robberies because both are serious crimes. Cancer and diabetes are both serious diseases. But cancer is a more serious disease. Does that mean doctors shouldn’t treat diabetes because it’s not as serious a disease as cancer? Again, no. Doctors should treat both cancer and diabetes because both are serious diseases. Child rape and racial discrimination are both serious problems. And therefore I say that the government should make laws against both child rape and racial discrimination and act against both of these serious problems. Of course, now I’ll have people claiming I said libertarians cause cancer. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/40 "2012-02-27T06:43:48Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Second, you seem to be failing to grasp the vast difference between (i) doing something oneself and (ii) forcing others to do something. Many libertarians give to charity and volunteer at shelters, but the don’t want to force other people to do so. Your analogy says that people should do something themselves to right wrongs, and libertarians would not disagree with you. It’s the part about forcing others to do something that libertarians have a problem with. Your analogy doesn’t address this aspect. I do grasp the difference. It’s been the point I’ve been making all along. You say libertarians won’t force other people to do some things. That’s why I’m not a libertarian. I’m willing to use force to make other people do some things. I thought I had made this clear: _“That to me is the problem with Libertarianism. Libertarianism is willing to stand by while bad things are happening on the dubious principle that interfering with a bad thing is somehow worse than the bad thing itself.”_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010.md?page=3)