Why I'm Not A Libertarian                                                     Index

Very often they're right too. Freedom is essential to the pursuit of happiness, and government is often part of the problem. The power to tax easily degenerates into legalized theft, and the redistribution of wealth is no legitimate function of government. Peaceful, uncoerced exchanges between consenting adults, even if immoral,  are generally not the government's business, and laws that seek to enforce morality are usually bad laws.

But on the subject of morality I have a quarrel with them. I quote from a libertarian source: "Libertarians strongly object to the legal regulation of immoral practices such as abortion, sale of pornography, and drug use. They consider any voluntary, uncoerced exchange between individuals to be acceptable." With them it's "live and let live" carried to the nth degree--except, of course, for unborn babies and innocent victims of pornography.

But as a Christian I value morality above liberty. Morality is more fundamental to the health of a community than liberty. In fact, a nation that lacks the character to preserve justice will not keep its liberty for long.  Libertarians have made an idol of personal freedom and seem to worship the goddess Lady Liberty rather than the Lord.

A case in point. On a libertarian website I found a loud objection to a California law that authorizes government to screen the Internet for child pornography. Government intrusion into this webmaster's privacy is wholly unacceptable, even to protect our children from predators. Personally I want our government to prosecute any Internet user who advocates violence,  preaches sedition, instructs potential terrorists in bomb-making, and seduces our children. Don't you?  Would you sacrifice some of your precious privacy on the Internet to permit the authorities to interdict terrorism, sedition, and child pornography? Not so the libertarians! For them their privacy is paramount.

Our webmaster complains that "this law apparently bans (among other things) computer-generated images that do not use human models, and films and photos of adults acting as minors in a sexually explicit manner."  So it's okay if real children aren't used. But even in rare cases when the pornographers don't use real boys and girls, their pictures fuel the perverted passion of the predators who do use real boys and girls.

Evidently this webmaster wouldn't prosecute any child pornography. To him it's a "controversial and unpopular activity" the government is using as an excuse to spy out his privacy. Controversial?  Unpopular?  God help us! If we lack the will to protect our children from exploitation and corruption by sexual predators, then we don't deserve to survive as a nation.