|
Jacob I concur with your views on this mans personal moral code. However the law seems to have failed to prevent his behaviour which I think most Libertarians would find unsurprising. And Strawmans logic is not unreasonable. The women involved are not without a choice in the matter. Proclaiming that people should only have sex inside marriage is fine. Enforcing it via government is another thing. Such a system of enforcement is likely to create many injustices. Your logic appears to be that it is hard to maintain a strict personal code of morality in a sea of mischief. This is no doubt true. Just as it is hard to do the groceries without owning a car or using a bus in most modern cities. The choices made by the masses organise society in ways that make our personal decisions quite difficult if we are inclined towards a contrary set of choices. In a truely libertarian world many of those in poverty would go to church for material assistance and moral guidance. Those who are concerned about poverty would no doubt use this vehicle to express their compassion. I expect that a lot more souls would belong to Jesus. If we roll back the clock to the 1950s and 1960s the lack of state welfare meant that the church remained centre stage in peoples lives. I would roll back the state on economic issues (tax and welfare) long before I would loosen the states grip on social issues. However I could not in good conscience support an expanded role for government in enforcing a ban on sex outside marriage. And I could not in good conscience stand in opposition to a roll back of the state in areas of personal choice (eg prostitution laws).
| 
