Social Conservatism for Libertarians
As a long-time libertarian, one-time pot-smoking, shroom-dropping, coke-snorting, head banger, and short time Thomas Aquinas College student I have seen the divide between "social conservatives" and "libertarians" and today would like to address certain social conservative positions and why libertarians would do well to support them. These arguments would, obviously, work for liberals as well, but since liberals are immune to reasoned argument I will ignore them in what follows. Certain social conservatives would also do well to heed these arguments since arguments relying strictly on the Bible are not likely to sway either libertarians OR liberals.

Axioms of libertarianism
While libertarians may disagree on certain things, what makes them libertarians is their belief in the following two axioms:

1) The fundamental (and maybe ONLY) purpose of a state is to protect its citizens - this may or may not include a provision for the enforcement of contracts.

2) An individual's freedom to act is absolute up until the point where it infringes on the freedoms of another.

Would it be possible to derive socially conservative positions from these two axioms, rationally and empirically? That is our task today in what follows.

Abortion
While libertarians are divided on this issue, they should not be. Social conservatives believe that human life begins at conception. If this is the case, then by Axiom 1, it is the fundamental role of the state to protect this citizen from the point of conception.

If it is not the case, then it is incumbent upon libertarians to come up with a definition of when state protection of the individual should commence. The problem here is that it will always be possible to come up with an example using this definition that would allow the state to kill an adult in the same circumstances.

For example: "Life begins only when the foetus is self-sustaining." By this reasoning, would it be permissible to abort Stephen Hawking who is only kept alive by a bevy of nurses?

"Life begins when the foetus becomes "conscious". Would it then be permissible to abort adults who are unconscious?

"It is permissible to abort a foetus up until the point where it begins to feel pain." Is it then permissible to abort adults who don't feel pain?

Further examples are left as an exercise for the reader.

Gay Marriage
The issue here is the perversion of language perpetrated by collectivists and which concerns libertarians as much as it does social conservatives. Liberals are masters at redefining terms and then claiming them for their own uses. Liberals wish to redefine the word "marriage" as something like "a long term love affair between two consenting adults." This completely ignores the social and political history of the term which relates generally to the establishment of a family and the rearing of children.

Private right vs. Public sanction
While libertarians couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, they should beware of any and all attempts to increase the sphere of public sanction. Public sanction of marriages (marriage licenses issued by the state) has historical roots and libertarians should be concentrating on reducing this state power (by trying to abolish state licensing of marriage altogether) rather than on increasing it by redefining the word "marriage" to include people who were heretofore not included.

Drugs and Prostitution
I'll admit that this subject is slightly more difficult, but that the second axiom comes into play. Libertarians argue that the nefarious side effects of these activities are due to the fact that the state has made them illegal.

If the sale and possession of drugs was not illegal, libertarians argue, they would be cheaper and addicts would not need to rob and steal in order to feed their habits. Drug cartels would not have the money to subvert entire countries.

If prostitution were legal, it would not need to hide itself in the seemier parts of the city, creating no-go wastelands.

Two points:

One, these questions can be placed in an empirical context by asking whether or not in those communities where these activities are legal there is actually less infringement on the liberty of others. Amsterdam is a good example, and while the evidence is not strong, it does appear that libertarians are wrong. Amsterdam neighborhoods with high rates of drug use and prostitution, though legal, are not particularly safe for the general public.

Two, there is a broader question involving the public space. By acting to reduce the public space (by privatizing much of it), libertarians can drive these activities into private where they belong. The case of prostitution in Nevada is instructive. By limiting prostitution to private brothels, the general public is not confronted with the seemier side of it unless they choose to be.

Libertarian goals and Social Conservatism
Many of the goals of Social Conservatism fall out of the equation when the goals of libertarianism are considered:

Prayer in school? Liberal indocrination of children? Get the government out of the school business.

Religious symbols on public property? Reduce the amount of public property and increase the amount of private property.

Welfare dependency? Get rid of redistibutionist taxation.

Abortion? Define citizenship as beginning at the moment of conception.

Gay Marriage? Take the issuance of marriage licenses out of the hands of the state.

For further discussion of some of these issues, check out my multiple-utopias.org website and join in the debate.

As always, please feel free to revise and extend these remarks.

The Ultimate Anti-Global Warming Argument

Now that the Enviro-Nazis have come out and clearly stated that anyone who denies global warming will be tried for "crimes against humanity", I want to clearly state for the future record that I'm not a "global warming denier." I love trees. And your little dog too. The globe will warm. The heavens will rend. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Against all physical laws, gigantic ice-wielding hurricanes will devour Manhatten. In short, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

Now that I have saved myself from future prosecution, I still want to ask "So what? What are we supposed to do about it?" I would like to present for your intellectual pleasure, the ultimate anti-global warming argument. The advantage to this argument is that all it requires is a pen, a cocktail napkin and a Earth First knot-hole surfer to act as foil. What is truly great about the argument is that your tree-hugging friend will agree with everything you say right up until you reach the conclusion, at which point he will begin to do the flopping flounder - mouth opening and closing with no sound coming out as he attempts to refute it. Trust me, it's more fun than a barrel full of crystal rubbers or pyramid wearers!

STEP 1
Grab your pen and a cocktail napkin and draw a simple graph: The X axis represents the temperature rise, and the Y axis represents time.

STEP 2
Ask the granola-muncher what the temperature will be in 100 years if nothing is done (GMs like to think in terms of centures, most likely because they know they won't be around to take the heat if their predictions turn out wrong). It doesn't matter what temperature they give (it only changes the scale). Drop a line to the Y axis at the 100 year point. Then draw a dotted line from the temperature they have given. Finally, draw the diagonal from the origin to the point where the temperature line meets the 100 year line. Since GMs are usually not very good at math, you may have to explain to them that you have simplified the temperature rise curve: it may not be exactly a straight line increase, but it's close enough for our purposes.



Step 3

Ask your pet GM if he believes that ALL global warming is attributable to man or whether there is a natural component to it. After all, the Earth has had ice ages, and therefore must have had whatever is the opposite of an ice age. Even hard core global warming whackos will admit that yes, there is a natural component. Global warming climatologists, if they agree on anything, agree that this natural component accounts for roughly 50% of the observed effect. So draw a diagonal roughly half way between the Y axis and the original diagonal that you drew:

Label the bottom triangle "E" representing the Earth's contribution to global warming, and the top triangle "M" to represent man's contribution.

Step 4

Tell the GM "Fine. We'll reduce the rise in man-made global warming gases by 10% over the next 100 years." Explain to him that economists have estimated that implementing such a decrease would cost the world economy some $5 trillion dollars over that period. The GM will probably go off on a tirade ("PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS! IF IT SAVES JUST ONE HUMAN LIFE! BLOATED PLUTOCRATS. CAPITALIST PIG-DOGS! *choke*, *gasp*, *hack*, *furball*) but that's OK because we are about to spring the trap. Draw another diagonal from the origin to the 100 year line to represent the 10% reduction in the rise of global warming gases:

Step 5
Now the fun begins. Extend the Y axis (the time line). Extend the dotted line representing the initial temperature that the GM gave you. Then extend the diagonal representing the 10% reduction until it hits the temperature line. Then drop a perpendicular down to the timeline:


Bingo!
Depending on the scale of your graph, you have just demonstrated that for a cost of $5 trillion we have managed to postpone the arrival of the dreaded temperature by... 10 years. The GM will do the flopping flounder ("wuah wuah wuah"). Just for fun, you can propose that we kill off all humans to save the planet. Then just extend the "E" line until it hits the temperature line and drop another perpendicular. We won't reach the dreaded temperature for two hundred years. But of course there won't be anyone around to record the temperature at that point.

Enjoy, and good hunting!