Notice that instead of specifying who was allowed to vote they only stipulated that the same people be allowed to vote in federal elections as were allowed to vote in state elections. Notice too that the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit states from denying voting rights to blacks – it simply says that their representation in Congress will be reduced accordingly. In case you haven’t noticed – limited government is not what we have in any meaningful way today – nor is it what most people seem to be looking for. You may not agree with the lines I think that communities should be allowed to draw, but I think that in practice you would find that I am very supportive of individual liberty.

By the way, if I had been in charge of Card’s universe Peter Wiggin would definitely have had some serious therapy before he had a chance to unite humanity. I’m not convinced that such a disturbed individual would have had a reasonably likelihood of turning out like Peter did.

If you had been in charge of Card’s imaginary universe Peter Wiggin would have been thrown in jail for his animal cruelty and would never have had the chance to unite humanity and save the world!

Are you the same David who’s been reporting on The Federalist Papers? After all that study you still think it is acceptable for the majority in society to use government to sanction or ban anything they want? Guns too? I don’t even need to be a crazy eyed libertarian to disagree with that. Any American who understands our founding documents will look at your proposal with disgust.

You asked, “Do I really have individual liberty if I am not allowed to choose that the government should not sanction certain activities?”

This idea is the whole point behind our nation’s founding document. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were intended to limit our government to a great degree. The founders never intended to give government the power to execute whatever whims the majority of voters bade it to do as you seem to be suggesting. I’m a little surprised that you can’t see that what you are now proposing (tyranny of the majority) is the exact opposite of the “culture of individual liberty” you supported in your original post.

You admire that I claim to know where to draw the line but your admiration can be put aside. I don’t claim to know where to draw the line. I only claim that communities should be allowed to draw lines.

Some communities will chose to ban drugs, others will choose to ban guns, and others will chose to ban both or neither. In cases of those things which are not universally banned the punishment should generally be removal from the community – in other words, if you want to do something that we don’t allow you go do it elsewhere. Some people may find themselves living in near isolation because of their personal desires – and they are allowed to do so as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

Do I really have individual liberty if I am not allowed to choose that the government should not sanction certain activities?

Untempered libertarianism? Animal torture and killing is the best you can do?* Have you ever seen a mink farm? What other agricultural ventures are you in favor of banning? Foie gras? How many other moral decisions are you willing to allow government to decide for people in your “culture of individual liberty”?

You claim to know where to draw the line. I admire that. It is exactly because I don’t know where the best place to draw the line is that I support the idea of natural rights and individual liberty. You are correct that under a system based on freedom for the individual prosecutions can’t happen until someone has actually harmed someone else. At least under such a system there is never any question about whether or not a punishment is warranted. The more you use government to protect people from themselves the more you abuse the principles you claim to support in your post.

Both conservatives and liberals misrepresent what individual liberty really is while claiming that they are its superior supporters. We’d all be better off if both groups were a little more thoughtful about the words they use.

I’m realistic. I know that the vast majority of people disagree with me about how valuable a principle individual liberty really is. I have no doubts that lines will continue to be drawn by those on the left and right in ways that further restrict my liberty. I can live with that. But I still speak up against it when I can.

* I’d have gone after drug legalization or something crazy like that

If the question is between Paul Mero style conservatism and untempered libertarianism then I am definitely arguing for conservatism. I think where we disagree is that I believe that a culture of individual liberty does not have to exclude the ability for society to set boundaries on what is deemed acceptable. Like I said before, society should not prosecute some things that are considered unacceptable by the majority but it should not be forced to condone those things either.

You seem to imply that a true culture of individual liberty would allow an individual to do anything which did not infringe upon the rights of other people. The trick is that such a definition would accept as fully legal a person choosing to torture and kill their own pets. You may argue that committing such acts should be unacceptable because engaging in them quite likely leads to a greater acceptance of acts that do infringe upon the rights of other people, but the preceding definition of a culture of individual liberty would state that a person can choose to make that choice for themselves and could not be prosecuted until their actions had crossed that line.

OK so let’s say the liberal wins and the word marriage is redefined as any type of union- gays, polygamy- child and adult- anything goes-.

It changes the language- Not the fundamental meaning from which the language emerges. The original historical meaning that the word “marriage” signifies doesn’t go away- instead new language emerges to signify the historical meaning that was formerly signified by the word “marriage”. This creates historical confusion as the liberals succeed in commandeering a language term but not it’s significant meaningfulness. 100 years from now, historians will have to explain how a new word was coined to denote the meaning that the word “marriage” formerly represented and that until such a date, the word “marriage” signified the same meaning as the newly coined signifier- and after a certain date, marriage signifies the meaning attributed to it by liberal culture thieves- who, in another hundred years, are probably demanding the newly coined language term be deprived of it’s meaning and reassigned the meaning dictated by the language thieves.

You assume too much. I’m not criticizing you I’m only pointing out that you are arguing for conservatism…not individual liberty. They are not the same thing.

I’m saying that someone who truly values individual liberty wouldn’t support government preference for any type of marriage. Government recognition involves government granting special tax subsidies and legal rights for one group of people at the expense of others. Conservatives make a fairly good argument that these real costs to liberty are worth the price because government recognition of “traditional” marriage provides a benefit to society and children. Is that where you’re coming from too? If so than you are not making an argument that derives from the view that a “culture of individual liberty” is the ideal. You are arguing as a conservative. Again, they are not the same thing.

I’m not saying you are wrong about the policy preferences you have made reference to. I am saying that you and other conservatives are wrong when you try to argue that you value individual liberty any more than leftists do.

I wasn’t being disrespectful when I referred you to Mr. Mero in an earlier comment. He is one of the few conservatives I’ve heard from who effectively argues that individual liberty isn’t an overly important moral value in any debate for conservative policy. Your last paragraph in this post downplays the value of individual liberty and ‘outs’ you as a conservative in the Paul Mero mold. There isn’t anything wrong with that but it is incompatible with the idea supported in the rest of your post of a “culture of individual liberty”.

The government has no business prosecuting individuals who choose relationships that are not recognized by the government unless those relationships do not meet the criteria for voluntary. On the other hand, the fact that people choose voluntary relationships that do not fit the officially sanctioned types does not obligate the government to recognize the new varieties. (By the way – the government is not required to recognize any particular relationship situation.)

Government need not recognize polygamy or gay relationships officially so long as they do not prosecute those relationships when they are truly voluntary (I’m thinking of the age restrictions here).

If you cannot see the glaring difference between prosecution and lack of recognition then we won’t be able to understand each other.

Lest there be any confusion here – it was gay marriage that I figured you were making assumptions about. Based on your comments I was right about what you believed my position to be. Although I see no reason why the government should officially recognize homosexual relationships I am an ardent supporter of enforcing the legitimate rights of gay couples such as was supposedly being advanced in the Common Ground Initiative. (The caveat there is that I never got to read the actual Common Ground bills before they got pulled so I refuse to assume that the bills did exactly what they were advertised to do.) If you want to have a better idea about my positions just check out what I have written about adoption.

I made no assumptions. My comment was restricted to discussion of the quote from your post that was cut and pasted into my comment.

Are you comparing HOA covenants with the government telling people what kind of marriages they are allowed to voluntarily participate in?

In the HOA the participants voluntarily surrendered their individual liberty to put up whatever kind of fence they wanted when they joined the association. They weren’t forced to be a member.

The ban on polygamy is different. It involves one group in society forcing their marriage preferences on another at the point of the government’s guns.

If you can’t see the glaring differences between your chosen examples maybe you should think a little more about what liberty means.

DeChristopher’s situation involves him defrauding the federal government and the other bidders at the auction. Whenever someone initiates force or fraud against another person or their property they are the criminals infringing on individual liberty. Punishing them is one of the few proper roles of government.