I do not know the answer either, it sounds impossible to change behaviour without financial incentives, or in other words resort to the state’s monopoly of force.

The only possible alternative would be for the state to surrender its tax raising and coercive powers to another bod(ies) such as religious organsiations who could then attract faith based subscriptions in place of taxes to distribute health and education to those requiring it. One concomitant condition would be subscription to a moral contract whose enforecemnt would be mind-bogglingly complex.

Moral change of the type you would like to see can only come from a great exemplar (eg Christ, Buddha, Mohammed etc) and I see no prospect of our society being able to produce such a person in the context of 200 years of secular materialism. A moral exemplar who believed in a small state would find it impossible to gain popular support because most of the population have become dependent on government largesse for healthcare, education and redistributed income. such a moral exemplar would be easily caricaturable as a heartless conservative modelled on US Republican Right wing fantasy.

Daniel

Now, what does this mean? In my view non-state bodies need to take a larger community role, and this should be encouraged not only through tax breaks but sometimes even by government handing private bodies (such as charities, businesses, religious groups etc) cheques to perform public services, from education and health to poor relief.

I particularly think this is necessary in schools; since, as I have argued, there is no such thing as a “value-neutral” environment, we need to allow schools to be run by such businesses, charities and faith groups, all with alternative ideologies and ethoses (if that is a real plural???) So, a sports academy might end every day with P.E., because it is of the opinion that pupils perform better at academic tasks when also stimulated physically. Religious schools would include prayers and, at boarding schools, weekly services, since they are of the view that such things are important for personal and moral growth. As it is, thousands of pupils in state schools are subject to the monopoly of government control, and in short it’s wrong for governments to have a one-size-fits-all model for education. With the example of the comprehensive project, we can see in education a clear attempt by government to set itself up as a moral dictator, instilling artificial egalitarianism, social liberalism, cultural relativism and political correctness in young people.

The question is, if people in society have not “cultivated the virtues”, and government is incapable of producing the results for society that we need, how do we encourage private bodies and individuals to fulfill their moral roles? I really don’t know the answer.

Moral fault may be found, but not legal fault (even if only for practical grounds).

“How can we expect individuals to behave responsibly with no societal moral basis upon which they can draw?”
Society and moral tradition would still exist in a small state society. Politicians can do two things: legislation and exhortation. Libertarian politicians would only do the legislation. I don’t think this would be a problem: there would still be public discussion of morality, with everyone who currently does it except politicians and anyone else backed up by tax money.

As far as I can tell, your argument is not against liberty, only that it is not enough on its own (Reeves: “Good societies need good people.”) Perhaps.

Of course I agree that private action might be detrimental to someone’s well-being. Insulting someone might hurt their feelings, but is not illegal. Do you think it should be? Are you arguing for legislation, or merely exhortation by politicians, or something else? What should politicians do?

“While the man is sill ‘within his own garden’ there is no problem.”

“if someone does not resist “emotional pressure” it is their fault. No ordinary person is not strong enough to do so.”

I know what “libertarians believe” about these issues, and I believe you are gravely, gravely mistaken. The idea that people’s approach to sex is as straightforward as “consent or not” is deplorably basic and inadequate. Your idea that consent is either given or not, and that’s the end of the matter, is simply not realistic at all. You’ve just proposed garden fence theory again. Rather than explain why it is better than my model of a shared, objectively recognised values system you have just said “I believe in garden fence theory”. We know you do :p

I’m not proposing that government can improve the way humans treat each other. I’m not challenging the libertarian idea of smaller government. I AM challenging the libertarian idea that

“most people are capable of behaving responsibly, though there are exceptions (children, the mentally deficient), who are protected by law. Otherwise, if someone does not resist “emotional pressure” it is their fault.”

This is simply not a sufficient way for humans to live. There must be a common sense of right and wrong, of appropriate and inappropriate conditions for sexuality, to use but one example. Simple liberty won’t make people happy, it will just give people the room to either be selfish and indulgent and repellent, or to be just, moral, selfless and compassionate, or anything in between. I’m suggesting that a lot more is required of people than just to obey the law. The idea that morality can simply be thought of in reductive terms, of rights and obligations, the law of contract, is a fallacy.

Humans are not as free as they think they are; there is no such thing as a “value-neutral” society in which people independently and rationally make our own value judgments based on our own opinions. Society is morally, immorally or amorally orientated, it is based on certain sets of assumptions and “givens”. This is why the idea of total individual responsibility is flawed. How can we expect individuals to behave responsibly with no societal moral basis upon which they can draw?

If your libertarian society is one in which person x may pressure partner y into sex, partner y caves in and no moral fault is found in person x, then it isn’t one I want to live in. We need smaller government, certainly, so that people are freer to pursue moral ends. But that isn’t all we need, and to kid ourselves into thinking that freedom from government will constitute a good and happy society is dangerous.

“Someone who is emotionally pressured into sex has, according to the liberal mind, consented, and under the rule of sexual contract, has not been offended by their partner. I would argue that a moral offence has indeed been committed, which has damaged the emotional welfare of the pressured partner.”

Consent is either given or not given. Libertarians believe that most people are capable of behaving responsibly, though there are exceptions (children, the mentally deficient), who are protected by law. Otherwise, if someone does not resist “emotional pressure” it is their fault. No ordinary person is not strong enough to do so.

“Skidelsky uses the example of a man who … sits down with a six-pack to watch porn all day. To the liberal, who’s moral outlook is shallow and incomplete, he isn’t offending anybody, and is within his ‘rights’. On the contrary, there is immense fallout from such a self-destructive activity. The man’s attitudes to women and sexuality will become (possibly slowly and subtly, but nevertheless surely) selfish, centred around his own gratification. The man has failed in his obligations to respect women and to treat them as individuals worthy of respect, and to uphold this general principle in terms of society’s moral fabric. By being so irresponsible in cultivating virtues and indulging vice, he will mould himself in such a way that he is likely to behave badly towards others in the future. To the liberal this is irrelevant: the man is operating within his own garden. But the garden fences are permeable.”

While the man is still “within his own garden”, there is no problem. Once he breaks the law, there is. But there is evidence that pornography reduces rape.

See Todd Kendall: “Pornography, Rape, and the Internet”.

Though there is criticism of the paper here and here.

Generally, my problem with your article is that you don’t propose any policy. Either none of your “problems” are severe enough to require government intervention or legislation, or it is difficult to see what the government could achieve by intervention or legislation.