Anti-Climacus

LINK: If you enjoy arguments about cutting utilitarians/libertarians down to size, you'll want to be following this set of arguments. Me likey:

"If the State of Texas is not entitled to its moral intuitions, then what entitles Bainbridge to his? Or, to state the libertarian premise more precisely, why should Bainbridge's moral disgust alone justify a prohibition, even if it is shared by a majority of the polity?

I think that Bainbridge's post suggests that libertarianism has its limits—even among its supposed adherents. I suspect that few, if any, persons are true libertarians in moral matters. The libertarian no-harm principle simply fails to account for intuitional moral misgivings that each of us possess and that serve as the foundational assumptions of our respective worldviews. Libertarians frequently attempt to sidestep such when-push-comes-to-shove moments by denying that an activity "x" is, in fact, harmless. But, ultimately, we are all legislating our morality. Some people are just more honest about it than others."