libertarians recognize that there’s no way to allow government to control morality while keeping it constrained on other matters. Hunter lamented libertarians’ deprioritization of “individual responsibility (and) limited government,” but conservatives who argue that government should be empowered to stop people from making immoral decisions must reconcile that position with their belief that government should be strictly limited. Exactly how government is to be, on the one hand, powerful enough to halt a wide swath of immoral activity and, on the other, limited enough to not intrude on other freedoms is unclear. It is easy to see how quickly this idea unravels any design at limiting government to any meaningful degree.
The State is Immoral
Beyond this, state involvement in morality poses another problem, because the state tends to corrupt rather than propel morality. What politicizing moral issues ultimately accomplishes is the state’s acquisition of the power to define what is and isn’t moral. Even worse, it allows the state to use its violent and coercive powers to enforce these definitions.
This might seem appealing at first blush, but it can only remain so as long as the state’s definition of morality is on your side. What happens, however, if the people in power change their mind about what is moral, or if people with different conceptions of morality ascend to power? Suddenly all that political power to define and enforce morality is turned against you.
