You lump in murder and theft as anti-social behavior. In some cases, they can be socially accepted - and still wrong.
There's no substantive difference between morality and social norms. Morality is just the lens through which we perceive and act upon the social norms we have internalized. There is no universal morality. Rocks don't have morality. An animal might have some very primitive notion of what constitutes behavior that it opposes, such as the invasion of its perceived territory. To a bear, it might be "wrong" for a human to enter its territory (no, I don't think bears have the mental capacity to think in those terms, but our method of seeing things in moral terms is only an advanced version of the same thing, although our substantive internalized norms are much more influenced by our social environment due to the fact that we are more social creatures).
What you mean to say is that murder/theft may be socially accepted in certain context (by others) - and still wrong (to you). Not still wrong as some sort of absolute truth. Morality is a judgment about something which requires an actor to do the judging. Morality is always defined by that actor's perspective, and the criteria that she uses to inform her judgment.
A social expectation is that a child completes high-school or a person pursues additional schooling afterwards. I referenced before a social expectation for a man to marry his pregnant girlfriend. Murder is not a violation of of social expectations - it is a violation of liberty.
Um, you're just flat out wrong. Murder is a textbook example of a violation of social expectations. Whether or not it is a violation of liberty depends on your own personal definition of what liberty is. I
It's universally wrong - that is not subject to social norms.
Prove that it is universally wrong. Hell, show me the evidence that it is wrong at all. There is no proof! Your perception that something is 'wrong' is merely a mental construct. Your brain has constructed an artificial category of activities labeled "Bad" or "Wrong" and has placed various things within them based on the social norms you've internalized as you have been exposed to them in various settings. This is just pure biology. As a social animal we need a way of internalizing social norms which have developed to promote the maximization of social welfare (including our own). Our mental device of morality is hardwired like emotional responses to improve our chances of survival. Of course some people (sociopaths) are simply missing this hardwiring altogether which is why they don't follow a lot of social rules (or do "bad" things to use the language of our morality construct).
The only real evidence that something fits into the mental category of "wrong" is that "it just
feels wrong." Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's a hardwired and quasi-emotional brain system.
AND - the fact that some social norms have historically accepted it shows the dangers of codification of mores.
Let's back up for a second and keep in mind that it means nothing to say that murder is "wrong" since murder is defined as a wrongful killing of another. So exactly when and how the killing of another is "wrong" and when it is not is a hell of a lot more complicated than you seem to think.
All codification is the codification of social norms to some extent (the extent being that to which they are the norms accepted by the society as a whole rather than the whims of a small elite).
My take ... social mores are what they are. As Melissa pointed out they change over time. In one way if you don't' like them - tough, too bad. If you want to work on changing them ... go for it. You can use your liberty to speak out against them. Still, if others use their liberty to not recognize a relationship, not hire/fire, it's not the business of the state to try and codify against that. If people want schools that ignore homosexuality, that's their prerogative. If they want to keep books promoting homosexuality out of their school, that's their prerogative. If they want to teach their children that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural - that's their prerogative. If they want to open a business providing a matching service for heterosexuals only - that's their prerogative.
I don't buy this argument, made in the name of liberty, at ALL. If you really believe in freedom, if you really believe in liberty, you have a DUTY to oppose all forms of oppression. If you think that the only form of oppression is that which flows from the barrel of a gun, you're simply naive.
I'm not advocating the use of the state to end bigotry, although I'm certainly supportive of any measures aimed at eliminating the state's acquiescence and tangible support of social forms of oppression.
Real libertarians don't just throw up their hands and claim neutrality on this issue.
Half-ass libertarians just oppose state violence. Real libertarians oppose state violence because they are PRO freedom, and AGAINST ALL forms of oppression. We don't turn a blind eye to racism, sexism, class inequality, and bigotry. We know that these are social maladies that will ONLY be overcome if we actively work against them. We know a society is not truly free if dominated by bigotry in all of its ugly forms. Don't be blinded by a singular goal of opposing the state - be aware that human freedom has many enemies of which the state is only one.
