Mike Pence, former Vice President and current 2024 Presidential candidate, recently said while being interviewed by Jordan "Yadda yadda lobsters" Peterson:
"I'm libertarian enough to say, if you're an adult, live how you live with decisions you make--we'll love you, and love our neighbor as ourselves as my faith requires, right... live and let live."
There's been... some backlash. Some brave Twitter faith warriors made it clear that they don't like what he said (real slam dunk there*). Not The Bee, who I used to really like, slammed him, saying, "Never trust politicians to defend your faith."
But I agree with Mike.
Why?
Simply put, we shouldn't ban things just because we in particular happen to believe those things are immoral.
Now, I hear your objections: "What the heck?! We ban murder—isn't that wrong??"
We don't ban murder just because it's wrong. We ban it because it infringes on someone else's rights. Defining someone's rights isn't a piece of cake, but it's a whole separate question from defining what's wrong and what's not.
There are exceptions—laws made to keep people from endangering themselves—but a truly individual law-breaking is rare. Almost always, breaking the law in a first-world country harms or hinders someone else—whether it's the other drivers endangered by your drunk driving, or the other pedestrians walking the sidewalk you just spit on.
Should children be allowed to gender-transition? At the very least, it's an entirely different matter than adult transitioning. But I have no objection to allowing adults to do what they like within their own "rights-spheres". I guess that makes me a bit libertarian.
I'd love to hear y'all's thoughts. What should the role of government be in deciding morality? Is it even having one too dangerous?
*"Ahsoka Tano Nationalist" claims that the recent push to legalization/acceptance of LGBTQ issues is a "slippery slope". Amusingly enough, that argument is itself a slippery slope—reaching conclusions by extrapolating from evidence miles uphill.
Comments