Libertarianism is fraudulent

EDIT:

At The Volokh Conspiracy - More on the Moral Foundations of Libertarianism, Randy Barnett argues that Libertarianism is not amoral, precisely because it doesn't involve itself with morality. It's tough to summarize the post, so go read/consider it, but he quotes another blogger that:

the sparse libertarian framework can be affirmed from a multiplicity of different points of view, because it is sparse, and because its principles are not bogged down with assumptions unique to any one particular point of view

He then explains:

What amazes me is not that others would disagree with this position, but that they would misunderstand it to assert that Libertarians are somehow amoral, or even against morality, or that Libertarians adopt a political philosophy that permits them to gratify their every whim. To reiterate, separating the political (how society should be structured) from the moral (how people should live their lives) is not to deny existence or importance of the moral.

This, of course, is utterly false.

Libertarianism is morally bankrupt.

If I say to you that I want my household to be financially successful, so our family is not going to spend more than it makes, that might sound very reasonable.

If I then told you that each member of my household, as soon as he or she reached an age of self-awareness, would be given a credit card, drawing upon the household's credit, and that that credit card had no limit, that would sound utterly absurd. Just saying our household won't spend more money than we make isn't going to overcome an environment without limits.

Libertarianism LEGISLATES AMORALITY. It is not passive in this manner. Libertarianism does not merely allow the populace to randomly decide a law here and a law there and concern itself only with lowering taxes. It's proponents actively pursue laws which prevent social accountability.

Libertarian support for open borders, legalized drug use, homosexual marriage, etc. specifically elminate laws that establish a foundation of social norms. Libertarian policy creates a playground of 'freedom' that enables anyone to act in any way for any personal reason, so long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's nose.

That 'freedom' is only a highway to slavery to moral perversion and self-indulgence. We have already seen this every time social norms are relaxed in America - the populace quickly embraces newfound moral 'freedom' and then exploits it for personal pleasure until a new extreme of self-indulgence becomes the social norm and 'restraint' is really only a euphemism for finding some absolute zero of moral standards we're not yet willing to violate.

-----

Ok, a few things. The preceding post was a quick, butchered reaction fueled by my overall frustration for the seductive effect of Libertarianism on conservatives. I should have been more precise, and, if any of the commenters were more familiar with my writing, you would see that I typically am more careful. A more in-depth look is called for.

But there are two fronts here for discussion. First is the question of whether Libertarianism is the 'true' conservativism, as it is frequently touted. Second, is Libertarianism a truly sound political theory, or is it a hollow construct?

To respond somewhat to the challenges posed:

• I speak of slavery in terms of becoming dependent on personal gratification. Alcohol and drugs are simple examples of situations in which people frequently become 'enslaved'. I am making the argument that a fairly significant portion of the population will allow itself to become dependent on other, less obvious forms of personal gratification when social norms are not just relaxed, but come close to being eliminated.
• My grasp on Libertarianism is quite good. I was speaking rather tongue-in-cheek, although I didn't adequately display that. When I say 'as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's nose' I am referring to the cliche phrase used by Libertarians to illustrate their idea of personal liberty. But the idea is so nebulous that, as was so nicely pointed out, mismanaging a family budget could then be a case for new laws according to some interpretations of Libertarianism. If we make laws only when it involves one person interfering with another, and mismanaging a budget is considered interference, then we might have to make laws about how families are allowed to budget.
• As to this idea that 'most' people handle this and that properly. Here is where your argument falls short: Although I may handle drugs, alcohol, and fidelity fine, I may have a very serious problem with gambling. My neighbor, on the other hand, may have no problem with gambling, but is an alcoholic waiting to happen. And a third may be a sex-addict. The problem is that if we are not constantly vigilant as a society holding each other accountable (not necessarily legally), then each person is much more likely to fall into the trap to which he or she is most susceptible.
• The question about the 51-49 vote turns morality on its head. It is not because of a vote that something becomes moral or immoral. It is precisely reversed. It is due to an individual's interpretation of morality that he or she votes one way or another. The fact that votes are decided sometimes by very close margins only indicates that there is a stark disagreement about what is right and wrong. The numbers of a vote in and of themselves are not an indication of what is right and wrong. They are an indication of what those people believe to be right and wrong.
• Lastly, if you can say with a straight face that our changing social norms have not made infidelity more acceptable than it was 50-60 years ago, then you are ignorant of history. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is. Most particularly, the 60's counter-cultural revolution changed overall acceptance of previously stigmatized behaviors. That paradigm shift may have occurred at previous times in history (such as the roaring 20's) but for wars, but that is up for debate.
• I'm going to have to make a new post to better explain my interpretation of Libertarianism.