A Natural Moral Order: Why Regulation is Unnecessary
Posted in Power to the People by R Lee Wrights on January 31st, 2007 by Jason A. Junge, author of Why Freedom
Most moral discussions and arguments today, from personal discussions to political propositions, seem to end in an impasse wrought from the magnetic chasm of moral relativism. Even solid, traditional principles fall prey to assertions of ethnocentrism or superannuation in a supposedly globalized and rapidly evolving population.
Family values, an often cited basis of morality in American society, for example, will depend on how one defines a family, what constitutes a “good” family, and other abstractions that can quickly be deconstructed to a vanishing point. A family unit in one culture is immutable, while in others it changes with the departing or marriage of children. A good family in one culture is closely knit and interactive, while in others it is born of respectful independence. And of course, these definitions change over time as cultures evolve. Perhaps you live in a middle class Latin American family where the culture impels you morally as a child to take care of your parents when they age, or perhaps you live in one of the socialist European countries where the moral expectation is for the state to take care of the elderly, or perhaps you lived during the times of cavemen when the elderly were left behind once their burden was too difficult to bear. Of course, none of these cultural expectations are any more moral than the others. If a European family moved to Latin America you would still not be able to argue the family’s morals as either right or wrong even given their cultural setting. Culture, being an amorphous and mutable concept, cannot be the foundation for morality. Otherwise we’d be stuck arguing that the Spanish Inquisition was a moral endeavor given the culture of the time and place.
We - America - are being converted to a 3rd world country. The facts are clear but most Americans keep ignoring what is right in front of them. Additionally, they keep listening to people that absolutely have no interest in what is best for America, the American people, and the people of the world.
I believe in non-violence, but perhaps not in the same way you might believe in non-violence. Most Americans think of Reverend Martin Luther King when they think of non-violence and rightfully so. He is the “father” of the modern, American non-violence movement, but did we interpret King vision correctly?
Police squad cars all across America bear the slogan, “There’s no excuse for domestic violence.” Yet there is one situation in which the media and the public seem to feel that domestic violence is sometimes excusable - when the perpetrator is a woman, and the victim is a man.
Last week was a tough one for a couple of my friends. One of them was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had to have immediate surgery to remove the originating tumor, and she’s now waiting to hear a recommended course of treatment dependent on the results of tests to determine the cancer’s spread. As of today, her prognosis is reasonably good.
Let me open by saying that this is a piece for Libertarians-so it probably won’t mean much to those of you who aren’t Libertarians-be it large or small “L” types. 
As most Libertarians agree, the best way to win the so-called “War on Drugs” is to end it once and for all. Not partially, but completely. 
I want to thank Lee Wrights for allowing me to respond to what has been written and said about former Congressman Bob Barr becoming the Region 4 (consisting of Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, the Carolinas, Georgia and Mississippi) representative on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC).
The highly-touted “summit” of an anti-gun mayors’ association today in Washington, D.C. appears to be all rhetoric and no real solutions to violent crime in America, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
The American people can tell the truth. 
