Libertarianism - try reading Heinlein

Following from Jim's post and Ricky's post and various comments to their posts ...

I would comment that it is precisely the "nannying state" that Ricky objects to that has produced such fine upstanding citizens as Jim and Ricky themselves. I am sure Ricky will not drive at ridiculous speeds with his baby in the back seat. Yes, the nannying state seeks to protect, but ask a child if they need protection, and they often say no, yet as adults (the nannies) we know children do.

Would a libertarians state have anti-discrimination laws? Or would we all be free to discriminate against women, coloured folk, Muslims, gays etc as employers, landlords, etc? If so, where would that leave most of us in this conversation? My guess is that most of us wouldn't have got more than a minimal education so we could wash dishes and even if we did, would we have jobs? I am old enough to remember when job adverts were listed separately under "Men & Boys" and "Women & Girls" and when it was OK to write "Women need not apply" and "No blacks". Sorry, but the nanny state gave me rights, and I am not turning back that clock.

Obviously when we legislate to protect, we have to draw some lines in the sand as to where that boundary should be. Is 60 kph a reasonable speed limit for a major road, or should it be 55 kph or 70 kph? Should the permitted blood alcohol be 0.05 or higher or lower? Obviously there are individual circumstances where the legislation is too permissive and where the legislation is too restrictive. Libertarian supporters tend to point to the individual circumstances in which it is too restrictive, and I don't disagree with some of those examples. But for everyone who says "60kph is too low" or "there's too much red tape for employers", there's also the family that lost a loved one in a speed-related car crash or who is caring for a person permanently disabled in an industrial accident. The legislation of the nanny state is invariably created in response to what people believe were "avoidable" tragedies. Should the state not seek to protect its citizens?

Also when we look at the principles of libertarianism, we see them in the context of a society long-founded in the nanny state. What we cannot easily see is what a "true libertarian" state would be like. If anyone is interested in that speculation, I recommend you read science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein, especially his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Heinlein was very much a libertarian in his views and his science fiction is often very thought-provoking reading. But despite being a long time fan of Heinlein's writing (and think The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is one of his great books), I have never been truly persuaded to share Heinlein's libertarian views.