As long as we're changing people's attitudes as to the appropriate use of force in society, we are acting in the capacity of libertarians or consistent with libertarianism. Anything beyond that, whether laudable or not, is not libertarian. I don't know what to call it. For example, trying to change the minds of people who think that certain behaviors or lifestyles, though non-aggressive, are immoral.
"Immoral" almost always translates to "I will forcibly stop this, because I believe it is universally wrong."
Libertarianism holds that the
only universal wrong is to initiate force against others. That's the sum total of the universal morality within libertarianism.
I won't say that anything is wrong, unless I might forcibly stop it. I might say that certain things are things I don't support, or I prefer not to be around, or would actively avoid, or would cause me to ostracize those who do them, but I would not describe anything as "wrong" unless I believed that it involved an actual initiation of force.
To a libertarian, once you mention "morality," you are almost automatically talking about force. "My personal ethics" or "the ethical standards of my religion" or such would be better terms. If you try to claim that there are universal standards which others may be held to, merely because you happen to have certain beliefs, even though they never agreed to be held to those standards, libertarians will tend to react with indignation; we believe in the sovereignty of the individual, so trying to hold someone else to some personal ethic that he never agreed-to, and pretending that it's universal (despite the fact that he did not agree to it, so it clearly is
not universal) is offensive to that sovereignty.
Some seem to think that being a libertarian means that you have to fight "bigotry", denigrate the family, ignore social mores and customs, etc.
Other than the bigotry part, the only ones who seem to think that, are the ones who oppose libertarianism. Very few libertarians don't oppose bigotry, simply because bigotry is (by definition) irrational, and libertarianism is a rational philosophy. I'm not aware of more than a small handful of libertarians who "denigrate the family" or "ignore social mores and customs."
What about religion? Many libertarians think religion is irrational. Does that mean that the rational libertarian must oppose religion?
I guess that would depend upon the particular religion, and the rationality of the particular practitioner. Most folks will tolerate a great deal, before they feel the need to actively oppose something.
There are certainly religious individuals who are more or less rational. Libertarians do not tend to be anti-religion, in general. Libertarians tend to be opposed to specific religious individuals and groups who pick certain passages to justify their prejudices, while ignoring the overall teachings of their religion, because that sort of irrational, hypocritical behavior is far more of an affront to rationality than simple religious belief. At some point, that converts from "personal foible" to "annoyingly irrational" in the mind of the observer.
Those who admit that their beliefs are their own, don't tend to have problems with libertarians. I recall a semi-recent discussion in which Russell said something like, "I don't believe in gay marriage, so I wouldn't attend a church while one was being held." The gay, atheist libertarian he was talking to, did not seem to take offense. Change it to, "gay marriage is wrong, so ...," and I bet he would have taken a good deal of offense. Telling someone that they are automatically bound by your personal beliefs, is only a small sliver of a step away from using force against them. Much as one might be upset if some guy was walking down the street with a gun in his hand, even if he hasn't shot anyone, libertarians tend to get upset when someone does the verbal equivalent. Keep the gun holstered by making it clear that you are speaking only for yourself and those who agree with you, and you won't get that reaction.
Joe
