I, personally, have developed an attitude where if something doesn't involve me directly, it's not my business. An exception, of course, being anyone getting hurt. But I don't think everyone is emotionally/psychologically capable of having this attitude.
Even if everyone is capable and willing of this attitude at the theoretical level, at the practical level there may well be honest differences of opinion about what does or doesn't involve you directly, or what qualifies as "anyone getting hurt."
Slavery and abortion are the two easiest examples to mention. Even if you are not a slave nor a slave owner it is clear that slavery is harmful to at least the slave, and likely to the slave owner as well (though the owner presumably has made the choice freely). So do we ban slavery or tolerate it? Leading question, I know.
Now look to abortion. Like slavery, legal elective abortion doesn't affect you directly unless you are a pregnant woman considering it, or an unborn child subjected to it. But legal elective abortion most certainly hurts the child whose life is ended and likely also hurts the mother (though she may not recognize the damage immediately). On the flip side, bans on abortion impose certain hardships on pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant.
There are less emotional issues precisely because we've not nationalized them. Does public nudity or sex directly affect you to the point you have some legitimate right to prevent it? Where is the exact line between poor taste and public indecency as clothing reveals more and more? Turns out these are still local issues. There are nude beaches, Vegas, Hollywood, Mardie Gras, and Spring Break in Florida where public decency standards are quite a bit different than in many other locations. A billboard deemed pornographic in Utah or Mississippi might be within acceptable limits in Los Angeles or Vegas.
The feds have provided a level of respect for freedom of speech/expression below which the States may not drop. States can choose to be more tolerant of pornography, vulgarity, etc, but are not required to. Admittedly, the definition of what is protected and what isn't is not exact and sometimes has be revised. But notice how we have far less concern about public indecency, legal prostitution, or gambling than we do with recreational drugs. Local control minimizes national conflict. Notably, the national concern over recreational drugs seems to be decreasing as the feds de facto permit States to adopt their own policies despite de jur federal laws.
This stands in stark contrast to 40 years with no real decrease in political conflict nationwide over abortion.
Those who suggest the entire nation should just adopt a libertarian attitude as the solution to cultural conflicts are a bit like those who think that "diversity" means every institution, neighborhood, etc should have a mix of cultures, races, etc. That isn't "diversity"; every neighborhood, every newspaper editorial board, every board of trustees, now looks the same.
Diversity is when we have left leaning newspapers, right leaning media, libertarian organs, religious voices, and secular media all available, competing for customers, and providing different views of the news. Unbiased reporting is a nice thought. Maybe it is achievable. But even the choices of which events are "newsworthy" vs which are not will be made with certain biases. Maybe honestly advertised bias is better than hiding biases.
I don't want every restaurant to try to do a good job of 15 different styles of food. I want a place that specializes in Chicago Style pizza, while another does NY style, while another does Sushi, with Indian down the street, and great BBQ joint nearby, a sub-style sandwich shot over there, and a nice coffee and bagel joint.
There is nothing wrong with a libertarian society....within limits. And the same thing can be said for a liberal society where the social safety net is a little nicer, historic neighborhoods and buildings are preserved, and communities are planned rather than just growing organically. Ditto for a conservative society with more individualism, but some limits on public consumption, where religious voices are not just welcomed but encouraged in society, and where workfare is more common than welfare. I suppose one might even manage to figure out to get an anarchist society to function ok under certain conditions.
It really is geographic proximity that causes conflict. What I see, hear, smell every day affects me a lot more than what happens across a State line. There is no "proper" maximum speed for interstates across the nation. Texas has stretches posted at 85 now I think. Utah has big stretches posted at 80 with most of our urban areas posted at 70, a couple of short sections are 65. I think Montana went a while with no posted daylight limit, just a "safe for conditions" requirement. But if Massachusetts believes 55 is the maximum safe speed, so be it...in the Bay State.
Charles
