Amoral Government vs. Immoral Government

During lunch, one of my comrade-in-arms asked me about my libertarian leanings. Put simply, my theory is if I cannot live in a perfectly moral government, I would much rather live under an amoral government as opposed to an immoral government. So therefore, with all of the Supreme Court desicions on abortion, sodomy, et al. – although I fiercely disagree with judical activism – they are marginally acceptable if and only if they are a move towards an amoral (and presumably libertarian) society.

My thoughts on this is that I beleive that the strength and conviction of my ideals (i.e. conservative principles centered around Catholic social teaching) would win in the public square. It would be far better to debate in the public square against other ideas with the facilitation of an open government rather than debate in the public square vs. socialism plus government, or modernism plus government. In other words, a presumably moral government could be the wrong set of morals. . . it could be socialist, modernist, populist, puritannical, etc. A government that simply sets up the framework for free speech without prejudice would be best, because it forces citizens to police themselves via discussion, evangelization, debate, prostelyzation, and all of those good things.

Better to have a free for all and honest debate create a moral people, in which case you would not need laws against abortion, or for a living wage, etc. It would simply happen because the government consists of a virtuous people that would will these actions themselves – without the force of law.

Just a thought.