I think libertarians and liberals alike are drawing upon the moral capital created by 2000 years of Judeo-Christian morality in the West. Without those underpinnings, I very much doubt you'd approve of society.
I'm not sure I agree. Please elaborate on this.
Now that I actually have some time to elaborate:
Liberals and libertarians alike have a mistaken view of mankind. Liberals are mistaken about a larger portion of the nature of man than libertarians, though.
Liberals look around the world and see the war, corruption, barbarism, murder, poverty, and general ugliness of most of the non-western world and think the West must answer for those problems because since the west is free of much of that ugliness, it must be the cause.
Liberals think this because they think man is basically good. (Or, at least, tabula rasa). As a result, those people who are living a good life must have caused those suffering from barbarism to suffer. The problem is that barbarism and
evil is the natural state of man. An explanation is not necessary for war and barbarism and corruption and poverty, an explanation is necessary for peace and harmony and wealth and comfort. The state of the west is not a
natural state.
Libertarians realize part of this. They recognize that the poverty and related economic problems of the rest of the world is due to a lack of the free market that the West adopted. They recognize corrupt governments cause the poverty. They also believe those corrupt governments cause the corruption and barbarism. In this, they miss the basis of functioning markets and the basis of a peaceful society. A moral people is a necessity before a functioning limited government can exist. (One exception being an
extremely homogeneous society.) Libertarians think the explanation for the barbarism, corruption, war, and ugliness is faulty governance.
They are mistaken, the explanation for barbarism, corruption, war, ugliness and faulty governance is the lack of an underpinning morality.
They are further mistaken as they point to countries that have rejected (or "progressed beyond") Judeo-Christian values as an argument that these morals are unnecessary. These societies still have the remnants of those values, which cause them to follow much of the morality while rejecting the basis.
This situation cannot persist. They are borrowing from that moral capital and depleting it. These societies will eventually fall apart for that reason.
This is what I mean by "borrowing the moral capital". The Judeo-Christian values informed society and formed the basis for societal norms. Rejecting those values has not yet collapsed the necessary social norms for a free and prosperous society. Note the "yet." The society cannot long persist in its current state- something must replace that basis or it will collapse. (Please note Judeo-Christian values are not the only morality that can underpin a
stable society. It is my contention they are the only values that can underpin a stable,
free society, though.)