More politics. Boring.
First of all, like I said, Democrats just like Republicans force their moral beliefs upon other people, not just in things like environment. Again, in example, they want to force religious groups to support reproductive rights for their employees, even if it runs counter to the group’s beliefs. There’s no freedom in that stance at all. So if your justification is moral libertarianism, there’s no basis for favoring either Democrats or Republicans.
Second of all, I have no idea why people associate moral laws with “forcing” people to believe something. That’s a logically inconsistent view, fails to make a distinction between faith and moral law.
Of course I’m against anything that legislates faith. Even remotely so, like, I’m still against the Alabama 10 Commandments thing I think. But there’s a difference between that and moral laws. Just about every law involves some sort of belief system. So like, you can’t argue that it’s wrong to have laws against abortion because it’s wrong to “force” people into certain beliefs in that regard. On that basis, you can’t defend laws against murder, or burglary, or speeding, or anything, since those laws are all based on belief systems that say those things are bad. And who are we to impose those belief systems on people who disagree? If we are not to have laws that impose “beliefs”, we cannot have any laws. (Note: I’m not saying it’s logically inconsistent to support abortion. Just the argument that we shouldn’t “force” people to believe things.)
Unless the basis is some sort of majority rules, which is deeply troubling. I.e., the vast majority of people think murder is wrong, so it’s OK to legislate against murder, but with say stem cell research, there’s no clear majority opinion, so we shouldn’t legislate anything. The logical conclusion of this view is if a certain percentage of people were to come to believe that murder under any circumstances were OK, then it would be suddenly be wrong to legislate against murder. And I’m sorry, but I have to believe that it’s right and good to have laws against murder, that it’s independent of culture and opinion, and that any society that has laws against murder is a better one.
Anyway, the other problem with the “don’t force people to believe” thing is that this attitude puts one squarely on the wrong side of social progress in history. I’m talking about stuff like slavery and civil rights. If you read your history books, things changed because a minority insisted on making law what they knew to be right despite being in the minority. Courts imposed laws guaranteeing civil rights for minorities, and it made this country a better place. Virtually all progress in stuff like this occurred because of the active minority pursuing legal change. Had they not pursued legal change and just waited for people to come around, we might still be waiting.
So yeah, I’m fairly against the don’t impose your belief view in regards to law not related to matters of faith, because I think it’s both logically inconsistent and socially regressive. Just my opinion.