I explain my views on Libertarianism and show some flaws in the ideology. by Jay Wendt
(centrist)
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Before I begin with my diatribe, I feel I should fair and honest about my personal views. I am a registered Republican, a born-again Christian, and a military veteran. I have also voted for Democratic candidates for various offices (I proudly will say I voted against Obama). So, I do have views that are naturally antagonistic towards the libertarian ideology. However, the fact of the matter is many people find libertarianism confusing, self-contradicting, and at times a hedonistic ideology that should remain on the fringe end of the political spectrum. Let me just go through a few issues that can illustrate my point.
Gay marriage: Libertarians have held the position that government should stay out of the marriage business and allow anyone to get married. Libertarians tend to criticize recent bans on same-sex marriage, saying that it's wrong for the government to dictate what is and is not marriage. Yet, they ignore the fact that most of those bans were ballot initiatives (which were either sponsored by concerned citizens or religious organizations) approved by a majority of voters; even in the arguably liberal bastions of Maine and California. So, is the Libertarian Party against citizens dictating what is an acceptable standard of behavior (norms and morals) when government is unable to do so, or are Libertarians they in favor of forcing people to accept a standard of behavior that people have found unacceptable?
Victimless Crimes: The libertarian view on victimless crimes, such as drug use, should be decriminalized. However, if you look at the Netherlands, decriminalization can almost as bad as criminalization. Recently, in many Dutch cities such as Rotterdam and Roosendaal, they have closed many (in some towns all) marijuana coffee shops, due to the rise of nuisance crime. In addition, as it turns out, organized crime is apparently involved in the production and sale of marijuana. So the argument that legalization will reduce crime and remove the criminal elements from the pot business is wrong, apparently. So, are libertarians in favor of organized crime influence, or were they unaware of the negative affects?
Abortion: So what is the libertarian position on abortion? The party platform believes in the right to liberty, life, and choice; but which is more important. Which right is more important; the right for a child to be born and live in liberty, or the right for a woman to chose not have a child. I am trying to be polite on this issue, but I have never gotten a straight answer from a libertarian. Blame the Republicans and Democrats all you want, but at least they have the courage to state exactly in their platforms what they believe without using ambiguous language that can go either way.
So, as you can see, Libertarian ideals sound good but do not necessarily make good policy. The fact they themselves have a hard time defending their views when there is either research that prove the contrary or an outcry from voters against a position. This is why I view libertarianism in the same political category as communism and socialism; they have some good ideas but just a little too freaky to actually win. Now, do I believe they should continue to fight for what they believe, sure. However, I hope this article can explain why they will never become a really big political movement.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jay Wendt only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jay Wendt is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2009-12-01 09:15:10
Well, to answer your questions:
There is absolutely no inconsistency in demanding that government stay out of the business between two free individuals, and also demanding that everyone else do the same. You and I have no right to tell anyone how to live their lives, and whom to go into any consensual relationship with, provided it doesn't hurt any third party. So people in California or Maine, who voted for the legal ban on same-sex marriage have effectively forced their own lifestyle on gays, which is unacceptable in the libertarian framework. Those voters should simply have no say in what whoever else is doing with their private life, and that extends to the government. Simple and consistent. No matter if some arbitrary majority somewhere likes it or not. Majority rule suppresses minorities. This is a great example of it. So Libertarianism is not democracy, just to reiterate.
Secondly, drug consumption is a personal decision, which potentially harms only one's own body. So here again, no one else has any right to tell you what you can and what you can't do with your own body - therefore legally prohibiting something that doesn't threaten anyone else is a no-no. Consistent or not?
Whether gangs exploit the high prices in a climate of prohibition is not even relevant for this decision, which is a purely ethical one. However, numerous studies have indeed shown that crime, especially violent crime is significantly below where drug laws are more lenient. But again, this is an ethical debate. Economical arguments can only support ethical ones, but should not replace them.
Thirdly, abortion is a topic that libertarianism doesn't have a definite answer to. There are many religious libertarians who believe a human is in existence at the moment of conception and the mother-to-be host is not allowed to harm this prenatal person., and assume the mother has had the chance to decise against pregancy before the conception.Then there are those who put emphasize on the mother's rights over her own body.
But libertarian philosophy does not give a strinct yes or no to this question. It's really not in there. The Non-Aggression Principle remains silent on this special subject. Here we need to note that libertarian philosophy is not the alpha and omega. People are absolutely able to add their own personal views and convictions on top of the libertarian groundwork, provided it doesn't directly violate libertarian ethical rules (i.e. the NAP). So this is not consistent among "real" libertarians (wanna-be "label" libertarians are not worth discussing in this context anyway), simply because there is no consistent decision to be had purely on libertarian grounds. You need to make up your own mind, which is something any free individual should be able to do and also be able to defend in the end.
The reply above is well done and describes what then libertarian views on those subjects are. A libertarian society will not solve all issues, just as the current society will not.
There will still be crime if dugs are deciminialized. Libertarianism is still against theft and would work to punish the theft, but it does better than the current system. It doesn't punish someone for deciding what to do with their own body (the drug user).
Now if that someone steals to get money for their drugs, crashes their car into someone else's car or property because they overdosed on drugs, shot/killed/punched someone because of their drug use they would still be in trouble. Theft and assault are still crimes in a libertarian society.
The abortion one certainly is an issue where you will find libertarians disagreeing because people's morals are different at the point of which life is started and other issues. Which is exactly the same problem you'll find among members of the Democrat and Republicn parties. Some libertarians don't like abortion and wish there was no such thing (myself included) but are against the government being able to dictate that to people for various reasons. Not all Dems are pro-choice and not all GOPers are pro-life so why pick on libertarians?
You should be aware that in your scenario where people have no right to tell anyone how to live their lives is rather sillly. I mean, there is a reason why there are social norms and morals, to ensure social cohesion. Under your logic in a hypthetical situation, if I were to have a consentual relationship with a 13 year old boy it would be alright and I could marry him. Now, obiviously that's you would intend with your, but that could happen in a society that disregards societal norms and morals and adopted your logic. Now, as for no say in someone's private life, that is complete bull. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution (read it and you will see); and in our modern techno-society, a person's private life is our entertainment (just look at half of the reality junk that is on tv), so really the concept of privacy really is a joke. So, yes, it is the people's business what goes on to a certain extent to maintain cohesion in our society.
Jay Wendt, your 13-year-old boy argument doesn't hold up. Take an entry-level course in Logic.
Unfortunately, I think most American's use the same faulty logic, so as much as I'd like to roll my eyes at that remark and move on, I simply can't.
Regardless of whether or not the relationship would be consensual, a 13-year-old is still an impressionable child. When he grows up, he'll be able to make his own choices regarding who he has sex with.
As an adult, what you do with your body is your own business. If I want to tattoo an image of a nude ST. Andrew on my left cheek, that's my business and I don't need a general consensus to do so.
Why should what I consume be any different? By your asinine, faulty logic, we should ban fast food chains as well. I guarantee they've caused more harm than drugs ever will because most people have the common sense to avoid drug abuse. Heart disease...well, that's another matter.
As long as you're not harming another individual, then what you do is your business. Period. End of story. I'm so sick of my tax dollars being spent on locking up morons who wanna get stoned. It's their business. Not mine, not yours, certainly not the government's. Yet, we're forced to pay incompetent morons to make asinine laws, morons to enforce asinine laws, and then ultimately pay to keep other morons locked up for harming no one save themselves.
Forcing me, an honest tax payer, to pick up the tab for those things is a far greater crime/injustice than recreational drug use will ever be.
The age of 13 is the age of accountability in US common law. Under that, a minor of that age is accountable for crimes he or she has committed. So, it is not unreasonable to assume under a libertarian frame of mind that a 13 could be allowed to engage in pediphilial acts with an adult. In fact, Mary Ruwart even argued that in her own position papers with regard to child porn. And also, what would prevent someone from changing the laws to allow Man-Boy marriages, Man-Goat marriages, even Man-Sex-toy marriages. Remember, about 15-20 years ago, no one even thought it was possible to change the definition of marriage. So, all a smart pedophile or goat f***er could do is sue and possibly have such marriages ruled legal (as was the case with gay marriage). So, really you need to re-examine your arguement.
As for so called asinine drug laws, given the fact that drugs like Heroin and Crank has ruined so many lives and has done nothing more then cost the average tax payer billions of dollars in damages and criminal activity, it is naieve to assume that drug laws are asinine. I would recommend talking to someone who has fought heroin or crank addiction before you criticize this country's drug laws.
"You should be aware that in your scenario where people have no right to tell anyone how to live their lives is rather sillly. I mean, there is a reason why there are social norms and morals, to ensure social cohesion. Under your logic in a hypthetical situation, if I were to have a consentual relationship with a 13 year old boy it would be alright and I could marry him."
Your counter argument is defective for the two respective reasons you cite.
1. It was not said you cannot tell others what to do under libertarian rule, it was said that you cannot tell others what to do, IF what they do makes no harm upon another human being.
2. Although often explicitly unstated, the prohibition against having sex and marriage with a 13 year old boy, even under libertarian rule, is premised upon the observation that most 13 year olds do not possess the requisite legal competancy to make legally binding decisions.
I term that attribute "cognizency". It stems from the idea that some persons, although legally viable as retaining all physical rights and protections from infringment from others, do not mentally engage the value of certain things or services.
Although the ages which society currently sets for legal rights and obligations to take effect, e.g., 13, 16, 18, 21, those ages are truly arbitrary, and some individuals attain cognizency before them, and some after those ages.
Ideally, all people of any age should be presumed to have cognizency, by a libertarian standard. Practical constraints may require that a legal challenge by a third party demand that the subject individual prove their cognizency, e.g. a parent, a child's advocate, whatever.
As a counter consequence, a restitutive law or rule should be in place that recompensates the subject individual upon proof of his legal competency, most likely taken from the challenger.
Although these ideas may be considered new to classic libertarian thinking, they still adhere to libertarian principles overall, while recognizing that not all people are legally competent.
If someone launches a challenge against another, something on par with a lawsuit (ostensibly to protect that person from infringing manipulation), then the challengee has a right to recompensation for that challenge, if s/he proves the challenger wrong.
This may seem all round-about, and circumlocutive compared to the system we have now, but it would be necessary to recognize full legal competancy rights, where competancy is in question. It would also recognize those capacities in persons who would otherwise be denied them under an arbitrary age demarcation system (as we have today).
I must quote someone who will shoot down your own argument and is of your party.
“Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.” -- Mary Ruwart, 2008 candidate for the LP Presidential nomination and current member of the LNC
I find it quite sad that you ignore the words of one of your more prominent and respected leaders, in order to give a diatribe regarding something that is not relevant to the argument. I may also add that in this country, the legal system is based on precedent (not arbitary ideological or philosophical theory). That is called Common Law; and under that, once you have set the precedent that the definition of marriage can change, then there really nothing anyone can do to change that, other then hope to God that a smart pedophile does not sue for the right to marry children.
Seriously, how can any libertarian argue that individual self choice without regard to social norms and morals is a good thing with a straight face. You had a presidential candidate advocating the rights of pedophiles to have child porn for God sake. I believe you lost any credibility (and possibly your soul) just for ignoring that fact.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2009-12-02 08:54:28
Jay,
If you're going to quote Ruwart, you should probably read what you're quoting before you quote it. The passage you quote says nothing about adults having sex with children.
The "age of accountability" varies widely from state to state (some states have been known to try children in single-digit ages as "adults" for crimes), as, until recently, did the "age of consent." And the ages at which one is permitted to exercise various rights or privileges also vary (you're allowed to drive before you're allowed to vote; you're allowed to vote before you're allowed to drink).
"Seriously, how can any libertarian argue that individual self choice without regard to social norms and morals is a good thing with a straight face"
A social norm that can't prevail without the force of law behind it isn't a very strong or well-accepted social norm. One of the soundest libertarian arguments against overbearing government is that it tends to distort the natural development of those norms by pushing society away from them too fast in some cases, or by holding to them long after society has left them behind in others.
Another of the principle underpinnings of libertarianism is that since understanding of morals varies widely, only the most universal morality (prohibition of aggression) should be enforced by law.
Your entire argument seems to come down to "the majority should rule (as long as they agree with me with the moral code that I've decided is best for them)."
Child porn often involves a child committing a sexual act with an adult, duh. Have you ever seen an episode of Law & Order: SVU? Because most of America, except you and probably a few other libertarians, understands the connection between child porn and pedophilia (including having sex with a child)
Also, using your logic and the fact increase of violent crime in our country, your argument that the most universal morality (prohibition of aggression) isn't a very good one. Because in order to prohibit agression, you need the force of law and punishments (whether criminal or civil). So, really how can you even argue that with a straight face, or do you lack that much common sense.
Jay, your ramblings contain so many false statements. I suggest you go here to review the Libertarian platform. http://www.lp.org/platform There is very little that is ambiguous. Especially abortion which the government should have no say in. No abortion rights or no abortion laws. simple. as Tim Cox say's "Get Government out of our house"
Government should have no (none) say in abortion, marriage (eliminate marriage licenses) drugs or porn. That is not to say all Libertarians are for any/all of these things. This is where non Libertarians get confused. No laws about a particular matter does not mean the Libertarian is for that particular issue. This considers the Individual to be an adult. So, then, At what age is a human an individual? When you discuss individual freedoms, do you want to include the fetus or do you want to say an individual is subject to "state laws " at some set age? Say twenty one? (As always, Demorepublicans want to pick and choose) Until then is it up to the parents to raise that child? No matter what choice you make, there will be abuses. At what point or age does Government step in? According to the constitution, (actually the tenth amendment) in no case should it be the Federal Government that steps in. The rights of the individual is primary according to the constitution. Age is not mentioned in the constitution and as such, any one able to make a decision might be considered eligible for protection . Can a fetus make a decision? Who is covered/protected? read the first line of the constitution and try to make an informed decision. The Government is supposed to be controlled by the people. Unfortunately not many politicians are even aware they swore an oath to uphold and protect the constitution.
As for your statement about the Netherlands, Your facts are wrong there also. By the way, The "coffee houses" are allowed to sell Marijuana but not buy it. (how can you legally sell something you can not legally buy?) This is kind of like Obama not legalizing Medical pot but instead saying it should not be pursued. This is just political BS. It is still illegal. You can still be arrested and jailed. So it is not Really legal in the Netherlands either, it is tolerated. Although, abortion should not be any thing but an individual freedom, and should not be a Government issue! It seems to me, that if you want to have an age when an individual is an adult, then you need to keep your laws off the abortion issue also since a fetus is not an adult.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2009-12-02 18:29:05
Jay,
You write:
"Child porn often involves a child committing a sexual act with an adult, duh."
Yes, it often does. Often and always are two different things. If you're going to argue with Ruwart, however, you should argue with what she actually wrote rather than with what it would have been convenient to you for her to have written.
"Have you ever seen an episode of Law & Order: SVU?"
Yes, I have. Do all of your arguments address themselves to television fantasies rather than to the real world?
"Because most of America, except you and probably a few other libertarians, understands the connection between child porn and pedophilia (including having sex with a child)"
Actually, I understand it quite well and have probably written more extensively on it than Ruwart has (see, for example, http://tinyurl.com/yqxqby).
"Also, using your logic and the fact increase of violent crime in our country, your argument that the most universal morality (prohibition of aggression) isn't a very good one. Because in order to prohibit agression, you need the force of law and punishments (whether criminal or civil). So, really how can you even argue that with a straight face, or do you lack that much common sense."
"Aggression" and "use of force" are two different things. Apparently your English skills are as poor as your logical argumentation skills.
I sited the recent closures (2009) of coffee houses in many Dutch cities due to nusiance crime (vandalism and public intoxication). So, why you are lecturing me on howcoffee houses are allowed to sell Marijuana but not buy it is a tad odd. Although I understand not knowing about those facts, since they are recent.
Thomas Knapp,
Your argument was you cannot use the force of law to enforce a social behavior. I countered by pointing out the fact that you need the force of law to prevent/discourage acts of aggression. So, how that connects with poor english skills is beyond me, but it shows a lack of common sense on your part. As for my quoting of Ruwart, those were her exact words, without alteration.I am still amazed how blindly you will go to defend a bad point (throwing out all reason and start to even criticze an obviously humorous pop culture reference), it's almost reminiscent of trying to argue with a hard-core Communist after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It truly it is sad, but furthers my conclusion that libertarianism is in the same political category as communism and socialism: they have some good ideas but just a little too freaky to actually win.
Regarding the Netherlands.... Marijuana is decriminalized (legal to purchase in coffee shops), yet still illegal to conform with international treaties (coffee shops still have to acquire it on the black market). This has, in fact, been a very good policy for their country and is not in any danger of being changed. Rates of marijuana use are lower in the Netherlands compared to the U.S. (particularly for children, who are not allowed to purchase it, and find it less exciting since it's legal). Additionally, rates of use of harder drugs are dramatically lower, since marijuana users don't have to go to criminal drug dealers.
The situation with some coffee shops being closed has more to do with tourism. Tourists from neighboring countries, who have tougher laws on marijuana, cross the border and cause the problems you cite. If those countries had reasonable drug policy, the coffee shops wouldn't be having the problems at all.
Prohibition leads to most of the problems we see with drugs around the world -- the violence, the gangs, the corruption, the huge black market profits. Sure, drugs are not harmless, but they're a whole lot less harmful than prohibition.
They have closed the coffee shops in certain towns, primarily because of the raise in nusiance crime. Now, most of it was committed by tourists consuming very potent marijuana with high THC level. But, again they are closing coffee shops because of the increase in nuisance crime.
Jay, I came here interested in any responses you may give to anyone commenting on your post and was glad to see that the very first one you received was respectful, logical and coherent.
Then I saw this in your very first response: "... but that could happen in a society that disregards societal norms and morals and adopted your logic. "
I couldn't concentrate on anything that was said by anyone after this point because I was so confused by this statement. For me, it's important to understand how you think and process information before considering whether to give your views any credence.
So can you explain how it is possible for a society to disregard societal norms?
Suppose a majority of people voted to ban marriage between a man and a woman? Or to require that every marriage between men and women must involve not fewer than three of each? You would, of course, say that the people generally have no positive right to determine for you what you, your wife, and God say about your marriage. Right?
So, given that you would oppose a popular vote to make your kind of marriage illegal, why do you support a popular vote to make some other kind of marriage illegal. You have a right to leave other people alone in their choice of marriage, you don't have a right to impose your Puritanical views on others.
The same goes for your Prohibitionism. You want to be like Carrie Nation and take your hatchet into pot parlors and smash things up, right? But you are a a coward, so you have the DEA and law enforcement do it for you. You want to smash people's doors down, slaughter their pets, confiscate their property, and herd them into cages. Not because you think drugs are harming you, but because you know what is best for them. Which makes you not a centrist, but an authoritarian statist thug. You just don't have the guts to do the work yourself, so you hire others to do it for you.
The question of abortion is three questions. Question one is: does anyone have a positive right to life provided at the expense of another? Question two is: does a right to property extend to using deadly force to defend it at the option of the property owner? Question three is: are there technologies to separate the ending of an unwanted pregnancy from the killing of the child.
There is not now and never has been any question that a person cannot kill a mentally handicapped adult because that person thinks the mentally handicapped have no independent existence and are each just a "mass of tissue." Similarly, any other human being at any point in development cannot be killed ethically unless that person is infringing on the life, liberty, or property of another.
The answer to question one is, no. There are no positive rights. The infant in its mother's womb has no right to life at her expense. If she says "no" then the baby has to go. Similarly, you Jay have no right to live at my expense. If you need hospitalisation, I might choose to drive you to the hospital and pay for your care there, but that would be my choice. I am not obligated to do so, and no amount of coercion on your part (having the state hold many guns to my head) gives you a right to demand healthcare from me.
The answer to question two is: yes. If a woman finds a trespasser on her property at night, she can shoot that trespasser. If she finds a rapist in her home, she can shoot that rapist. If she invites a friend over, and suddenly he attacks her physically and demands sex, she has the right to defend herself with deadly force the moment she determines that the invitation was mistaken. You don't have to vote to acquit her if you are on a jury or grand jury, but you should be aware that homicide is justifiable in many cases.
The answer to question three is: some. The age at which a pre-mature baby can be born and survive to become a normal adult is getting earlier and earlier. Work is being done on artificial womb technologies, and on transplanting embryos from one mammal to another. As these technologies develop, those of you who oppose abortion on religious grounds can put up your money to save the lives of these infants unwanted by their mothers.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2009-12-03 15:02:29
"Your argument was you cannot use the force of law to enforce a social behavior."
No. My argument was that it's a bad idea to use an argument to establish a social norm. Two different things entirely.
"As for my quoting of Ruwart, those were her exact words, without alteration."
Yes, they were. You quoted her accurately -- and then argued with content that didn't exist in that quotation or anywhere else except your imagination.
If you want to critique libertarianism, fine -- but it's worth making sure that you know how silly you look when you critique a libertarianism that you create out of whole cloth for ease of bashing, rather than the libertarianism that actually exists in the real world.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2009-12-03 15:13:02
Congratulations, Jay. You've reinvented the political wheel. You've rediscovered the age-old social reality: there is no perfect solution. Wow.
And just like the guy who convinces himself that his chances of winning the lottery are 50-50 - there's two options: win or lose, "sounds 50-50 to me" - he ends up lying to himself first and foremost, and then to everyone else besides while rationalizing it.
In your essay you posit libertarianism versus non-libertarianism; then you highlight what you consider to be internal consistency issues or public policy shortcomings of libertarian idealisms [with a sprinkling of non-contextual crackpot quoting and argumentum miseracordium], and we become blessed with a self-described diatribe asserting that libertarianism is not a viable solution paradigm, but in truth only affirming what any honest PoliSci weenie already knew: it's not a PERFECT solution paradigm.
[Argumentum Miseracordium is appeal to pity: "drugs like Heroin and Crank has ruined so many lives". True, but beside the point. So has any other commodity, tangible or notional. Such as the religion which, I'm going to guess, forms the basis for your "social norms and morals" begged question.]
I diverge from most capital-L Libertarians and, in fact, consider myself a lower-case-L libertarian: the capital-L variety comes with a party platform filled with just as much hooey and shinola as the Republican or Democrat version. Libertarianism is only predicated upon our Constitution and the wording it contains, without which the Capital-L Libertarians would have no basis for their arguments that didn't emanate from their own navels. A political philosophy based on "cuz I said so" is one that is inherently authoritarian, even if it presupposes virtually unlimited freedom. Without an organized structure, this freedom is indistinguishable from anarchy; only with an organized structure does the concept of responsible political freedom mean a damn. And our Constitution is as good an organization for these political freedoms as any yet created. And so...
We are a constitutional democratic republic: the majority have the legitimate expectation to get a society and a government that gives them what they want. If this includes no gay marriage, no abortions and no recreational drugs, then so be it. And the majority has this legitimate expectation of getting the country they want right up until the point it can be shown - not asserted, not histrionically demanded - that the majority getting what they want deprives someone else of his rights as defined by the Constitution.
At that point, it is the duty of the government to say, "Why, we never thought of it that way before, but you're correct: you DO have that right." This admission must be binding in effect but it must not be compulsory in individual outlook. It is just as wrong to demand that everyone like [e.g.,] interracial marriage as it was to demand that no one can have any.
It has been shown that abortion is a right falling neatly into the Constitution. You do not need to like this; you are allowed to wish [not to mention activate] otherwise. But you must accept it until such time as the Constitution changes and the Ninth and/or Tenth Amendments get officially obliterated. Under our laws, an "unborn child" is not a person holding rights, and there is no contradiction in liberty. Claiming otherwise is a dishonest and legally insupportable position which attempts to elevate personal desire to the status of fact.
And, well ... not around me, you don't.
It has further been shown that denying homosexuals the right to marry whom they wish denies them rights of property, association and equal protection [among others] that are enjoyed or, as the divorce rate might suggest, NOT enjoyed by most non-homosexuals. Falling back upon statewide referenda to determine the propriety of Constitutional liberty is a rationalization for right-denial. You'd have gotten the same results upon negro liberty in the generation[s] following the civil war and the 13th Amendment, and in the years following the Loving decision prohibiting miscegenation. So what? Neither would have disproven the Constitutional propriety of freeing slaves nor allowing interracial marriage.
Revolutions occur one funeral at a time, and that is especially true of social revolutions. People whose ideas are behind the times will still hold those ideas until they die. A plebiscite simply shows the lag-time in social change.
And on gay marriage, the lag-time isn't very long. We won't make it another generation before the majority will be in favor of gay marriage by wide margins and then you won't have even that red herring to stink up the "debate". Get used to it sooner rather than later and save yourself the trouble.
For what it's worth, when you can squeeze an equivocation of We The People And Goats out of We The People, then you'll have a substantiable support for the goat-f***er's marriage, but not until. If you're going to actually try to play stupid with human/animal marriage as some logical analog to gay marriage, I'll accommodate you, but I doubt you'll like it.
As a constitutional democratic republic, we can have both a right to do something as well as legitimate limitations on that right. The right to bear arms does not convey a right to perforate the neighborhood. Freedom of speech does not imbue the speaker with the freedom to slander. And a right to abort does not [necessarily] mean that it exists intact for each and every day of the nine-month pregnancy; nor does it imply that minors not legally allowed to have sex due to socially-defined immaturity are, once having been sexed up, somehow mature enough to choose abortion. ...for example.
None of these are inconsistent with lower-case-L libertarianism: our Constitution grants We The People the authority to have both the government we want with the inherent limitations of it and our right to the freedoms not specifically granted to that government. Which, frankly, is most of them. I've read the Constitution, and nowhere does it grant the government - any branch of it - the authority to deny us privacy; without the explicit grant of authority, the 9th/10thAM gives the right to us. [Capital-L Libertarianism, on the other hand, suggests that the Constitution is irrelevant where inconvenient - which is effectively the same crackpot "reinterpretation" foolishness that Democrats and Republicans have given us for decades where warrantless search is inviolable ... except when it involves drunk driving, ... except when it involves national security. It is, or it isn't; you gotta pick one.]
And that leads, albeit awkwardly, into the "victimless crime" abyss. "Think of the lives ruined by drugs" is an argument that would be used against religion: think of the lives ruined by [pick a church, any church]. I'm going to ignore this argument, and I'd advise you to do the same.
But you mention crime associated with these otherwise victimless crimes. Specifically, organized crime and coincidental crime.
Organized crime is a function of the prohibition of an action: you prohibit drinking and the manufacture of alcohol, there will spring up a black market supplier of alcohol, which is "criminal" in concept, but mainly because they don't pay taxes on their manufactured product - which is why the Treasury Department continues to have jurisdiction over moonshining operations. But there will also arise an organic protection organization for the supply network of the illegal activity. The thugs and muscle who kill, injure, rob, intimidate and defraud the general public in order to protect their black market supply chain. You make the activity legal, you remove the incentive for the black market, and the black market protectors go away - its protectors become the police. You can still have moonshiners, whose "crime" is not having a license to produce and not paying their taxes when they do.
So suggesting that libertarians must like organized crime or are ignorant of it is a false dichotomy; it's either raining or it's Tuesday. While there may be a libertarian or two who thinks organized crime is the libertarian ideal, it is very likely to be the case that is it neither raining nor Tuesday.
Coincidental crime - crime that exists simply because something else exists in a place and time - is always going to happen. A small %age of people will do something "criminal" just because they want to, and another small %age will respond in kind if they can somehow justify it. ... e.g., if they just had [or believe they had] the same thing done to them. The more people you have in a given circumstance, the more interactions between people will occur, and the greater likelihood that this chain of criminal conduct will occur. A typical solution: reduce the numbers of people in a given circumstance. Closing some "coffee" houses is to be expected in the face of petty crime around them. That you're willing to read more into it than is indicated does not say anything about drug use per se; it says more about your lack of comprehension of human nature.
Legal drug use in Holland has created a basis for "nuisance crime" as you put it. To quote you on another topic: "duh". ILlegal drug use in the US has created a similar - and more rampant - basis for coincidental crime as well. And I'll ignore the organized crime influences for now. [They do nothing to further your point, and in fact deny it. You're welcome].
How do people pay for their recreational drugs in this country?
One of two common ways: 1] if they're wealthy or middle class, from their jobs or trust funds; 2] if they're poverty class, by committing street and property crime.
It has been a well-used crime-fighting tactic over the last few generations: in areas where street and property crime are above "tolerable" thresholds, go on drug-fighting crusades - conviction on drug-use is generally far easier than on robbery. The reduction in street and property crime follows. Many drug apologists claim this is cheating or otherwise "unfair" and call the "drug prison population" the US version of political prisoners. Yet if drug-use among a sizable chunk of the population weren't hand-in-hand with non-"nuisance" crime, then it wouldn't be used. And the "political prisoner" claim is largely crap.
Similarly, race-baiters use drug law enforcement as a way to assert systemic racism. But again, irrespective of the reasons for disproportionate representation in the poverty class, financing recreational drug use by robbery and the like is not excusable, regardless of your color or ethnic heritage.
The intellectual mistake made by most drug apologists and capital-L Libertarians alike is that when discussing recreational drug use they presume that it exists solely in the demographic which pays for their drugs from their own [legal] means. In that circumstance, it makes a valid argument to extend liberty to do to yourself whatever you wish. But they ignore the rather large numbers who indulge their "recreation" by criminally preying on their community. And even when imprisoned for "victimless" self-stupefication, most drug prisoners are unconvicted burglars, robbers and thugs.
Will drug costs come down with legalization so that the poverty classes can better afford their recreation without resorting to crime? Probably, to some degree, but far from entirely.
Even so, does that obviate the authority of We The People to have the government it wishes to have? Nope; not one iota. If the majority wants recreational drugs - or just certain recreational drugs - to remain illegal, that is within their constitutional democratic republic authority and not incompatible with libertarianism. Keeping heroin or "crank" illegal would [probably] be very very likely ... until such time as it would be considered a Constitutional right to dope up. And I find it ironic in the extreme that many who would legalize marijuana as a "right" of the smoker are involved in anti-smoking campaigns as the right of the second-hand lungs.
Adjudicating a right to dope up may happen over time. Another of the constants of a society - one you didn't rediscover in your navel-gazing essay - is that society inexorably changes. Those "social norms" you laud are simply a mile-marker on a society's path from the past through the present and into the future.
"Morals" are simply personal beliefs viewed through a piety filter, frequently extrapolated to a society at large. The word means little to those who do not have a bag of readi-mix concrete all prepared to ossify a given mindset into some self-righteous, self-important absolutist dogma, effectively halting a society's march into its own changing future.
It is a "social norm" in this United States to grant rights to others even if we don't really want them to have those rights. Blacks, women, Jews, aborters, gays - all have been given rights unpopular at the time granted. Some day, maybe even divorced fathers and social drinkers and libertarians will get their rights. To suggest that it somehow violates "social norms" to grant marriage rights to gays is to advertise that you know nothing about how and, more importantly, WHY the United States was founded in the first place. And that I find sad.
That was a poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize for that and I hope I am forgiven. I meant when people disregard societal norms. A societal norm can be any behavior that a society/culture as a whole agrees is a normal behavior.
Jim Davidson,
Actually, if it were the customary custom of the marjority of people in a country, I would support an intitative to allow multiple spouses. That is a cultural norm in many islamic and african cultures (the President of South Africa has I think 2 or 3 wifes). So, if that is the norm of the majority of that country, then yes I would support any initiative that would define it as such. As for the accusation of Puritanical views, then you would have to designate almost 3 billion people on Earth of being Puritanical based on the fact the homosexuality is considered abnormal; however there are New Guinean tribes that require young to perform filiatio on older male members of the tribe before they reach manhood. So, either the majority of the world is puritanical, or you want to force a Papuan norm on the rest of the world, lol.
As for your abortion argument, you have really gone off the deep end. I am still wondering the whole point of that, given you gave very vague facts that had nothing to do with my pointthe Libertarians lack the courage to take a firm stance on abortion. In fact, you have illustrated my point to that effect by trying to play both sides of the argument without taking a firm stance.
You make very valid points, until you realize that the society you are describing was already tried and failed miserably. Athens was a libertarian-seque society, were you can drink magical potions (drugs of the acient world) have relations with whom ever you want however you want. However, that did lead to societal decay and then Athens collapsed and was conquered by the Spartans, the Macedonians, and eventually the Romans. Even the Romans suffered the same fate later in history. So, it is hubris to assume that doing as you like without any morality. So, are you a Libertarian who is hell-bent on following the party line, or are you just that ill-informed?
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2009-12-03 16:42:41
...and once again, Jay, you are offering nothing of substance to the ... um ... debate you started by offering up a superficial, factually corrupt and [comically] illogical rendition of, this time, world history and the cause-effect within it.
If you can explain to me how a slave-holding society was "libertarian-esque" I'd be very interested. I may laugh in your face, but I'd still be interested.
Every society decays and collapses; it has bupkus to do with hubris, morality [or lack thereof - Rome collapsed after adopting Christianity to replace their paganism], with whom you do or do not have relations, of the recreational drugs of choice.
...or with whatever else you may next wish to flailingly cast blame upon.
The US will also decay and collapse; that is the natural order of things. Entropy: it's not just a fancy word; it's reality. Pathetic fatalism -- it was tried and failed, therefore it is unworkable -- is as useless a political philosophy as it is a personal philosophy: you will die; it is inevitable. So you are a failure and the point of you propogating is pointless. Might as well crawl into a hole in the ground and save everyone else the trouble.
You wishing for boogeymen and chimera to blame reality upon doesn't change any of it.
Didn't the Romans collapsed because of their taxation of the people outside of the main Rome while re-distributing the wealth through welfare to those inside in combination with an unbalanced budget, pricey unfunded public projects, political corruption and loss of freedom for their residents? Roman Empire doesn't sound all that Libertarian to me. It sounds more like today's US which just like Rome, will collapse too.
A quote from that period: ---- "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." Cicero 63 BC ---- Seems that we have learned NOTHING.
Doing whatever you want will have consequenses. Its part of being an adult. We don't want a Nation of babies under a Nanny State. If you make bad choices you will pay for those bad choices regardless of whether the State makes you pay for them or not. We should NOT protect people against their own stupidity. Let everyone do as they please and the heard will get thinner and evolve better. "Cause and Effect" is far better than when created by the Government.
That was a poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize for that and I hope I am forgiven. I meant when people disregard societal norms. A societal norm can be any behavior that a society/culture as a whole agrees is a normal behavior.
***
So you are saying it's bad when people start disregarding societal norms? I don't see how this can be an effective principle for judging a proposition. Because if it is, then it was wrong for people to try to abolish slavery when it was a societal norm, right?
If you can explain to me how a slave-holding society was "libertarian-esque" I'd be very interested. Ross Williams
Well, let me see, I don't know, but it's probably along the same lines of why people can own land, a house, or an even better example is ownership of a pet dog or goat (that was a shout out to trd). Under you supposed enlitened logic, slavery would be justified because that person would be considered private property.
I find it a tad strange the libertarians, who claim to be the protectors of private property rights, apparent are also against ownership of one form of property (a slave, which at one time was considered a form private property). Now, you can claim all you want that you are against it because it violates individual freedom and liberties; but if there is a market-demand for slavery and slavery is a form of private property, and slavery is not hurting anyone, then why would libertarian be against slavery and why would it be the government's business to abolish it? I mean clearly, I hope this illustrates how somewhat hypocritical it is to use the example of the abolition of slavery to legitamize the legalization of gay marriage, when you think about it your ideology is somewhat supportive of slavery. At the very least, slavery would be in the same gray area as abortion in a libertarian prospective.
Jay, I'm starting to think you are just having fun with people here.
To put forth the idea that slavery fits within private property rights shows such an utter ignorance of the basic underlying principles of freedom that I find it amazing you're even trying to write about such things. Unless you're just trying to get a reaction for funzies.
The basis of property is that 'you own yourself.' I have no idea whether to take you seriously any further but if you've really never heard that before, maybe you want to do some research and thinking on the idea.
You can do what you want of course, but if you really do believe the logic you just laid out, then I for one am more scared of people like you than I would ever be of two dudes who want to get married.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2009-12-04 07:12:58
Under you supposed enlitened logic, slavery would be justified because that person would be considered private property.
And slaves were, right up until they weren't. We were not a libertarian society before 1865; we are not a libertarian society now. Libertarianism blanches at human slavery; why you think it doesn't and indeed supports it is beyond me.
...unless that is simply another marker of your grand ignorance of what libertarianism is in the first place. You've already copped to equivocating it with hedonism. Seriously, bud, if you don't realize that there are two words for these two things because they are two different things then you may as well be tossing a dictionary into a cuisinart and typing the random words you see as you pour it out. You'd make as much sense.
I hope this illustrates how somewhat hypocritical it is to use the example of the abolition of slavery to legitamize the legalization of gay marriage
And now you're admitting to not being able to follow a basic rhetorical form. The phrase "ass over teakettle" is leaping irresistably to mind here...
You claimed that state referenda in ME and CA legitimized the denial of Constitutional Rights to homosexuals. Because the majority in those states don't want gay marriage therefore it is allowable to not give them equal rights. I can quote you if you're going to quibble.
Yet the basic social reality is that no matter what change a society makes, the minds of the people are going to be the last to change. You took a plebescite during the American Revolution, you'd find that those wanting independence from England were less than a third of the colonists. Russians supporting the Bolshevik Revolution ... a fraction. Frogs supporting Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité ... almost completely confined to Paris, and then only a small portion.
You are playing dumb.
Because most colonists didn't want independence doesn't mean that indepence legitimizes gay marriage.
Gay marriage is legitimized by the Constitution. Rights to property, free association and equal protection are not deniable because you're light in your loafers. The fact that the majority doesn't like it is irrelevant.
Just as it was irrelavent that the majority didn't really want to free the slaves, or allow interracial marriage, or even have independence. Society changes irrespective of what individuals want. ... individually or collectively.
The same thing applies if you are a liberal, a conservative, or an authoritarian police-statist. What you want when change is occurring is immaterial. Your particular political philosophy simply suggests how you are likely to react to it.
A libertarian would have liked independence, free slaves and interracial marriage. A libertarian likes gay marriage and the concept of the government not controlling [too much] private medical decisions relating to pregnancy. A libertarian likes the notion of personal responsibility regarding self-stupefication, but a libertarian which understands that liberty that actually means something is structural and defined and acknowledges that self-stupefication can have detrimental impact on the greater society which makes and protects the individual right to self-stupefy in the first place -- you don't defecate in your own bed.
A libertarian would not like the Patriot Act, which presupposes [in part] that every airline passenger is a terrorist until he proves himself innocent in a procedural warrantless search. Both liberals and conservatives, on the other hand, do like it. [And any lurking liberals who may wish to quibble: I haven't seen a Congress you've dominated, nor the President you elected, do anything to repeal the Patriot Act. You've got two choices: put your money where your mouth is, or your feet in your mouth.]
A libertarian does not like the implicit police-statism associated with having our over-the-counter cold medications tracked by the police as "a weapon in the war against meth" -- when it's clear that this weapon is useless for its stated purpose and the only people it has materially affected are those with chronic sniffles. Liberals and conservatives? love it.
...if there is a market-demand for slavery...
And now you're admitting to not understanding the elementary basics of economics. I'm going to assume here that you are talking "market" in terms of its economic theory meaning and not its "big building that sells stuff" meaning. The market, and demand are relevant to capitalism; slavery is incompatible with capitalism. There cannot be a "market-demand" for slavery that can sustain itself. Indeed slavery in the US was going away all on its lonesome, without the pious mechanations of the northern abolitionists.
...and slavery is not hurting anyone...
Are you sure you aren't just pulling random words from a dictionary? It's difficult to conceive how you could make less sense if you were.
As Debbie suggests, the principle of libertarianism is that you own yourself. Ownership implies -- and requires -- control. Not being able to control your self, your person, is harmful. A slave, by definition, does not own himself; he is owned. He does not control; he is controlled.
He is harmed.
Slavery, by libertarian philosophy definition, cannot not hurt anyone.
Debbie thinks you're simply being gratuitously contrarian as some kind of game ... trolling your own essay, as it were. I believe you are making it up as you go along because you don't know better and all you understand -- like any three year-old -- is that you don't like something and can't quite articulate why.
You really hit the nail between the eyes, when you cited Jay as "making it up as you go along, . . . like any three year old, you do not like something but can't quite articulate why"
He neither seems to understand the meaning by capitalism OR libertarianism OR ownership, with his comments about slavery. He doesn't seem to know that these words have very refined meanings within libertarian concepts,
Jus as in physics, speed is not synonymous with velocity, and work is not energy, even though in common parlance they may be, slavery cannot be part of the 'free market' system, nor can it be a part of libertarianism, its very axiomatic inception.
Many libertarians argue for laws based on Constitutionality. Slavery was abolished by Constitutional amendment. Therefore, arguing that libertarians would favor slavery is absurd! Alcohol prohibition came to pass by amendment, then was repealed by another amendment. Marijuana,heroin,etc. were never prohibited by amendment! If drug prohibition was proper,morally right and necessary,why weren't these things prohibited by passing amendments?
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-12-06 13:09:56
Hi Jay,
I have also chosen to use the GOP as the best tool for the job. I hesitate to call myself "a Republican". To me that's akin to calling myself a computer because I use the internet. A tool is a tool. It has a particular purpose and specific ways that it can be used constructively...along with a limitless variety of ways it can be used non-constructively or even destructively.
I view the GOP as the best tool for defending religious freedom. You view it as the best tool for imposing your religious views on those who disagree.
I view the GOP as the best tool for fostering tolerance and diversity. You see it as the best tool for defining oppression according to your religious faith. Democrats believe the same of the Democratic Party only their faith is in oppression possible through a mighty government...wait, that is your belief too. See, religion and politics don't mix. They only lead to oppression and violence.
Libertarians support a faith that cannot be realized in the real world without relentless oppostition of those who have different faith...same thing as the democrats and the born again religious Republicans. I can't tell any of you apart because you are all out to use force to limit my choices in the name of something I think is silly and disgusting.
Should a 16 year old who sends lewd photos she took of herself over the internet to teenage friends be convicted of "distributing child pornography"? It has happened recently! Should a 17 year old girl be declared a "sexual predator" because she performed a sex act with a consenting boy a week short of his 16th birthday? That's happened in the recent past! Arguing in favor of the reform of "sex crime" laws is hardly the same as calling for total legalization of child porn, pedophilia or statutory rape!
I am libertarian, and I am kind of offened with this article. However, being Libertarian, I encourage you to continue printing articles that may offend me. I encourage you to discuss it in public and attack this party as much as you see fit.
See, Libertarians will defend your right to say what you want.
That being said, we need to look at just the issues. Libertarians do abide by laws and rules. Prostitution is prostitution, it is not child pornography or trafficking. Abortion was made legal by the contstitution. How can you be for the constitution and against abortion? You have to decide one or the other (You cannot even blame it on the supreme court because the constitution gave the supreme court the power to make the decision.)
I don't think anybody is pro-abortion. Is it possible to be be pro-choice and pro-Life. Yes, I am. If nobody wanted to do it, then there would be no abortions.
Pro-Lifers need to be working on making changes in their communities, not the federal government that can do nothing. They need to raise their children to not do it. They need to provide alternatives. I am so frustrated when someone says they are pro-life and hate abortion, but also say that contraceptives should be outlawed. Make a choice people. Don't hide in the sand and pretend that pre-marital sex is not going to happen.
Make adoptions easier, give the mother a pro-life choice. I am not condoning the Roe vs Wade, but I will say that it is what it is and we need to work around it.
And another thing. Your voting is flawed when it repressions someone elses freedom. If there were a vote to outlaw Islam or Buddhism in the United States, it would probably pass, but the rights of these religions would be stripped away. The majority should not be allowed to vote on issues that strips away the rights of the others.
I believe these votes will be deemed unconstitutional. If we had used you election theroy during slavery, the slave would still be slaves and their rights would be trampled! Does voting really count in that instance?
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
