Jim considers standing for the LDP at the next election (I take my hat off to you, sir), and Kerry gets all hot under the collar at the prospect. Libertarianism upholds the principle of individual conscience and responsibility in preference to the nannying state, an idea which I whole-heartedly support. Kerry is essentially saying that she doesn’t trust me or you to behave sensibly, and that the government is required to somehow force us all to behave sensibly. If you wonder why common sense is dying a slow death, look no further than this. Too many of us are inclined to delegate personal decision-making to the government, allowing our consciences, our common sense and our sense of ethics to atrophy. Too many of us, also, are wont to apply a jackhammer where a chisel would suffice.
Categories
Libertarianism is not anarchism
6 replies on “Libertarianism is not anarchism”
Well people are selfish creatures, who will act for their own self interest 90% of the time. As such I fully support government intervention to prevent one persons self interest to harm that of another without due cause and compensation.
Incidentally, this might be of interest to you. I am yet to read the book but the game really makes you think. This is my nation.
I fully support an independent judiciary to decide when someone has inflicted harm on another. The government might legislate, but otherwise they should butt out.
I think many people arguing against the so-called nanny state fail to distinguish between being protected from others and being protected from oneself. The interesting debates are around affecting and distance; eg if I drink myself into oblivion (and don’t drive etc) then I’m only harming myself (directly) but there are negative affects on those around me – my capacity or otherwise to provide for my family, the example I set for them, etc. Hence, to what extent does the state have a duty to concern itself with the secondary, tertiary, and greater effects.
Michael, if I understand correctly, you’re asking at what point the state should involve itself in non-criminal activity that might still have a negative impact on family, friends, neighbours and so forth? My counter-question is, why on Earth is the state, a body far removed from the details of my everyday life the lives of the people around me, the most suitable body to be making these kinds of decisions? It isn’t, and won’t ever be. This whole discussion seems to be centred around the premise that people do not deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their ability to do the right thing for the people around them, that individuals are incapable of being thoughtful in their decision-making, and that somehow this magical body, called the government, will step in and ensure that the right decisions are made. This is such a degrading attitude to hold towards our fellow human beings. The sorts of problems we’re talking about are best solved by the affected people: the individuals, families and communities (and “community” is not equal to “government”, a point many socialists seem not to understand – not that I’m saying you’re a socialist or that you don’t understand this distinction!). It is not a matter of having failed to distinguish being protected from others and being protected from oneself; it is a matter of where that power of protection lies. Hence the chisel versus the jackhammer.
Sorry Ricky, you didn’t understand me correctly; where did I talk about *non-criminal* activity? I was addressing the issue of where the boundary between criminal and non-criminal activity should be drawn (and that, by definition, involves “the state”). Whether something is criminal or not is a question of where the boundary (currently) is, not where it should be.
Note, I think that “the state” can be thought of more broadly in this context – we already have a formal continuum from local govt up to federal govt (and, to some extent, a further international level), but I see no reason why the question doesn’t also apply to less formal, closer-to-home, groups – e.g., friends, neighbours, immediate and extended family, or even temporally-defined groups, e.g., the ppl you’re currently sharing a 4m radius with.
You’re also going off the deep end when you talk about “individuals are incapable” – it’s not about incapability, it’s about what some can and do, do. If I think a 60km/h speed limit is good, that doesn’t mean I believe that individuals are incapable of making that decision, merely that some won’t and their consequent action poses too great a risk *to others*. There’s also the issue that people are generally selfish (where “self” usually extends somewhat beyond their own physical person), and that ,from a cognitive perspective, we are resource-bounded in our decision making and thus cannot be expected to always make an appropriate choice – indeed this is the root cause for why much “common sense” is neither. I would, however, like to quote Devo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9hpMgKI_NU at this point :-)
FWIW, I’m coming at this from a “live and let live” perspective, but the problem is that it intrinsically pits my values against those of all others and thus there needs to be a mechanism for resolving conflicts – a way to determine a boundary between my desire to where red socks on Tuesdays and your being offended by my doing so.
Hi Michael, you’re right. I misunderstood you.