Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
About Libertarianism
We’ve seen recently here on Ricochet lots of threads trying to parse libertarianism, or qualify libertarianism, or trying to understand libertarianism. How about, rather do all that, let’s just say that libertarianism means one thing:
People should be free to do as they please so long as they don’t aggress against other people.
For some people, that’s building enormous buildings. For some people it’s writing poetry. For some people it’s taking Ecstasy at a concert. For some people it’s making art. For some people it’s sitting in a basement, sniffing glue and watching vintage pornography. For some people it’s writing obscure monographs. For some people it’s traveling the world. For some people it’s laying in a field while tripping on LSD. For some people it’s cooking meals for friends. For some people it’s opening a small business. For some people it’s drinking beer and watching football. For some people it’s living in a monastery and spending 12 hours every day in silent meditation.
Different people have different values and libertarianism is the acceptance that maybe there isn’t one right answer to every question and that people should be free to peruse their own values peacefully in whatever way they see fit.
It’s also the acceptance that using laws and police and courts to force what you see as the one best thing onto everyone else not only fails every time, but is morally wrong.
Please stop trying to parse libertarianism. Please stop trying to qualify libertarianism. Please stop trying to understand libertarianism. Whenever you see or encounter the word, just replace it with “freedom to peacefully do things.” Because that’s what it means.
And yeah, sometimes it means the freedom to end up in a gutter with your dirty heroin needle stuck in your arm, and sometimes it means Klan rallies, and sometimes it means hosting symposia on Holocaust denial.
But by and large, and history shows this over and over, that when people are free of government restrictions in their deeds and thoughts, the overall effect is a more peaceful and more productive society.
Published in General
The Constitution created a federal government of limited powers but did not set any general principles regarding the size or scope of government at other levels. As Madison put it in Federalist 45; “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
There is a difference between favoring a limited role for the federal government and a limited role for government.
The preamble of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution demonstrates what many at the time of the founding saw as the much larger role the state (and local) governments were seen to play.
Tuck,
You are saying that it is mean is like comparing an allergic reaction to a dislike of food. There is a difference between having a bad taste in your mouth and swelling up. The key is if you know that person struggles and cannot handle meanness well. If so, I believe you could be guilty of poisoning in both cases.
The problem with the harm principle is that while everyone basically agrees with the idea of freedom to live your own life without harming others (because we all want that for ourselves), the principle becomes useless when, as always happens, there is disagreement about what constitutes harm. Then you need some moral reasoning to determine what harm is, what is good and bad.
As Klaatu points out, the founders recognized that communities would want to figure these things out and make laws that configured certain types of communities–which means everybody won’t get exactly what they want but most people will. Some things, polygamy for example, don’t conform to the type of community we want and probably is bad for children in particular, so it ‘a illegal, though some people think it shouldn’t be. Some people still live that way though it gets no public sanction, which is a way of allowing freedom without legal sanction. That works for drugs too, which are harmful to individuals and communities, but which some people will do anything to procure. These gray areas in law are very useful on allowing freedom without giving sanction
Murder, theft, rape. There are plenty of areas of agreement. And every subsequent example you gave involved at least a perception of harm.
Sure, there are arguable cases, but that doesn’t make it “useless”.
It’s still the basis for the majority of law… Hardly useless.
But don’t laws that are somewhat ignored give a discretion and big potential for bias and corruption in law enforcement. If a particular cop takes a dislike to you he can decide to enforce the law in your case because your sister won’t date him, you won’t pay the PD protection money, etc. That’s not the way to structure society.
The government’s moral sanction shouldn’t be the purpose of laws, isn’t that the job of family, church and schools?
It absolutely is the basis for all law, libertarians are arguing for a limiting of the principle. It’s the expansion, ‘penumbras’ and ’emanations’, primarily by the Left but not opposed enough by Republicans that are fine with a more controlling government.
Why not?
What is wrong with the people of a civil community saying x is good and we will therefore legally sanction it and y is bad so we will legally prohibit it?
…including legal marketing of heroin.
http://ricochet.com/what-is-the-problem-with-heroin/comment-page-4/#comment-2689848
This isn’t an argument.
Adding to what Klaatu wrote above, I believe this was authored by John Adams for the Massachusetts Constitution (and I’ll see if I can find out for sure if he was the author):
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, CH. 5, SEC. 2
Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people.
The Founders’ Constitution
Volume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, Document 4
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s4.html
The University of Chicago Press
Home | Search | Contents | Indexes | Help
© 1987 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2000
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
No, not an argument. Just an illumination of Fred Cole’s libertarianism, expressed in his own words without further comment.
The harm principle is ultimately empty because , while there are some things everybody agrees are harmful, the vast majority involve disputes. Then some other moral reasoning is necessary. I also don’t think it can be the basis for law because it tells you nothing about the things that are most important in life–Marci’s quote from Adams does that and does give some basis for laws. I understand the allure of something simple like the harm principle, but sadly it just doesn’t get you very far.
One very apparent reason is that when you give government the power of enforcing essentially virtue over and above protecting us, you can easily end up being at the mercy of people with a different conception of virtue.
This is where we usually get in the weeds on Ricochet with people arguing that aren’t laws against rape and murder encouraging good virtuous behavior. They are and laws should accord with virtue but the other essential is that they are to protect us. If you ignore that law expands until you have the present situation where extreme environmental legislation and over-regulation of the free market is all sold as virtuous.
A lot of Conservatives argue that the structure is sound, we just need to get back into power. If we were in the driver’s seat everything would be all right. First, we’ve lost the culture so good luck with maintaining that. And more importantly, I don’t trust many Conservatives wielding that kind of power. The genius of a constrained government is obvious to me now, but a lot of people on both sides don’t want to give up control.
Ripe for satire.
I could replace this with many different words and find Fred Cole on the other side of the debate. To think that you get to tell people to stop thinking and just accept your definition is ridiculous.
Please have fun filling in the blanks.
I bet people on Ricochet could fill in the blank with these various words.
Please stop trying to parse Christianity. Please stop trying to qualify Christianity. Please stop trying to understand Christianity. Whenever you see or encounter the word, just replace it with “freedom to peacefully do things.” Because that’s what it means.
It should be noted that those things that everyone agrees are harmful comprise the vast majority of harm that exists when using any reasonable definition.
As for the exceptions to the rule, it’s better to hash those out one by one than to discard the harm principle.
Harm is the principle now used. It’s just that the definition has been broadened beyond reason. Can you name a law that isn’t justified on the basis of harm?
You’re right that whoever decides what constitutes harm is in control and that’s why libertarians are calling for a vast curtailment of that definition. That power doesn’t belong in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, even when the former are elected by the people. I can’t believe the current situation hasn’t convinced you of that. The ACA, amnesty, and climate regulations are all justified as a mitigation of harms.
One very apparent reason is that when you give government the power of enforcing essentially virtue over and above protecting us, you end up being at the mercy of people with a different conception of virtue.
Why would one have to be “over and above” the other?
As I am free to move and find a community more compatible, I am not at the mercy of anyone.
I agree. Laws are for the lawless. I believe there should be a minimal safety net then after that you let civil society deal with things. The beauty of civil society is that things fail. You don’t get failed solutions getting time and budget. You let the “ship” sink instead of getting a more complicated systems to pump the “water out”.
Who exactly is arguing for doing this? I get the sense you think Libertarians are.
But are they? Saying you’re for letting people make their own decisions, including bad ones, isn’t exactly the same as forcing a needle into their arm.
If heroin were legalized, would libertarians support heroin companies doing aggressive advertising campaigns? Would libertarians support putting a heavy tax on heroin-the way we do with tobacco-to fund education and recovery programs? I guess what I am asking is, do libertarians believe that heroin should be treated like most products in a free market, or does it belong in a different category?
I’ll bet you’d rather read C.S.Lewis than me. Two quotes:
“I quite agree with the archbishop that no sin, simply as such, should be made a Crime. Who the deuce are our rulers to enforce their opinions about sin on us?—a lot of professional politicians, often venal time-servers, whose opinions on a moral problem in one’s own life we should attach very little value to. Of course many acts which are sins against God are also injuries to our fellow citizens, and must on that account, be made crimes…We hear too much of the State. Government is at its best a necessary evil. Let’s keep it in it’s place.”
From a letter, February 1958
Italics are mine. The essential condition is injury. And:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Nobody puts it better than he does.
You sometimes hear that subsidiarity is the answer, not a constricted defining of harm, but while I think subsidiarity is important, it won’t replace restricting the reach of the government in our lives
I’m confused, SL. Sounds to me like the harm principle is what is allowing government overreach.
And Frank, what a nice world you live in where everyone agrees about harms. Wish I lived in that world.
Depends on the libertarian. If heroin were legalized (not entirely sure I am, but I could be persuaded), I would prefer that it be treated like most other products in a free market–I’m against sin taxes, but okay with age limits.
But then, I’m possibly alive today because of cigarettes, so I may have a warped view on things.
Apologies. If anyone is putting the country on Ritalin and Prozac, it’s the psychiatrists.
But legalizing heroin? Ugh.
Merina, The harm principle is far from being so opaque and incomprehensible as you make it sound. Among other things:
1. Harm is something you do to someone else. The government is justified in keeping you from doing harm from someone else. It is not justified in keeping you from doing “harm” to yourself.
2. Harm is not being annoyed that someone is doing something of which you do not approve. Harm is not being annoyed that someone is saying something with which you do not agree.
3. Harm is not entering into a voluntary agreement with someone because that someone is presumed to be too stupid to know what they are doing.
Just take out those three versions of “harm” from our laws, and the size of the government would shrink, by 90%, overnight.
Hello, Salamandyr :) This question relates to the comment you made earlier about no one trying to sick a needle in anyone’s arm. Companies operating in a free market usually want to sell as much of their product to as many people as possible; 99% of the time, that’s great, but heroin companies doing advertising campaigns? Trying to persuade someone to try something isn’t the same (at all) as forcing them, but it could be argued that attempting to persuade someone to do heroin is very harmful. And if heroin is treated like any other product, there will be heroin companies trying to expand their customer base; that could be very harmful.
@FredCole “..by and large, and history shows this over and over, that when people are free of government restrictions in their deeds and thoughts, the overall effect is a more peaceful and more productive society.”
As evidenced by the fragile state index.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragile_States_Index
Let us not forget the product placement in movies. You make sure and show the brand name. You make sure you get the healthiest looking star to show the benefits. Kind of like the old tobacco commercials.
OcyContin, sold by pharmaceutical companies and regulated by the FDA, got us to the current heroin epidemic, by all accounts.