Am I a libertarian or a libertine or both? (definitions in footnotes)
Well, though I support the right of people to do as they wish (as long as it is not harming others) I do not consider that anything not illegal is morally right.
I remember getting this confused when I was a small boy. I was watching a show, which we would probably consider now mildly questionable for a 6yr old. And I thought to myself "This can't really be bad because otherwise they wouldn't have let it on TV". You wouldn't want to apply that logic now!
And so I support freedoms that I am morally opposed to. And though I might support a bill that keeps pornography or smoking legal, this doesn't mean I won't speak out against them or use other tools (like the boycott) to fight them.
There are pragmatic reasons for this too. Most often the law is weaker way to fight social ills. Look how well the Prohibition Laws worked in the early 1900s. If you haven't changed the individual people find ways to get around it (like making moonshine).
I am proud to be a libertarian, but that doesn't mean you have no morals, just that most of them shouldn't be enshrined in law. So I am a libertarian but not a libertine.
Well, though I support the right of people to do as they wish (as long as it is not harming others) I do not consider that anything not illegal is morally right.
I remember getting this confused when I was a small boy. I was watching a show, which we would probably consider now mildly questionable for a 6yr old. And I thought to myself "This can't really be bad because otherwise they wouldn't have let it on TV". You wouldn't want to apply that logic now!
And so I support freedoms that I am morally opposed to. And though I might support a bill that keeps pornography or smoking legal, this doesn't mean I won't speak out against them or use other tools (like the boycott) to fight them.
There are pragmatic reasons for this too. Most often the law is weaker way to fight social ills. Look how well the Prohibition Laws worked in the early 1900s. If you haven't changed the individual people find ways to get around it (like making moonshine).
I am proud to be a libertarian, but that doesn't mean you have no morals, just that most of them shouldn't be enshrined in law. So I am a libertarian but not a libertine.
-------
Definitions:
Libertarian: A believer in a political doctrine that emphasises individual liberty and a lack of governmental regulation and oversight both in matters of the economy ('free market') and in personal behavior where no one's rights are being violated or threatened.
Libertine: one who is loose in morals;
8 comments:
I'm curious about your unqualified support for the freedom of things that you are morally opposed to.
By your reasoning, wouldn't you also have to support the legalisation of narcotics and amphetamines? The legalisation of all sexual services? What about restrictions on minors accessing alcohol, tobacco and/or pornography?
My problem with this is that the law is an educator. Many people believe that what is legal is also moral, thus by legalising something you get more of it.
I guess my qualifier is keys 05-LIB and also 07-M+L (see 20 keys). That is citizens are free to choose as they will unless it is harming others. Part of my morals is free agency.
Regarding illicit drugs and prostitution, I would never endorse them, but I don't think making them illegal is very effective either. There are other ways to resist these. Also where people commit crimes that are drug induced, I don't think this should be something to protect them from punishment.
I guess we differ in our view of law. I don't think it is an educator, nor is it effective as such. If it is an educator it's not doing a flash job. I think most people get cues from parents and community opinion, rather than from the law itself.
As Thomas Paine pointed out that society and government are different. (see http://stewartglass.blogspot.com/2006/08/some-writers-have-so-confounded.html)
Also who's morals do we adopt? There are a variety or religions and opinions out there. We don't want to go back to the days of the Star Chamber when churches had thier own police force.
I don't think the law does a fantastic job as an educator, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to dismiss it as ineffective. You suggest that people get their "cues from parents and community opinion". But where do parents and the community get it from? Does the law not influence them at all?
If the law has no use as an educator, you'd have to believe that legalising something won't increase consumption of it. That's manifestly NOT the case - look at what legalisation of drugs in the Netherlands has done to consumption. Look at how much more widespread the use of alcohol and tobacco is, compared to other drugs.
You don't think making prostitution and drugs illegal is very effective? I'm not arguing that making things illegal is a cure-all, but surely the illegality of such things do restrict their use? Do you really think that legalising drugs would not lead to increased use?
As for your overriding belief, that people are free to choose as they will unless it harms others: I strongly disagree that the above-mentioned things do not harm others. What about passive smoking? What about the effect of pornography on personal relationships? What about the high incidence of property crime amongst drug-users? What about the damage to the mental health of vulnerable women who work as prostitutes?
'Victimless crime' is a myth.
Law as an educator is not totally ineffective, but it does potentially do more harm than good. The bad it does is when people try to make others make (in thier own minds) good choices.
Two of your examples - Passive smoking in public and property crime by drug users are not victimless crimes. They are someone harming another by thier choices.
Victimless crimes are when the choices you make hurt only yourself or others who choose to be part of it.
Making certain activities not illegal may increase the commonness of it, but I don't believe in the long term it will increase. It may be the next generation that learns from the mistakes of the one before.
I have a question for you Echo:
If you don't believe in liberty as I define it, what punishment or restrictions would you put on the following "bad" things?
1. An unhealthy diet.
2. Lack of proper exercise.
3. An adult not wearing a stackhat.
4. Pre-marital sex.
This is getting very confused. Your question doesn't make much sense to me - of course I wouldn't condone laws regarding those four things - they're essentially victimless.
But you still haven't answered my question - you say that people should be "free to choose as they will unless it is harming others", yet you support the legalisation of pornography. So, logically, you must believe that one's consumption of pornography does not harm others? Is that correct?
More generally, my view is that you have extraordinarly high hopes for the goodness of people. What evidence is there that people will learn over time that something isn't good and shun it? It hasn't happened with pornography, nor with drugs, nor with alcohol abuse? Is this just blind faith or do you have some evidence that this can actually happen?
So I guess we agree that there are victimless crimes.
On pornography, let me first point out that I am morally oppossed to it, and I do believe it harms people.
There are many things that harm people that they should still be free to choose. (like diet). I am also talking about adults here.
"Unconsential pornography" I think should definately be illegal. Included in this is the horrendous crimes that involve minors or by people that have been coerced (ie intimidation or drugs).
"Consential pornography" is still wrong but should not be illegal because people make that choice themselves. Take an example of a couple. The male gets involved in viewing pornography. The female didn't make that choice, but still reaps some of the consequences. The females still has the choice to remain in the relationship or not, though (obviously after promoting reform).
Regarding the more general view of the "goodness of people".
I do believe that as a whole the people will make the right choices more consistantly than any other group.
From a pragmatic point of view, if the choice is not with the people who makes it? The law-makers and leaders? That is fine if you get a leader with honour, but history is repleat with untrustworth leaders. Though they are fallible, I think you stand a better chance with letting the people choose for themselves.
Did you know that when the vote for commonfolk was being debated, an argument against it was that non-land holders would have no interest in the welfare of the society.
Of course there are not guarantees, which is why some societies collapse. No system of government can save a society where the people are corrupted.
tester
Post a Comment