Replies

OK, we can both whine about the police state inspired concept of "check-points".

Though you may feel that my mind is "made-up about libertarianism" there are others here that benefit from the exchange in forming their own ideas. I would like to see your facts, the problem is that facts need to have a foundation of definition and reality, both which are absent in Libertine/Libertarian philosophy.

For example, given your earlier definition that a person can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't "inititate force or fraud against a person or property". Rather simplistic, it does make use of words that only make sense when there is a consistant definition.

In this latest post, you admitted that "fraud" didn't fit a legal definition, but could be wrested and be interpreted "loosely". Then the non-sequitor that this loose definition that is not legally recognized is "splitting hairs".

And this is the point. I don't want to appear to criticize your personal defintion of "fraud", I just want to demonstrate that the philosophy of Libertine/Libertarianism, like everything else proposed, is subject to personal interpretation. Thus what is "fraud" to you may not be "fraud" to someone else. When basing law and order on something so subjective and so liquid in defintion, the word I am looking for is not "loose" but "chaos".

For example, take our drunk driver. He is drunk only because the law says he is, and the law is written so that it has nothing to do with actual impairement or any measure of risk to others on the roadway. A person who has high tolerance but hits that magical .08 who is driving his car down a lonely dirt road in the middle of the night, presenting no actual risk to anyone except nocturnal critters that stumble into the road. The guy is treated by the law no different than the guy who is falling down drunk and propelling an eighteen-wheeler loaded with high explosives down a busy urban freeway. (at least as far as a DUI charge alone is concerned).

Now you are saluting this DUI law, and consider something more objective like the safety inherent in seatbelt laws as foolish. This means that your feelings regarding one activity is quite different than your neighbor's. You say that what constitutes "fraud" is radically differnet than what someone else would call "fraud". This is legal deconstructionalism, removing any objectivity to the "crime" and making it different from person to person.

We agree that the FedGod is involved in whole categories of law that would be better reserved to the State. You also admit, and I agree, that many laws should be held to a community standard. But Libertine/Libertarianism curses commnity standards over drugs, porn, and the great Bogie Man - Blue Laws. The Libs say that community standards don't apply in these categories, but they do in drunk driving. You say that drunkdriving should be outlawed because someone might be hurt? No. You say that drunk driving should be outlawed because of contracts. This contract finds its legitimacy in that "public roads" are being used. How about the stoner who is out wandering around the neighborhood? Aren't those streets, parks and sidewalks public paid for with public funds? Walking around in a public park is a "right" and driving on a public street is a "privilege"?

It is this kind of subjective chaos the Libertine/Libertarian desires that always is the precipitating condition where society yells "Enough is Enough" of this "Every man does what is right in his own eyes" and demands law and order from a far more stable authority.

Well, you seem like a really smart person and I thank you for the civilized discussion. I'm not much for words, being pretty young and still trying to solidify my own personal philosophy.

For a really interesting read, I think you should check out "Libertarianism: A Primer" by Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz. I'm about 100 pages into it and it's a great read regarding Natural Rights, the nature of rights, the libertarian philosophy, famous historical libertarians, etc etc. It's quite fascinating.

To finish the discussion, I would argue that simply being stoned or drunk, and walking around... what's wrong with that? You're not hurting anyone, you're certainly not causing any trouble, there is no potential for harm, etc. It seems like a silly example, to be honest. What about drinking a 5th of whiskey and taking a walk?

Check out the David Boaz book, it's interesting.

Thanks for the chat...