Reinventing Libertaria

The Washington Dispatch ^ | May 27, 2003 | Gary Cruse

[OWK]

And the conflict draws ever nearer. I hope it's a long time from now, but I'm not convinced it will be.

Some of us have simply chosen to leave the state and those who clamor for more of it... to their own slow miserable decay.

We will live free in spite of it.

We will live free within it.

Neither contributing to it, nor drawing from it.

[LizardQueen]

....having sex in public, or public intoxication, or playing ultra-loud car stereos in residential areas.

Every one of these is a public issue, not a private one, and as such I don't think most sane small "l" libertarians would have a problem with reasonable restrictions against it.

Where we have the problems is when people start trying to outlaw private intoxication, private sex, or playing the stereo too loud on your 10 acre property ::grin::

LQ

[JohnGalt]

It was not the morality issue but the practical issue. If the property owners of a town decide that zoning out porn shops and abortion clinics is something they want to do, an outside force does not have the right to tell them they must have porn shops and abortion clinics.

You are correct, ideologically speaking of course you are doctrinaire perfect and always have been, but there is no need to pit radical libertarians against radical localists when we are debating statist apologists who pull out the sex in the streets canard...

[OWK]

Every one of these is a public issue, not a private one, and as such I don't think most sane small "l" libertarians would have a problem with reasonable restrictions against it.

In a truly libertarian world, there'd be no "public" property over which to argue.

The "tragedy of the commons" exists, because of the commons.

[68 grunt]

Your quip is a shining example of why libertarians will forever be marginalized as a group of unpleasant and unelectable loudmouths.

And your quip is a shining example of why freepers will forever marginialized as a group of intolerant and unpleasant jack-booted thugs, who appear deterimined to negate any conservative advances.

[laredo44]

Most people use this as an argument to implement helmet laws.

Precisely. Rather than rail against the improper use of power that limits one's liberty and forces one to subsidize irresponsibility, too many propose solutions that further restrict liberty. It is craziness.

The problem is society has to stop it's handwringing and treating everyone as "victims" even if their own stupidity got them into that situation. There are a lot of bleeding hearts who would fight this tooth and nail, but the idea of saying "Tough Noogies" shouldn't be discarded.

I, for one, am grateful to those who volunteer to be bad examples.

[OWK]

If the property owners of a town decide that zoning out porn shops and abortion clinics is something they want to do, an outside force does not have the right to tell them they must have porn shops and abortion clinics.

?

Rights belong to individuals.

Not to town councils presuming to speak on behalf of all.

The right to determine disposition of one's own property, is not morally subject to the whims of one's neighbors.

Although if it was a concern to those in a particular neighborhood, they most certainly could enter into restrictive property use covenants voluntarily.

They may NOT however, invent and enforce such restrictions involuntarily... at least not morally.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

What damn fool expects libertarians to be "self-policing"? Libertarianism is an ideology, not a religious conversion. No one understanding libertarianism expects anything except that people will be human, and that they will continue to be so, regardless of the political system imposed on them.

Libertarianism is nothing more than a minimalist imposition of government needed for a safe society. That means....if a damn fool wants to shoot heroin, he can. He can also die, but other people should not be taxed or imposted on in a misguided effort to save the fool from himself. If a woman wants to be a whore, and if a man wants to hire her services, that's their business, not mine. Live dangerously, if you want, don't wear a seat belt (I truly appreciated the propaganda in support of this last weekend's revenue boosting efforts by the state police. Glad to see that terrorism is such a huge problem...)

No. Your example isn't very good, because people do cheat and steal and lie and no libertarian ever said that law enforcement or contracts would be unnecessary in a libertarian world.

[WhiteGuy]

It sucks though Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo (two of the most freedom loving Congressmen) are targeted for defeat by the RNC.

One reason I cannot support the GOP. There are many more, which leaves me with very limited options.

[OWK]

Well said.

[LizardQueen]

I don't agree with your definition of "public" for this example. Would you be ok with your neighbors having sex on their front lawn, in full view of the neighborhood, on what is their private property? Is that public or private to you?

Personally, I'd rather they do it in their fenced backyard ::grin::...

LQ

[Protagoras]

We will live free in spite of it. We will live free within it.

Please explain to me how you live free under the laws at present. I know you don't live as a mountain man or live on a deserted island so I'm curious.

[gcruse]

Personally, I'd rather they do it in their fenced backyard ::grin::...

Make that 'chain link.'  ;)

[r9etb]

Every one of these is a public issue, not a private one, and as such I don't think most sane small "l" libertarians would have a problem with reasonable restrictions against it.

That's precisely where you part ways with the doctrinaire libertarians on this thread. It cannot be a "public issue" if all you recognize is "individual rights."

Of course it is a public issue -- easily recognized and acknowledged as such. Which is why it's so easy to relegate libertarians to the nut-job section when they claim that "public issues" do not even exist.

[Jim Noble]

You too?

I have not been able to read Liberty magazine or lewrockwell.com (two of my faves) since 9/12/01. I've been kinda ashamed to admit it, but this article provides me with a good rationalization.

I'm even seeing Kevin Curry in a new light.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

The Tenth Amendment was repealed in April, 1865, I believe, the day Lee surrendered at Appomatox.

[OWK]

Would you be ok with your neighbors having sex on their front lawn, in full view of the neighborhood, on what is their private property?

Of course not.

But would I be willing to appeal to state enforcers with guns to see that it does not happen?

No.

I value my rights too much to appeal to state for anything other than the defense of rights.

State is not the only means of bringing about desired outcomes.

I think sometimes people forget this.

There are many ways to do so.

Voluntary neighborhood covenants.

Shunning miscreants, and refusing to deal with them commercially.

Protesting their behavior.

Filming their abberant behavior for distribution to the public.

All of these (and more) would certainly help in these situations.

And probably far better than state ever could. (and at no cost to rights)

[justshutupandtakeit]

What about playing your stereo on a 25 ft lot?

[JohnGalt]

And this is where conservatives who believe in organic communities based on the classical size of 20,000 differ from the ideological libertarians.

But as Murray Rothbard told his paleo-conservative friend Tom Fleming, 'after we get rid of the 90% of what the US government that immoral, illegal, and often evil, we can fight tooth and nail over the last 10%.

The point of my post is not to debate the minutae of ideological difference, but to discuss the article in relation to political science/theory. I saw the article as nothing more than an apology for the state and aimed my guns at the faux libertarians and faux conservatives.

[LizardQueen]

Make that 'chain link.' ;)

Depends on what the neighbors look like :::laughing:::

LQ