Replies

I see no contradiction between liberty on the one hand, and restraining people from harming others (i.e. infringing THEIR liberties) on the other. In fact, if we DON'T do so, then we find that we all have less liberty, because some unretrained individuals will always go around bringing harm to others so as to better themselves, which limits the freedom of those whom they harm.

On a theoretical level I agree, but because laws generally are not enacted based on people's perceptions of harm at the altruistic level.

A perfect example is the outlawing of marijuana. It was outlawed in 1935 and earlier in the states mainly based on racism and not so much the effects of the drug. Even in 1970, the very commission that Nixon appointed to study what laws should be enacted stated that outlawing the drug would breed a lack of respect for the law because youth would not believe that it caused the harm the government had claimed. And yet it was still made illegal.

In essence, the whole history of laws against this drug have been based on lies and misperceptions which is why I believe it is illegal most likely because it is considered a sin, not because of any harmful effects it may have.

Many of our other laws are also decided on this basis and because of that there is a tendency of more lawlessness due to lack of respect of the authority or basis of such laws.

In addition, the very same arguments that are used to outlaw pornography as you discussed can be used to outlaw guns as well, the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.

Another inconsistency which breeds lack of respect of the law is the way these laws are enacted. Abortion, for example, is now being argued as a state's right issue because of Rowe. Yet the same argue for national drug laws based on the Commerce Clause, which could cleary be extended to Rowe using the same arguments.

I understand your points clearly but my objection to many of these laws is that weren't decided in a rational way and are not rationally defendible. Maybe pornography can be, but many others cannot.

In an earlier post you talked about libertarians need to make a case for why drugs, etc should be legal, but at the same time I argued with a conservative freeper the other day who was totally OK with putting someone in jail for 20 years for having some Vicodin he had a prescription for it that since he had a little pot (which is a misdemeanor). When this guy who spend two years in jail for possessing a drug he had a prescription for was freed on appeal, he was totally OK with the prosecutor retrying him for the same crime.

That is the crux of my issue with many of these laws. They do not seem to fit the paradigm you have set up as a rational basis. Its not that they are nebulus, it is that they are totally based on the concept of sin or evil, and not on the harm they cause to society.

That is the crux of my issue with many of these laws. They do not seem to fit the paradigm you have set up as a rational basis. Its not that they are nebulus, it is that they are totally based on the concept of sin or evil, and not on the harm they cause to society.
______________________________________________

I will disagree with you regarding the same arguments being made to control guns as opposed to outlawing drugs or pornography. From a Christian perspective, intoxication itself is a sin and an evil to be avoided. From a Christian perspective, even looking at pornography, much less producing it is sinful. That is not the case with owning a gun. It is not inherently sinful.

We will disagree if your standard is the greatest good for the greatest number or some such pragmatic and infinitely manipulable rule implied by judging by “harm to society.”