I’ve written posts revealing horror stories of government abuse and argued that people should become libertarian.
I’ve commented on research ostensibly showing that conservatives and libertarians don’t necessarily share moral premises.
And I’ve even speculated on whether libertarianism and patriotism are somehow inconsistent (this Penn & Teller video gives the right answer).
But I’ve never done a poll to gauge libertarian sentiment, so let’s do an experiment. Here’s an excerpt from a BBC report.
A farmer in the US state of Vermont who was facing a minor drugs charge is now in more serious trouble after driving a tractor over seven police cars. Roger Pion crushed the county sheriff’s cruisers on Thursday before making his getaway on the farm vehicle. The 34-year-old was stopped by police in Newport city, northern Vermont, not far from the crime scene. Sheriff’s deputies were unaware of the destruction in their department car park until a resident called 911. Orleans County Sheriff Kirk Martin said they were initially unable to give chase as their cars had been wrecked.
Now share your anonymous reaction.
If you’re so disposed, feel free to augment your vote in the comments section.
You won’t be surprised to learn that I’m torn between the third and fourth options.
When I think about it logically and dispassionately, I know I should pick the third choice. But my rebellious inner child wants to cheer for somebody who fights back, so I’m tempted to take the last option. That same inner child, by the way, was quite amused that the cops couldn’t even give chase because their cars were totaled.
Maybe this makes me a libertarian chicken hawk. I cheer for people who fight back even though I wouldn’t do the same thing.
Sort of like my attitude toward tax evasion. I applaud people who take that risk (assuming they live in nations with unjust governments), but am too cowed by the IRS to do it myself.
But I’m not a complete coward. I almost got thrown in a Mexican jail for opposing the tax-hungry bureaucrats at the OECD. That has to count for something.
I voted for #3. Violence is a natural and somewhat understandable reaction to injustice. But it is shortsighted, as most knee-jerk reactions are. Violence is wrong in every instance, short of clear self-defense.
First and foremost we live by rule of law and we must first abide by those laws. Secondly, we must change the laws that we don’t agree with using the system set forth by our founders rather than resort to violence when we irrationally deem a law unjust. The farm was not thinking rationally when he destroyed public property in response to the pot bust. He is now no better than the occutards that litter metropolitan public places.
I have only heard this story in passing, but would say this guy has “impulse control” problems. He needs to be tried for destroying the cars (probably multiple felonies) and treated for his psychological/psychiatric problems. If pot contributed to his problems, he needs to go clean.
On the other hand, if the deputies were using their power to menace to guy, they should be reprimanded. Police have a lot of discretion in how they handle situations; as representatives of the community they have an obligation to behave professionally.
Finally, I seem to recall from a History Channel show a few years ago that our country’s drug laws are part of international treaties made in the early 1900s. This is why even sympathetic presidents can’t change the laws and federal drug laws are enforced- even in states where the local laws aren’t enforced. I don’t think our drug laws will change until we renegotiate the treaties.
@Cobizzle. The system set up by the US founders has been perverted in any number of ways by the statists. That’s why the improved Mark 2 version of the US Constitution now in use in Switzerland is so superior.
Your answer suggests you’d argue against the revolt against the English tax system. Do you think those founding Americans who took part in that revolt were “no better than the occutards that litter metropolitan public places”?
I didn’t think so…
I voted for #4.
I voted for #1. I don’t agree with “throw away the key”, but he commited a violent, expensive, and dangerous act against public property.
The drug laws are bad, but it doesn’t empower that farmer to be destructive. His actions support the mistaken idea that drug users are violent idiots.
Suppose he did this to protest the Afghan war? Or made any of a dozen claims to some moral purpose? Would that excuse his vandalism? If not, then why is there an excuse for opposing a drug law?
Voted 3. But laughed aloud yesterday when I read that the cops could not give chase because their cars were crunched.
Why are they upset? He just created jobs for car manufacturers!
I am torn between options one and three. While I can understand why the guy might be upset, This is Vermont, so the penalty wasn’t going to be that severe.
In the end, I chose option one. I’m a libertarian, not an anarchist. Citizens have no more right to disproportionally respond than the police do. While some laws are unjust and some cops are jerks, destroying public property (so they cannot respond to ANY crime, even a legitimate one) because one doesn’t like anti-pot laws being enforced strikes me more as lawless thuggery than as principled rebellion against tyrants.
But, as Dennis Miller says, that’s just my opinion, and I may be wrong!
I sympathize most with Options 1 and 2. Don’t get me wrong; I love liberty as much as the next guy. But hear me out.
Why Option 2 makes some sense: While I disagree with marijuana laws, those who get caught smoking pot should expect the corresponding punishment. So he should accept his punishment, but not necessarily “shut up” about it. The way to protest minor drug laws is not to damage police property, but to raise awareness and take political action.
Why Option 1 makes some sense: The guy ran over police cars. Obviously that’s a major crime, for which he deserves jail time. I don’t think they should “throw away the key” because he’s “a danger to the community”, but they should give him a greater punishment now that he has broken more serious laws.
As a Libertarian, I don’t like ANY of the options. But I picked #1 because laws need to be followed. And while I hate the criminalization of drug usage, this guy didn’t stop there; he committed tens of thousands of dollars in vandalism and fled arrest – and hindered the legitimate efforts of police both to arrest him, and to execute their duties to the rest of the community by depriving them of their cars.
I can’t support that. If, as a protest, he slashed their tires, I could even defend that as a protest; while debilitating, such an act is ultimately temporary. But demolishing multiple squad cars is a drastic, permanent act that could very well cause injuries to others (via lost effectiveness of the police).
The Bandit lives! (#4)
I know this guy broke the law, but let me tell you something: The Law, in this case, is an ass! Get government OUT of our lives! P.S.: I’m against marijuana.
Yes, that’s why they call it the inner “child”. #3. Libertarians who choose to ignore laws are called “anarchists”. I have no problem at all legalizing weed. I do have a problem with a self centered jerk costing taxpayers hundreds of thousand of dollars to replace the cars he totaled because he thinks pot laws are stupid.
I voted #1 simply because he decided to get violent. Had he not then I would have voted #3.
Not that violence is not appropriate for some egregious injustices, but a minor drug charge is not IMO a reason to become violent.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. I couldn’t determine which option reflected that, so I didn’t pick one. The reason why we have so many laws, many stupid and overbearing, is because people like this idiot have lost the ability to govern themselves. When that happens, people demand more laws. Of course, as this idiot proves, those laws don’t fix that problem either. But, people never seem to learn that do they?
He can be upset over the pot laws all he wants. He can even seek to get those laws changed, but he lost me as soon as he destroyed public property. The fund to replace those cars come out of everyone’s pockets in the form of taxes.
And, I am not in favor of drugs. However, I think anyone who wants legal drugs will have their golden opportunity with our southern neighbor having legalized them. We’ll soon see how that goes.
There needs to be a better response for the libertarian conservative. Something like “Pot is a minor offense so I can understand why he’s pissed, but he went overboard with the cop cars and deserves some jail time, the time of which is dependent on how quickly he pays a fair price for the cop cars.
[...] life with a marijuana arrest, so he responded by crushing some empty police cars with a tractor. I gave people four possible ways of responding to this story, and the results (based on my arbitrary division) showed a 60-40 split in favor of [...]
Good law;bad law;doesn’t matter.Put on your big boy pants and accept responsibility for your actions. Act in a political way to change the law. Acting like you’re in a Monster Truck rally doesn’t help. How many tax dollars did you blow up?