Some people confuse being libertarian with being libertine.
I’m sometimes asked, for instance, if I’m a libertarian because I want to smoke pot or do other drugs.
I respond that I’ve never done drugs and have no desire to use drugs.
Then I’m asked if I’m a libertarian because I want to gamble.
I respond by saying that I don’t gamble, even when I’m in Las Vegas or some other place where it’s legal.
Sometimes I’m asked if I’m libertarian because I want to use prostitutes.
I respond by explaining that I’d never patronize a prostitute because I want to at least be under the illusion that a woman actually wants to be with me.
At this point, some people conclude I’m boring, and that may be true, but this is also the point where I try to educate them about the libertarian philosophy.
I give them the usual message about small government and free markets, but I also explain that libertarians don’t believe that government should persecute people for victimless crimes.
This doesn’t mean we think it’s good to use drugs or that we personally approve of prostitution. And it doesn’t mean we’re oblivious to the downsides of gambling.
The libertarian message is simply that prohibition makes matters worse, not better. For instance, prohibition gives government the power to behave in reprehensible ways.
Let’s look at two examples, starting with this disturbing and powerful video from Reason TV (warning, both the subject material and language are not for the faint of heart).
Having watched the video, now ask yourself whether you think this is an appropriate way for governments to be using our tax dollars?
Remember, we’re not talking about cops busting people for impaired driving. That’s totally legitimate, regardless of whether they’re impaired because of drugs or booze.
The question is whether cops should look for excuses to pull people over simply in hopes of finding that they have some pot. And when they don’t find drugs, should they then go through obscene efforts in hopes of finding some contraband?*
Our second example isn’t as disturbing, at least on a physical level, but it should be equally troubling if we believe in decent and humane society.
It seems that SWAT teams have too much time on their hands and are now conducting raids on old folks playing cards.
On Saturday, state and local authorities raided a monthly poker tournament at a bar in the city of Largo, after an investigation into unlawful gambling, the Tampa Bay Times reported. The Nutz Poker League, which was running a free game open to the public at Louie’s Grill and Sports Bar at the time of the crackdown, said on its Facebook page that some of the police were in “full riot gear” and had their “weapons drawn.” …One woman present described the event in a blog post: “Today, while out playing poker with this poker league, we were raided by the [Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco], all with men and women officers wearing black masks so we couldn’t see their faces. We were forced (by a threat of going to jail) to place our hands on the table where they could see them and to stay there until we were told.” …Luke Lirot, an attorney involved with the matter, told Card Player that players took cell phone photos and video of the raid, and that they were “ordered by officers to delete” the material. According to the Tampa Bay Times, the undercover investigation, dubbed “Operation Cracked Aces,” had been ongoing for months prior to the bust.
The community group that runs the recreational league has an appropriately libertarian view of this costly harassment.
“The ‘crime’ here is the waste of valuable public resources, and the misguided efforts to enforce an archaic law that was never intended to be used to criminalize events such as the one here, where six individuals were unjustly arrested and terrified, and now face prosecution,” the league said. “If state statutes can be exploited and stretched to criminalize these types of events, legislation needs to be adopted to clear up this unnecessary abuse.” Nutz Poker added that the raid was an example of “tyrannical [law] enforcement.”
By the way, the Florida raid is not an isolated incident.
Here are some excerpts from a report in the Baltimore Sun.
…at the Lynch Point Social Club in Edgemere, police say, …dozens of men would meet regularly to play no limit Texas Hold ‘Em poker games and gamble on electronic machines. County police said it was all off the books and against the law, and busted the club’s members in a raid involving a tactical unit last week. The organizer and dealers were arrested and face charges. Almost immediately after our story posted, there was a quick backlash against police. The story’s been shared nearly 200 times on Facebook and generated 40 comments as of this writing… commenters had no tie to the event but were angered at an investigation they believe was a waste of police resources. …But police say games like the ones hosted in Edgemere are against the law and must be enforced, and may even put the players at risk for becoming victims of a robbery.
Here’s the bottom line: A bunch of guys want to pass the time by playing cards and making wagers. They’re not hurting anybody else, yet cops decide to send a “tactical unit” to conduct a raid.
Once again, I’m glad there’s a backlash against the police. Cops should be protecting innocent people, not harassing them.
Or killing them.
And this is why libertarianism is a philosophy of human decency. We don’t believe in using coercive government power against people who aren’t harming others.
*I’m thinking an involuntary cavity search might be worth it if I got a $900,000 award after suing the government.
P.S. Since I feel very confident about libertarian principles, I don’t object to sharing anti-libertarian humor.
Here’s the latest example.
I’ve previously shared a cartoon with the same theme, and that post also makes the should-be-obvious point that fire departments would exist in a libertarian world.
And that link also has many more examples of libertarian humor.
[…] libertarian argument that people should be free to do what they want with their own […]
[…] That’s true even if they make choices that I think are foolish. […]
[…] for more progress and you’re far more likely to change hearts and minds with outreach – Daryl Davis and Matthew Stevenson are role models – rather than […]
[…] Alleged libertarian views on fire departments can be seen here and here. […]
[…] several occasions, I’ve shared horror stories of government brutality and asserted that all decent people […]
[…] several occasions, I’ve shared horror stories of government brutality and asserted that all decent people […]
[…] some of the questions were more about attitude and outlook rather than policy. And since I’m the boring kind of libertarian, perhaps that’s why I don’t get a strong […]
[…] That means you’re a decent person. […]
[…] P.P.S. If you think libertarians are doctrinaire and impractical about firefighting, you’ll like this picture. […]
[…] Indecent? […]
[…] Indecent? […]
Libertarianism is the only sensible political philosophy.
“And this is why libertarianism is a philosophy of human decency. We don’t believe in using coercive government power against people who aren’t harming others.”
And yet there is a Libertarian Party hoping to be at the helm of the ship of state.
Libertarianism is the first step on one’s road to antistatism.
[…] The War on Drugs is unjust because it requires the government to criminalize actions when there are no victims. […]
[…] Alleged libertarian views on fire departments can be seen here and here. […]
[…] Regardless of my individual preferences, I recognize that prohibition gives government the power to trample our rights, that it is borderline (if not over-the-line) racist, and that it leads to horrible […]
[…] Regardless of my individual preferences, I recognize that prohibition gives government the power to trample our rights, that it is borderline (if not over-the-line) racist, and that it leads to horrible […]
[…] to mention that anyone who think that you can be a Marxist and a libertarian at the same time obviously is a blithering […]
[…] think tank, I reckon nobody would object if I wanted to change my identity. But since I’m the boring rather than adventurous kind of libertarian, I guess it’s good that I wound up being Dr. […]
[…] Alleged libertarian views on fire departments can be seen here and here. […]
[…] P.P.S. Before answering any of those tests, you may want to read this. […]
[…] I don’t want put my thumb on the scale as you take these tests, I’ll simply note that decent and humane people tend to be […]
[…] at the bottom of this post, you’ll find an amusing joke about firefighting that pokes fun at […]
[…] Now I’m facing another quandary about how to classify a story. I’m not sure to add the following nightmare to my ever-growing list of theft-by-government stories, or whether it belongs in my collection of stupid-drug-war stories. […]
militarized policing is bad policy… it didn’t work in Waco Texas… and it’s not working in Ferguson Missouri… the American people are NOT the enemy…
“Cops Gone Wild”
Paul Craig ROBERTS
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/08/15/cops-gone-wild.html
@smapple
Lyndon LaRouche has never associated himself with the Libertarian Party. Where did you hear this non-sense ??
Since I am an Australian, I am not bound by your abiding by failure. We should have had more discussion here, but we are less attached to our Federal Government, since we didn’t have a war, or a DoI, or a civil war to expand the Capital. The fact that you failed in the past does not mean we will fail.
@Nick Gray: “I advocate time-share governments…”
Apparently this idiocy is not intended as humor!
The narrow stupidity of this “idea” comes from utterly ignoring a stinking pile of facts and indulging in fantasy with Libertarian blinders on.
The USA had a significant experience in Libertarian government.
It was that of the “Articles of Confederation” and it was a pronounced failure.
I advocate time-share governments, where people who choose to be citizens would give up some of their time for community services, like being part of the local volunteer fire service, or the militia, or road patrols (thus eliminating ful-time public servants), and being part of the government for one month of the year. Have counties like Swiss Cantons, but no ful-time government!
InsureBlog – Fire department lets house burn down
The lefties mock libertarians and a free and cooperative market for being heartless toward people in trouble. But, this is a projection of leftist policy, not the market. It is government bureaucracy which witholds help if your form 39-B is missing. The leftists are just as determined as any group to limit their costs, and are as indifferent as any bureaucracy.
A local fire department let a house burn to the ground because the owner had not paid his $75 fee.
This is a shockingly stupid response by the fire department, a local government agency. Yes, the homeowner should have prepaid the fee. But, the response should have been to put out the fire and charge the homeowners for the full service costs.
A private fire service would have extinguished the blaze at the request of the frantic owner and sent the homeowner a bill. There are plenty of examples of this in private marketplaces.
This puts the lie to the idea of a benevolent government. They will impose or allow any loss to make their point, rather than handle the short-sightedness of the homeowner with some flexibility.
A similarly shocking result of leftist planning is that they don’t mind fitting the individual into the great design, and you will have no way of bargaining your way out (unless you are a former politician or union boss).
Fair Distribution of Life-Years
Ezekiel Emanuel is director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the US National Institutes of Health and an architect of ObamaCare. His brother is Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of staff.
Ezekiel Emanuel wrote in The Lancet medical journal Jan 2009 [edited]:
=== ===
Allocation of healthcare by age is fair, unlike allocation by sex or race. Even if people aged 25 receive priority over those aged 65, everyone who is now 65 was previously 25.
It would be ageist to treat 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods. It is fair to treat them differently because they have already received more life-years.
=== ===
Summary: We treated you when you were young, so it is fair that we not treat you when you are old. You already received your treatments.
Our politicians have maintained themselves in power by making promises, essentially buying votes. The promises had to be dramatic and simple. The medical care promise has been “pay into the system, and we will do everything possible to keep you alive and functioning as you become old and sick”. Everything possible by their construction is what is left over after they care for their current tax and voting base. Promises? You must have misunderstood. A free market doesn’t work this way.
EasyOpinions.blogspot.com
I have – with the help of you and Stossel convinced myself that I am actually a libertarian. I support most of the libertarian positions, so perhaps I’m not a died-in-the-wool libertarian. However, here is the problem I have. In elections, libertarians tend to run people who are in essence unelectable. One of the best examples of these was Linden Larouche. So despite my leanings, I will always compromise when it comes to the ballot box, and vote AGAINST somebody who is far from libertarian principals, and consequently vote for somebody I believe has a chance of beating them.This often means I vote republican, and vote for a person who also compromises some of my principles. But they tend to compromise them less than somebody who comports himself like Linden L.
Tell me there is a better answer- I am all ears. I personally believe that if the republican party had found a way of embracing Ron Paul’s followers in the last election- rather than making them mad, we might not have to deal with Barak today. My only issue with RP was on foreign policy, but it was certainly better than Barak’s.
I find jokes about libertarian fire departments amusing too. Then I counter with Rural/Metro. A flawed solution, but it could be improved with competition outside government provided services.
Here’s a minor but good illustration of government overreach. In the state of Kentucky prescriptions for eyeglasses expire in one year (other states are similar, no doubt). If you happen to sit on your glasses after your prescription has “expired” you cannot, by law, get a replacement set without a new eye exam, even if your eyesight hasn’t changed in years. That forces this decision on those with broken glasses: Spend money you would not otherwise have spent on an eye exam or walk around wearing broken glasses.
Even though I have vision coverage through my employer that mostly pays for the exam and the glasses, I, out of defiance to this tyranny, walked through this world with a super-glued set of glasses for a long time before I surrendered to the eye police and got an exam.
No doubt the optometrists convinced the lawmakers this was all in the public good. One can almost write their argument for them: “Imagine someone walking around with developing glaucoma, which a simple eye exam would detect. This law might save someone from going blind, so even if it saved only one person’s sight, it would be worth it.” Lawmakers get to feel good about saving someone’s eyesight; optometrists get to feel good about the increase in business, even if it was government forced.
Note also how this law is completely discriminatory in its effect. It only forces this burden on those of us with poor vision who sit on our glasses. Those with good vision are completely free from this burden. Apparently, the pursuit of happiness for lawmakers and optometrists overrides every other citizen’s option to spend his/her money on something other than annual eye exams.
Put another way, the rights of The Collective supersede the rights of the individual.
I guess I like booring.
Dan, you are, indeed, boring, and you’ve Bern that way for years. But it’s a charming boring.