As much as I disagree with, and dislike, John McCain, I’m not about to go off and vote for Bob Barr. This is precisely why the Libertarian Party will never be more than a fringe party
The Libertarian National Convention kicked off yesterday with a tea-and-cookies reception hosted by the Marijuana Policy Project featuring none other than Mr. Barr, the party’s leading candidate for its presidential nomination.
If there was any traction to be gained from this issue with the common people, the Dems would have jumped all over it a long time ago. But the party that believes in partial birth abortion won’t go as far as the Libertarians on dope
The Libertarian Party platform calls for the repeal of drug laws and the pardoning of nonviolent drug offenders.
“The suffering that drug misuse has brought about is deplorable; however, drug prohibition causes more harm than drugs themselves,” the platform reads. “The so-called ‘War on Drugs’ is in reality a war against the American people, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order and to peace in the world.”
Peace love dove, man. Wanna toke?
No thanks.
Entries (RSS)
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
As a person who doesn’t even drink alcohol (used to, but stopped), I have no desire to “toke”. I even avoid prescription medications where at all possible. If it isn’t going to save my life or cure an otherwise incurable illness, I’d rather remain as un-chemically altered as possible.
With that said, however, how is it within the legitimate role of government to regulate what substances a free person chooses to introduce into their own body? Who’s body is it anyway?
Do drugs ruin lives? Certainly. So does alcohol and I have personal experience with both (which is a large measure of my reasons for choosing not to personally indulge). I would submit that alcohol does so at much higher rates than many other drugs. But because something can be a problem does not automatically grant government the power to regulate it. The key here is I CHOOSE not to indulge…just as you do.
The Government is not our nanny and has no business trying to protect us from ourselves…especially when said “protection” takes the form of the abuses of power and wanton disregard for rights that the “war on drugs” has engendered.
Criminalizing drugs in an effort to prevent their abuse is no different from a practical standpoint than criminalizing gun ownership with the same goals.
Liberty entails not only freedom, but the responsibility that goes along with that freedom. Liberty means having the freedom to not only reap the rewards of the good choices that we make, but the responsibility to face the consequences of the bad one. It is not the role of government to regulate either.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The problem is that you think that just because YOU don’t want to “Toke” that it should remain illegal. It’s only about you. What about all of the other things it’s good for? Medicine, clothes, fuel, paint, and freedom of choice. Marijuana legalization could just be the boon our economy needs.
I don’t care to “toke” but I care about my freedom to do with my body what I please.
The vast majority of prescription drugs have SERIOUS side effects including death. But pot? Nope. Sleepiness, lethargy, hunger….big deal. Booze is FAR worse than that.
Just look at how successful alcohol prohibition was. and if the gun grabbers are ever successful…gun prohibition. The same rules apply.
Don’t be fooled by “Reefer Madness”.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Also, I’m pretty sure you’re a Christian guy… So read Genesis
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
So, if it was good enough for Christ….why isn’t it good enough for us?
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
DJK, thanks for stopping in and taking time to comment, I really do appreciate it.
It has nothing at all to do with me. Your arguments have been around since before the 60’s, and they are standard fare in every high school essay about legalizing dope. And then you blew it by quoting the Bible and invoking Christ… what on God’s green earth does Genesis 1:11-12 have to do with legalizing marijuana? And where do you get “good enough for Christ, good enough for us”? Don’t be ridiculous.
I will ask a serious question though, which underlies a lot of the posts that I write here, and it is a question that doesn’t get discussed nearly often enough. Where is the boundary between an individual’s liberty and a society’s stability, and what is the proper role of government in protecting and preserving BOTH? Don’t give me slogans, like “the freedom to do with my body what I please”. You mention medicine, clothes, etc. Excellent material for discussion because they are quantifiable, measurable, and the touted benefits or lack thereof are tangible. Do these benefits to the individual outweigh whatever real or imagined ills to the society/nation as a whole? But the all or nothing position of “end the war on drugs” is just as offensive to most folks as is the all or nothing position of the gun grabbers, or the all or nothing “end the war now” position of many left-leaning folks. So, seriously, how do you meet both the individual and the society/nation? One of the magnificent things about our Constitution is that it tried to address BOTH, and is probably the most successful attempt yet made by man. Not perfect, but excellent.
Don’t be fooled by “libertarianism”, because neither utopias nor anarchism works in the real world.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
My arguments may be as old as the Tucker automobile but that may even lend them a little more credibility than you’re willing to give them.
If the question is about stability then the question I have is how unstable was America before it was illegalized/banned (I’d say pretty stable)? and how unstable is it now?
‘Don’t give me slogans, like “the freedom to do with my body what I please”’. Why not? Doesn’t your body belong to you? Or is that question just a way to cover your feelings about abortion? Who do I hurt if I “toke”? Maaaayyyybe myself…but probably not even me - as long as I’m responsible. I would NEVER advocate abuse or irresponsible use.
We don’t have to end the war on drugs (although it’s a wast of money and a blight to America and we should end it), but let’s test the waters. Let’s get the commercial uses out of the plant, which are almost immeasurable. Let’s educate and regulate the use of it by responsible people, just like alcohol. Let’s actually do a test….like The Great Experiment but giving back peoples’ freedoms rather than taking them away. We remember prohibition and how well that worked, right?
The bible reference is to prove that the bible says if it produces seeds, use it for what it’s worth. I don’t believe that Genesis is the only place that’s stated.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
The stability of the nation wasn’t what resulted in the ban of Marijuana/Hemp. It was that it was becoming a very viable commodity that rivaled that of cotton and Dupont’s products. The lobbys at their best. They demonized something that could have put them out of business by making it into something that the Mexicans used. And we know how much Americans liked people of color back then. We’ve come a long way with racial equality and tolerance so why can’t we move back the clock on the other things that went with the bigotry?
Just like in Florida when the carry laws were being presented, people cried, “there will be chaos in the streets. It’ll be a bloodbath, etc. etc. etc.” they cry the same things about drug/marijuana decrim/legalization… we BOTH know that it isn’t true. It’s become a moral issue, especially for Christians, that it’s wrong, it’s bad, yadda yadda yadda… but look at booze. Man oh man…look at the booze. Socially acceptable, yet kills how many people a year - directly and indirectly? How many people does pot kill?? The guys up top that are keeping the people afraid of marijuana, who probably don’t even remember why they think it’s bad, do so over two fingers of scotch and a cigar. Hypocrisy at it’s best.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
You’re right…Me saying “If it’s good enough for Christ, it’s good enough for us” is a bit ridiculous but I also think restricting something that is far less dangerous and equally if not more useful than alcohol is also ridiculous.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Were it up to me, I think the costs to society from alcohol far outweigh the benefits, but we all know how prohibition worked out, don’t we… one thing about Americans in particular, and human nature in general, most are going to do what they damn well please, rules or not.
You’ve brought abortion up twice. I’m not covering my feelings about abortion at all. Abortion is quite simply the killing of a human being. No rights there, that I can see. What that has to do with a discussion about pot, I don’t know.
The question I asked about individual liberty and the stability of society has to do with where we each see that line, not with the specifics of whether pot is or isn’t destabilizing. At the moment, a large number of Americans still feel that legalizing drugs might not be in their best interests. Where is the line that all societies must find, where they determine that some act by an individual might be a threat to the society? I don’t know, but that is what all societies must come to grips with. Do societies, nations, and the governments they form have the right to make those determinations? I know hardcore pure libertarians would say no, but that ideal situation and that mythical “responsible” human being doesn’t exist, at least in numbers great enough to make a difference. In all honesty, if the guy across the street (you maybe, if I lived in CA not ID) was smoking dope once in awhile, it might never affect me. But we did have a drug house, of which pot was a factor, in our neighborhood last winter, and it was extremely destabilizing, and the home is still all torn up even after the dopers were tossed out. I’ll bet none of my neighbors would be sympathetic to the legalize pot, it’s harmless argument.
Personally, I think most of the arguments for the benefits of legalizing dope are just excuses, because, face it, it’s about getting high… it always was and it always will be. Unless you want to go back to the mandatory hemp growing laws of the first colonies. But that really was about rope and such… not so much today. Hemp rope will never replace duct tape, and I just can’t picture a Gucci label on a pair of hemp shoes. Humor, DK, not makin’ fun.
On a different subject, did you go visit Mr Completely’s blog yet… and what were you shooting in that vid?
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Somewhere in here is a wonderful discussion of the role of government, but I never have seen it come out when the starting place is something as specific as the legalization of drugs. I thought Sailorcurt was going to get there, but…
Humans beings do not live in bubbles, and the population density of the United States is such that only an incredibly few folks are able to live their lives in a way where they do not affect anyone else, and no one else affects them. That being the case, usually humans get together in groups to make a mutually agreeable framework under which to conduct their affairs. So at that point, government does have some right to regulate individual lives. The Founders declared independence from a framework they found oppressive and no longer acceptable. By force, they tossed that government out, but instead of then saying “ok, llive and let live”, they promptly set about crafting an amazing form of government, which we sadly only have a shadow of today.
But it’s better than anything else out there, and if we’re really careful and work really hard, we can get it back closer to the original intent, although sometimes I’m quite skeptical of that. I agree that some laws and regulations are nothing more than “protecting us from ourselves” like Curt said. But there is a place for laws that protect society from individuals, and today I’m still willing to think most of the drug laws at least approach that reasoning. In my experience, no one drinks alcohol or takes drugs in a vacuum… the idea of “I’m only affecting myself” is never as cut and dried as it sounds. But that’s just my opinion and experience… your mileage may vary.
Thanks gentlemen, I appreciate it. Carry on if you like, but for now, I have to go turn off the water in the garden and then I’m going to bed.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
It’s not as “specific” as the legalization of drugs. It is a question of what is the proper role of government in regulating behaviors of individuals.
and what is the proper role of government in protecting and preserving BOTH?
…
Were it up to me, I think the costs to society from alcohol far outweigh the benefits
But it’s not up to you…and praise the Lord for it. Because if that issue were up to you (or me, or society in general), then issues of firearms ownership may be up to someone like Sarah Brady.
That’s the danger…Who gets to decide what is in the best interest of a stable society? You? Me? Sarah Brady? Paul Helmke? Individual rights are not subject to popular opinion. That’s the entire point behind the concept of “rights” in the first place.
Don’t be fooled by “libertarianism”, because neither utopias nor anarchism works in the real world.
What indicates to you that either of the persons arguing the other side of this debate believe in utopia or anarchism? That’s a strawman argument. Believing that liberty to the greatest extent possible is the best form of society does not mean that I think society can ever be perfect, nor that it could function without government. Your insinuation was nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and a means to dismiss the argument rather than to address it.
You said that you thought that we may get into the discussion on the proper role of government. Sorry I didn’t get back quicker, life got in the way, but the proper role of government is EXACTLY what we’re discussing here. Which article of the constitution authorizes the “war on drugs?” Back in the early 20th Century, they at least followed proper procedure and amended the Constitution to restrict alcohol. That amendment was subsequently repealed for the very reasons that the drug prohibition of today should be repealed…but there’s no amendment to repeal in this case. The Federal government just decided to arbitrarily ban or restrict certain drugs. Under what authority?
Using the Constitution as a guide, the only proper role of the federal government in regulating the private lives of individual citizens is to prevent citizens rights from being infringed by the states or other citizens and to arbitrate certain disputes. That’s it.
Who’s rights are being violated by an individual freely purchasing a substance at a mutually agreed upon price and introducing that substance into their body to engender feelings of euphoria? In other words, who’s rights are being violated when someone buys alcohol and drinks it? Why does the exact same transaction conducted for the exact same purpose suddenly become the subject of federal regulation under threat of violence when the substance is smoked, snorted or injected rather than drank?
The idea of “I’m only affecting myself” is never as cut and dried as it sounds.
I never said it doesn’t affect anyone else. I said that it doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights.
Obesity affects other people through increased insurance costs, decreased availability of medical services and facilities, decreased productivity and income potential, premature death and its effects on family members, etc etc etc. Is it the proper role of government to regulate fitness standards and dietary habits?
“Affecting others” is a pretty vague standard for determining the proper role of government. Just about everything we do in life affects other people. No one ever said that liberty was supposed to be consequence free, neither to the individual, nor to society itself. But unless the “affects” of liberty infringe upon the rights of others, those affects are beyond the role of government regulation…they are matters of individual liberty and free choice.
I repeat: the proper role of government is to prevent us from violating other’s rights…not regulating any activity that may have an affect on anyone else.
And the drug house that you mentioned being such a bane on the neighborhood? How much of that was CAUSED by the illegality of drug sales? Many of the “problems” with illegal drugs are caused not by the drugs per se…the problem is that the activity is illegal and, therefore, must be conducted in the shady underground. How many neighborhood homes do you see serving as makeshift liquor stores? Do you really think that’s just because drugs are somehow “worse” than alcohol?
Ever had a particularly obnoxious party in the neighborhood? Ever had a drunken domestic dispute spill out into the neighborhood? What happened? Probably the police were called…not because the neighbors were using alcohol, but because their behaviors began to violate other’s right to peace in their own homes. Disturbing the peace is a crime for a reason. That is a legitimate function of government: establishing and enforcing consequences for abusing liberty in such a way as to violate other’s rights…not preventing the liberty under the premise that it MAY cause disruption in the neighborhood…the principle is no less valid with drug use than telling you that you can’t own firearms because you MAY use them to violate someone else’s rights.
The principle is exactly the same.
The Founders declared independence from a framework they found oppressive and no longer acceptable. By force, they tossed that government out, but instead of then saying “ok, llive and let live”, they promptly set about crafting an amazing form of government, which we sadly only have a shadow of today.
That you can say that and support the war on drugs is amazing to me. The war on drugs, and the mentality that encourages its execution, are a large measure of WHY “we sadly only have a shadow of” the great form of government that the founders set up. You do realize that drug use was not illegal at the time of the founding do you not? Do you really believe that the founders envisioned the police state of today that has arisen as a direct result of the war on drugs? A world where judges grant search warrants on nothing more than the word of a police officer citing a “confidential informant?” A world where the ninja-cops break down people’s doors for nothing more egregious than being ACCUSED of selling a product at a mutually agreed upon price? A world where property can be seized with no measure of due process and the owner must prove their absolute innocence in order to get it returned?
I don’t think the war on drugs is in keeping with the founder’s intentions at all.
You said that when it comes to this subject, it’s just an excuse to “get high”. That, as with your “libertarianism = utopianism” argument is a rationalization, not an argument. It is a method of dismissing the points rather than addressing them. I already said that I have no interest in using drugs…I don’t drink alcohol and I don’t even use prescription medications if they can be avoided. So, unless you’re calling me a liar, you cannot dismiss me that easily.
I have no interest in “getting high” in any way shape or form. What I have an interest in is liberty. It matters not one whit whether I personally engage in an activity, if it does not violate the rights of others, I will support other’s right to do it.
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
–Thomas Paine
“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“There’s only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”
— P.J. O’Rourke
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”
— H.L. Mencken
May 24th, 2008 at 4:52 am
@Sailorcurt Wow. I was going to write back something along those lines but you said it far better than I ever could have. You are eloquent in your arguments and I applaud you.
@Billh I read your blog because I respect what you have to say about guns and I thought what you had to say recently about being Hell Bent on failing was great. It seems to me that you are a proponent of logical legislation, personal freedom and liberty, so I hope you’ll give these things a good thought.
I know “drugs” are immoral in the Christian world but “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. I think that’s how it goes. Just because some people THINK that the world would be in chaos because drugs were back on the street LEGALLY must not be seeing the chaos that’s going on because it’s ILLEGAL. This is not logical legislation. We’ve tried it before…it doesn’t work…it just makes matters worse.
That is all.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Curt, excellent. I appreciate the time and thought you put into that. That’s where I thought you were going in your first comment; and I can relate to real life imposing, that happens here a lot. And DJK, thank you as well. I hope you both keep coming back.
Couple of comments back for you though. I think both of you guys think I’m farther away from you on the liberty scale than I really am. Believe me, I’m nearly as liberty and freedom oriented as you both. I will disagree with the P.J. O’Rourke quote though, as I find it to be nearly a charicature, an over simplification if you will, of what liberty is. Ayn Rand gets there too easily for me as well, elevating the individual into the most important thing… We’ll probably disagree on that, but that’s ok, it doesn’t mean I don’t believe in individual liberty.
My “don’t be fooled by “libertarianism”" comment was a direct reference to DJK’s “don’t be fooled by “Reefer Madness”" comment. I thought it was humorous, but I guess it didn’t come across that way. It was not a strawman argument, and I don’t believe you guys are anarchists or utopians any more than I am (just as I am not fooled by “Reefer Madness”
). I was not dismissing anyone’s arguments, and it was not intellectually dishonest. If you read enough libertarian papers on the web, you’ll notice a large number of anarchist types and utopian types… they’re out there. I think “Reefer Madness” was a reference to some who are opposed to dope because of the perceived evils (DJK does refer to me being a Christian, and drugs being “immoral”. I am a Christian, but I don’t believe drugs are immoral. I was not offended by his “reefer madness” comment). I found the link humorous, but I guess I didn’t pull it off. Sorry if I offended anyone.
The “war on drugs” isn’t authorized by any article or amendment of the Constitution. I do not believe the Founders intended anything like the war on drugs, but I also don’t believe today’s police state government is the result of the war on drugs. No, I believe the war on drugs is a result of the big government nanny police state the socialist have foisted on us piece by piece. I personally think the “war on drugs” is all screwed up, and I never said that I supported it. You asked “under what authority”? Well, FDR was a socialist, and he did all kinds of things that were unconstitutional and anti-liberty, and he got away with it. Any number of politicians after him have abused their power as well, and grown government way beyond anything the Founders believed in or intended. The three candidates before us today are more of the same, and why I cannot vote for any of them. But when you look at government, including ours, as a social contract entered into by individuals, a case can be made that regulating things like trade and commerce, as well as alcohol and drugs might be a legitimate aspect of that contract. What we have now is not it though.
I appreciate the point you make about “affecting others” being a vague standard, it definitely is, but I think “individual rights” is an equally vague standard sometimes too. You give obesity as an example. Many people feel it is the government’s place to provide health care to everyone (I do not). If we don’t challenge THAT premise, the idea that universal health care is somehow an individual right as well as an obligation of government, we WILL lose on the obesity thing. That scares me, because if we are not fighting the right battles, we can lose on a number of fronts, not just health care and obesity, but political speech, freedom to practice religion, and self defense and guns as well. Doing battle on the field of legalizing marijuana doesn’t seem like a high percentage battle to me right now, not compared with those others. We win on those, legalizing dope might be one of those “doh” moments later on, but right now they’re after my guns and my Bible, and trying to shut me up… I’m kinda busy, know what I mean
Enough about the drug war though… Can I go back to the very beginning and make a point about the Libertarian Party, and tie it into what’s happening with the Republicans right now? I don’t believe the Libertarian Party will ever be a major force in America for a couple reasons. I pointed out the pot thing in my post… as long as they make the argument about legalizing drugs, they will never get as far as if they made the argument about liberty. The case has not been made to the American people that their liberties are important. I really believe that. In the last four years, if you can tell me of one thing the Libertarian party has done in your community, I’ll post it on the front page because it will be news. For most Americans, the Libertarians come out once every four years and talk about smoking pot (no offense intended, but that is the impression). They haven’t sold the underlying belief in liberty. Same with the Republicans… they haven’t sold the American people on the values and truth of anything they pretend to stand for. If they had spent the last 6 or 8 years promoting conservative values, liberty, and individual freedoms and responsibilities, and actually legislated that way, we might have a different political reality today. But they didn’t. And so the American people don’t have any reason to listen to them, or vote for them. You know who IS making up ground? The crapweasels promising everybody a bigger piece of the pie, and a little more of what is in your greedy rich neighbor’s wallet, that’s who is gaining ground. They aren’t talking about rights, they’re talking about plundering the rich and spreading around the booty. And it’s working.
I probably used up all my words for the day now. I’ll have to go find a car picture or a gun picture to put up for a post
May 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
[…] think I used up all my words in the comment section of the Wanna Toke? post, talking with Sailorcurt and DJK. So, here’s a picture of my pocket contents this […]
May 25th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I appreciate the cool calm conversation and the retorts by Sailorcurt which were very well thought out and more well spoken/written that I could have done.
However, I don’t totally agree that this isn’t a winnable issue… It takes baby steps and there’s a HUGE faction of people that are on board. An “outsider” may not see it, but that’s probably because the people who are opposed to pot seem to be so taken aback by pro-pot talk that they just turn a deaf ear. There are lots of us who see MJ for more than just a recreational “drug”. In fact…I don’t even care to smoke and there are also those that do…..lots of them, of all walks of life. And of course there are those of us that also see the commercial commodity viability of it. Anyway, I don’t want to slog through another mudpit, but that’s how I feel. I also can’t write as well as either of you.
I think the Libertarians that have registered in the last 5-8 years are actually the conservatives of 50-80 years ago. I couldn’t in my right mind stay on the GOP voter roster as I am ashamed of what they have done to the party in the last 8 years (or more). The underhanded crooked way they’ve handled themselves is astounding.
There are also a couple other fundamental issues that the Libertarians and the Repubs don’t see eye to eye on and I am to the Lib side of those….so, Libertarian it is. I just hope our votes don’t enable a Democrat win…
Whew…I need a nap.
May 25th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I don’t have time to read your whole response right now so I can’t give it the attention it deserves. I did read the first little bit though. I apologize if I gave the impression I was offended, I was not. I just missed the humor in the statement. I thought you were just trying to dismiss our points out of hand. My apologies for misunderstanding.
PJ O’Rourke is a humorist. He oversimplifies on purpose in order to make a point, but in a sarcastic and humorous way. The ironic thing is that, although he was attempting levity, I agree with him completely. He addressed both individual liberty and personal responsibility and their relationship with one another perfectly in that once succinct sentence…in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I just didn’t want you to think I’d forgotten the thread. I’ll be back later when I’ve got more time to read over your reply.
May 25th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
If you guys want to read an interesting piece, check out this link I found over at Survival Blog this evening…
http://www.liberalia.com/htm/tr_christian_libertarian.htm
It is an essay concerning whether a Christian can be a libertarian. I have some points of difference with the authors, and I’d love to ask them a couple of questions, but I thought you might find it interesting. I bring it up because for one thing, it kinda fits in (me being Christian has come up in a small way), but more importantly because I so appreciate being able to discuss these kind of strongly held beliefs without causing too much angst, emotion, or personal offense. I’m sure you guys have noticed the propensity for the greater Christian population to divide and separate over a multitude of issues (and it is to our great shame that is true, I think). Splitting and separating over the 5 or 10 or 15 percent we differ on has cost the church, as well as the political parties, very dearly. Instead of insisting on 100% purity, we oughta try to come together and enlarge the portions we agree on. Thank you guys for that here.
I hope you have a great Memorial Day.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:27 am
After coming back to your initial post, there’s really not much there to comment on except the “individual rights” thing. You are right that many in society have “determined” that such things as health care, food, plasma screen TVs and 1500 square foot homes are “individual rights”. Some in society deciding that they should be, doesn’t make it so. There are two criteria for an individual right…and ONLY two.
1. It must not infringe upon the individual rights of another.
2. It must require no contribution, effort or assistance from any other in order to provide for it. In other words, the only thing required for you to engage in an individual right is to be left alone to do so.
That’s it. If something meets those two criteria, it is an individual right, if it does not, it is not.
Examples: Health care requires the knowledge and labor of doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment providers etc. It is not an individual right beyond that which you can freely purchase for mutually agreed upon compensation or that which you can provide for yourself.
Ownership of property is an individual right. Once you have made or purchased the property at a mutually agreed upon price, the only thing required for you to maintain ownership is to be left alone.
Marriage is not an individual right. Marriage is a legal contract and/or religious rite which requires the sanction of the governing body, whether the State or the Church.
A relationship with another consenting adult (or any number of consenting adults) is an individual right. It requires no input from anyone else to implement.
Rape, theft, murder, assault etc are not individual rights because, although they are implementable without the assistance of others, they infringe upon the rights of others.
Life is an individual right. All it requires is for you to be left alone to live it. It is your responsibility to sustain that life through sustenance, shelter, etc.
Here’s the big one that I part ways with the Libertarian party on: Abortion is not an individual right. Although it does not require intervention from an outside source, it is, by nature, using force to deprive the unborn child of it’s individual right to life, and, therefore, violates rule number 1.
I have no “evidence”, case law, essays by smart people or historical basis to “prove” my premise…it’s based on an accumulation of basic principles, experience and just plain “common sense”. Most people probably would argue against my premise because it violates one of their sacred cows “I have the right to vote”, “Gays have the right to get married”, “Women have the right to decide whether to be pregnant or not” etc. But it doesn’t really matter. Denial doesn’t negate a basic truth. Another way to say it that may make its immutability more apparent and fits in better with the stated libertarian “no-force” precept:
Anything that requires a use of force against another is NOT an individual right.
Anything (that satisfies the above) that cannot be denied to you without the use of force IS an individual right.
Anything that can be denied to you without the use of force (simply by inaction on the part of others) IS NOT an individual right.
To your next comment and the article linked:
I tend to try to keep my theological beliefs out of political discussions. My religion does inform my political belief system (of course), but if I can’t define my beliefs in a more substantial way than “because God says says so”, then I’m limiting my ability to influence others strictly to those who believe in God.
I am not ashamed or afraid to discuss it, however, and so, since it was brought up by others, I’ll jump in.
Although I agree with the author’s superficial point, I disagree completely with the logical conclusion. He is endorsing anarchy. His premise seems to be that making something illegal eliminates all moral benefit to obeying the law.
In other words, murder should be legal because when I don’t kill someone simply out of fear of prison, I’m losing the ability to glorify God by not having the option to freely choose not to murder someone. Under Mr. Rawles premise, there should be no laws attempting to regulate human behavior and there should be no earthly consequences for “immoral” acts.
I completely disagree with that premise.
His superficial point…the point I believe he was actually trying to make, but did so ineptly (in my humble opinion) is valid. STRICTLY moral decisions should be left a matter of free will and conscience. In other words, the law should not regulate “victimless crimes.” This covers the gamut of “vice” type crimes such as gambling, drug use, prostitution, etc.
I believe what he was trying to say goes back to a Thomas Jefferson quote that I already used in my earlier comment:
“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”
— Thomas Jefferson
The implication being, of course, that the laws “ought to restrain him” from those actions that DO “commit aggression on the equal rights of another.”
Taken literally, Mr. Rawles article implies that there should be no laws restraining ANY act, so that when we act in a moral way, we are doing so for no other reason than to glorify God. I don’t think that’s what he was trying to say, but if you follow his logic to its…well…logical…conclusion, that’s where we end up.
I also must take umbrage with this part:
Earlier this summer, our Southern Baptist Pastor and I were playing golf. In our usual discussion of the freedom Christians have in Christ, we turned our attention to the troubling and divisive issue of abortion. Almost in the middle of my backswing -which should tell you how seriously we take our golf- he stated that, in his opinion, government was an agent of immorality by allowing abortions to happen. I stopped my backswing, turned to him, and asked a question that he has still not answered. If that is true, I said, is God also an agent of immorality because He too allows abortions to happen?
If that story is true, he needs to find another Church because his pastor is incompetent. The concept of free will is a basic tenet of Christianity and if the Pastor couldn’t explain that to him, how could he be expected to explain the more complicated concepts?
I understand that he was probably using a bit of artistic license in order to reinforce a point, but the contention that any self-respecting Pastor wouldn’t be able to address an issue that most lay-Christians could dispose of easily made my BS caution lights start flickering before even finishing the first paragraph.
The impression I got was that the piece wasn’t written to convince Christians, but to convince non-Christian libertarians that Christians aren’t “all bad.”
I personally believe one of the most telling parts of the New Testament in relation to this issue is the story of the Rich man who asked Jesus what he needed to do to gain eternal life (Matthew 19:16 - 29).
For those non-Christians who may be reading that don’t know the story, a rich young man came to Jesus and asked Him what he needed to do to gain eternal life. After some back and forth, Jesus told him to sell all of his possessions and give to the poor “and then you will have treasure in heaven, Then come, follow me.” The young man turned and walked away “because he had great wealth.”
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mt 19:23 - 24, NIV)
Most Christians get the overall point: That the rich who love their wealth more than they love God will fail to reach heaven as a result.
But there is another, hidden, but VERY important message that most Christians miss here:
After the rich man walked away, Jesus didn’t say to his disciples “see, that’s why we need the government with their tax collectors…to take the money away from those greedy rich people and give it to the poor.” When the rich man turned and walked away, Jesus didn’t scream at him, or drag him back or insist that he give to the poor, or FORCE him to give to the poor…He let the rich man just walk away.
The point being, it is NOT within the tenets of Christianity to use the force of government to take from others. It is not our place as Christians to decide how much Bill Gates or George Soros should give to the poor. It is only or place as Christians to decide how much WE as individuals should give to the poor.
It is not our place to use the force of government to enforce our morality upon the rest of the world. It is our place as Christians to live within the moral framework set out by Jesus, to serve as examples of how to live and what Christ can do if allowed and to spread the good news…without using force to do so.
That is not to say that our country should be completely without laws or taxes. The laws should be designed to proffer consequences for, and thereby deter, the violation of other’s rights. Taxes should be designed to provide for society those portions of the infrastructure that it is impractical for the free market and individuals to provide; and those roles should be assumed by the absolute lowest level of government possible.
I think that that is what the founders envisioned when they created our form of government.
“[A] wise and frugal government…shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
–Thomas Jefferson