Ravenwood - 02/12/03 02:09 PM
Susan Lee of the Opinion Journal tackles Libertarianism. She describes Libertarianism:
Libertarianism is simplicity itself. It proceeds from a single, quite beautiful, concept of the primacy of individual liberty that, in turn, infuses notions of free markets, limited government and the importance of property rights. In terms of public policy, these notions translate into free trade, free immigration, voluntary military service and user fees instead of taxes. Sometimes these policies are argued in a totally unforgiving way so that it's not easy to separate the lunatics from the libertarians. But it's a snap to separate libertarians from conservatives.'Lunatics' I love it. I've been called much worse, believe me.
They admit to one moral principle from which all preferences follow; that principle is self-ownership--individuals have the right to control their own bodies, in action and speech, as long as they do not infringe on the same rights for others. The only role for government is to help people defend themselves from force or fraud. Libertarians do not concern themselves with questions of "best behavior" in social or cultural matters.That is the fundamental difference between Republicans and Libertarians in its simplicity. For instance, I'm often chided for my position on drugs. I think drugs are stupid. I think people that use drugs often lack motivation to better their position in life. Still, I basically feel that illicit drugs should be treated like the licit drugs. As long as people aren't driving under the influence, or putting others at risk, what do I care if they sit at home and get high. Toke away, Dell dude.
As a Libertarian, I am basically for individual responsibility, and less government intervention in my life. I don't see the need to have the government dictate how many gallons of water my toilet uses, or how many guns I'm allowed to purchase, or whether or not I wear my seat belt. Basically, I just want to be left alone.
Society has to make rules for self-protection:what if you drive your motorcycle without a helmet,have an accident,no insurance,wind up in a facility where it'll cost $100,000 a year to take care of you for the rest of your life.Or some criminal steals your multiple guns.The government has to protect the rest of us.
Posted by: kabongo at February 13, 2003 11:34 AMWell, I don't usually play 'what if', but I'll play along.
Basically, as a libertarian, I feel that a person owns their own body, and are free to do with it as they please. As long as their activity doesn't negatively impact anyone else, what is the big deal.
As for your motorcycle rider, I'd say he's SOL. If he's to receive medical treatment, and cannot pay for it, he loses his house, bank account, hard assets, and any future earnings until the debt is paid. Or he could simply be denied medical treatment. After all, it is his own dumb fault for not wearing a helmet, and now it's time to pay the piper.
Now, as a gun owner, (or car owner, or any other kind of owner) you cannot be held responsible for the actions of someone else.
If someone steals something of yours, and then uses it to hurt someone else, you should not be held responsible. How many people that are car-jacked end up in jail for failing to safeguard their vehicle? You could argue, that had they simply locked their doors when they are riding around town, then that creep wouldn't have jacked their car and ran over those two kids. Do you put the owner of the car in jail for involuntary manslaughter?
Posted by: Ravenwood at February 13, 2003 12:00 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
