What is a libertarian?

[Suddenly]

So you think Drunk Driving Laws are a violation of individual liberty?
This is the kind of thing that ,frankly,makes most people look at Libertarians as a bunch of kooks.

I agree.

Non-initiation of force is the central principle of the Libertarian Party and drunk driving laws are contrary to that principle.

Drunk driving laws are a violation of my individual liberty as it is the government claiming to know better than I when I am able to drive. No different than the government telling me I can't use cocaine.

 

[Suddenly]

Has anyone here put that down as their sole reason for being a libertarian yet? If they have, I would agree with you that it's meaningless.

Yes, in the past. There is a reluctance of most libertarians to get to the point about this.

Your argument with the non aggression principle seems to be based on a straw man, in that, as I understand, the non aggression principle does not exclude self-defense against the use of force or the threat of force.

Correct as to self defense, but without the intitiation it is meaningless.

I think to most libertarians this would entail a threat emerging from an individual's willful recklessness by drunk driving.

So you know better than that person whether he can drive or not?

The same could be said about a law against driving tired, though I think most people would be against such a law simply because it's too difficult to standardize the point at which a person is too tired to drive. In principle, however, someone getting behind the wheel when they are too tired to drive would be considered willful recklessness, at least to me.

What about owning a gun? Using cocaine? When does this Libertarian approved government forced responsibility end?

 

[Sefarst]

So you know better than that person whether he can drive or not?

I think there should be a clear distinction between drunk driving and drinking and driving. Drunk driving is willfully reckless while drinking and driving is not. I oppose mandatory checkpoints and tend to think that drinking and driving while not engaging in recklessness, i.e. weaving all over the street, should be legal.

Outwardly demonstrating reckless behavior necessitates a threat we should defend ourselves from.

What about owning a gun? Using cocaine? When does this Libertarian approved government forced responsibility end?

Let's not forget owning kitchen knives, a pocket knife, or just a really heavy rock. We should get rid of trees too and rope because they've both been used for hangings before.

 

[BenBurch]

As an ex-Libertarian; Even Libertarians cannot agree on what Libertarianism is.

 

[Kerberos]

I think there should be a clear distinction between drunk driving and drinking and driving. Drunk driving is willfully reckless while drinking and driving is not. I oppose mandatory checkpoints and tend to think that drinking and driving while not engaging in recklessness, i.e. weaving all over the street, should be legal.

Outwardly demonstrating reckless behavior necessitates a threat we should defend ourselves from.

So chucking down 10 beers, smoking two joints, snorting a line of heroin and then getting into your car is a-Ok as long as you don't weave. Welcome to Libertopia!

 

[Sefarst]

So chucking down 10 beers, smoking two joints, snorting a line of heroin and then getting into your car is a-Ok as long as you don't weave. Welcome to Libertopia!

Can you manage all of that without being reckless?

 

[Darat]

The idea that only Libertarians descended from Classical Liberalism, that they're synonymous with Classical Liberalism, or that they're the only ones that support true freedom is absurd. See the life of the classical liberal, John Stuart Mill: capitalist in his youth, socialist in old age. His life is a personification of the change that went on in Liberal thought, among many (but not all) Liberals. Classical Liberals (Adam Smith is an ideal example) did not see any conflict between social and economic freedom, seeing property rights as essential but only because they contributed to the common good, reduced poverty, and while allowing for some equality, not so much, and there was plenty of social mobility. The conditions of the Industrial Revolution and the Great Depression challenged this view.

...snip...

A very good summary and nominated for its clarity.

 

[Suddenly]

I think there should be a clear distinction between drunk driving and drinking and driving. Drunk driving is willfully reckless while drinking and driving is not. I oppose mandatory checkpoints and tend to think that drinking and driving while not engaging in recklessness, i.e. weaving all over the street, should be legal.

Whaa? Drinking and driving is different than drunk driving?

Weaving all over the street would be a different issue. I'm talking someone in the bag who from outward appearence is driving just fine. Once he starts weaving in a manner that would cause another driver to have to react he is initiating force against another.

Outwardly demonstrating reckless behavior necessitates a threat we should defend ourselves from.

I've allowed for that. Being drunk while driving demonstrates no reckless behaviour as long as I am able to drive my car in such a way where I do nothing that reasonably causes fear or apprehension of harm.

Why is the government better than me at knowing my ability to drive when drunk? If I turn out to be wrong and cause harm that is another issue. Absent that you are regulating my behavior. Next thing you know you will be banning violent videogames because of some study that it causes children to be violent, or keep large corporations from moving factories out of the US because that creates a statistical likelyhood of increased crime and a whole bunch of other things. Just forget about gambling.

Let's not forget owning kitchen knives, a pocket knife, or just a really heavy rock. We should get rid of trees too and rope because they've both been used for hangings before.

Exactly. Glad to see you aboard the statist express, comrade. Your statist name shall be "Pravda"

 

[Darat]

The drunk driver is an interesting example to use - given that in the big L world all roads would be privately owned a condition of use could be that you are not drunk when you use them so drinking and driving even if no one else is directly affected could mean that you lose the "right" to drive on the private road.

There is nothing in principle in the big L world that would mean there would be less regulations, less controls on what you can't or cannot do and so on.

 

[Nathyn]

Depends on what you mean. If "the poor" live better, thanks to more rapidly advancing technology, in a libertarian society than in a "caring" one, have you helped anyone?

Remember that the degradations of slower technology development per capita in more socialist countries are partly ameliorated by technology sharing. They get a "free ride", so to speak, getting the drugs, the iPods, the whatever, even though their economies, per person, are less capable of generating these advancements.

Hence they don't look as bad as they actually are.


Like religion, it's 99% hot air. Just as people can go along for their entire lifetimes believing God exists, laboring to donate money to help this infinite creature, limiting their own lives in what they do in their private lives, etc., can people live an entire life convinced of some political concept, even, as per religion, it harms and hampers them as a parasite would.


"Civilized" society has learned to let people be free in choice of religions, or none. It's time we did the same for politics.

(some long stream of words), and therefore you must believe in my god and give money to me, his representative, or be placed in jail, is now rejected.

We should similarly reject (some long stream of words) and therefore you should be forced to join my health care system or be placed in jail.


Nobody sits around arguing about which god everybody should be forced to worship. Humanity won't fully progress until it learns the same about politics.

Beerina, as I said, some regulations can make everyone equally better off without making any one person particularly worse off. The existence of government and public healthcare are two good examples, although it's mostly only the latter that is objected to by Libertarians (but not by American & European Liberals). This is not Socialism, because it is not wealth distribution in order to impose a forced degree of equality, as a result of the collective poor deciding to rise up against the collective wealthy. It is instead a means of improving the quality-of-life for all individuals, which is precisely the reason why classical liberals valued individual freedom to begin with.

As soon as you live in your own universe, with your own scarce resources, where nothing you can do will ever affect my life, then and only then will I agree to give you sovereignty.

Otherwise, as it stands now, your sovereignty conflicts with mine. And so, we must come to an agreement. If we cannot, one must appease the other, else we must go to war.

Chances are I suspect you're not one of those crazies like Ed Brown or David Koresh (though I could be wrong), living in a bunker with a weapons stockpile and plans to overthrow the government. So, your decision to do nothing is an implicit acknowledgement of the government's authority.

 

[Sefarst]

Whaa? Drinking and driving is different than drunk driving?

Have you ever had alcohol before? I can only speak for myself, but I can have several drinks without being drunk or even buzzed.

I'm talking someone in the bag who from outward appearence is driving just fine. Once he starts weaving in a manner that would cause another driver to have to react he is initiating force against another.

Agreed.

I've allowed for that. Being drunk while driving demonstrates no reckless behaviour as long as I am able to drive my car in such a way where I do nothing that reasonably causes fear or apprehension of harm.

Agreed. If you can drink and drive without causing harm or fear of harm in anyone else, you should be free to do so.

A more interesting question you could ask a libertarian on this matter though might be whether or not a bartender, seeing reckless behavior from a drunk individual in a bar should be enough for him or a police officer to stop your from getting in your car in the first place. This is a question I'm still debating with myself.

Why is the government better than me at knowing my ability to drive when drunk? If I turn out to be wrong and cause harm that is another issue. Absent that you are regulating my behavior. Next thing you know you will be banning violent videogames because of some study that it causes children to be violent, or keep large corporations from moving factories out of the US because that creates a statistical likelyhood of increased crime and a whole bunch of other things. Just forget about gambling.

Exactly. Glad to see you aboard the statist express, comrade. Your statist name shall be "Pravda"

I'm going to combine these two because in both you seem to be accusing me of being too liberal or statist on these issues because I would give the police the right to pull over a reckless driver.

My question to you in response would be whether or not you would ban alcohol, gambling, video games, etc.?

 

[CaptainManacles]

Only if you don't know the gun is pointed at you. The difference is a specific implied threat designed to cause apprehension. The drunk violating no laws has no such intent. He's just trying to get home.

nope, not threating you, I just like pointing my gun at you. I'm not going to fire it. I find the risk thrilling.

Sounds like a basis for gun control. Using a gun intentionally to bring about a reaction of fear is a clear intiation of force. A wound is an initiation of force. Driving drunk would be like owning a rifle in a house where there are children, a risk of causing harm if the child plays with the gun, or if the gun is stolen. We can even cite the greater risk of harm from accidental shootings than benefit from self-defense.

Depends on how drunk we are talking about, and there is certainly some discussion to be had on the regulation of weapons. As I said, I don't think mailman Pete should get to own a nuke. There's no practical self defence value for him at all, and the risk it poses to all of us is far greater then pointing a gun at my head, simply by being in his hands. It's far harder to stretch this to "you're not allowed to have a locked registered unloaded weapon in your house". that's a few dozen degrees of seperation away from something that's putting me in direct risk. And keep in mind that the examples of swinging a gun around or drunk driving is related to something *you* would potentially do or are doing, so *you* are being punished. It's another degree of seperation from reasonablness to reason that someone could steal your gun and use it for a crime, and that this is a justification for regulation.

So much for the individual knowing best. Why is it you think the government knows better than an individual whether he can drive safely?

Freedom of choice and the freedom to make your own subjective judgements does not negate the objectiveness of reality. A murderer stabbing me does not get to decide that, in his opinion, he is not stabbing me. He's either stabbing me or he isn't. There is certainly some discussion to be had on what objective reality is, which is why we need courts and democracy and whathaveyou, but there are some things that aren't up for debate. If you're so smashed that you can barely stand then you can't drive safe. This certainly doesn't support the current "I can smell wine on your breath therefore you go to jail for a week".

Also, in most cases, we're not talking about someone who has otherwise not violated the law. To get pulled over it already has to be doing something to be pulled over for, like swerving or speeding or running lights. The harsher punishment enacted upon drunk drivers can be seen as an extention of the idea that intent can determine punishment, on a scale from total accident, to "you should have seen that coming" to gross negligence to completely intentional. If you were swerving because your hand slipped this is different from swerving because you were freebasing cocain while driving. Also, in "libertopia", roads are privately owned, so just as insurence companies can refuse to cover you if you're too much of a liability, road owners can use common sense and say people who shoot heroin are too risky to have on the road.

It can support anything. You've opened the door to government knowing best. It can now legitimately force you to stop using your own property for the common good, whether it be to combat the evil of global warming or the public health hazzard of people living in dire poverty.

No, stopping me from harming someone, or putting someone at risk, is not the same thing as forcing me to help someone, or forcing me to help reduce someone's risk. You might be able to argue that you could, for example, stop me from causing global warming. You cannot then *take* my land to fight global warming that someone else is causing.

 

[CaptainManacles]

There is nothing in principle in the big L world that would mean there would be less regulations, less controls on what you can't or cannot do and so on.

Indeed, and I think this is a key point that many people miss, and contributes to viewing libertarianism as nutty. For example, each individual cannot be expected to run their own millions of dollars worth of tests to see what drugs are safe. But I think an individual should be allowed to decide who they are going to trust. You could trust your doctor, or a private regulatory agency, or 5 private regulatory agencies, and you could adjust your judgement call based on how much you need the drug. Or if you're filthy rich maybe you DO want to run millions of dollars of your own tests. Governments job would be to punish people who lie, who claim to have the support of an agency they don't, or agencies that take bribes or misrepresent their results.

 

[Phrost]

You have been reading Ayn Rand,have'nt you?

Not in years. Her ideas are good but reading her work is like listening to the sound of fingernails being dug into the back of a hairless cat.

Although Bernstein, who I referenced, is a fan of hers.

Oh wait, was this an effort to dismiss my argument by waving the "LOL, RAND" wand?

 

[Suddenly]

Have you ever had alcohol before? I can only speak for myself, but I can have several drinks without being drunk or even buzzed.

The question was drunk driving. You seem to be saying that drunk driving is fine if you are not drunk. I can't disagree...

Agreed. If you can drink and drive without causing harm or fear of harm in anyone else, you should be free to do so.

A more interesting question you could ask a libertarian on this matter though might be whether or not a bartender, seeing reckless behavior from a drunk individual in a bar should be enough for him or a police officer to stop your from getting in your car in the first place. This is a question I'm still debating with myself.

Depending on the circumstances, the bartender is accepting a risk. If a bar owner knows a person is going to drive and overserves that person with no attempt to find him alternative transportation he's risking being a significant cause of an inititation of force.

Maybe if it was really blatant. The issue here is more about causation than if force was initiated as there is nothing to worry about unless the driver later initiates force in some way. Do the acts of the driver sever the chain of causation leading back to the bartender...

I'm going to combine these two because in both you seem to be accusing me of being too liberal or statist on these issues because I would give the police the right to pull over a reckless driver.

My question to you in response would be whether or not you would ban alcohol, gambling, video games, etc.?

I'm discussing what would be proper w/r/t the non-initiation of force principle. Banning those would not be proper.

One way to analyze this is the lack of a victim. Creating a risk is a different issue from actually harming someone. When you create a risk you assume responsibility.

 

[Suddenly]

nope, not threating you, I just like pointing my gun at you. I'm not going to fire it. I find the risk thrilling.

This is a great example. This does not in and of itself violate the non-inititation of force principle, ergo a Libertarian could not consider this illegal.

Keep in mind this is risky behavior, and when you engage in same you assume all consequences. If you pull the trigger you commit an intiation of force and face whatever consequences ensue, from murder to wounding to assault. It is no longer a victimless crime.

Even if I turn and see the gun and am frightened, this is likewise an initiation of force, one that is considered a crime (brandishing).

However, If I have no idea you are doing this, there is no initiation of force. Another way to put this is that there is no victim. You are engaging in risky behavior, which under this principle is not illegal. Just as using cocaine is not illegal until you cause some kind of harm. You are free to be a moron, but you are responsible for the result of your behavior.

 

[Sefarst]

The question was drunk driving. You seem to be saying that drunk driving is fine if you are not drunk. I can't disagree...

I'm saying that drinking and driving is fine because it's not the same as drunk driving. Drunk driving implies recklessness because it impairs your physical and mental faculties. If your physical and mental faculties are impaired, driving a car is reckless, regardless if they are impaired from being tired, drunk or high.

Depending on the circumstances, the bartender is accepting a risk. If a bar owner knows a person is going to drive and overserves that person with no attempt to find him alternative transportation he's risking being a significant cause of an inititation of force.

So the bartender has an obligation to find his patrons alternative transportation? Should bartenders have to follow their customers out to the parking lot to make sure they don't get into a car?

I'm discussing what would be proper w/r/t the non-initiation of force principle. Banning those would not be proper.

One way to analyze this is the lack of a victim. Creating a risk is a different issue from actually harming someone. When you create a risk you assume responsibility.

I would agree, though what does and does not constitute a risk is actually a complicated legal question. IMO, best left up to judges in a case-by-case basis.

 

[Kerberos]

I'm saying that drinking and driving is fine because it's not the same as drunk driving. Drunk driving implies recklessness because it impairs your physical and mental faculties. If your physical and mental faculties are impaired, driving a car is reckless, regardless if they are impaired from being tired, drunk or high.

Try taking this test a few times:

Then drink a few beers, but not enough that you feel drunk.

Wait 15 minutes or so for the alcohol to be absorbed into your blood stream.

Then take the test again.

Compare the results.

 

[Darat]

...snip... Governments job would be to punish people who lie, who claim to have the support of an agency they don't, or agencies that take bribes or misrepresent their results.

Why shouldn't they take payments that you consider "bribes" in the big L world? In the big L world it is meant to be up to you to decide if you can trust the results any given agency produces, that you don't want them to take bribes should not be a reason why they should be threatened with force if they decide to take bribes.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Why shouldn't they take payments that you consider "bribes" in the big L world? In the big L world it is meant to be up to you to decide if you can trust the results any given agency produces, that you don't want them to take bribes should not be a reason why they should be threatened with force if they decide to take bribes.

Because in this context a bribe would generally be understood to be a payment in trade for conclusion they otherwise wouldn't, that is, it's a dishonest conclusion. They're stating that somehthing is safe when it isn't. Otherwise, no, I can't punish someone for simply recieving money, except to refuse to trust them if I suspect dirty pool.