As a libertarian, I'm accustomed to being misunderstood. It goes with the territory. So many times commenters think they are being clever and have caught an error in libertarianism, only to reveal they didn't read or hear what was being said.
Case in point: a while ago, in a comment posted to an article in the Clovis News Journal about the election day failure of the bond issues for the local punishment industry, I observed that the "justice system" would be much cheaper and better if counterfeit "laws" were not being enforced. These are the "laws" the violation of which have no specific, individual victims; are expressions of self-ownership; or are consensual acts between responsible individuals which are no one's business except those involved.
Drug use, gun possession, most traffic "laws", prostitution, and things of this nature should never have been made into things The State seeks to regulate, prohibit, or control. Things that are actually wrong, such as theft or fraud, rape, kidnapping, assault, and murder would still be subject to punishment or, better yet, restitution. No one has a right to control your private life unless you violate the identical rights of others by infringing on their life or property.
However, if your drug use, your religious beliefs, your job, or anything else is used as an excuse for committing harmful acts (such as theft or assault), you are liable for the harm you caused and your rationale is meaningless. Wrong is wrong.
One reply to my comment sarcastically stated something to the effect that of course the "crime rate" would go down if assault and robbery were made legal. That the commenter completely missed my entire point was obvious. This is a source of frustration; not those who read and understand, yet disagree. They may be wrong, but their wrongness is at least based upon their principles and value system (flawed and inconsistent as those may be) rather than upon the belief I am advocating the opposite of what I am.
Often I want to reply that the commenter should have his mom re-read my comment to him, pointing out specifically the main thrust of my argument which pulls the rug out from under his snarky reply. Then I realize I would probably be wasting my time. It's better to just ignore those types. The problem is that they believe government can be the solution, and they vote based on that mistaken conviction. This should scare anyone who has sense.
Case in point: a while ago, in a comment posted to an article in the Clovis News Journal about the election day failure of the bond issues for the local punishment industry, I observed that the "justice system" would be much cheaper and better if counterfeit "laws" were not being enforced. These are the "laws" the violation of which have no specific, individual victims; are expressions of self-ownership; or are consensual acts between responsible individuals which are no one's business except those involved.
Drug use, gun possession, most traffic "laws", prostitution, and things of this nature should never have been made into things The State seeks to regulate, prohibit, or control. Things that are actually wrong, such as theft or fraud, rape, kidnapping, assault, and murder would still be subject to punishment or, better yet, restitution. No one has a right to control your private life unless you violate the identical rights of others by infringing on their life or property.
However, if your drug use, your religious beliefs, your job, or anything else is used as an excuse for committing harmful acts (such as theft or assault), you are liable for the harm you caused and your rationale is meaningless. Wrong is wrong.
One reply to my comment sarcastically stated something to the effect that of course the "crime rate" would go down if assault and robbery were made legal. That the commenter completely missed my entire point was obvious. This is a source of frustration; not those who read and understand, yet disagree. They may be wrong, but their wrongness is at least based upon their principles and value system (flawed and inconsistent as those may be) rather than upon the belief I am advocating the opposite of what I am.
Often I want to reply that the commenter should have his mom re-read my comment to him, pointing out specifically the main thrust of my argument which pulls the rug out from under his snarky reply. Then I realize I would probably be wasting my time. It's better to just ignore those types. The problem is that they believe government can be the solution, and they vote based on that mistaken conviction. This should scare anyone who has sense.
(This is as I submitted it, not as it was published.)
