Calblog

Why the scare quotes for "tolerance" and "freedom?" Unlike liberals, when libertarians use those words, they mean them. The argument really seems to be over whether this much freedom and this much tolerance in this particular context is a good or bad thing.

Limiting government by overburdening the police department strikes me as a dicey proposal, at best. Police departments are largely insulated from the political process - when was the last time you voted for or against your police chief, let alone the specific bureaucrat who drafted a specific policy that you did or didn't like? Even when they do act politically, the chances are just as good that they'll do it to manipulate the voters rather than to implement their will. Example: vote for Measure Q or we won't .... um, I mean, "can't" .... station any officers in your part of town. And then there is private use of penal statutes, which is totally unaffected by whatever constraints the executive has to operate under.

I say, better to limit government by limiting the laws themselves so that they only apply to areas government has any business governing. Once they have been so limited, enforce them to the hilt.

I agree with you, Justene.

Libertarianism suffers from a profound sense of moral deficiency.

I use the scare quotes because I think, yes, even libertarians use freedom in a way that I think of as slavery. Freedom to use drugs, or pornography, or a myriad of things is certainly a type of freedom, but often those freedoms often enslave us to addiction and undermine our capacities. That is not what I call Freedom...hence I use the scare quotes (this is just my interpretation though). Tolerence is not so much used by libertarians in a manner I so much disagree with; except that even then tolerence, like many things is not a virtue it is merely a behavior, the virtue is in what is tolerated or not.

Regarding limited resources for enforcement, my only thing is, I'm trying to address human nature as it is, not as I would like it to be. Police departments are somewhat insulated, but if serious crime gets out of hand they quickly begin to bear political pressure, and often times the use of resources on "minor offenses" while not political per se, does I think trickle down through the values of the community. I note, this is much as we already do, after all what's the effective speed limit in most places? On 5 for example, it appears to be much more like 80 than 70. If PDs enforce based on did they vote against or not, eventually, that part of the town or city would succede or do something else to leave the city, or the city govt. would change as I don't suspect many like being threatened by the police to approve measures.

I would much prefer that only good laws get written, bad laws get repealed, and all laws get enforced, but that will not happen. It's against human nature, politicians need to grandstand, police officers want more "enforcement opportunities" not fewer. The key is of course, to raise individuals up right, after all we lived in a society described for the first 150 years in the US, very few laws(excepting of course race relations, but even then it was during this time period that the aboltionists arose). But as civic morals decayed, more laws got written. Ultimately, if civics returned you would see a majority come to power who would do as you suggest, I'd love to see the day come, but opposing efforts to stem the decay won't help that come about any sooner. Laws are more necessary when decency does not sway.

Clark, Justene didn't write this...It was Joel

I think that if Joel were really as concerned about addictions as he pretends to be, he'd be out to abolish alcohol. Oh, and cigarettes. Those addictions, unlike porn, really do kill people.

But most importantly, I think he'd get many more readers for his post if he retitled it: "Libertarians: Soft on Porn."

Police departments are largely insulated from the political process - when was the last time you voted for or against your police chief

I voted for my current "police chief" -- the sheriff of Coweta County, in 2000. Except for the five years I lived in Alaska, it's been 22 years since I lived in a city with a police department. (I have to make an exception for Alaska, not because the city I lived in up there for a year didn't have a P.D., but because Alaska has no sheriffs.)

Pornography destroys souls and lives?

Maybe. But I don't see it doing so to any great extent. (And we, of course, have a selection problem when looking at its effects; was Bob's life ruined because he became a 'porn addict', or did he become a 'porn addict' because his life was already broken? Symptom or cause?)

I'm middle-of-the-road on this, myself. I think it's somewaht silly for the government to focus on a "war on porn" in general (rather than the worst-of-the-worst and those few actually invasive sorts of porn, like porn spam...), but I also won't accept the counter-assertion that government should have nothing to do with the issue, without a full defense of the reasoning involved... a defense which is sadly, generally not given.

(In other words, I agree with most of the libertarians that most "porn" shouldn't be banned [though I also think that we should amend or remove the laws to reflect this, rather than pretending they're not laws], but I don't agree that there is no room for regulation, even theoretically. Though, in fact, I might, if a good case was made, accept that no porn should be regulated except that which is criminal in its production (child pornography involving actual children rather than computer generation, porn featuring actual rather than simulated rape or violence, etc.). But I digress.)

I see no reason why the government should be involved in banning porn. Porn can be harmful, yes, but then so too can religious cults. Yet we wouldn't allow the government to step in and ban religious cults, so why would we allow it to ban porn?

Most often, bans on porn strike me as being those who don't personally enjoy the stuff trying to prevent those who do from doing so. How is that any different than those who are vegetarian trying to prevent those who aren't from eating meat?

Sorry there, Joel, my bad.

I do not agree with the libertarian model of 'toleration,' because such 'toleration' generally evolves into acceptance, then advocacy, and finally to sanctions against those who fail to accept and advocate codified forms of the newly adopted standards of social conduct.

Just look to Canada, my friends; this is where America may be in ten years. Libertarianism is a step in a direction leading to a place unacceptable to moral-minded Americans.

m. croche, (& sigivald, & aphrael),

Should alcohol be banned? No.

Why?; Because a ban on alcohol is unworkable.

That is not to say, however, that the production, distribution, and consumption of alcohol should not be restricted and discouraged to the fullest practical extent.

As far as pornography, those forms of porn that can effectively be banned outright, should be banned. Those forms of porn that cannot be effectively banned outright, should--as I have suggested regarding alcohol--be restricted and discouraged to the fullest practical extent.

Clark: if Canada is your example of what would happen if the U.S. went too libertarian, then you fundamentally misunderstand libertarianism, Canada, or both. At least by U.S. standards, Canada is anything but libertarian, and always has been. Even back in the colonial days. Remember when our flag used to say "Don't Tread On Me?" Theirs at the time said "Please Tread on Me, Please, We Won't Even Accept Independence Until You Force it Upon Us." OK, so maybe they didn't quite come out and say that, but you know damned well they meant it!

I want to respond to some of the comments. First,
m. croche & aphrael- I appreciate your response. I note, that I am honestly concerned about addictions, and I feel similarly about alcohol; however, I recognize there are certain vices that we will always have with us, and alcohol like cigarettes are accepted little "drugs."

I tend to view Alcohol and cigarettes to drugs as Nevada was to gambling. The little bit that is allowed, but the desire to keep it small and/or away. However, Indian Gaming has much devasted this analogy, and as states realize that "there's gold in them vices", we accelerate toward legalization + excessive taxation. (Something I find incredibly disturbing is the way the state seeks to take advantage of addicted individuals.) And perhaps in something that is a little too honest...I wouldn't say it's people who dislike something who seek to ban something, but often those who recognize that they have a weakness for it.

I also want to note, that it's important to remember that the justice dept. is trying to go after the illegal pornography, which by its defination has to be quite obscene. Pornography doesn't destroy every life it contacts, although it does some, but it does, I think, numb the individual which is more what I mean when I say it damages the soul.

Joel - your mileage may vary. I had a very difficult time accepting my homosexuality, and the availability of gay porn helped significantly. I don't use it now - i'm in a wonderfully happy relationship, and neither of us feels any real desire for it. But I'm glad it was available when I needed it, and consider it to have been a net benefit.

That said, I think there's a wide variety within the world of pornography, and some of the stuff is fairly ... disturbing ... and could give someone without much experience of the world a warped view of it. But that's primarily an argument for protecting children from certain types of pornography; and an outright ban would still strike me as one group of people trying to enforce its tastes on another group.

XRLQ,

I did not equate Canada with libertarianism.

Please read my earlier post again.

My assertion is that one leads to the other, not that they are equivalent.

Please note in my post that I use the verb "evolves" to describe how libertarian 'tolerance' leads at last to circumstances similar to the current state of affairs in Canada.

Later in my post I call the libertarianism "a step in a direction leading to" a result similar to Canada's.

Equation of the two was in no way indicated in my post.

Fair enough - but I still fail to see why you connect them at all. If there is any country in the world that was founded on libertarian principles, it's this one. Canada's very existence derives from the fact that it was never libertarian.

Can you point to a single country in the world that has started out libertarian, and ended up like Canada as a result?

I will say this much...Relatively controversial subjects are more fun if for no other reason than they generate a lot more comments. Much appreciated!

Again the fallacy that the only way to prevent vice is to ban it via government, and that anti-government libertarians are therefore necessarily pro-vice hedonists. On the contrary, libertarians favor minimum government at the higher levels (federal, state), but at lower levels (county, city, community) support *freedom of association*. Of course it should be possible to create a family-friendly environment, free of drugs, pornography, and even profanity. The problem arises when people want to extend their personal ideal environment beyond the local to the state or national level, and to say that *no one* should use pornography, or drugs, or alcohol, or commit any other vice. Similarly, I have no problem with people creating a car-free, bicycle-friendly community, but they shouldn't be imposing laws on everyone else that doesn't share their vision. Decentralize and depoliticize!