Category Archives: Self-ownership

Freedom, Nanny State, Prohibition, Rationality, Regulation, Self-ownership, Truth

A question of harm and government’s duty

3 Comments

A common argument for Marijuana being illegal is as follows :-

P1. Government has a duty to protect people from harm.
P2. Marijuana is harmful.
C. Therefore, Government has a duty to protect people from marijuana.

At a Libertarianz conference Dakta Green spoke against this argument’s conclusion – he argued for the legalisation of cannabis. Dakta’s speech was aimed at convincing the audience that P2 was false (i.e. that cannabis was not harmful).

His seat was near mine so after he had finished speaking I asked him if he thought P should be illegal. He was quite insistent that P should be illegal because it was harmful.

Dakta’s argument for criminalising P was the same form :-

P1. Government has a duty to protect people from harm.
P2. Methamphetamine is harmful.
C. Therefore, Government has a duty to protect people from methamphetamine.

According to Dakta’s own reasoning cannabis should be illegal if it is harmful. Dakta was incorrect about cannabis not being harmful. But he was correct that cannabis should not be illegal. The false premise is P1 – i.e. government does not have a duty to protect people from harm.

Consider the following :-

P1. If government has a duty to protect us from harm then government should protect us from alcohol.
P2. Government shouldn’t protect us from alcohol.
C. Therefore, government does not have a duty to protect us from harm.

The belief that Government has a duty to protect people from harm is the basis of Nanny Statism.

Do you believe that government has a duty to protect you from harm?

Black Sabbath, Freedom, Intellectual Property, Property, Self-ownership

Your freedom ends (where my property rights begin)

17 Comments

78651-050-B7368EE4 (copy)

Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

Various permutations of this quote have been incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but it was actually written by Zechariah Chafee (pictured above).

Zechariah Chafee, Jr. (December 7, 1885 – February 8, 1957) was an American judicial philosopher and civil libertarian. An advocate for free speech, he was described by Senator Joseph McCarthy as “dangerous” to the United States.

In June 1919 the Harvard Law Review published an article by Zechariah Chafee, Jr. titled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” and it contained a version of the expression spoken by an anonymous judge.

Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”

According to the Quote Investigator, the genesis of this adage can be traced back more than thirty-five additional years. Several variants of the expression were employed by alcohol Prohibitionists. For decades the saying was used at pro-Prohibition rallies and meetings. Such is the colourful history of this libertarian adage. But I digress.

Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.

Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

Consider the meaning of these sayings. They tell us about property rights. Libertarians are huge fans of private property rights. Libertarians own. Be it self-ownership, ownership of tangible goods or even ownership of so-called intellectual property. Private property is essential to libertarianism. But what is the essence of private property? Restrictions on your rights and freedoms, that’s what. Your freedom ends. How very unlibertarian!

Back in 2002, Winona Ryder was convicted of shoplifting $5,500 worth of merchandise from a Beverly Hills Saks Fifth Avenue. According to the Onion, one of the terms of her probation was

May no longer walk into stores and just take things.

This is also one of the terms of living in a libertarian society. Kiss goodbye your freedoom to walk into stores and just take things!

Libertarianism is all about sacrificing some of our rights and liberties—e.g., the right to swing our arms and the liberty to walk into stores and just take things—for the security of private property rights.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both.

See also Libertarians are Huge Fans of Initiating Force.