4 ms·

The problem is nearly all actions we take affect other people. Placing profit and property rights above human considerations is morally and ethically bankrupt.

The problem is nearly all actions we take affect other people. Placing profit and property rights above human considerations is morally and ethically bankrupt. Also, what actions are you prohibited from taking now that you could do under a libertarian system?

testvox 9y ago
Braiding hair without a license.
jstanley 9y ago
Paying a friend to perform unlicensed dentistry on me. Driving a car on the public highway without insurance. Buying some marijuana to smoke in the privacy of my own home. Buying scrap metal from a stranger without taking down his ID. It's mainly (but not exclusively) things that are correlated with wrongdoing, but don't actually harm anyone in and of themselves. I'm all for punishing people who are doing harm (e.g. in the above cases: pretending to be a competent dentist when you're not, or running into someone's car and not paying them for the damage, or robbing some shops to pay for your marijuana, or stealing copper to sell for scrap), but I don't like punishing innocent people who are doing no harm, merely because they're trying to do something that is also done as a byproduct of harm.
- buttcoinslol 9y ago
  There are laws against all of these things but people do them anyways. The majority of people purchasing drugs on the black market are never caught. I'm sure your buddy could pull a tooth for you if you are both smart enough not to tell anyone. You can buy scrap metal in private transactions for cash without ID. Driving on the public highway with no insurance and no way to financially settle any potential accident is not an innocent person doing no harm. They're externalizing their responsibility onto whoever they collide with. I know this is an ideological discussion and not a practical one, but my response to that is a lot of laws are in place because the harm the bad actors do when there are no consequences outweighs the potential benefit gained from a lack of regulation.

testvox 9y ago

Braiding hair without a license.

jstanley 9y ago

Paying a friend to perform unlicensed dentistry on me. Driving a car on the public highway without insurance. Buying some marijuana to smoke in the privacy of my own home. Buying scrap metal from a stranger without taking down his ID. It's mainly (but not exclusively) things that are correlated with wrongdoing, but don't actually harm anyone in and of themselves. I'm all for punishing people who are doing harm (e.g. in the above cases: pretending to be a competent dentist when you're not, or running into someone's car and not paying them for the damage, or robbing some shops to pay for your marijuana, or stealing copper to sell for scrap), but I don't like punishing innocent people who are doing no harm, merely because they're trying to do something that is also done as a byproduct of harm.

buttcoinslol 9y ago
There are laws against all of these things but people do them anyways. The majority of people purchasing drugs on the black market are never caught. I'm sure your buddy could pull a tooth for you if you are both smart enough not to tell anyone. You can buy scrap metal in private transactions for cash without ID. Driving on the public highway with no insurance and no way to financially settle any potential accident is not an innocent person doing no harm. They're externalizing their responsibility onto whoever they collide with. I know this is an ideological discussion and not a practical one, but my response to that is a lot of laws are in place because the harm the bad actors do when there are no consequences outweighs the potential benefit gained from a lack of regulation.