From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Aug 22 2002 - 21:21:46 MDT
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> [snip] Free association requires an emphasis on freedom. A
> libertarian must trust those he/she invites on his or her property
> enough to leave them in full posession of their liberties or else
> he/she is no libertarian. "Oh, you can be free, but not in MY back
> yard." I don't think so.
I would disagree. I can be a libertarian *and* view all humans as
inherently untrustworthy. There are no hard-wired protocols in
humans that make them inherently trustworthy such that none of them
will screw people when they discover an opportunity to do so.
(Look at Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, etc.). In other words humans
are not programmed with the "Laws of Robotics". So some fraction
of the time people *will* betray you or take advantage of your
generosity (or trust).
So, the policies I adopt with regard to what is and is not acceptable
on *my* property have relatively little to do with any libertarian
orientation and a *lot* to do with how trustworthy I feel individuals
may be and the relative risks I expose myself to by trusting them.
Those are highly individual and case specific calls.
For example, perhaps more important than a "no guns" policy that
I might want to enforce on my property is a rather strong "no smoking"
policy. I feel anyone should have the right to smoke (that seems
libertarian) but they may not do so where I have no choice regarding
the inhalation of second hand smoke (unless I am on their property
and have made a choice to expose myself to such conditions). Things
should also be structured such that I am not indirectly being taxed
in one way or another to pay for their poor health choices.
Similarly, if I experienced an incident as a child where someone
close to me had died in accident that had resulted in an exposure
to a large amount of blood, I might dislike the color red and
request that people not wear that color to any parties I might host.
I would be within my rights to refuse entrance to people showing
up dressed in red.
My property, my rules. It isn't anti-libertarian -- it is me
creating an environment that I find the safest, healthiest,
least disturbing, etc. to live in. Similarly Mike, if you
insisted that I carry a gun when visiting you, I might be
willing to do so. I might not be happy about it, but I would
respect your right to set the rules in your domain.
The question of course then becomes -- would you trust me,
as an individual unaccustomed to handling firearms, at a party
where presumably liberal amounts of alcohol were being served?
:-) I'm a fairly poor loser. After crashing the plane on
the flight sim for the 27th time, I just might decide that
shooting up the game console seems like the "right" thing
to do from a libertarian perspective.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:21 MST