Making a case for Libertarianism, Part 2

This is part of an ongoing series of posts outlining my understanding of Libertarianism and its benefits and consequences.

Bansturbation

Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.
-- P.J. O'Rourke

One of the most egregious failings of statism is the mantra: "something must be done." And the simplest, most dramatic gesture that the state can make, is to ban something outright. Someone gets shot? Ban guns! Someone gets stabbed? Ban people from carrying knives! Someone doesn't like gurning idiots at trance raves? Ban drugs!

And of course, it always works, doesn't it? I mean, gun crime hasn't risen year on year since the banning of handguns, has it? Whoops! Knife crime isn't trending upwards all the time, is it? Whoops! And, of course, the War on Drugs has been a raging success, hasn't it? Because the street price of drugs has just sky-rocketed ... er, whoops!

And there are other stupid consequences of this urge that the government has to tell us how to live our lives:

• it's illegal to practice a kind of particular Olympic sport in this country, technically, a number of Olympians are going to be breaking the law in the 2013 [sic] Olympics;
• people who have committed no crime are criminalised by the simple act of carrying a useful tool around;
• people who are enjoying something that only affects themselves are also criminalised.

I should, at this point, declare my own personal history in this regard:

• I've never owned a firearm myself, but all my friends and family who did treated them with absolute respect, as you would any potentially lethal tool. I've been hunting and target shooting. My dad owned a Luger clone when I was a (very young) kid, and I knew that it was definitely not a toy and I was never to point it at anyone, ever.
• I used to carry a knife around with me when I was a kid, two, in fact: one was a Swiss Army knife for the tools and one was a 6-inch "Bowie" knife. Until I read about all the bansturbation in the papers, it frankly never occurred to me that there was even the idea that this was anything but harmless.
• I have never smoked (tobacco or cannabis), I have never taken any drug other than on prescription from a doctor and, since I've met the current Mrs Clown, I binge drink on champagne and fine reds every weekend. Apart from that, I rarely drink.

By any reasonable definition, I'd be considered (fairly) Puritanical, but I can't see why my personal beliefs should dictate how everyone else lives their lives. Banning stuff, making it illegal does nothing to stop criminally-minded people, who believe themselves to be outside the law anyway and merely imposes on the freedoms of people who have no bad intentions from going about their lawful business.

Gun-mad Loonies

Libertarians frequently get classed as gun-mad loonies. I think it's rather the case that "gun-mad loonies" see Libertarians as the only people who fundamentally support their right to do as they will, as long as they don't harm others. Personally, I don't particularly want to own a handgun, but I can see the case for handguns for self-defence and target shooting. I can see the case for rifles for hunting and target shooting. I can't really see the case for semi-automatic or automatic weapons. But: unless there is a history of personality disorder or a criminal record, particularly one that indicates a appetite for violent crime, then I can't really see why people should not spend their own, hard-earned money on these things.

There is a generation of British people who have grown up without firearms. You actually do not know what a pleasure you are missing out on, you don't know the self-defence options they provide and you have been brainwashed into believing that they are evil, when in fact, they are just tools. Only the intent with which they can be used can be classed as good or evil. If they are used in an evil manner, the perpetrators need to be punished swiftly and harshly. Punishing all owners of firearms for the actions of a very small number of owners of most probably illegally-acquired firearms is merely stupid.

Carrying Knives

A similar reasoning applies to knives. If I want to carry a knife, even a machete, for the hell of it, what harm am I causing anyone? If I use it to harm someone, then by all means throw the book at me, but until I've done something wrong, why should I be criminalised?

Drugs

And as a Libertarian, I believe that everyone owns their own body. If you want to get utterly off your tits on E, heroin or cocaine, go for it. The negative consequences of most drugs stem from the petty crime necessary to fund the habit.

And this is one of the few justifications I have for the state to provide a service: I believe that having the state provide sterile paraphernalia and high-quality drugs of a suitable strength to highly dependent addicts free of charge will provide an immediate reduction in petty crime and improve the quality of the addicts' lives immeasurably. If they want to get off drugs, I believe that the state should offer that option, but without judgment or conditions.

People might argue that this contradicts my arguments against the state, but I consider myself as a minarchist, rather than an anarchist. I believe that there are going to be some things that we cannot reliably expect people to reliably provide on a commercial or voluntary basis and this is definitely one of them.

The Consequences

I fully expect there to be anomalies. I expect that some people will accidentally or deliberately be killed by firearms, just as there are now. I expect that some people will be stabbed, just as there are now. I expect that there will still be individual instances of drug-addled people committing crimes, just as there are now. Overall, however, I expect that there will be a massive decline in consequent crime.

As a Libertarian, I fully expect a strict but compassionate and accountable justice system to offer therapy to those who commit crime because of mental disorders and punishment to those who commit crime because of a criminal inclination. In either case, I would generally expect these people to be removed to facilities where they cannot harm others until they have been treated or until they have been rehabilitated.

And I believe that the rest of society will be better off without a constant hectoring voice in our ears telling us what we can and cannot own, carry, do or say.