Some of my friends, of both right and left political persuasions, don't quite get the difference between libertarians and conservatives.
Jay at Stop The ACLU blog gives me a good example of the difference with this post about a movie titled “Busted: A Citizen’s Guide to Surviving Police Encounters.” The movie explains how to avoid arrest, including advice to hide drugs and related paraphernalia from a police search. Jay objects:
Now before you libertarians jump down my throat, this isn’t about rights. I have no problem with the ACLU informing students of their fourth amendment, and miranda rights not to incriminate themselves, but take notice of what the ACLU are not saying, and what they are advocating. They go beyond teaching basic rights and into the realm of evasion.
This isn't about rights as Jay understands them. Because, I surmise, Jay believes rights are what are enumerated and codified in the Constitution and court cases. But a libertarian knows rights exist without any acknowledgement from the government. They exist as functions of human beings as autonomous agents. That means a person is his or her own owner, not the government. Rights do not begin to exist just when a government recognizes them.
As a self owner a person has the right to do with himself what he pleases, including things I might find distasteful or harmful to himself. This right includes doing things that may be illegal. So, contrary to Jay's assertion, this is all about rights.
For more on Jay's commentary see Hammer of Truth and Drug War Rant.
Posted by Walter at March 30, 2006 09:16 AMOh, come on, Walter... you don't own yourself! The Almighty Federal Godvernment owns you... get used to it. To them, you're just a piece of meat/source of tax revenue.
Sad, isn't it?
Posted by: Keith Rodgers at March 30, 2006 10:56 AMLets nit-pick the definition of the term "rights". Sounds like your definition is one that is God-given or (if you're a non-theist) exists by default for every human born.
If however, you define rights using the US Constitution, you do not have the right to violate the law unless a legitimate court authority deems the law unconstitutional. (I don't know of any legitimate court, anywhere in the US, that has overturned a marijuana possesion law.) And anybody advocating, excusing or ignoring law-breaking in the public schools is misusing that public institution. That's what Jay is arguing.
In the US, the Constitution trumps any philosophical doctrine concerning rights, even libertarian philosophy.
Posted by: Doug Purdie at March 31, 2006 11:34 AMDoug, of course I'm saying something different from what Jay is saying. That's the whole point of the post.
I'm saying individual rights trump the Constitution, or any other law, every time. I'm not saying you won't go to jail for violating the law, I'm arguing for a higher morality. I think you'll agree with me if I give you a hypothetic example. Suppose the Constitution allowed for slavery. Ehh, too real.
OK, suppose a new amendment to the Constitution was ratified, mandating the summary execution of everyone named Doug.(unlikely, but legally possible)
There would be no moral reason to follow the law, since it would be a clear violation of the rights of all the Dougs out there. Not many people would disagree, I think. Do you?
Posted by: Walter at March 31, 2006 09:11 PMOh, Walter, don't be silly - some activist judge would come along and let the Dougs be just like the rest of us - AND WE CANNOT HAVE THAT!
Posted by: andy at March 31, 2006 09:57 PM