Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Libertarians for Law and Order
In a comment to my recent post about Rudy Giuliani, a commenter remarked that “sane” libertarians are for “law and order”, that Rudy’s enforcing the drug laws vigorously was not antilibertarian. “Libertarians for Law and Order” is a wing of the movement that I hadn’t encountered before, and I was taken aback. I should not be surprised, I suppose, since there are “Libertarians for War and the Massive National Security Apparatus”. There may even be “Libertarians for Lieberman”, “Libertarians for Prohibition”, “Libertarians for Censorship”, "Libertarians for Central Planning"and “Libertarians for Authority” as well. I am so new to the libertarian scene, I suppose, that I have not begun to appreciate what a big tent libertarianism is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe in the dream, Reagan spoke of when he said "man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order". I see nothing wrong with having a lawfully society and a government that enforces the law. Now I would change alot of the current law if i could, I would legalize all narcotics, prostitution, gambling and I believe it is in possible to legislate morality. If that isn't libertarian enough for you then I am sorry.
It depends on what is meant by "law and order." I'm all for law and order, provided that "law" means true law, not man-made anti-law as law. How often people are willing to sacrifice law to get order.
If I had to choose between law and order and a peaceful society I will choose a peaceful society. The problem with government enforcing laws is that government laws aren't guaranteed to be just and there is no guarantee or priciple that can be relied on to ensure that the enforcing that goes on to produce "law and order" is going to be just. I fail to see the overall benefit of government enforced "law and order".
Post a Comment