Ooooh, a comment!

I don't know anything about libertarianism, so please forgive my ignorance if my question is old or silly.

If libertarianism is about being able to do what you want without hurting anyone, how do you define what hurt is? And who gets to decide?

For instance, you could say that shooting heroin isn't hurting anyone (except maybe the person shooting) but couldn't there also be an argument made that (if the person is on a downward spiral) are being hurt (or could be depending on the situation)? Or even in a larger context, the issues of the drug trade in general (largely because it is illegal and therefore part of an informal unregulated market, etc) -- violence, poverty, etc -- can the drug user be absolved of these kinds of 'hurts' if they are implicated in it?

I am certainly not against drug use and actually support decriminalizing drugs, but not because of libertarian views. In fact the same argument above could be used in cases of alcoholism, etc etc.

Any thoughts?

I guess my question comes down to, who decides what qualifies as hurt?

great writing by the way, very interesting.





Dear Anonymous,
You are very astute! I guess (on a personal level, I can’t speak for everyone who identifies themselves as a libertarian) I use this view more politically. As a simple definition:

A libertarian is someone who, in general, supports government policies that favor individual liberty in all matters and seek to minimize or even abolish the state.

'Libertarian' is an antonym of 'authoritarian', so I hope that better explains my position. On the subject of drugs (i.e. your heroin example) the political libertarian in me says that drugs should be legalized and taxed appropriately, the revenue would easily cover not only the health costs of addicts but also recovery programs that will be well funded enough to actually help (I feel this way about prostitution as well)

You make a good point when you bring up “the people who love that person”, however, I don’t really think that matters. Many people who love me disagree with my choices, that doesn’t mean what they think is what is best or fair. I smoke pot, I’m really sorry my mother disagrees with this (mostly because it is not “legal”) and thinks it is ruining my life but it comes down to being my choice and I am not forcing her to smoke pot so I can’t see any reason why I shouldn’t. On the other hand some addicts have dependants, I don’t think a mother of two should be shooting up everyday, I also don’t think she should drink everyday… These are just things that happen in life, people get addicted to things (legal or not) and again, if these drugs were legalized taxed and then the taxes were used for recovery programs I like to think it would be easier to get readily available and funded help. Right now the crack addicted mom can’t afford to get help, she can't take the time off the low paying job she has to really clean herself up, but if there were programs where she was removed from her familiar addictive lifestyle and was ensured that her children would be well taken care of and she wouldn’t lose her job upon return, quitting would likely be much easier. I am not living in a fantasy world where I think this is how all addictions will turn out, this is the ideal solution but so many things in life don’t fall into an ideal. There will always be addicts, there will always be homeless, all we can do is strive to find the best system that can help people who want to help themselves.

On a more basic level in my personal life I try to live by similar standards (do what I want, as long as I don’t hurt anyone) In these situations I’m the one who decides what qualifies “hurt”, this may be a slippery slope but so is any sort of moral ground. I try to keep things objective but inevitably I end up with a bit of a bias towards one side, but who else can I really trust to make those moral decisions for me? I won’t tell my mom I smoke pot everyday because I love her and I know it would make her worry (or “hurt” her) but that doesn’t mean I agree with her or will stop smoking pot. I guess to an extent I take it for granted that people have common sense, I forget that some people have no sense at all… At the end of the day it’s my common sense that helps me decide what is “good” or “bad”, in the looses use of those terms. I don’t know if that actually answers your question but hopefully it’s enough of a digression to understand my opinion.