James Davis
James Davis, a Free State Project early mover to Dover, was recently published in the Concord Monitor. His article is a lengthy response to an anti-liberty piece that recently appeared there.
In his epic response, James lays out the ideas of liberty and voluntarism and addresses common objections about health care, vice, property rights, and more. It’s an excellent piece and would be a good one to share with people who still believe in “the state”. Here it is:
A recent column posited that Libertarian Party ideals, while they look good on paper, erode freedom (Monitor Forum, May 28). As someone who supported Barack Obama in his first run for the presidency, and even attended his inauguration, I can understand these concerns. But as someone who has since come to self-identify as a libertarian, I think the author (and the Monitor’s readers) could use some clarification as to what the principles of liberty actually are.
The article started with and seemed to revolve around one question: “What exactly do libertarians mean by harm?” This is certainly the heart of the discussion. The libertarian idea of not doing harm, otherwise known as the “non-aggression principle,” can seem pretty confusing at first. While a drug user is only physically harming himself, what about the emotional ramifications for his family? What about the cost to society for his imprisonment or rehabilitation?
That’s why nebulous concepts like “harm” don’t serve us nearly as well as more precise definitions of what should be outlawed, and what shouldn’t be. I’ll try to clarify what a libertarian position might be on the issues the author expressed concern about.
Real liberty
Let’s start with the noisy neighbor example. A person can absolutely cause harm to someone else by making excessive noise. This is where a good understanding of property rights comes into play. If I am making noise on my property that travels onto someone else’s property and stops them from performing their work, for instance, or sleeping while it’s dark, I have violated their property rights. This isn’t to say I couldn’t occasionally work out commonsense arrangements in special circumstances, but by and large, someone else owning a piece of land means that they have legitimate control over the sounds, air and physical objects that enter on to their property.
This is a rather clear-cut case where nearly every libertarian would agree with the “commonsense” solution, but where assumptions are made that they would not.
Next we have the example of New Hampshire’s helmet laws, and this is where things get a little more complicated. First, the author is correct that serious brain injury affects more than just the person with the injury. However, many of the societal burdens that come from such injuries come from earlier government interventions.
The problem begins with the idea that a helmetless motorcycle rider can count on essentially unlimited health care when he or she becomes injured by his or her bad decision making. The economic “harm” rendered unto society is done by the government by way of essentially insuring such risky behavior. Without government intervention, it’s highly unlikely that anyone would insure someone who engaged in such risky behavior – and this actually might be a greater deterrent to the behavior taking place than any series of fines that the government threatens.
And then there’s the aspect of how the decision affects the family of the person who has been harmed. This is the same argument that’s used to defend a failing drug war as well, and it boils down to one fundamental question: Should governments legislate against behaviors that might cause great upset to a given person’s family or friends?
We can see that, generally speaking, people do not appreciate such prohibitions. The state of New Hampshire sells alcohol, which has been a direct contributor to more family upset than brain injuries caused by motorcycle accidents. Tobacco-related illnesses have caused more families to sit devastated beside a family member’s bed than harm related to people not wearing motorcycle helmets as well.
But basically no one advocates for wholesale prohibition of such risky activities. Why? Because coercing people to not engage in risky behavior does not work. As heartsick as I can imagine I’d be if one of my sons were injured or died because of engaging in any sort of risky behavior, I understand that it is my and their responsibility to help them not do those things. While I’d be upset if one of my sons did these things, they would not be “harming” me. I’d be upset about it, but they’d be “harming” themselves.
Unhelpful help
I also understand that, as well-meaning as they may be, governmental attempts to “help” people engaging in risky behavior by punishing them only make matters worse for the punished parties and society as a whole. New Hampshire taxpayers pay untold millions of dollars every single year to attempt to enforce unenforceable drug laws and imprison those who are caught. This is the real cost to society, and again, it’s one that’s imposed by the government.
As for zoning laws, these are also things that can be handled by private property owners. There are already communities with self-imposed deed restrictions, governed by homeowners associations. Deed restrictions could cover all of the worst case scenarios that the author of the original editorial was fearful of.
In a freer society, neighborhoods would have great incentive to band together to sign contracts that restricted certain types of development to maintain high property values and attract like-minded families and business owners. The terms of these contracts could be binding, and could be passed along from one set of owners to another. Certainly, especially early on in such an arrangement, there would be a significant adjustment period as people got used to the idea that property actually belonged to the property owner, but just as society has organized itself throughout human history, I have great confidence that natural and voluntary arrangements can be reached over time.
And then we get to gun laws. This is also a problem that can be handled by the idea of private property. In the absence of so much state-controlled land, it would be property owners who decided what items would be allowed on their property and how those rules would be enforced. I’m sure that, for people who are very fearful of guns that aren’t held by security agents, there will be stores that have metal detectors and armed personnel ensuring that customers don’t carry firearms around.
And I’m sure that there will be places that allow open carrying of all manner of devices that will serve a different clientele.
This speaks again to the basis of libertarianism: It’s okay that there are different strokes for different folks. People who want to avoid gun-infested areas will band together and do so, and people who love guns will go somewhere else.
Why should we want to rule over one another involuntarily via the democratic process, when we could organize voluntarily instead? People who value majority-rules decision making could still exist in such a fashion in a libertarian society. No one could stop someone else from voluntarily organizing that way.
They just couldn’t threaten others and take their money to force them to be a part of it. Does that sound so bad?
And lastly, the abortion issue. Libertarians are actually split on this issue, and it comes down to the concept of “when life begins.” Some believe it begins at conception, others believe it begins at another time. Still others believe that regardless of when life begins, a woman has the right to decide what life forms she supports inside of herself. But one thing is for certain – there is no stock libertarian response to that one.
New Hampshire libertarians are not like the caricatures you see in the U.S. Congress. My wife and I were certified public school teachers and lifelong Democrats before changing our opinions on things. We spent the last four years running a nonprofit summer camp.
Libertarians come in all different shapes and sizes, from all parts of the world, and from all different socioeconomic situations. And some libertarians are jerks, just like some people of all political movements are jerks.
But I didn’t move to New Hampshire to be a jerk or tell people how to live their lives. I came only to find more freedom for myself, my family and others who want it as well. I would never stand in the way of others governing themselves how they wanted to.
I moved to New Hampshire precisely because of how I see the government failing our children, our poor and our elderly. I believe that we must find solutions to the world’s problems, so we can help those who need it most. I just believe that we need to find compassionate solutions to these problems, rather than relying on a government that forces people to “help” unwillingly.
(James Davis of Dover is a summer camp director and camp consultant, as well as a father of two.)
