At 12:22 PM -0400 8/18/00, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
>
>As a moral matter if you believe that the state should only punish
>action that is harmful to others, then there is no moral
>justification for drunk driving prohibitions. Punish the accident
>or harm that arises from driving, not the potential, that may never
>come. You can extrapolate my line of reasoning to extend to
>prohibitions on using a cell phone while driving, not wearing a seat
>beat or helmet, or not having insurance which all punish potentials
>and not actual harms.
>
>If you believe in a presumption of innocence than you must punish
>action alone.
>
Some libertarians believe that, for example, one cannot take action
against one who is aiming a rifle at one. After all, they argue, no
harmful action has actually occurred unless and until a bullet
actually leaves the barrel. Perhaps some extreme "Rothbardians" would
argue that no harm has occurred unless and until the bullet actually
enters one's skull.
(These are the same variety of libertarians who debate for hours the
moral status of a man falling from a high floor of a building and
having a chance to save himself by grabbing the balcony railing of an
apartment on his way down. "But does he have permission from the
property owner? If not, he must not aggress and he must choose
death.")
I'm not sanctioning "stop and sniff" actions by the state, just
pointing out that the "must punsh action alone" view has some flaws,
IMO.
Sometimes preemptive action is needed, and is morally justified.
Sometimes innocents even get caught in the crossfire. (A view
Rothbard, by the way, declared to be immoral in the extreme. He
argued that even in war a person or group or country may not use
force to defend itself if even a single non-participant in the
aggression is harmed. Feh on that. Sometimes ya just gotta nuke the
enemy and not worry too much about hundreds of thousands of civilians
zapped.)
Acting as Rothbard suggests merely legitimizes placing day care
centers in military-controlled buildings and placing armaments
factories in populated areas. All commone practices, by the way.
Crypto anarchists understand this point about collateral damage. The
undermining of the state--and its programs--will undoubtedly cause
the deaths of millions of "innocents." These innocents, many just
infants, are the hostages the state holds.
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
