"Why is it we can’t put into our bodies whatever we want?No. The reason you can't put into your body whatever you want is because so-called "conservatives", for all their pious paeans to freedom, dislocate the point at which positive liberty divaricates with negative liberty: that point is the act of transgression itself, not any preceding propensity.
The simple, straightforward answer is that some substances make one a danger to everyone else."
Example: traffic accidents are caused by bad driving, which, irrespective of whatever ancilliary liabilities may apply (e.g. alcohol consumption, fatigue, poor road training etc) necessarily reflects either moral and/or intellectual failure.
Correctly formed, the ethical question is why you can't put into your body whatever you want whenever you want. But there is a powerful auxiliary to this correction: if you cannot prevent some people from violating or endangering the rights of others by rational persuasion, then you cannot prevent them from doing so by threat of legal punishment.
The criminalization of substance-ingestion is therefore unnecessary for those people who can be persuaded to be mindful of the rights of other people, and an ineffective deterrant against those who do not care about the rights of other people.
Here is the way out, if indeed there is a way out at all: the power of law ought to be brought to bear upon actual crimes (that is, actual infringements of negative liberty), but the task of rationally discouraging the preceding propensities is a task for self-governing citizens; it is most emphatically not a task for law itself.
"... we should take Ron Paul and the radical libertarians at their word..."To take the conservatives at their word, their infernal "War On Drugs" must be conceived with the appropriate imagery; it is an Ephel Dúath of externalities - towering cartels of professional criminals - behind which the quietly determined accretion of power by Leviathan takes on another, all too often unseen aspect.
The conservatives are responsible for this - not the Left - and for that they should be ashamed. The "debate" about drugs ought to be recognized by conservatives for its great moral and strategic importance in the fight against the Left, but look at them in the comments to that Ricochet post: they can barely bring themselves to do little more than crack jokes about libertarians being "potheads".
You stupid fucking idiots.
In concluding his Ricochet post with this:
ReplyDelete“Liberty presupposes responsibility, and libertines who foster irresponsibility are paving the road that leads to serfdom.”
Rahe begs the question of how prohibitionists - on both the left and right - foster responsibility by curtailing liberty. The answer of course is that they don’t. Those barred from choice need not - and cannot - exercise the responsibility to choose wisely or to shoulder the consequences of such actions that are imposed instead of freely elected. Rather than traveling a road to serfdom, they are - precisely to the extent that they are channeled into enforced behaviors - serfs already.
That freedom and responsibility go hand in hand is a truism. Responsibility presupposes liberty just as much as liberty presupposes responsibility. It’s a fool’s game for Rahe or anyone else to try and foster more of one by rationing the other - or to try and increase security by curtailing either one.
As for collaborating against the dangers that lurk in societies everywhere, this advice could serve as watchword:
“the power of law ought to be brought to bear upon actual crimes (that is, actual infringements of negative liberty), but the task of rationally discouraging the preceding propensities is a task for self-governing citizens; it is most emphatically not a task for law itself.”
Linda: I agree with you entirely. Naturally!
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of cherry-picking your post:
ReplyDelete"...if you cannot prevent some people from violating or endangering the rights of others by rational persuasion, then you cannot prevent them from doing so by threat of legal punishment."
That's a hell of a condition. And it's one I don't agree with because my conditional corollary would look like this:
"If people are fundamentally selfish and you cannot prevent them from violating or endangering the rights of others by rational persuasion, you can probably persuade them by hitting them where it hurts THEM (i.e. their wallets".
I know you and I disagree completely on this, but I live in Taipei, a place that's special in Taiwan because it's fair to say that the majority of drivers don't actually come from here. Put them in any other town in the country, and they drive like asshats, but in Taipei as a pedestrian I am able to cross the street at a crosswalk/zebra crossing and not only will I not get killed, but people will actually stop here to let me through.
People here don't do that because when they arrive in Taipei they suddenly grow a sense of courtesy and decide to respect my right to cross the road without getting killed; they stop and let me cross because the police in Taipei aren't afraid of issuing tickets and are generally less intimidated/in bed with the local thugs.
Steve
ReplyDeleteDo traffic accidents not happen in Taipei? Do people not drive like morons and crash into each other on a daily basis? Got any stats?
You seem to think the problem is just people running red lights, but what about all the other idiocies that lead to accidents none of which can possibly be captured by the law (e.g. not checking mirrors, not signalling, not looking and thinking about what's going on around you)?
In almost any traffic accident you can care to name, the problem will always be found to have been some kind of stupidity - regardless of whether a law was broken or not.
Question: are your cop tickets really anything more than the State presumptively arrogating the function and forms of civil/market retaliation to itself? Don't employers and family members have an interest in how well/badly people drive? Is this not some form of market demand?
Hi Mike,
ReplyDeleteNo stats, and no denial of your points above, all of which are perfectly valid. I don't think I was saying that the problem is solely breaking the law; it's obvious that accidents caused by breaking traffic laws are only a subset of the broader range of accidents caused caused by stupidity.
In that context, enforcement of the rules, while clearly not educating the populace as to WHY they should drive a certain way, should at least have the effect of decreasing the number of accidents caused by flagrant disregard of traffic rules.
"Don't employers and family members have an interest in how well/badly people drive? Is this not some form of market demand?"
I don't think they do, and I actually don't think it is. Try telling Taiwanese friends/family at Chinese New Year not to drink and drive - they will tell you that just mentioning the possibility of accidents is to invite bad luck. There's a complete abrogation of personal responsibility among drivers in this country and it's grossly negligent. This kind of person will only be concerned of receiving a ticket for drunk driving; no amount of argument of personal/social responsibility, scientific studies of drink affecting your driving skills or just appealing to plain decency will work.
"Are your cop tickets really anything more than the State presumptively arrogating the function and forms of civil/market retaliation to itself?"
If there were a sufficient civil market, it would soon be subverted by the local thuggery, whose capacity for retaliation exceeds any rational response from the reasonable and respectable segment of the population.
Back to the roads for a minute: in Kaohsiung I typically see all kinds of madness and mayhem that is generally (though not entirely) missing from Taipei's busy streets. Most of the foreigners I've met in Kaohsiung drive like maniacs as well: riding bikes at high speed on the sidewalk, travelling against the flow of traffic, running lights and performing manoeuvres that are not only dangerous but would also earn them a ticket in the west or (sometimes) in Taipei. They've already received the same education you and I have so why do they behave this way? I think the answer is "because they can". Traffic enforcement can't fix stupidity, but it can at least protect some people against some of the actions of the stupid and criminally negligent.
Cheers,
Steve
"In that context, enforcement of the rules, while clearly not educating the populace as to WHY they should drive a certain way, should at least have the effect of decreasing the number of accidents caused by flagrant disregard of traffic rules."
ReplyDeleteBut at what cost? And I'm not talking about tax dollars; it is the easiest thing in the world to just outsource responsibility for dealing with a problem to government; if the problem persists we can all just blame the government for not being strict enough, not intelligent enough, or not whatever else enough. Meanwhile the muscles of civil society - that would have do the heavy lifting to set up alternative means - continue to atrophy. Nobody is used to setting up voluntary governance schemes.
"Try telling Taiwanese friends/family at Chinese New Year not to drink and drive - they will tell you that just mentioning the possibility of accidents is to invite bad luck."
Yes I know. They are insane.
"This kind of person will only be concerned of receiving a ticket for drunk driving..."
I'm not even sure that generalization is anything more than occassionally true... and that's despite having people (including doctors!) admit to me that they're only worried about a ticket.
Here's why: they only worry about a ticket when they're still sober, but once they're sloshed, they're typically past the point of wanting to think about it. So again, I think drink-driving laws are an ineffective deterrant to those who won't listen to reason, and entirely unnecessary for those who will listen to reason.
And then of course there are the hopeless alcoholics for whom even imprisonment is no deterrant.
"If there were a sufficient civil market, it would soon be subverted by the local thuggery, whose capacity for retaliation exceeds any rational response from the reasonable and respectable segment of the population."
Disagree. Say I'm the boss of a manufacturing firm and I threaten to fire a line supervisor for persistent drunk driving (I have eyes and ears among the workers for an extra few bucks each month), and he tries to bring in the local thugs to "persuade" me otherwise. This is now a matter for the law, not for civil society - now granted local law enforcement often has some degree of 關係 with the old guys running the operation, but then that is just a critique of the police being a State monopoly.
"Most of the foreigners I've met in Kaohsiung drive like maniacs as well: riding bikes at high speed on the sidewalk, travelling against the flow of traffic, running lights and performing manoeuvres that are not only dangerous but would also earn them a ticket in the west or (sometimes) in Taipei."
Here's the thing Steve: your evaluation of "dangerous" might not be the same as theirs. I myself have done all of the things you list there: but I would say that I did them carefully - they either weren't dangerous (e.g. the sidewalk was wide and not crowded, and I wasn't fast), or the risk was at a level I felt I could safely handle with appropriate concern for those around me. That's not to say I break the law all the time with impunity - I don't - but I do occassionally ignore say, a red light on a small road on my way to the park when I can clearly see there's nothing coming. I'll admit, this is not even to save time but is something I sometimes do just because I'm impatient.
Blame for accidents however, must be attributed to one or both parties according to standardized rules and procedures - which is one reason why laws are necessary, but enforcing them with greater zeal won't necessarily reduce accidents and is not without its own costs.
Although one would never guess it, driving on the pavement under any circumstances is illegal in Taiwan.
ReplyDeleteWith rules like helmets and the new seatbelt law, it is definitely largely fear of punishment that drives compliance: in places where it's not enforced (my wife's hometown), people routinely don't wear helmets (including, sometimes, me) or put them on their kids; and just this past week, I and a colleague, have been told it's OK not to strap our kids in as it doesn't apply to them.
In cabs, I meant (three separate incidents).
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteMy original point was broader than mere compliance with this or that specific regulation. To reprise:
"...if you cannot prevent some people from violating or endangering the rights of others by rational persuasion, then you cannot prevent them from doing so by threat of legal punishment."
A parent who drives their kids around on a scooter without helmets is exposing them to a greater severity-risk, for sure. A parent who only puts helmets on the little ones heads' because they're worried about paying fines, rather than possible head-injuries is probably not taking their responsibilities seriously anyway and might well be endangering their kids in other ways.
That being said, I think it is far too easy to get all "new-puritan" about health and safety: risk is an inherent part of life and what is very dangerous for one person, may be less so for another. The appropriate question is not who* is responsible for managing risk, but how to manage it and for this there cannot be only one answer.
*People are not the property of the State, or of the community, whatever the "conservatives" (not to mention the commies on the Left) might say.
This comment thread is already at a tangent with the original post, but for what it's worth it should also be said that it's very easy to overstate the "lawless South" case. It would be fair to say - or at least, in accord with my day-to-day experience - that most people down here follow most of the traffic laws most of the time: even with only partial enforcement, the nut-jobs running red lights at busy intersections in broad daylight are only a tiny minority: usually gangs of teenagers or the odd gangster in his Benz.
ReplyDelete"Blame for accidents however, must be attributed to one or both parties according to standardized rules and procedures - which is one reason why laws are necessary, but enforcing them with greater zeal won't necessarily reduce accidents and is not without its own costs."
ReplyDeleteThat's fair enough, but some rules exist not to attribute blame, but in order to reduce costs to society caused by injuries and fatalities (I don't really intend to open the can of worms regarding subsidized medicine and medical insurance with that comment, so I hope you'll let it slide...)
The seat belts in cabs comment is actually a really good example. I lost count of the number of taxi drivers (and friends!) who told me "It's okay, the law doesn't come into effect until February 1st.
I looked at them all like they'd grown three heads. None of them are concerned for the safety of themselves or others and it's only fear of receiving a ticket that enforces compliance. The people in the back seat of my car put their seat belts on, or I don't drive. I have no plans to allow a back-seat passenger to slam into my seat and crush me to death in a collision that I hopefully won't have caused through my own stupidity.
There are undoubtedly people who evaluate the risk of not wearing a seat belt lower than I do. I don't really care about them. The primary effect of the seat belt law in Taipei city from my perspective has been to force taxi drivers to pull the seat-belt buckles OUT from under their seats or to reinstall them in the case of the morons who physically cut the damn things off. (Laziness is one thing, ignorance and stupidity are others, but I really can't understand someone who actively seeks to disable the safety systems in his car).
With apologies for helping drive the comments even further from the point of the original post...
ReplyDeleteI always wear a seatbelt whether I'm in the front or the back, and I agree entirely with the "three-heads" sentiment. I was shocked when I first arrived in Taiwan to find taxi drivers had the belt installed but not the buckle. (Although, having said that, a seat-belt might be a bit of an encumbrance if you're 23 years old and trying to "entertain" that lovely, dark-eyed mademoiselle you met at a club at 2am).
ReplyDeleteBut look: the stuidity of not protecting oneself against risk for little or no cost will manifest itself in myriad other ways, which is why law-enforcement is never going to be the answer.
Yeah, I realise the post runs much deeper.
ReplyDeleteIt's just I have to agree with Steve about the rules forcing many people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise in Taiwan, which is to say you can prevent people (at least some, some of the time) from violations by coercion, where rational persuasion fails. Or am I misunderstanding that passage in your original post?
Now as for the socio-cultural factors behind these attitudes and how we would go out about effecting change ...
'I would say that I did them carefully - they either weren't dangerous (e.g. the sidewalk was wide and not crowded, and I wasn't fast), or the risk was at a level I felt I could safely handle with appropriate concern for those around me.'
This is the thing Michael. It doesn't matter how skilled, alert, attentive and unselfish one is (I think driving down the pavement is selfish in itself)- there will always be situation beyond one's control.
When my boys were toddlers, I had at least two very close calls with them stepping out from the overhangs/awnings where a pillar obscured our view and one could not see what was coming (why should one have to?).
I myself received a glancing bash - in a similar situation stepping out of my office several years ago. The guy was going fast in relative terms but more than fast enough to cause serious injury.
One simply can't know when someone is going to step out of a doorway into your path when you're riding down the pavement and pedestrians rights should trump motorists here. They are bullied out of the way almost everywhere else, after all.
@ Steve, Patrick Cowsill said exactly the same thing to me about having people in his car as you just have. He has written something about his recent experiences here: http://patrick-cowsill.blogspot.com/2012/02/buckle-up-taiwan.html
Hope linking to your old pal there doesn't incur your wrath Michael.
"...there will always be situation beyond one's control."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely - but that's true whether or not any given law is enforced.
"Hope linking to your old pal there doesn't incur your wrath Michael."
Not at all. At least he had the decency to observe the ban I gave him, unlike the anonymous little rat who claimed to be a Taipei Times reporter.