Mark wrote the other day about a post of Maggie’s. The two of them touched on a subject that really goes to the heart of libertarianism: freedom of one’s own will; the ability to consent to something, to make decisions for one’s own self.
This is what libertarianism is all about: the belief that everyone should be able to make their own choices.
The “problem” with letting people make their own choices is that sometimes people will expose themselves to danger. There is a very real danger here; it’s not imagined. “Allowing” people to make their own choices means that some people will make choices that, one way or another, harm themselves; others will make choices that appear to harm themselves, or, at least, appear to someone else as likely to cause those doing such things harm. Once in awhile, people will make choices that harm others.
This “danger” infects all human behavior.
Mark’s post primarily discusses prostitution (as, I understand, do many of Maggie’s). He expresses a naïve belief that logic — combined with what increasingly seems a prehistoric understanding of an individual’s inalienable rights — could convince those who want to regulate the making of choices to take a more libertarian view even towards “the sex trade.”
Radley Balko writes about another realm where the same problem rears its head. Maggie connects this back by welcoming Radley to the world of escorts.
Not everyone, of course, is as concerned about souls. Some just want to make sure that if people are going to do things that harm themselves, government gets a cut of the action, too. One way or another, they say, it will.
Senator Lou Correa — the California senator suggesting that we legalize certain gambling sites so the government gets its cut and that we enforce this by taking away the homes of those who try to gamble at non-government-sponsored sites — may perhaps be forgiven. After all, you really can’t stop people from doing what they choose to do. You can make it illegal, but many people are going to do it anyway. And our government really does need more money (just ask them).
I only wish when I needed money, I could “legally” force others to give it to me, too.
But why does government need more money? Why?
Therein lies an irony. Government needs more money because it costs a lot to watch over me. It costs a lot to watch over you, too, of course, but as a libertarian, I try not to speak for you.
Me, though, I know something about. I’m a freedom-loving kinda guy. I learned at an early age that I like making my own choices. Hell, I even ran away from home — finally leaving “for good” when I was 17 — whenever my parents tried to restrict my ability to make my own choices.
Most of the choices I make, you may not care about. I’m a lawyer for example. I choose to practice criminal defense. And while some of you will no doubt hate me for that, most of you don’t care too much; you’re okay with letting me make that choice.
On weekends, or any other time I can pry myself away from work, my choices might be a little more disconcerting. Sometimes, I just stay home, read, maybe watch a little TV and do some chores. Other times, however, I’ll jump on my motorcycle and go for a ride. Now things are getting dangerous. Now I really need someone to watch over me.
What if I chose to ride without a helmet, for example? So far, you haven’t reached the point where you’ll tell me what you really think — that I shouldn’t be riding a motorcycle at all — and try to pass laws to keep me from doing it. But no helmet? That’s just too much risk: you can’t let me make that choice.
Not in most states, anyway. I mean, I really could die if I ride without one and you just can’t risk letting me. (Interestingly, we’re getting a little relaxation on this one: in some states, Republicans have led a charge to repeal helmet laws.)
Now I don’t want to sound ungrateful. I’m glad that the government cares about me so much. After all, if government has proven anything, it’s that it’s not just expensive, but expansive. So I’m a little worried about how far it’s willing to go. With increasing speed, we seem to be headed down a slippery slope.
Frankly, that seems more dangerous to me than just about anything choice I’d make.
Are you willing to pay for your beliefs? If you have insurance, it may turn out that you are not willing to pay. When you are struck and brain injured because you failed to wear a helmet, if you have insurance, it will pay out to the limits of your policy, unless you have a good lawyer and, in that case, your insurance company will probably be forced to pay for all your care. That means I will be forced to pay for your decision not to wear a helmet along with everyone else who has a policy in your state or with health insurance your company. If you tell your life, health, and motorcycle insurance companies that you do not wear a helmet and are willing to pay much higher premiums or if you forgo insurance because insurance is just a social contract, more power to you. If you are not willing to pay higher premiums because statistically you are a higher risk, but want insurance because of the uncertainty of riding a motorcycle, then you are forcing me to pay for your statistically unsound decision.
Whether Rick is insured for accidents without a helmet, and whether that costs him more, is between him and his insurance company. And if you don’t want your insurance premiums to be higher because of higher payouts for unhelmeted cyclists, then it is up to you to find an insurance company that doesn’t make such payouts. This is not a moral issue. You just have different insurance needs.
I’ve regularly worn a seat belt since the late ’80s, and I still oppose seat belt laws. Similarly, I will never myself jump out of an airplane that isn’t crashing, nor use heroin, nor smoke, and it’s very unlikely I’ll ever eat a Happy Meal again. However, if I wanted to do those things, it’s nobody’s business but mine. Furthermore, I resent the government having yet another excuse to order, threaten, arrest or fine me (remember “click it or ticket?”) for something I may or may not have done; if a cop decides to harass me by giving me a seat belt ticket, how can I prove I was actually wearing it? I can’t. See, that’s the biggest practical problem with victimless crimes: no victim, therefore no evidence except whatever a cop chooses to make up.
And please don’t say cops lying on reports is a rare phenomenon; as the current cop-crusade against cell phone cameras and video has demonstrated, it’s rampant. And professional escorts are never convicted by any means other than police lies, because no experienced escort ever does what the law requires to “prove” prostitution.
I believe you’ve missed the overall point of what I wrote, but, yes, if paying higher insurance premiums — or not having insurance — were the price of freedom, then I would call that a fair trade.
Incidentally, you incorrectly assume that I would not choose to wear a helmet, not that it matters. I have no problem with private insurance companies having rules that say things like “get in a motorcycle wreck without a helmet and you won’t be covered.” The malpractice insurance that I carry as a lawyer is like that: since my practice is currently 100% criminal defense, the policy I have is limited and covers criminal defense only.
In addition to the incorrect assumption, though, you’ve made an excellent argument for why the government should tell you what to eat at night and how often you have to exercise.
The problem is, when your insurance company tells you that you are on the hook for your own stupidity (& hands you the bill), you can still go crying to the state to take care of you.
So fix THAT.
Why does everyone always want to try to “fix” a problem by not actually addressing the problem? Instead, they want to “fix” a problem by taking away everyone’s freedom of choice because some few people create a problem.
Is it just me or are many of the people who complain about having to pay the price for someone else’s lifestyle choices also the same people who advocate for everyone’s health care to be rolled into one big blob? Wouldn’t having separate health care (just as someone with a beater car might have different car insurance than their neighbor with an almost paid-off Boxter) be an excellent way to tie individual risks with individual costs? Then we wouldn’t have to sneer at motorcyclists or smokers.
The unified costs argument is unsound. Someone who is significantly injured from a traumatic head injury may increase your automobile insurance but will also face a reduced life span, saving medicare (or health insurance, or compelled care expenses, etc) expenses in the long run. Same reduced life span calculus applies for the overweight and those who enjoy hard drugs.
There is no rational entitlement allowing people to tell others how to live their life, or what risks to take. Conversely, it does not necessarily mean that in an otherwise affluent society a basic safety net should not exist should people really need it *even if they make stupid decisions* (see Hayek a la Constitution of Liberty, not Marx).
Risk is a good thing folks. They found the vaccine for polio while studying dirt. Unexpected consequences abound in those who engage in risky behavior, to the betterment of all of society. To shun risk is to shun progress and that joie de vivre that makes all this bullshit worthwhile.