Not to be unkind, but this is a simplistic view of law and realpolitiks. As an example, can you honestly say that arresting hundreds of thousands of peaceful weed smokers annually is a "greater good"?
Point being that the liberty/security trade isn't a false dichotomy.
[1] "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death — the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
People have also traded the liberty of people able to discard carcinogenic industrial waste wherever they please for the security of the world's most reliable potable water delivery systems. That trade seems to have worked out well.
He's right, and you're wrong. The simplistic argument is the one that draws a sharp line between security and liberty. It's incumbent on both sides to defend the security/freedom principles on a case-by-case basis.
That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators.
When government becomes the seat of criminality and predation, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
> He's right, and you're wrong.
I parse this as, "I agree with him, not you" as these are all just our opinions anyway.
I think you're missing a fine point here. You've already said that contaminated meat is criminal, presumably because it's very dangerous. Are bath salts very dangerous? Meth? Low quality meth with contaminants?
How should we permit the sale of narcotics while disallowing poisons? I think that a lot of people can answer that, but how can we do this in a reasonable way? Let's think it through... I don't have time to keep track of which things are safe. I'd probably rely on some organization to help me decide. It's reasonable for me to rely on the government because they're democratically accountable to me. In that system, I'd prefer them to really err on the side of caution. Erring on the side of caution, is heroin poison?
Do you want to live in a world where buying a simple OTC sleep pill at Walgreen's exposes you to the risk of ingesting heroin or some other decidedly narcotic substance?
I really support the legalization of certain drugs, but I'm advocating for a per substance approach. (Actually, I'm saying that it's functionally impossible to just "legalize drugs".)
I'd prefer to live in a world where I could choose to use any medicine I wish to use.
It's the liberty/security thing all over again. I prefer the insecurity of liberty to the security of having an overseer. My opinion has always been in the minority through all of history, btw.
EDIT: You'd better serve your interests by advocating for a well-regulated narcotics market with proper safety controls and the distinct possibility that certain substances will just have to be illegal. That's much sounder than saying "legalize drugs because I prefer liberty over safety, except sometimes".
I'm fine with criminalizing any form of fraud. Selling contaminated meat as good meat is fraud. If someone sold aspirin with heroin in it but didn't label it as such, they'd be guilty of fraud also.
> You'd better serve your interests
If my interests aren't in line with my principles, that would make me more of a hypocrite than we're already forced to be at times.
You seem to be using an idiosyncratic definition of either "liberty" or "criminal," because this seems to be tautological by the normal definitions. Something being criminal means your liberty to indulge in that thing has been taken away. So you could say this about any behavior — if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it.
I perceive it elsewise. If someone abuses their liberty to commit fraud or violence, then they're a criminal. Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way.
Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's if they have an interest in regulating some form of human behavior or interaction.
No, criminals, by definition, commit crimes -- violations of criminal law.
> Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's
Nothing is criminal except in regard to a particular code of law. That's what "criminal" means.
Criminal neither implies, nor is implied by, "morally wrong".
This is only true if one takes the State's part in these discussions. The State can claim that certain forms of agriculture are illegal but that doesn't magically make those forms of agriculture criminal endeavors in anyone's eyes but those with an interest in the State's narrative.
No, the definition of what "criminals" means is independent of the value judgement of the correctness of the state's laws.
Do you have proof which is not from a State-backed agency on this assertion?
There's a problem with how you define "criminal" here. Before the release of various chemicals into groundwater was recognized as harmful and his was taken into account in the formulation of laws and regulations, it was perfectly legal.
In many such instances, where harmful behaviors were not recognized then subsequently made illegal, there were many people who claimed they weren't aware they were doing anything wrong.
[1] "Vices Are Not Crimes" by Lysander Spooner
I'm also going to raise my hand, declare ancap philosophy to itself be a worn-out Internet meme, duck, and run away.
Immaterial. He's been an large influence on American political life[1], alive and dead.
> I'm also going to...duck, and run away.
I always appreciate this response from people with an attachment to the government/State than the more common approach which is to call people names. Many thanks.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner#American_Lette...
You told me you were running away and I didn't want to waste my time. Apologies for taking you at your word.