Vices are not Crimes; Spooner And Bieber?

Pop Star Justin Bieber  was arrested on Thursday morning for apparently driving while intoxicated, resisting arrest and driving without a valid license. Later Bieber "made some statements that he had consumed some alcohol, and that he had been smoking marijuana and consumed some prescription medication" according to a police spokesperson.  While this is not good for the 19 year old singer, it is however a great lesson in the No Victim No Crime Theory. 

The act of driving under the influence is one of those "crimes" that has never really made much sense to me. Whether or not a person is intoxicated should be irrelevant when making the decision to press charges. In Bieber's case there has been no action that has resulted in the destruction of property or harm to another individual. Since the case lacks a victim it can not be considered a crime. With the lack of a victim in these cases there can be no crime. Even the act of an intoxicated person damaging or destroying his or her own vehicle and no other property there is still no victim as the intoxicated individual has only destroyed their own personal property by voluntarily consuming the intoxicating substance. Another point to be taken with this issue is the risk factor. Can we really legislate risk away? Is there a risk that a person who is impaired may injure another person or damage someone's property? Sure, but then too, there is the inherent risk that persons not afflicted in any way may do the same. At what point can we say that one is acceptable enough not to have restrictions placed upon it while the other must have restrictions and legislation?

The next charge of driving without a license is well, just a unnecessary law, it is just another way for the state to manipulate people into their control and a way to extract more revenue. A license has absolutely no real reason to exist except as a tool of control. That being said, the act of driving without a license has neither damaged another's property or actively aggressed against another person, therefor there is in this case also an absence of a victim and as such can not be labeled as a crime.

Now comes the fun stuff; Marijuana and prescription medication. The act of ingesting either Marijuana or Prescription medications does no real harm except to the person doing the ingesting. The lack of anyone to call a victim leaves no logic to have a penalty attached to this voluntary act. At what point does the legislating of consumable goods become too intrusive? It has been proven over and over again that the leading cause of death in the United States is Heart Disease caused by obesity, yet there are not laws on the amount of consumed calories or legislation dealing with the strict diet and exercise routine of all citizens. 

As Lysander Spooner words it in his work "Vices are not Crimes; A Vindication of Moral Liberty" Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. 
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another". Also stated in this work is the quote," It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of 
another. But no one ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice 
toward others". 
This is the firm belief in self ownership, personal responsibility, and willingness to adhere to the repercussions of those actions.

As I said this incident is not ideal for Justin Beiber, but can be a very important lesson in Self Ownership and the No Victim No Crime Theory.

Here is a good Video by Christopher Cantwell on this case as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9hHuR8U6k

The Libertarian Utopia Charge

One of the most prevalent claims against libertarians is that their ideas are Utopian in nature, but this can only be construed as a bad thing if you use the definition given by Sir Thomas More. The word Utopia first came about in the 1500’s through the philosopher and author Thomas More. If one examines the book they would find that the mythical place described in the book Utopia is nowhere near its present day meaning and by all accounts would never form in a libertarian society. Presently defined as an ideal place or state it would fit the vision of libertarians. It is here that the separation of definition takes place from the fiction story to the present day definition.

Of the many themes in More’s description of Utopia; I want to compare two major areas as they are the very basis to individual liberty and Libertarianism as a whole; Private Property and Self-Ownership. These two points in Thomas More’s fiction story are meant to lead to a Utopia or perfect world, but error on the basis on individual liberty. This is where the charge of Libertarians being Utopian by the book's definition in their ideas and vision is completely false. 

Private Property

“In More’s novel Utopia has no money or private property and there is therefore no greed, power struggles, corruption, or vanity, and very little crime. Everything is held in common and everyone's needs are supplied” [1].

     

This is nowhere near a Libertarian stance. The existence of property owned by the state has never been a view expressed by the Libertarian philosophy. Private ownership of property leads to the owner feeling a sense of personal investment in the maintenance and improvement of that property. When the ownership is transferred to the state that investment is not realized and the property is subject to abuse and quickly falls into disrepair and dilapidated. Simply look into your local public housing projects to see this effect in comparison to a area of high private home properties.

In the modern day definition of utopia, a libertarian society would be centered around the Right of Private Property and its protection.  As Ludwig von Mises once stated,"If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization." Private ownership of property is one of the fundamental tenets of Libertarianism. It leads to the production of goods and the means of labor to produce those goods. It is this ownership that allows individuals to create homes and businesses.

Self-Ownership

In More's description of his utopia he includes the custom of owning servants or slaves, Labeled as "bondmen", these unfortunate people are owned by others to be put to work in the home and wherever else needed.

This absolutely in no way represents the Libertarian view of self ownership. The belief that you and you alone can own your body and the fruits of your labor and toil is a vital, central axiom of Libertarianism and cannot in any way be construed to include any sort of servitude or bond to another person.
Another point in this issue is the way in which in More's Utopia there are authority figures set into every community and city, eventually leading to a central ruler and its court. This point is a little different in the Libertarian stance. Libertarian is broad and a very large tent term. It contains those that believe in the minimal amount of outside governance while some believe in no governance but self rule.

Define your meaning of the word Utopian.

With the charge that Libertarians are Utopian in their ideas one would have to differentiate the term from the classical to the modern.

In the classical sense, in no way, shape or form would that type of Society exist or even begin to exist under the Libertarian stances of Private Property and Self Ownership.

In the modern day definition, a more perfect world, yes a utopia could exist under a libertarian society. This begs the question, shouldn't this be wanted by all, shouldn't this be embraced by everyone?

With the modern day definition being what it is I must ask, If libertarians are utopian in ideals, what does that make the other party's ideals. What is the purpose of all the added regulations, laws, rules, restrictions? What are they working towards? Is it all for the ultimate goal of total control? Of course these are rhetorical questions, I already know the answers.

 This website is dedicated to those who are the rulers of themselves but not of others, and advocate that everybody controls no one but themselves..

“It is our own nature, as human beings, which we must conquer, not the nature of others. …Freedom is not a goal that can be achieved; it is the necessary means to all other goals.”

 

#ControlYourself #InitiateVirtuousVoluntaryism