harm avoidance can extend to laws to protect public safety. Examples abound which I think are quite legitimate. Where to draw the line? What is reasonable? Have we gone overboard with restrictions such as censoring and at the same time left ourselves vulnerable with lax border policies and criminal prosecutions?
The benchmark must be protecting individuals from infringement of their rights - personal *and* property. Much that is legitimate regarding public safety falls into that category. But, a lot that is couched in "protecting the public" terms infringes on autonomy.
Criminal prosecutions are easy. Stick to harm done to others, instead of harm to self.
The border problem rests on other factors. As has been noted countless times, you can't have an open border and a welfare state. Beyond the immorality of taking from John just to give to Joe, this whole business of feeding, clothing, and sheltering migrants - not to mention providing even more assistance - is harm done to taxpayers, whose money should be used for services to *them*.
Great article, Peter, as always, but one itsy-bitsy nitpick: somewhere in your article, explain the lead-in picture. Who is/are the people pictured, and why did you choose that picture? (It took me some studying, but I figured out it was the little brother from The Christmas Story who's mom over-dressed and over-protected him from the cold.)
that's right. And some of what you mention here is malignant compassion, pathological altruism, or some such thing. There is a way to be more rightly ordered than our public policies are now. People know this but many rank and file are terrified of being called cruel and heartless.
I get that last bit a lot, from people who make the mistake of believing that giving away OPM is charity. It's a common tactic against libertarians. The only remedy is pushback, because the tactic is at its heart a bullying one. Just as it takes some guts to reject the unfounded "racist" accusation, it takes some effort to break past the "heartless" one.
STILL no disagreement from me! Just one correction, though: packing peanuts are properly known as “angel turds” 😁
harm avoidance can extend to laws to protect public safety. Examples abound which I think are quite legitimate. Where to draw the line? What is reasonable? Have we gone overboard with restrictions such as censoring and at the same time left ourselves vulnerable with lax border policies and criminal prosecutions?
The benchmark must be protecting individuals from infringement of their rights - personal *and* property. Much that is legitimate regarding public safety falls into that category. But, a lot that is couched in "protecting the public" terms infringes on autonomy.
Criminal prosecutions are easy. Stick to harm done to others, instead of harm to self.
The border problem rests on other factors. As has been noted countless times, you can't have an open border and a welfare state. Beyond the immorality of taking from John just to give to Joe, this whole business of feeding, clothing, and sheltering migrants - not to mention providing even more assistance - is harm done to taxpayers, whose money should be used for services to *them*.
Great article, Peter, as always, but one itsy-bitsy nitpick: somewhere in your article, explain the lead-in picture. Who is/are the people pictured, and why did you choose that picture? (It took me some studying, but I figured out it was the little brother from The Christmas Story who's mom over-dressed and over-protected him from the cold.)
I figure - if you get the reference, great, but I think it speaks for itself even absent that.
that's right. And some of what you mention here is malignant compassion, pathological altruism, or some such thing. There is a way to be more rightly ordered than our public policies are now. People know this but many rank and file are terrified of being called cruel and heartless.
I get that last bit a lot, from people who make the mistake of believing that giving away OPM is charity. It's a common tactic against libertarians. The only remedy is pushback, because the tactic is at its heart a bullying one. Just as it takes some guts to reject the unfounded "racist" accusation, it takes some effort to break past the "heartless" one.