doubtingt
Senior Member
I did read it, and your statement above is objectively wrong and at odds with any reasoned application of the principle of liberty. If "an individual voluntarily" punches you in the face, puts an axe your head, kicks in your front door, keys your car, puts toxins in the river that runs under your land, toxins in the air you breathe, speeds down the public road where kids play, and billions of other possible acts that impact others, then a ban on any of these voluntary acts is a protection of liberty. These are not minor and rare exceptions, but everyday all the time occurrences. Every single valid criminal law (i.e., not including most drug use laws) is nothing other than "a ban on an individual voluntarily doing something". In the real world actions very often have impact on others, so any application of the actual principle of liberty fundamentally requires the banning of many actions to protect others liberty. Failing to ban an action often does great harm to liberty.Thus, it is simply wrong to claim as you did that "when you're invoking liberty to support a ban on an individual voluntarily doing something you're probably doing it wrong." You are as likely to be doing it right. There is no reliable relationship between banning an action and protecting individual liberty.
You reinforce the wrongness of your understanding of liberty when you later say:
Yes, bans are libertarian. You cannot be an actual supporter of the principle of liberty without supporting many bans. Of the actions currently banned under law, the majority are justified and supportive of the principle of liberty. Bans are not particularly "Libertarian" with a capital "L" referring to the formal party and most of those who claim to be "Libertarian", but that is because they are not actually supportive of true liberty, and instead are merely anti-government when it limits the ability of the more powerful to harm the liberty of the less powerful.
