Capozzi Needs Better Understanding of "Libertarian"

Dear Editor,

Robert Capozzi may be in need of a better understanding of the libertarian position on this issue rather than a new label.

Many libertarians believe reasonable speed limits are a fair exercise of government power, so long as the government owns the roads. This line of thought derives from the principle that no one has the right to recklessly endanger the lives of others.

The point Jonathan David Morris is making is that all laws, no matter how seemingly trivial, will be enforced with the full might of government power.

Libertarians believe that before we rush to criminalize a certain category of behavior, we should ask, "is this behavior worth pointing a gun at someone to prevent?" because in the end, all government power derives from its exclusive right to initiate force.

As an example: while passing by our neighbor's house and noticing that the grass is overgrown, we may, if our own yard is properly kept, be tempted to exclaim "letting grass grow that high should be illegal." If this issue is particularly important to us, we may lobby our local council to adopt such an ordinance.

What we have failed to fully consider is the brutality with which such an ordinance will be enforced should our neighbor persist in keeping his grass taller than we believe is fitting. If he ignores the warning letters, and fails to pay the fines, it is likely that city will eventually condemn his property. If he persists yet, his property will be sold at auction. And if he then fails to vacate his home, the government will forcefully enter and remove him, in handcuffs and at the point of a gun, in front of his family.

And should our tragic landscaping criminal attempt to defend his home and family from this forceful intrusion, it is likely that he will lose his life in the process, or at best, his liberty for the next fifty to twenty years.

Situations that draw out this level of government reaction seem to be the exception, but is not because government force is other than I have described. It is simply the case that most people are moved enough by the threat of force that they will submit before force is actually applied.

I am not commenting here on the justice of landscaping laws, seat-belt laws, or speed limits, but only that the rightful standard for a new law should not be whether a particular behavior is a 'good idea,' but rather whether a particular behavior warrants the use of government force, which is by nature unlimited in its potential effects on the individual.

Obviously, laws against murder, rape, assault, and fraud meet this standard, and libertarians believe this is a just use of government coercion, at least until humanity can devise a better alternative.

The question is how far should the use of this level of force be allowed to creep into regulations affecting our persons, family, and property?

Libertarians, and the Libertarian Party, answer consistently that the use of government force should be as limited as is reasonably practical while protecting Americans and their property from force and fraud.

-- Travis Cross
Travis Cross is a small business owner and a member of the Libertarian Party of Indiana.