Libertarian Law

GBlagg: I’ve been thinking a lot lately about our legal system and it’s laws.

Sticks and Stones: Yes, I know.

GBlagg: But how...Oh. Never mind.

S&S: Go on.

GBlagg: It seems to me that many, if not most, of our laws are based on nothing more than mere chance.

S&S: Interesting. Could you be more specific?

GBlagg: Well, much of what we consider unlawful finds it’s foundation merely in the clouded realm of possibilities.

S&S: That is a little hard for my mind to grasp, do you have any examples?

GBlagg: Ok, how about the speeding laws? The actual act of speeding is not dangerous in and of itself. But it is against the law. Why? Not because of the speed itself, but rather for a nonspecific future negative outcome. The mere possibility of an accident.

S&S: And how is that wrong?

GBlagg: Well, I would say because over 99.9% of speeders see no negative outcome, cause no accidents.

S&S: Yes, but aren’t those laws to protect the less than .01%?

GBlagg: That is how they are sold.

S&S: And why is that wrong?

GBlagg: For many reasons, but here is one. It is wrong because any limit is simply an arbitrary number. The theory is that fewer people will be injured or killed if the limit is 55 rather than 65. If this is so, it seems fewer still would face negative consequences if the limit were 45 instead of 55. And then again fewer at 35. And 25. And so on.

S&S: Leading to what?

GBlagg: Stagnation. Logically. Followed to its final progression, this form of thought results in no movement whatsoever.

S&S: Yes, that would be the logical conclusion.
You stated there are other problems inherent in such laws...

GBlagg: Well, on a simply egotistical level, they are somewhat insulting to the adult independent human. They lock you into a perennial kindergarten. It is the ‘Junior was bad, so no one gets recess’ ideology.

S&S: You analogies never fail to impress.

GBlagg: Is that sarcasm? Now I’m impressed.

S&S: Let us go back for a moment to the speeder. If, as you say, the act of speeding itself is not dangerous, how do our laws affect the speeder.

GBlagg: Well, first I would have to add that there is not anything morally or ethically wrong with the actual act of speeding. Because in it’s most minimal sense, one is speeding at just one mile over the limit, or even one tenth of a mile. These laws, when peeled to their cores, basically just make honest men criminals.

S&S: Explain.

GBlagg: Is a man not honest or moral simply because he breaks the speed limit?

S&S: Well, is he not breaking the law?

GBlagg: Yes. The law of the state. Does that make him dishonest or immoral? Do you feel dishonest or immoral when you are speeding? Or do you feel this way when you murder, rape, or steal?

S&S: I see. Let us keep that in mind and move on.
Surely, the speeding laws cannot be your only objection?

GBlagg: Of course not, there are many such laws. Basically the entire traffic code is based on ‘what ifs’. Along with many of the gun laws. Most building codes. The drug laws. And so on.

S&S: So where are you headed here? If these laws are wrong, or you used the word immoral, what is it you would consider a right moral law? How would one, instead, build a right or moral system of law?

GBlagg: I believe we must first decide what is criminal.

S&S: Go on...

GBlagg: So what is criminal? It would seem to me that anything that injures or holds the possibility of imminent injury to a person or property should be criminal.

S&S: Then let us begin there.

GBlagg: Alright.

S&S: Why would a law ‘that injures or holds the possibility of imminent injury to a person or property’ be right or moral?

GBlagg: Because they include an actual tangible injury.

S&S: Ok, we have a tangible injury. Now what?

GBlagg: If there is a true real injury, we can then morally charge. And if guilty, demand a grievance.

S&S: A grievance to a tangible injury. So is this it?

GBlagg: Yes, I believe so. A right/moral law would be based on tangible real injury. Followed then by a charge and if a finding of guilt, then grievance.

S&S: Ah.

GBlagg: Laws based on replies to actual actions. Let’s look at murder. If one murders another, he is charged for murder. An actual action followed by a charge. If he is found guilty, he is punished. A grievance. That is right/moral law. But many of our present laws are set so that one can be held accountable for an action he has yet even to commit, simply by acting a certain way in the present. If the merest possibility exists that one may cause an accident or injury at some unknown time in the distant future, that infinitesimal possibility is enough be ticketed, jailed, or fined in the present. This type of law is wrong/immoral.

S&S: If that is the case, then in order to build a code of right/moral law we need to start with your four presuppositions...tangible injury, charge, finding of guilt or innocence, and grievance.

GBlagg: Sounds right.

S&S: So to establish a code of moral law, we will begin with the statement that the criminal is one who injures person or property.

GBlagg: Or is in imminent threat of injuring person or property.

S&S: Imminent?

GBlagg: Yes. ‘Imminent’...as someone pointing a gun at your chest or swinging a bat at your head would be ‘imminent’..

S&S: So, someone you dislike or fear who is buying a bat or pistol from the local sporting goods store is not an imminent threat?

GBlagg: No. There is nothing imminent in that.

S&S: Ok, so we have this...A criminal is one who commits or is in imminent threat of committing an injury to person or property.

GBlagg: That sounds like a great place to start. A perfect basis for a system of law.

S&S: Agreed.
But how do we deal with the dangerous actions that are not illegal yet cause negative outcomes? These do happen in the real world. As in your speeding analogy, how do we deal with the dangerous driver? How are we to prevent a person from acting irresponsibly?

GBlagg: I have an idea on that. But let me first ask you how do we accomplish this now?

S&S: Why, from making such acts illegal.

GBlagg: I will ask again...how do we accomplish this now?

S&S: I see.

GBlagg: Yes. We don’t. A person who acts dangerously will act so regardless of the law.

S&S: And so, what is your solution?

GBlagg: Any illegal act, and we have agreed what makes an illegal act, that is committed while the perpetrator is behaving in a dangerous manner is dealt a more severe sentence. In fact, any outcome causing injury to person or property, whether illegal or not, will be dealt with severely when caused by reckless, irresponsible behavior.

S&S: Can you give me examples in order to illustrate this better.

GBlagg: Yes. Let us look again at the speeder. Any injury he causes while driving irresponsibly or dangerously, becomes an illegal act. And the sentence becomes more severe in ratio to the dangerousness or recklessness of his behavior.

S&S: And how is this better than the current system?

GBlagg: Well, because then there is an effect to an actual cause. Not, as now, an effect to a possible cause. It put the burden of illegality back to the criminal and not the honest man. The grievance is then based on the reality of an injury. Law again becomes moral.

S&S: Moral law. Interesting ideas, I will think on them.