WEBVTT

NOTE 6. Personal Liberty

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.000
Chapter 6. Personal Liberty. Freedom of Speech.

2
00:00:06.000 --> 00:00:15.000
There are, of course, many problems of personal liberty which cannot be subsumed under the category of involuntary servitude.

3
00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:23.000
Freedom of speech and press have long been treasured by those who confine themselves to being civil libertarians.

4
00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:29.000
Civil, meaning that economic freedom and the rights of private property are left out of the equation.

5
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:45.000
But we have already seen that freedom of speech cannot be upheld as an absolute except as it is subsumed under the general rights of property of the individual, emphatically including property right in his own person.

6
00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:58.000
Thus the man who shouts fire in a crowded theater has no right to do so because he is aggressing against the contractual property rights of the theater owner and of the patrons of the performance.

7
00:00:58.000 --> 00:01:07.000
Aside from invasions of property, however, freedom of speech will necessarily be upheld to the uttermost by every libertarian.

8
00:01:07.000 --> 00:01:17.000
Freedom to say, print and sell any utterance becomes an absolute right in whatever area the speech or expression chooses to cover.

9
00:01:17.000 --> 00:01:25.000
Here, civil libertarians have a generally good record, and in the judiciary, the late Justice Hugo Black

10
00:01:25.000 --> 00:01:30.480
Black was particularly notable in defending freedom of speech from government restriction

11
00:01:30.480 --> 00:01:34.940
on the basis of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

12
00:01:34.940 --> 00:01:40.440
But there are areas in which even the most ardent civil libertarians have been unfortunately

13
00:01:40.440 --> 00:01:41.920
fuzzy.

14
00:01:41.920 --> 00:01:47.200
What for example of incitement to riot, in which the speaker is held guilty of a crime

15
00:01:47.200 --> 00:01:52.960
for whipping up a mob, which then riots and commits various actions and crimes against

16
00:01:52.960 --> 00:01:55.400
Person and Property.

17
00:01:55.400 --> 00:02:01.260
In our view, incitement can only be considered a crime if we deny every man's freedom of

18
00:02:01.260 --> 00:02:09.060
will and of choice, and assume that if A tells B and C, you and him go ahead and riot, that

19
00:02:09.060 --> 00:02:15.800
somehow B and C are then helplessly determined to proceed and commit the wrongful act.

20
00:02:15.800 --> 00:02:21.260
But the libertarian, who believes in freedom of the will, must insist that while it might

21
00:02:21.260 --> 00:02:26.900
It might be immoral or unfortunate for A to advocate a riot that this is strictly in the

22
00:02:26.900 --> 00:02:32.180
realm of advocacy and should not be subject to legal penalty.

23
00:02:32.180 --> 00:02:38.620
Of course, if A also participates in the riot, then he himself becomes a rioter and is equally

24
00:02:38.620 --> 00:02:40.700
subject to punishment.

25
00:02:40.700 --> 00:02:46.560
Furthermore, if A is a boss in a criminal enterprise and, as part of the crime, orders

26
00:02:46.560 --> 00:02:51.140
his henchmen, you and him go and rob such and such a bank.

27
00:02:51.140 --> 00:02:56.140
And of course, A, according to the law of accessories, becomes a participant or even

28
00:02:56.140 --> 00:03:00.260
leader in the criminal enterprise itself.

29
00:03:00.260 --> 00:03:06.420
If advocacy should never be a crime, then neither should conspiracy to advocate.

30
00:03:06.420 --> 00:03:13.220
For in contrast to the unfortunate development of conspiracy law, conspiring, that is, agreeing

31
00:03:13.220 --> 00:03:18.300
to do something, should never be more illegal than the act itself.

32
00:03:18.300 --> 00:03:24.700
How in fact can conspiracy be defined except as an agreement by two or more people to do

33
00:03:24.700 --> 00:03:29.580
something that you, the definer, do not like?

34
00:03:29.580 --> 00:03:33.500
Another difficult zone is the law of libel and slander.

35
00:03:33.500 --> 00:03:38.840
It has generally been held legitimate to restrict freedom of speech if that speech has the effect

36
00:03:38.840 --> 00:03:44.620
of either falsely or maliciously damaging the reputation of another person.

37
00:03:44.620 --> 00:03:50.420
What the law of libel and slander does, in short, is to argue a property right of someone

38
00:03:50.420 --> 00:03:53.180
in his own reputation.

39
00:03:53.180 --> 00:03:59.700
Yet someone's reputation is not and cannot be owned by him, since it is purely a function

40
00:03:59.700 --> 00:04:04.620
of the subjective feelings and attitudes held by other people.

41
00:04:04.620 --> 00:04:10.640
But since no one can ever truly own the mind and attitude of another, this means that no

42
00:04:10.640 --> 00:04:15.120
No one can literally have a property right in his reputation.

43
00:04:15.120 --> 00:04:20.600
A person's reputation fluctuates all the time, in accordance with the attitudes and opinions

44
00:04:20.600 --> 00:04:22.720
of the rest of the population.

45
00:04:22.720 --> 00:04:28.880
Hence, speech attacking someone cannot be an invasion of his property right, and therefore

46
00:04:28.880 --> 00:04:33.740
should not be subject to restriction or legal penalty.

47
00:04:33.740 --> 00:04:38.600
It is, of course, immoral to level false charges against another person.

48
00:04:38.600 --> 00:04:45.400
But once again, the moral and the legal are, for the libertarian, two very different categories.

49
00:04:45.400 --> 00:04:51.500
Furthermore, pragmatically, if there were no laws of libel or slander, people would

50
00:04:51.500 --> 00:04:57.120
be much less willing to credit charges without full documentation than they are now.

51
00:04:57.120 --> 00:05:03.400
Nowadays, if a man is charged with some flaw or misdeed, the general reaction is to believe

52
00:05:03.400 --> 00:05:08.520
it, since if the charge were false, why doesn't he sue for libel?

53
00:05:08.520 --> 00:05:13.600
The law of libel, of course, discriminates in this way against the poor, since a person

54
00:05:13.600 --> 00:05:19.520
with few financial resources is scarcely as ready to carry on a costly libel suit as a

55
00:05:19.520 --> 00:05:21.880
person of affluent means.

56
00:05:21.880 --> 00:05:28.440
Furthermore, wealthy people can now use the libel laws as a club against poorer persons,

57
00:05:28.440 --> 00:05:33.320
restricting perfectly legitimate charges and utterances under the threat of suing their

58
00:05:33.320 --> 00:05:36.240
poorer enemies for libel.

59
00:05:36.240 --> 00:05:42.680
Paradoxically, then, a person of limited resources is more apt to suffer from libel and to have

60
00:05:42.680 --> 00:05:47.980
his own speech restricted in the present system than he would in a world without any laws

61
00:05:47.980 --> 00:05:50.800
against libel or defamation.

62
00:05:50.800 --> 00:05:56.480
Fortunately, in recent years, the laws against libel have been progressively weakened so

63
00:05:56.480 --> 00:06:01.860
that one can now deliver vigorous and trenchant criticisms of public officials and of people

64
00:06:01.860 --> 00:06:09.420
in the Public Eye without fear of being subject to costly legal action or legal punishment.

65
00:06:09.420 --> 00:06:14.300
Another action that should be completely free of restriction is the boycott.

66
00:06:14.300 --> 00:06:20.180
In a boycott, one or more people use their right of speech to urge, for whatever reasons,

67
00:06:20.180 --> 00:06:26.220
important or trivial, that other people cease to buy someone else's product.

68
00:06:26.220 --> 00:06:32.780
For example, several people organize a campaign for whatever reason to urge consumers to stop

69
00:06:32.780 --> 00:06:35.420
buying XYZ beer.

70
00:06:35.420 --> 00:06:42.260
This is again purely advocacy, and furthermore, advocacy of a perfectly legitimate act, not

71
00:06:42.260 --> 00:06:44.140
purchasing the beer.

72
00:06:44.140 --> 00:06:50.300
A successful boycott might be unfortunate for the producers of XYZ beer, but this again

73
00:06:50.300 --> 00:06:55.540
is strictly within the realm of free speech and the rights of private property.

74
00:06:55.540 --> 00:07:01.740
The makers of XYZ beer take their chances with the free choices of consumers, and consumers

75
00:07:01.740 --> 00:07:06.540
are entitled to listen and to be swayed by anyone they choose.

76
00:07:06.540 --> 00:07:11.660
Yet our labor laws have infringed upon the right of labor unions to organize boycotts

77
00:07:11.660 --> 00:07:13.900
against business firms.

78
00:07:13.900 --> 00:07:19.140
It is also illegal under our banking laws to spread rumors about the insolvency of a

79
00:07:19.140 --> 00:07:25.100
bank, an obvious case of the government's extending special privileges to banks by outlawing

80
00:07:25.100 --> 00:07:34.820
A particularly thorny question is the whole matter of picketing and demonstrations.

81
00:07:34.820 --> 00:07:39.660
Freedom of speech implies, of course, freedom of assembly, the freedom to gather together

82
00:07:39.660 --> 00:07:43.340
and express oneself in concert with others.

83
00:07:43.340 --> 00:07:48.940
But the situation becomes more complex when the use of the streets is involved.

84
00:07:48.940 --> 00:07:54.180
It is clear that picketing is illegitimate when it is used, as it often is, to block

85
00:07:54.180 --> 00:08:09.140
It is also clear that sit-ins are an illegitimate invasion of private property, but even peaceful

86
00:08:09.140 --> 00:08:14.820
picketing is not clearly legitimate, for it is part of a wider problem.

87
00:08:14.820 --> 00:08:17.780
Who decides on the use of the streets?

88
00:08:17.780 --> 00:08:24.060
The problem stems from the fact that the streets are almost universally owned by local government,

89
00:08:24.060 --> 00:08:29.540
But the government, not being a private owner, lacks any criterion for allocating the use

90
00:08:29.540 --> 00:08:34.860
of its streets, so that any decision it makes will be arbitrary.

91
00:08:34.860 --> 00:08:40.400
Suppose for example that the Friends of Wisteria wish to demonstrate and parade on behalf of

92
00:08:40.400 --> 00:08:43.220
Wisteria in a public street.

93
00:08:43.220 --> 00:08:47.740
The police ban the demonstration, claiming that it will clog the streets and disrupt

94
00:08:47.740 --> 00:08:49.580
traffic.

95
00:08:49.580 --> 00:08:54.540
Several libertarians will automatically protest and claim that the right of free speech of

96
00:08:54.540 --> 00:08:59.140
the wisteria demonstrators is being unjustly abridged.

97
00:08:59.140 --> 00:09:03.220
But the police, too, may have a perfectly legitimate point.

98
00:09:03.220 --> 00:09:07.980
The streets may well be clogged, and it is the government's responsibility to maintain

99
00:09:07.980 --> 00:09:09.920
the flow of traffic.

100
00:09:09.920 --> 00:09:11.620
How then decide?

101
00:09:11.620 --> 00:09:17.060
Whichever way the government decides, some group of taxpayers will be injured by the

102
00:09:17.060 --> 00:09:18.420
decision.

103
00:09:18.420 --> 00:09:24.340
If the government decides to allow the demonstration, the motorists or pedestrians will be injured.

104
00:09:24.340 --> 00:09:28.800
If it does not, then the friends of wisteria will suffer a loss.

105
00:09:28.800 --> 00:09:34.520
In either case, the very fact of government decision-making generates inevitable conflict

106
00:09:34.520 --> 00:09:40.940
over who shall and who shall not, among the taxpayers and citizens, use the governmental

107
00:09:40.940 --> 00:09:41.940
resource.

108
00:09:41.940 --> 00:09:47.960
It is only the universal fact of government ownership and control of the streets that

109
00:09:47.960 --> 00:09:53.240
makes this problem insoluble and cloaks the true solution to it.

110
00:09:53.240 --> 00:09:59.000
The point is that whoever owns a resource will decide on how that resource is to be

111
00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:00.000
used.

112
00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:04.840
The owner of a press will decide what will be printed on that press, and the owner of

113
00:10:04.840 --> 00:10:08.780
the streets will decide how to allocate their use.

114
00:10:08.780 --> 00:10:13.840
In short, if the streets were privately owned and the friends of Wisteria asked for the

115
00:10:13.840 --> 00:10:15.840
The Theory of Money and Credit

116
00:10:43.840 --> 00:10:58.840
Freedom of Speech or Free Assembly Question at all, but a question of property rights, of the right of a group to offer to rent a street, and of the right of the street owner either to accept or reject the offer.

117
00:10:58.840 --> 00:11:02.840
Freedom of Radio and Television

118
00:11:02.840 --> 00:11:08.200
There is one important area of American life where no effective freedom of speech or the

119
00:11:08.200 --> 00:11:12.880
press does or can exist under the present system.

120
00:11:12.880 --> 00:11:17.080
That is the entire field of radio and television.

121
00:11:17.080 --> 00:11:24.040
In this area, the federal government, in the crucially important Radio Act of 1927, nationalized

122
00:11:24.040 --> 00:11:25.860
the airwaves.

123
00:11:25.860 --> 00:11:32.680
In effect, the federal government took title to ownership of all radio and television channels.

124
00:11:32.680 --> 00:11:38.740
It then presumed to grant licenses at its will or pleasure for use of the channels to

125
00:11:38.740 --> 00:11:41.920
various privately owned stations.

126
00:11:41.920 --> 00:11:46.980
On the one hand, the stations, since they receive the licenses gratis, do not have to

127
00:11:46.980 --> 00:11:52.400
pay for the use of the scarce airwaves, as they would on the free market.

128
00:11:52.400 --> 00:11:57.920
And so these stations receive a huge subsidy, which they are eager to maintain.

129
00:11:57.920 --> 00:12:02.960
But on the other hand, the Federal Government, as the licensor of the airwaves, asserts the

130
00:12:02.960 --> 00:12:07.840
right and the power to regulate the stations minutely and continuously.

131
00:12:07.840 --> 00:12:13.840
Thus, over the head of each station is the club of the threat of non-renewal or even

132
00:12:13.840 --> 00:12:16.740
suspension of its license.

133
00:12:16.740 --> 00:12:22.480
In consequence, the idea of freedom of speech in radio and television is no more than a

134
00:12:22.480 --> 00:12:23.480
mockery.

135
00:12:23.480 --> 00:12:28.600
Every station is grievously restricted and forced to fashion its programming to the dictates

136
00:12:28.600 --> 00:12:31.440
of the Federal Communications Commission.

137
00:12:31.440 --> 00:12:37.680
So every station must have balanced programming, broadcast a certain amount of public service

138
00:12:37.680 --> 00:12:43.960
announcements, grant equal time to every political candidate for the same office and to expressions

139
00:12:43.960 --> 00:12:50.840
of political opinion, censor controversial lyrics in the records it plays, etc.

140
00:12:50.840 --> 00:12:56.720
For many years, no station was allowed to broadcast any editorial opinion at all.

141
00:12:56.720 --> 00:13:03.960
Now every opinion must be balanced by responsible editorial rebuttals.

142
00:13:03.960 --> 00:13:08.600
Because every station and every broadcaster must always look over its shoulder at the

143
00:13:08.600 --> 00:13:13.520
FCC, free expression in broadcasting is a sham.

144
00:13:13.520 --> 00:13:18.240
Is it any wonder that television opinion, when it is expressed at all on controversial

145
00:13:18.240 --> 00:13:23.360
Issues tends to be blandly in favor of the establishment?

146
00:13:23.360 --> 00:13:28.200
The public has only put up with this situation because it has existed since the beginning

147
00:13:28.200 --> 00:13:31.160
of large-scale commercial radio.

148
00:13:31.160 --> 00:13:35.440
But what would we think, for example, if all newspapers were licensed?

149
00:13:35.440 --> 00:13:41.000
The licenses to be renewable by a federal press commission, and with newspapers losing

150
00:13:41.000 --> 00:13:47.280
their licenses if they dare express an unfair editorial opinion, or if they don't give

151
00:13:47.280 --> 00:13:50.720
full weight to public service announcements.

152
00:13:50.720 --> 00:13:55.900
Would not this be an intolerable, not to say unconstitutional, destruction of the right

153
00:13:55.900 --> 00:13:58.040
to a free press?

154
00:13:58.040 --> 00:14:03.520
Or consider if all book publishers had to be licensed, and their licenses were not renewable

155
00:14:03.520 --> 00:14:07.360
if their book lists failed to suit a federal book commission.

156
00:14:07.360 --> 00:14:13.320
Yet, what we would all consider intolerable and totalitarian for the press and the book

157
00:14:13.320 --> 00:14:18.320
Publishers is taken for granted in a medium which is now the most popular vehicle for

158
00:14:18.320 --> 00:14:25.640
expression and education, radio and television, yet the principles in both cases are exactly

159
00:14:25.640 --> 00:14:27.800
the same.

160
00:14:27.800 --> 00:14:33.840
Here we see too one of the fatal flaws in the idea of democratic socialism, that is,

161
00:14:33.840 --> 00:14:39.620
the idea that the government should own all resources and means of production, yet preserve

162
00:14:39.620 --> 00:14:44.780
Reserve and Maintain Freedom of Speech and the Press for all its citizens.

163
00:14:44.780 --> 00:14:50.860
An abstract constitution guaranteeing freedom of the press is meaningless in a socialist

164
00:14:50.860 --> 00:14:52.260
society.

165
00:14:52.260 --> 00:14:57.820
The point is that where the government owns all the newsprint, the paper, the presses,

166
00:14:57.820 --> 00:15:04.460
etc., the government as owner must decide how to allocate the newsprint and the paper,

167
00:15:04.460 --> 00:15:06.700
and what to print on them.

168
00:15:06.700 --> 00:15:12.000
Just as the government as street owner must make a decision how the street will be used,

169
00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:17.900
so a socialist government will have to decide how to allocate newsprint and all other resources

170
00:15:17.900 --> 00:15:25.340
involved in the areas of speech and press, assembly halls, machines, trucks, etc.

171
00:15:25.340 --> 00:15:30.500
Any government may profess its devotion to freedom of the press, yet allocate all of its

172
00:15:30.500 --> 00:15:33.980
newsprint only to its defenders and supporters.

173
00:15:33.980 --> 00:15:36.900
A free press is again a mockery.

174
00:15:36.900 --> 00:15:42.640
Furthermore, why should a socialist government allocate any considerable amount of its scarce

175
00:15:42.640 --> 00:15:45.340
resources to anti-socialists?

176
00:15:45.340 --> 00:15:50.620
The problem of genuine freedom of the press then becomes insoluble.

177
00:15:50.620 --> 00:15:53.180
The solution for radio and television?

178
00:15:53.180 --> 00:15:54.180
Simple.

179
00:15:54.180 --> 00:15:59.420
Treat these media precisely the same way the press and book publishers are treated.

180
00:15:59.420 --> 00:16:04.020
For both the libertarian and the believer in the American Constitution, the government

181
00:16:04.020 --> 00:16:10.980
should withdraw completely from any role or interference in all media of expression.

182
00:16:10.980 --> 00:16:17.380
In short, the federal government should denationalize the airwaves and give or sell the individual

183
00:16:17.380 --> 00:16:20.220
channels to private ownership.

184
00:16:20.220 --> 00:16:26.620
When private stations genuinely own their channels, they will be truly free and independent.

185
00:16:26.620 --> 00:16:31.700
They will be able to put on any programs they wish to produce or that they feel their listeners

186
00:16:31.700 --> 00:16:37.140
want to hear, and they will be able to express themselves in whichever way they wish without

187
00:16:37.140 --> 00:16:39.820
fear of government retaliation.

188
00:16:39.820 --> 00:16:44.820
They will also be able to sell or rent the airwaves to whomever they wish, and in that

189
00:16:44.820 --> 00:16:50.220
way the users of the channels will no longer be artificially subsidized.

190
00:16:50.220 --> 00:17:05.220
Furthermore, if TV channels become free, privately owned and independent, the big networks will no longer be able to put pressure upon the FCC to outlaw the effective competition of pay television.

191
00:17:05.220 --> 00:17:12.220
It is only because the FCC has outlawed pay TV that it has not been able to gain a foothold.

192
00:17:12.220 --> 00:17:16.220
Free TV is of course not truly free.

193
00:17:16.220 --> 00:17:25.220
The programs are paid for by the advertisers, and the consumer pays by covering the advertising costs in the price of the product he buys.

194
00:17:25.220 --> 00:17:35.220
One might ask what difference it makes to the consumer whether he pays the advertising costs indirectly or pays directly for each program he buys.

195
00:17:35.220 --> 00:17:40.220
The difference is that these are not the same consumers for the same products.

196
00:17:40.220 --> 00:17:46.420
The television advertiser, for example, is always interested in a. gaining the

197
00:17:46.420 --> 00:17:52.540
widest possible viewing market and b. in gaining those particular viewers who

198
00:17:52.540 --> 00:17:58.180
will be most susceptible to his message. Hence the programs will all be geared to

199
00:17:58.180 --> 00:18:02.620
the lowest common denominator in the audience and particularly to those

200
00:18:02.620 --> 00:18:07.860
viewers most susceptible to the message, that is, those viewers who do not read

201
00:18:07.860 --> 00:18:21.260
Free TV programs tend to be unimaginative, bland and uniform.

202
00:18:21.260 --> 00:18:27.080
Pay TV would mean that each program would search for its own market, and many specialized

203
00:18:27.080 --> 00:18:33.340
markets for specialized audiences would develop, just as highly lucrative specialized markets

204
00:18:33.340 --> 00:18:37.340
have developed in the magazine and book publishing fields.

205
00:18:37.340 --> 00:18:42.560
The quality of programs would be higher and the offerings far more diverse.

206
00:18:42.560 --> 00:18:49.100
In fact, the menace of potential pay-TV competition must be great for the networks to lobby for

207
00:18:49.100 --> 00:18:51.660
years to keep it suppressed.

208
00:18:51.660 --> 00:18:57.580
But of course, in a truly free market, both forms of television, as well as cable TV and

209
00:18:57.580 --> 00:19:03.700
other forms we cannot yet envision, could and would enter the competition.

210
00:19:03.700 --> 00:19:08.740
One common argument against private ownership of TV channels is that these channels are

211
00:19:08.740 --> 00:19:14.060
scarce and therefore have to be owned and parceled out by the government.

212
00:19:14.060 --> 00:19:17.020
To an economist, this is a silly argument.

213
00:19:17.020 --> 00:19:19.300
All resources are scarce.

214
00:19:19.300 --> 00:19:25.340
In fact, anything that has a price on the market commands that price precisely because

215
00:19:25.340 --> 00:19:27.220
it is scarce.

216
00:19:27.220 --> 00:19:33.380
We have to pay a certain amount for a loaf of bread, for shoes, for dresses, because they

217
00:19:33.380 --> 00:19:35.360
They are all scarce.

218
00:19:35.360 --> 00:19:40.500
If they were not scarce, but superabundant like air, they would be free, and no one would

219
00:19:40.500 --> 00:19:44.260
have to worry about their production or allocation.

220
00:19:44.260 --> 00:19:50.700
In the press area, newsprint is scarce, paper is scarce, printing machinery and trucks are

221
00:19:50.700 --> 00:19:52.700
scarce, etc.

222
00:19:52.700 --> 00:19:57.780
The more scarce they are, the higher the price they will command, and vice versa.

223
00:19:57.780 --> 00:20:03.220
Furthermore, and again pragmatically, there are far more television channels available

224
00:20:03.220 --> 00:20:05.380
than are now in use.

225
00:20:05.380 --> 00:20:12.320
The FCC's early decision to force stations into the VHF instead of the UHF zone created

226
00:20:12.320 --> 00:20:17.340
far more of a scarcity of channels than there needed to be.

227
00:20:17.340 --> 00:20:22.820
Another common objection to private property in the broadcast media is that private stations

228
00:20:22.820 --> 00:20:27.780
would interfere with each other's broadcasts, and that such widespread interference would

229
00:20:27.780 --> 00:20:32.500
virtually prevent any programs from being heard or seen.

230
00:20:32.500 --> 00:20:38.100
But this is as absurd an argument for nationalizing the airwaves as claiming that since people

231
00:20:38.100 --> 00:20:44.700
can drive their cars over other people's land, this means that all cars, or land, must

232
00:20:44.700 --> 00:20:46.620
be nationalized.

233
00:20:46.620 --> 00:20:52.520
The problem in either case is for the courts to demarcate property titles carefully enough

234
00:20:52.520 --> 00:20:59.120
so that any invasion of another's property will be clear cut and subject to prosecution.

235
00:20:59.120 --> 00:21:02.920
In the case of land titles, this process is clear enough.

236
00:21:02.920 --> 00:21:08.020
But the point is that the courts can apply a similar process of staking out property

237
00:21:08.020 --> 00:21:14.380
rights in other areas, whether it be in airwaves, in water, or in oil pools.

238
00:21:14.380 --> 00:21:20.020
In the case of airwaves, the task is to find the technological unit, that is, the place

239
00:21:20.020 --> 00:21:32.020
the place of transmission, the distance of the wave, and the technological width of a clear channel, and then to allocate property rights to this particular technological unit.

240
00:21:32.020 --> 00:21:46.020
If radio station WXYZ, for example, is assigned a property right in broadcasting on 1500 kilocycles, plus or minus a certain width of kilocycles, for 200 miles around Detroit,

241
00:21:46.020 --> 00:21:52.420
Then any station which subsequently beams a program into the Detroit area on this wavelength

242
00:21:52.420 --> 00:21:57.260
would be subject to prosecution for interference with property rights.

243
00:21:57.260 --> 00:22:02.100
If the courts pursue their task of demarking and defending property rights, then there

244
00:22:02.100 --> 00:22:09.940
is no more reason to expect continual invasions of such rights in this area than anywhere else.

245
00:22:09.940 --> 00:22:15.360
Most people believe that this is precisely the reason the airwaves were nationalized,

246
00:22:15.360 --> 00:22:22.760
before the Radio Act of 1927, stations interfered with each other's signals and chaos ensued,

247
00:22:22.760 --> 00:22:27.840
and the federal government was finally forced to step in to bring order and make a radio

248
00:22:27.840 --> 00:22:30.580
industry feasible at last.

249
00:22:30.580 --> 00:22:33.780
But this is historical legend, not fact.

250
00:22:33.780 --> 00:22:37.340
The actual history is precisely the opposite.

251
00:22:37.340 --> 00:22:42.380
For when interference on the same channel began to occur, the injured party took the

252
00:22:42.380 --> 00:22:48.140
Airwave Aggressors into Court, and the courts were beginning to bring order out of the chaos

253
00:22:48.140 --> 00:22:54.060
by very successfully applying the common law theory of property rights, in very many ways

254
00:22:54.060 --> 00:23:00.620
similar to the libertarian theory, to this new technological area. In short, the courts were

255
00:23:00.620 --> 00:23:06.860
beginning to assign property rights in the airwaves to their homesteading users. It was after the

256
00:23:06.860 --> 00:23:18.860
The Federal Government saw the likelihood of this new extension of private property that it rushed in to nationalize the airwaves, using alleged chaos as the excuse.

257
00:23:18.860 --> 00:23:30.860
To describe the picture a bit more fully, radio in the first years of the century was almost wholly a means of communication for ships, either ship-to-ship or ship-to-shore messages.

258
00:23:30.860 --> 00:23:36.860
The Navy Department was interested in regulating radio as a means of ensuring safety at sea,

259
00:23:36.860 --> 00:23:47.860
and the initial Federal Regulation, a 1912 Act, merely provided that any radio station had to have a license issued by the Secretary of Commerce.

260
00:23:47.860 --> 00:23:53.860
No powers to regulate or to decide not to renew licenses were written into the law, however,

261
00:23:53.860 --> 00:24:02.860
and when public broadcasting began in the early 1920s, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover attempted to regulate the stations.

262
00:24:02.860 --> 00:24:10.860
Court decisions in 1923 and 1926, however, struck down the government's power to regulate licenses,

263
00:24:10.860 --> 00:24:16.860
to fail to renew them, or even to decide on which wavelengths the stations should operate.

264
00:24:16.860 --> 00:24:23.400
At about the same time, the courts were working out the concept of homestead private property

265
00:24:23.400 --> 00:24:29.820
rights in the airwaves, notably in the case of Tribune Company vs. Oakleaves Broadcasting

266
00:24:29.820 --> 00:24:34.980
Station, Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, 1926.

267
00:24:34.980 --> 00:24:40.380
In this case, the court held that the operator of an existing station had a property right

268
00:24:40.380 --> 00:24:46.780
acquired by prior use, sufficient to enjoin a new station from using a radio frequency

269
00:24:46.780 --> 00:24:52.920
in any way so as to cause interference with the signals of the prior station.

270
00:24:52.920 --> 00:24:58.660
And so, order was being brought out of the chaos by means of the assignment of property

271
00:24:58.660 --> 00:24:59.660
rights.

272
00:24:59.660 --> 00:25:05.460
But it was precisely this development that the government rushed in to forestall.

273
00:25:05.460 --> 00:25:11.240
The 1926 Zenith decision striking down the government's power to regulate or to fail

274
00:25:11.240 --> 00:25:17.140
to renew licenses and forcing the Department of Commerce to issue licenses to any station

275
00:25:17.140 --> 00:25:22.260
that applied produced a great boom in the broadcasting industry.

276
00:25:22.260 --> 00:25:27.620
Over 200 new stations were created in the nine months after the decision.

277
00:25:27.620 --> 00:25:35.060
As a result, Congress rushed through a stopgap measure in July 1926 to prevent any property

278
00:25:35.060 --> 00:25:41.060
Rights in Radio Frequencies, and resolved that all licenses should be limited to 90 days.

279
00:25:42.260 --> 00:25:48.740
By February 1927, the Congress passed the law establishing the Federal Radio Commission,

280
00:25:48.740 --> 00:25:54.420
which nationalized the airwaves and established powers similar to those of the current FCC.

281
00:25:55.700 --> 00:26:02.180
That the aim of the knowledgeable politicians was not to prevent chaos, but to prevent private

282
00:26:02.180 --> 00:26:08.340
that Property in the Airwaves as the Solution to Chaos is demonstrated by the legal historian

283
00:26:08.340 --> 00:26:10.620
H. P. Warner.

284
00:26:10.620 --> 00:26:16.260
Warner states that grave fears were expressed by legislators and those generally charged

285
00:26:16.260 --> 00:26:21.220
with the administration of communications, that government regulation of an effective

286
00:26:21.220 --> 00:26:26.740
sort might be permanently prevented through the accrual of property rights in licenses

287
00:26:26.740 --> 00:26:32.780
Franchises or Means of Access, and that thus franchises of the value of millions of dollars

288
00:26:32.780 --> 00:26:35.980
might be established for all time.

289
00:26:35.980 --> 00:26:41.440
The net result, however, was to establish equally valuable franchises anyway, but in

290
00:26:41.440 --> 00:26:46.660
a monopolistic fashion through the largesse of the Federal Radio Commission, and later

291
00:26:46.660 --> 00:26:52.420
FCC, rather than through competitive homesteading.

292
00:26:52.420 --> 00:26:57.460
Among the numerous direct invasions of freedom of speech exercised by the licensing power

293
00:26:57.460 --> 00:27:02.800
of the FRC and FCC, two cases will suffice.

294
00:27:02.800 --> 00:27:09.560
One was in 1931, when the FRC denied renewal of license to a Mr. Baker, who operated a

295
00:27:09.560 --> 00:27:12.220
radio station in Iowa.

296
00:27:12.220 --> 00:27:14.660
In denying renewal, the commission said,

297
00:27:14.660 --> 00:27:20.240
This commission holds no brief for the medical associations and other parties whom Mr. Baker

298
00:27:20.240 --> 00:27:22.060
does not like.

299
00:27:22.060 --> 00:27:27.140
Their alleged sins may be at times of public importance to be called to the attention of

300
00:27:27.140 --> 00:27:30.240
the public over the air in the right way.

301
00:27:30.240 --> 00:27:36.160
But this record discloses that Mr. Baker does not do so in any high-minded way.

302
00:27:36.160 --> 00:27:42.860
It shows that he continually and erratically over the air rides a personal hobby, his cancer

303
00:27:42.860 --> 00:27:48.580
cure ideas and his likes and dislikes of certain persons and things.

304
00:27:48.580 --> 00:27:54.880
Surely his infliction of all this on the listeners is not the proper use of a broadcasting license.

305
00:27:54.880 --> 00:27:58.980
Many of his utterances are vulgar, if not indeed indecent.

306
00:27:58.980 --> 00:28:04.060
Assuredly, they are not uplifting or entertaining.

307
00:28:04.060 --> 00:28:09.240
Can we imagine the outcry if the Federal Government were to put a newspaper or a book publisher

308
00:28:09.240 --> 00:28:12.860
out of business on similar grounds?

309
00:28:12.860 --> 00:28:19.860
A recent act of the FCC was to threaten non-renewal of license of radio station KTRG in Honolulu,

310
00:28:20.620 --> 00:28:27.300
a major radio station in Hawaii. KTRG had been broadcasting libertarian programs for

311
00:28:27.300 --> 00:28:34.300
several hours a day for approximately two years. Finally, in late 1970, the FCC decided

312
00:28:34.780 --> 00:28:41.060
to open lengthy hearings moving toward non-renewal of license, the threatened cost of which

313
00:28:41.060 --> 00:28:50.060
Pornography

314
00:28:50.060 --> 00:28:55.220
To the libertarian, the arguments between conservatives and liberals over laws prohibiting

315
00:28:55.220 --> 00:28:59.320
pornography are distressingly beside the point.

316
00:28:59.320 --> 00:29:04.520
The conservative position tends to hold that pornography is debasing and immoral and therefore

317
00:29:04.520 --> 00:29:06.980
should be outlawed.

318
00:29:06.980 --> 00:29:11.320
People tend to counter that sex is good and healthy and that therefore pornography will

319
00:29:11.320 --> 00:29:16.700
only have good effects and that depictions of violence, say on television, in movies

320
00:29:16.700 --> 00:29:20.680
or in comic books, should be outlawed instead.

321
00:29:20.680 --> 00:29:27.040
Neither side deals with the crucial point that the good, bad or indifferent consequences

322
00:29:27.040 --> 00:29:33.060
of pornography, while perhaps an interesting problem in its own right, is completely irrelevant

323
00:29:33.060 --> 00:29:36.720
to the question of whether or not it should be outlawed.

324
00:29:36.720 --> 00:29:43.120
The Libertarian holds that it is not the business of the law, the use of retaliatory violence,

325
00:29:43.120 --> 00:29:46.840
to enforce anyone's conception of morality.

326
00:29:46.840 --> 00:29:51.440
It is not the business of the law, even if this were practically possible, which is of

327
00:29:51.440 --> 00:29:59.080
course most unlikely, to make anyone good or reverent or moral or clean or upright.

328
00:29:59.080 --> 00:30:02.980
This is for each individual to decide for himself.

329
00:30:02.980 --> 00:30:08.960
It is only the business of legal violence to defend people against the use of violence,

330
00:30:08.960 --> 00:30:13.840
to defend them from violent invasions of their person or property.

331
00:30:13.840 --> 00:30:20.680
But if the government presumes to outlaw pornography, it itself becomes the genuine outlaw, for

332
00:30:20.680 --> 00:30:27.140
it is invading the property rights of people to produce, sell, buy or possess pornographic

333
00:30:27.140 --> 00:30:29.020
material.

334
00:30:29.020 --> 00:30:32.320
We do not pass laws to make people upright.

335
00:30:32.320 --> 00:30:37.060
We do not pass laws to force people to be kind to their neighbors or not to yell at

336
00:30:37.060 --> 00:30:38.640
the bus driver.

337
00:30:38.640 --> 00:30:43.100
We do not pass laws to force people to be honest with their loved ones.

338
00:30:43.100 --> 00:30:48.420
We do not pass laws to force them to eat X amount of vitamins per day.

339
00:30:48.420 --> 00:30:53.940
Neither is it the business of government nor of any legal agency to pass laws against the

340
00:30:53.940 --> 00:30:57.900
voluntary production or sale of pornography.

341
00:30:57.900 --> 00:31:04.980
Whether pornography is good, bad, or indifferent should be of no interest to the legal authorities.

342
00:31:04.980 --> 00:31:10.460
The same holds true for the liberal bugbear of the pornography of violence.

343
00:31:10.460 --> 00:31:16.100
Whether or not watching violence on television helps lead to actual crimes should not come

344
00:31:16.100 --> 00:31:18.660
under the purview of the state.

345
00:31:18.660 --> 00:31:24.800
To outlaw violent films because they might someday induce someone to commit a crime is

346
00:31:24.800 --> 00:31:30.640
is a denial of man's free will, and a total denial, of course, of the right of those who

347
00:31:30.640 --> 00:31:34.440
will not commit crimes to see the film.

348
00:31:34.440 --> 00:31:41.500
But more important, it is no more justifiable, in fact, less so, to outlaw violent films

349
00:31:41.500 --> 00:31:47.720
for this reason than it would be, as we have noted, to lock up all teenage negro males

350
00:31:47.720 --> 00:31:53.480
because they have a greater tendency to commit crime than the rest of the population.

351
00:31:53.480 --> 00:31:58.080
It should be clear, too, that prohibition of pornography is an invasion of property

352
00:31:58.080 --> 00:32:04.060
right, of the right to produce, sell, buy and own.

353
00:32:04.060 --> 00:32:08.260
Conservatives who call for the outlawing of pornography do not seem to realize that they

354
00:32:08.260 --> 00:32:14.640
are thereby violating the very concept of property rights they profess to champion.

355
00:32:14.640 --> 00:32:20.500
It is also a violation of freedom of the press, which, as we have seen, is really a subset

356
00:32:20.500 --> 00:32:24.180
of the General Right of Private Property.

357
00:32:24.180 --> 00:32:30.140
Sometimes it seems that the beau-idéal of many conservatives, as well as of many liberals,

358
00:32:30.140 --> 00:32:35.920
is to put everyone into a cage and coerce him into doing what the conservatives or liberals

359
00:32:35.920 --> 00:32:38.860
believe to be the moral thing.

360
00:32:38.860 --> 00:32:44.920
They would, of course, be differently styled cages, but they would be cages just the same.

361
00:32:44.920 --> 00:32:51.140
The conservative would ban illicit sex, drugs, gambling, and impiety, and coerce everyone

362
00:32:51.140 --> 00:32:56.000
to act according to his version of moral and religious behavior.

363
00:32:56.000 --> 00:33:03.000
The liberal would ban films of violence, unesthetic advertising, football, and racial discrimination,

364
00:33:03.000 --> 00:33:08.640
and at the extreme, place everyone in a skinner box, to be run by a supposedly benevolent

365
00:33:08.640 --> 00:33:10.600
liberal dictator.

366
00:33:10.600 --> 00:33:17.120
But the effect would be the same, to reduce everyone to a sub-human level, and to deprive

367
00:33:17.120 --> 00:33:24.440
everyone of the most precious part of his or her humanity, the freedom to choose.

368
00:33:24.440 --> 00:33:30.800
The irony, of course, is that by forcing men to be moral, that is, to act morally, the

369
00:33:30.800 --> 00:33:36.880
conservative or liberal jailkeepers would in reality deprive men of the very possibility

370
00:33:36.880 --> 00:33:38.840
of being moral.

371
00:33:38.840 --> 00:33:45.600
The concept of morality makes no sense unless the moral act is freely chosen.

372
00:33:45.600 --> 00:33:50.320
Suppose for example that someone is a devout Muslim who is anxious to have as many people

373
00:33:50.320 --> 00:33:54.120
as possible bow to Mecca three times a day.

374
00:33:54.120 --> 00:33:58.300
To him, let us suppose this is the highest moral act.

375
00:33:58.300 --> 00:34:05.100
But if he wields coercion to force everyone to bow to Mecca, he is thereby depriving everyone

376
00:34:05.100 --> 00:34:11.540
Man of the opportunity to be moral, to choose freely, to bow to Mecca.

377
00:34:11.540 --> 00:34:16.660
Coercion deprives a man of the freedom to choose, and therefore of the possibility of

378
00:34:16.660 --> 00:34:19.180
choosing morally.

379
00:34:19.180 --> 00:34:24.980
The libertarian, in contrast to so many conservatives and liberals, does not want to place man in

380
00:34:24.980 --> 00:34:26.660
any cage.

381
00:34:26.660 --> 00:34:33.000
What he wants for everyone is freedom, the freedom to act, morally or immorally, as each

382
00:34:33.000 --> 00:34:37.000
Which Man Shall Decide?

383
00:34:37.000 --> 00:34:39.260
Sex Laws

384
00:34:39.260 --> 00:34:43.940
In recent years, liberals have fortunately been coming to the conclusion that any act

385
00:34:43.940 --> 00:34:48.860
between two or more consenting adults should be legal.

386
00:34:48.860 --> 00:34:54.300
It is unfortunate that the liberals have not yet widened this criterion from sex to trade

387
00:34:54.300 --> 00:35:00.900
and exchange, for if they ever would, they would be close to becoming full-scale libertarians.

388
00:35:00.900 --> 00:35:06.620
For the libertarian is precisely interested in legalizing all interrelations whatever

389
00:35:06.620 --> 00:35:09.900
between consenting adults.

390
00:35:09.900 --> 00:35:15.380
Liberals have also begun to call for the abolition of victimless crimes, which would be splendid

391
00:35:15.380 --> 00:35:22.100
if victims were defined with greater precision as victims of aggressive violence.

392
00:35:22.100 --> 00:35:27.520
Since sex is a uniquely private aspect of life, it is particularly intolerable that

393
00:35:27.520 --> 00:35:31.840
Governments should presume to regulate and legislate sexual behavior.

394
00:35:31.840 --> 00:35:37.480
Yet, of course, this has been one of the state's favorite pastimes.

395
00:35:37.480 --> 00:35:42.160
Violent acts, such as rape, of course, are to be classed as crimes, in the same way as

396
00:35:42.160 --> 00:35:46.280
any other act of violence against persons.

397
00:35:46.280 --> 00:35:52.480
Oddly enough, while voluntary sexual activities have often been rendered illegal and prosecuted

398
00:35:52.480 --> 00:35:58.100
by the State. Accused rapists have been treated far more gently by the authorities than accused

399
00:35:58.100 --> 00:36:04.940
perpetrators of other forms of bodily assault. In many instances, in fact, the rape victim

400
00:36:04.940 --> 00:36:10.600
has been virtually treated as the guilty party by the law enforcement agencies, an attitude

401
00:36:10.600 --> 00:36:16.460
which is almost never taken toward victims of other crimes. Clearly, an impermissible

402
00:36:16.460 --> 00:36:22.340
sexual double standard has been at work. As the National Board of the American Civil Liberties

403
00:36:22.340 --> 00:36:28.900
Union declared in March 1977, sexual assault victims should be treated no differently from

404
00:36:28.900 --> 00:36:35.140
victims of other crimes. Sexual assault victims are often treated with skepticism and abuse at

405
00:36:35.140 --> 00:36:41.060
the hands of law enforcement and health services personnel. This treatment ranges from official

406
00:36:41.060 --> 00:36:47.620
disbelief and insensitivity to cruel and harsh probes of the victim's lifestyle and motivation.

407
00:36:47.620 --> 00:36:48.620
Education.

408
00:36:48.620 --> 00:36:55.220
Such abrogation of responsibility by institutions meant to assist and protect victims of crime

409
00:36:55.220 --> 00:37:01.300
can only compound the trauma of the victim's original experience.

410
00:37:01.300 --> 00:37:06.500
The double standard imposed by government can be remedied by removing rape as a special

411
00:37:06.500 --> 00:37:11.940
category of legal and judicial treatment, and of subsuming it under the general law

412
00:37:11.940 --> 00:37:14.340
of bodily assault.

413
00:37:14.340 --> 00:37:20.420
Whatever standards are used for judges' instructions to the jury or for the admissibility of evidence

414
00:37:20.420 --> 00:37:25.260
should be applied similarly in all these cases.

415
00:37:25.260 --> 00:37:30.780
If labor and persons in general are to be free, then so should there be freedom for

416
00:37:30.780 --> 00:37:33.180
prostitution.

417
00:37:33.180 --> 00:37:37.940
Prostitution is a voluntary sale of a labor service, and the government has no right to

418
00:37:37.940 --> 00:37:41.500
prohibit or restrict such sales.

419
00:37:41.500 --> 00:37:46.180
It should be noted that many of the grimmer aspects of the streetwalking trade have been

420
00:37:46.180 --> 00:37:50.040
brought about by the outlawing of brothels.

421
00:37:50.040 --> 00:37:56.100
As long-lasting houses of prostitution operated by madams anxious to cultivate goodwill among

422
00:37:56.100 --> 00:38:03.160
customers over a long time span, brothels used to compete to provide high-quality service

423
00:38:03.160 --> 00:38:06.040
and build up their brand name.

424
00:38:06.040 --> 00:38:12.560
The outlawing of brothels has forced prostitution into a black market fly-by-night existence,

425
00:38:12.560 --> 00:38:17.440
with all the dangers and general decline in quality this always entails.

426
00:38:17.440 --> 00:38:22.360
Recently, in New York City, there has been a tendency for the police to crack down on

427
00:38:22.360 --> 00:38:28.420
prostitution with the excuse that the trade is no longer victimless, since many prostitutes

428
00:38:28.420 --> 00:38:31.660
commit crimes against their customers.

429
00:38:31.660 --> 00:38:38.620
To outlaw trades that may attract crime, however, would in the same way justify prohibition,

430
00:38:38.620 --> 00:38:41.700
because many fights take place in bars.

431
00:38:41.700 --> 00:38:47.660
The answer is not to outlaw the voluntary and truly lawful activity, but for the police

432
00:38:47.660 --> 00:38:52.340
to see to it that the genuine crimes do not get committed.

433
00:38:52.340 --> 00:38:58.180
It should be clear that advocacy of freedom for prostitution does not, for the libertarian,

434
00:38:58.180 --> 00:39:02.740
and the least imply advocacy of prostitution itself.

435
00:39:02.740 --> 00:39:09.500
In short, if a particularly puritanical government were to outlaw all cosmetics, the libertarian

436
00:39:09.500 --> 00:39:15.500
would call for legalizing cosmetics, without in any sense implying that he favors, or for

437
00:39:15.500 --> 00:39:20.340
that matter, opposes, the use of cosmetics themselves.

438
00:39:20.340 --> 00:39:26.260
On the contrary, depending upon his personal ethics or aesthetics, he might well agitate

439
00:39:26.260 --> 00:39:30.740
against the use of cosmetics after they become legalized.

440
00:39:30.740 --> 00:39:36.380
His attempt is always to persuade rather than to compel.

441
00:39:36.380 --> 00:39:42.040
If sex should be free, then birth control should, of course, be free as well.

442
00:39:42.040 --> 00:39:46.700
It is unfortunately characteristic of our society, however, that scarcely has birth

443
00:39:46.700 --> 00:39:52.900
control been made legal when people, in this case liberals, arise to agitate for birth

444
00:39:52.900 --> 00:39:56.260
Both control being made compulsory.

445
00:39:56.260 --> 00:40:01.040
It is true, of course, that if my neighbor has a baby, this may well affect me for good

446
00:40:01.040 --> 00:40:07.400
or ill, but then almost everything that anyone does may affect one or more people.

447
00:40:07.400 --> 00:40:13.500
To the libertarian, this is scarcely justification for using force, which may only be used to

448
00:40:13.500 --> 00:40:17.300
combat or restrain force itself.

449
00:40:17.300 --> 00:40:22.740
There is no right more personal, no freedom more precious, than for any woman to decide

450
00:40:22.740 --> 00:40:25.880
to have or not to have a baby.

451
00:40:25.880 --> 00:40:31.500
And it is totalitarian in the extreme for any government to presume to deny her that

452
00:40:31.500 --> 00:40:32.500
right.

453
00:40:32.500 --> 00:40:38.620
Besides, if any family has more children than it can support in comfort, the family itself

454
00:40:38.620 --> 00:40:40.340
will bear the main burden.

455
00:40:40.340 --> 00:40:45.660
Hence, the almost universal result that the wish to preserve a treasured rise in living

456
00:40:45.660 --> 00:40:56.580
This brings us to the more complex case of abortion.

457
00:40:56.580 --> 00:41:02.900
For the libertarian, the Catholic case against abortion, even if finally rejected as invalid,

458
00:41:02.900 --> 00:41:05.420
cannot be dismissed out of hand.

459
00:41:05.420 --> 00:41:11.320
For the essence of that case, not really Catholic at all in a theological sense, is that abortion

460
00:41:11.320 --> 00:41:17.440
Abortion destroys a human life, and is therefore murder, and hence cannot be condoned.

461
00:41:17.440 --> 00:41:22.800
More than that, if abortion is truly murder, then the Catholic, or any other person who

462
00:41:22.800 --> 00:41:28.760
shares this view, cannot just shrug his shoulders and say that Catholic views should not be

463
00:41:28.760 --> 00:41:31.840
imposed upon non-Catholics.

464
00:41:31.840 --> 00:41:35.360
Murder is not an expression of religious preference.

465
00:41:35.360 --> 00:41:41.080
No sect, in the name of freedom of religion, can or should get away with committing murder

466
00:41:41.080 --> 00:41:44.720
with the plea that its religion so commands.

467
00:41:44.720 --> 00:41:50.640
The vital question then becomes, should abortion be considered as murder?

468
00:41:50.640 --> 00:41:56.940
Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when

469
00:41:56.940 --> 00:42:01.600
or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc.

470
00:42:01.600 --> 00:42:07.320
All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality, again, not necessarily the

471
00:42:07.320 --> 00:42:10.400
morality of abortion.

472
00:42:10.400 --> 00:42:15.440
The Catholic anti-abortionist, for example, declares that all he wants for the fetus is

473
00:42:15.440 --> 00:42:20.480
the rights of any human being, that is, the right not to be murdered.

474
00:42:20.480 --> 00:42:25.040
But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration.

475
00:42:25.040 --> 00:42:30.400
If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask, what

476
00:42:30.400 --> 00:42:36.760
human has the right to remain unbidden as an unwanted parasite within some other human

477
00:42:36.760 --> 00:42:39.040
being's body?

478
00:42:39.040 --> 00:42:45.460
This is the nub of the issue, the absolute right of every person, and hence every woman,

479
00:42:45.460 --> 00:42:48.380
to the ownership of her own body.

480
00:42:48.380 --> 00:42:53.640
What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body

481
00:42:53.640 --> 00:42:56.220
to be ejected from it.

482
00:42:56.220 --> 00:43:02.620
If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live unbidden

483
00:43:02.620 --> 00:43:07.940
as a parasite within or upon some person's body.

484
00:43:07.940 --> 00:43:13.580
The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing

485
00:43:13.580 --> 00:43:18.160
the fetus within her body is again beside the point.

486
00:43:18.160 --> 00:43:23.100
Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother as

487
00:43:23.100 --> 00:43:30.120
the property owner in her own body has the right to change her mind and to eject it.

488
00:43:30.120 --> 00:43:35.580
If the state should not repress voluntary sexual activity, neither should it discriminate

489
00:43:35.580 --> 00:43:39.180
for or against either sex.

490
00:43:39.180 --> 00:43:44.460
Affirmative action decrees are an obvious way of compelling discrimination against males

491
00:43:44.460 --> 00:43:50.100
or other groups in employment, admissions, or wherever this implicit quota system is

492
00:43:50.100 --> 00:43:51.740
applied.

493
00:43:51.740 --> 00:43:58.180
But protective labor laws in regard to women insidiously pretend to favor women when they

494
00:43:58.180 --> 00:44:03.700
really discriminate against them by prohibiting them from working during certain hours or

495
00:44:03.700 --> 00:44:06.300
or in certain occupations.

496
00:44:06.300 --> 00:44:11.500
Women are prevented by law from exercising their individual freedom of choice in deciding

497
00:44:11.500 --> 00:44:17.780
for themselves whether or not to enter these occupations or to work during these supposedly

498
00:44:17.780 --> 00:44:19.780
onerous hours.

499
00:44:19.780 --> 00:44:26.940
In this way, government prevents women from competing freely against men in these areas.

500
00:44:26.940 --> 00:44:33.660
All in all, the 1978 Libertarian Party platform is trenchant and to the point in setting forth

501
00:44:33.660 --> 00:44:38.860
The Libertarian Position on Governmental Sex or Other Discrimination

502
00:44:38.860 --> 00:44:44.940
No individual rights should be denied or abridged by the laws of the United States or any state

503
00:44:44.940 --> 00:44:56.380
or locality on account of sex, race, color, creed, age, national origin, or sexual preference.

504
00:44:56.380 --> 00:44:59.020
Wire Tapping

505
00:44:59.020 --> 00:45:04.240
Wire tapping is a contemptible invasion of privacy and of property right, and of course

506
00:45:04.240 --> 00:45:07.880
should be outlawed as an invasive act.

507
00:45:07.880 --> 00:45:11.980
Few if any people would condone private wire tapping.

508
00:45:11.980 --> 00:45:16.860
The controversy arises with those who maintain that the police should be able to tap the

509
00:45:16.860 --> 00:45:20.540
wires of persons they suspect as criminals.

510
00:45:20.540 --> 00:45:24.440
Otherwise, how would criminals be caught?

511
00:45:24.440 --> 00:45:29.600
In the first place, from the pragmatic viewpoint, it is rare that wiretapping is effective in

512
00:45:29.600 --> 00:45:34.000
such one-shot crimes as bank robbery.

513
00:45:34.000 --> 00:45:38.840
Wiretapping is generally used in cases where the business is set up on a regularized and

514
00:45:38.840 --> 00:45:45.600
continuing basis, such as narcotics and gambling, and is therefore vulnerable to espionage and

515
00:45:45.600 --> 00:45:46.600
bugging.

516
00:45:46.600 --> 00:45:52.420
Secondly, we remain with our contention that it is itself criminal to invade the property

517
00:45:52.420 --> 00:45:56.480
of Anyone Not Yet Convicted of a Crime.

518
00:45:56.480 --> 00:46:01.960
It may well be true, for example, that if the government employed a 10 million man espionage

519
00:46:01.960 --> 00:46:08.440
force to spy upon and tap the wires of the entire population, the total amount of private

520
00:46:08.440 --> 00:46:13.860
crime would be reduced, just as it would if all ghetto residents or teenage males were

521
00:46:13.860 --> 00:46:15.980
promptly incarcerated.

522
00:46:15.980 --> 00:46:21.480
But what would this be compared to the mass crime that would thus be committed, legally

523
00:46:21.480 --> 00:46:30.580
There is one concession we might make to the police argument, but it is doubtful the police

524
00:46:30.580 --> 00:46:33.360
would be happy with the concession.

525
00:46:33.360 --> 00:46:39.200
It is proper to invade the property of a thief, for example, who has himself invaded, to a

526
00:46:39.200 --> 00:46:43.080
far greater extent, the property of others.

527
00:46:43.080 --> 00:46:47.280
Suppose the police decide that John Jones is a jewel thief.

528
00:46:47.280 --> 00:46:52.380
They tap his wires and use this evidence to convict Jones of the crime.

529
00:46:52.380 --> 00:46:58.260
We might say that this tapping is legitimate and should go unpunished, provided, however,

530
00:46:58.260 --> 00:47:03.900
that if Jones should prove not to be a thief, the police and the judges who may have issued

531
00:47:03.900 --> 00:47:09.680
the court order for the tap are now to be adjudged criminals themselves and sent to

532
00:47:09.680 --> 00:47:13.880
jail for their crime of unjust wiretapping.

533
00:47:13.880 --> 00:47:17.280
This reform would have two happy consequences.

534
00:47:17.280 --> 00:47:22.640
No policeman or judge would participate in wiretapping unless he was dead certain the

535
00:47:22.640 --> 00:47:25.400
victim is indeed a criminal.

536
00:47:25.400 --> 00:47:30.840
And the police and judges would at last join everyone else as equally subject to the rule

537
00:47:30.840 --> 00:47:33.680
of the criminal law.

538
00:47:33.680 --> 00:47:38.440
Certainly equality of liberty requires that the law applies to everyone.

539
00:47:38.440 --> 00:47:44.960
Therefore, any invasion of the property of a non-criminal by anyone should be outlawed,

540
00:47:44.960 --> 00:47:47.760
regardless of who committed the deed.

541
00:47:47.760 --> 00:47:53.060
The policeman who guessed wrong and thereby aggressed against a non-criminal should therefore

542
00:47:53.060 --> 00:48:00.100
be considered just as guilty as any private wiretapper.

543
00:48:00.100 --> 00:48:04.820
Gambling There are few laws more absurd and iniquitous

544
00:48:04.820 --> 00:48:07.300
than the laws against gambling.

545
00:48:07.300 --> 00:48:12.620
In the first place, the law, in its broadest sense, is clearly unenforceable.

546
00:48:12.620 --> 00:48:17.820
If every time Jim and Jack made a quiet bet on a football game, or on an election, or

547
00:48:17.820 --> 00:48:24.320
on virtually anything else, this were illegal, an enormous multi-million-man Gestapo would

548
00:48:24.320 --> 00:48:31.580
be required to enforce such a law, and to spy on everyone and ferret out every bet.

549
00:48:31.580 --> 00:48:36.760
Another large super-espionage force would then be needed to spy on the spies, to make

550
00:48:36.760 --> 00:48:40.600
make sure that they have not been bought off.

551
00:48:40.600 --> 00:48:45.920
Conservatives like to retort to such arguments, used against laws outlawing sexual practices,

552
00:48:45.920 --> 00:48:52.400
pornography, drugs, etc., that the prohibition against murder is not fully enforceable either,

553
00:48:52.400 --> 00:48:56.120
but this is no argument for repeal of that law.

554
00:48:56.120 --> 00:48:59.240
This argument, however, ignores a crucial point.

555
00:48:59.240 --> 00:49:04.820
The mass of the public, making an instinctive libertarian distinction, abhors and condemns

556
00:49:04.820 --> 00:49:08.100
was murder and does not engage in it.

557
00:49:08.100 --> 00:49:11.700
Hence the prohibition becomes broadly enforceable.

558
00:49:11.700 --> 00:49:17.120
But the mass of the public is not as convinced of the criminality of gambling, hence continues

559
00:49:17.120 --> 00:49:23.100
to engage in it, and the law, properly, becomes unenforceable.

560
00:49:23.100 --> 00:49:28.120
Since the laws against quiet betting are clearly unenforceable, the authorities decide

561
00:49:28.120 --> 00:49:34.060
to concentrate on certain highly visible forms of gambling and confine their activities to

562
00:49:34.060 --> 00:49:41.060
The Theory of Money and Credit The Theory of Money and Credit

563
00:50:04.060 --> 00:50:09.060
In New York State, a particular form of imbecility developed over the years.

564
00:50:09.060 --> 00:50:16.060
Until recent years, all forms of horse betting were illegal, except those made at the tracks themselves.

565
00:50:16.060 --> 00:50:22.060
Why horse betting at aqueduct or Belmont racetrack should be perfectly moral and legitimate,

566
00:50:22.060 --> 00:50:27.060
while betting on the same race with your friendly neighborhood bookie should be sinful

567
00:50:27.060 --> 00:50:32.060
and bring down the awful majesty of the law, defies the imagination.

568
00:50:32.060 --> 00:50:39.060
Unless, of course, if we consider the point of the law to force bettors to swell the coffers of the tracks.

569
00:50:39.060 --> 00:50:42.060
Recently, a new wrinkle has developed.

570
00:50:42.060 --> 00:50:51.060
The City of New York has itself gone into the horse-betting business, and betting at city-owned stores is perfectly fine and proper,

571
00:50:51.060 --> 00:50:57.060
while betting with competing private bookies continues to be sinful and outlawed.

572
00:50:57.060 --> 00:51:03.020
Clearly the point of the system is first to confer a special privilege upon the racetracks,

573
00:51:03.020 --> 00:51:07.100
and then upon the city's own betting installation.

574
00:51:07.100 --> 00:51:12.420
Various states are also beginning to finance their ever-growing expenditures through lotteries,

575
00:51:12.420 --> 00:51:17.540
which thus become conferred with the cloak of morality and respectability.

576
00:51:17.540 --> 00:51:22.380
A standard argument for outlawing gambling is that if the poor workman is allowed to

577
00:51:22.380 --> 00:51:29.500
To gamble, he will improvidently blow his weekly paycheck and thereby render his family destitute.

578
00:51:29.500 --> 00:51:35.020
Aside from the fact that he can now spend his payroll on friendly betting, this paternalistic

579
00:51:35.020 --> 00:51:40.700
and dictatorial argument is a curious one, for it proves far too much.

580
00:51:40.700 --> 00:51:45.780
If we must outlaw gambling because the masses might spend too much of their substance, why

581
00:51:45.780 --> 00:51:50.100
should we not outlaw many other articles of mass consumption?

582
00:51:50.100 --> 00:51:55.360
After all, if a workman is determined to blow his paycheck, he has many opportunities to

583
00:51:55.360 --> 00:51:56.480
do so.

584
00:51:56.480 --> 00:52:02.160
He can improvidently spend too much on a TV set, a hi-fi, liquor, baseball equipment,

585
00:52:02.160 --> 00:52:04.280
and countless other goodies.

586
00:52:04.280 --> 00:52:10.040
The logic of prohibiting a man from gambling for his own or his family's good leads straight

587
00:52:10.040 --> 00:52:16.120
to that totalitarian cage, the cage in which papa government tells the man exactly what

588
00:52:16.120 --> 00:52:21.800
What to do, how to spend his money, how many vitamins he must ingest, and forces him to

589
00:52:21.800 --> 00:52:27.400
obey the state's dictates.

590
00:52:27.400 --> 00:52:30.400
Narcotics and Other Drugs

591
00:52:30.400 --> 00:52:35.760
The case for outlawing any product or activity is essentially the same two-fold argument

592
00:52:35.760 --> 00:52:40.740
we have seen used to justify the compulsory commitment of mental patients.

593
00:52:40.740 --> 00:52:46.000
It will harm the person involved, or it will lead that person to commit crimes against

594
00:52:46.000 --> 00:52:53.560
It is curious that the general and justified horror of drugs has led the mass of the public

595
00:52:53.560 --> 00:52:57.480
to an irrational enthusiasm for outlawing them.

596
00:52:57.480 --> 00:53:03.600
The case against outlawing narcotic and hallucinogenic drugs is far weaker than the case against

597
00:53:03.600 --> 00:53:09.440
prohibition, an experiment which the grisly era of the 1920s has hopefully discredited

598
00:53:09.440 --> 00:53:11.520
for all time.

599
00:53:11.520 --> 00:53:18.400
For while narcotics are undoubtedly more harmful than is alcohol, the latter can also be harmful,

600
00:53:18.400 --> 00:53:23.600
and outlawing something because it may harm the user leads straight down the logical garden

601
00:53:23.600 --> 00:53:29.700
path to our totalitarian cage, where people are prohibited from eating candy and are forced

602
00:53:29.700 --> 00:53:32.920
to eat yogurt for their own good.

603
00:53:32.920 --> 00:53:38.580
But in the far more imposing argument about harm to others, alcohol is much more likely

604
00:53:38.580 --> 00:53:44.700
to lead to crimes, auto accidents, etc. than narcotics, which render the user preternaturally

605
00:53:44.700 --> 00:53:47.260
peaceful and passive.

606
00:53:47.260 --> 00:53:52.360
There is, of course, a very strong connection between addiction and crime, but the connection

607
00:53:52.360 --> 00:53:56.420
is the reverse of any argument for prohibition.

608
00:53:56.420 --> 00:54:01.620
Crimes are committed by addicts driven to theft by the high price of drugs caused by

609
00:54:01.620 --> 00:54:04.340
the outlawry itself.

610
00:54:04.340 --> 00:54:09.580
If narcotics were legal, the supply would greatly increase, the high costs of black

611
00:54:09.580 --> 00:54:14.820
markets and police payoffs would disappear, and the price would be low enough to eliminate

612
00:54:14.820 --> 00:54:18.020
most addict-caused crime.

613
00:54:18.020 --> 00:54:21.940
This is not to argue, of course, for prohibition of alcohol.

614
00:54:21.940 --> 00:54:27.800
Once again, to outlaw something which might lead to crime is an illegitimate and invasive

615
00:54:27.800 --> 00:54:33.940
assault on the rights of person and property, an assault which, again, would far more justify

616
00:54:33.940 --> 00:54:37.940
by the immediate incarceration of all teenage males.

617
00:54:37.940 --> 00:54:41.940
Only the overt commission of a crime should be illegal,

618
00:54:41.940 --> 00:54:45.940
and the way to combat crimes committed under the influence of alcohol

619
00:54:45.940 --> 00:54:49.940
is to be more diligent about the crimes themselves,

620
00:54:49.940 --> 00:54:53.940
not to outlaw the alcohol. And this would have the further

621
00:54:53.940 --> 00:54:57.940
beneficial effect of reducing crimes not committed

622
00:54:57.940 --> 00:55:00.940
under the influence of alcohol.

623
00:55:00.940 --> 00:55:04.980
Eternalism in this area comes not only from the right.

624
00:55:04.980 --> 00:55:10.180
It is curious that while liberals generally favor legalizing marijuana, and sometimes

625
00:55:10.180 --> 00:55:16.660
of heroin, they seem to yearn to outlaw cigarettes on the ground that cigarette smoking often

626
00:55:16.660 --> 00:55:19.260
causes cancer.

627
00:55:19.260 --> 00:55:23.900
Liberals have already managed to use federal control of television to outlaw cigarette

628
00:55:23.900 --> 00:55:29.580
advertising on that medium, and thereby to level a grave blow against the very freedom

629
00:55:29.580 --> 00:55:33.580
and the system of speech liberals are supposed to cherish.

630
00:55:33.580 --> 00:55:37.580
Once again, every man has the right to choose.

631
00:55:37.580 --> 00:55:41.580
Propagandize against cigarettes as much as you want,

632
00:55:41.580 --> 00:55:45.580
but leave the individual free to run his own life.

633
00:55:45.580 --> 00:55:49.580
Otherwise we may as well outlaw all sorts of possible carcinogenic agents,

634
00:55:49.580 --> 00:55:53.580
including tight shoes, improperly fitting false teeth,

635
00:55:53.580 --> 00:55:57.580
excessive exposure to the sun, as well as excessive

636
00:55:57.580 --> 00:56:27.500
In the fall of 1971, the NAP Commission focused public attention on the problem of widespread

637
00:56:27.500 --> 00:56:30.740
Police Corruption in New York City.

638
00:56:30.740 --> 00:56:35.660
Mids the drama of individual cases, there is a danger of overlooking what is clearly

639
00:56:35.660 --> 00:56:42.180
the central problem, a problem of which the NAP Commission itself was perfectly aware.

640
00:56:42.180 --> 00:56:47.420
In virtually every case of corruption, the policemen were involved in regularly functioning

641
00:56:47.420 --> 00:56:53.020
businesses which by government fiat had been declared illegal.

642
00:56:53.020 --> 00:56:58.620
And yet a vast number of people by demanding these goods and services have shown that they

643
00:56:58.620 --> 00:57:04.700
do not agree that such activities should be placed in the same category as murder, theft,

644
00:57:04.700 --> 00:57:06.020
or assault.

645
00:57:06.020 --> 00:57:13.180
Indeed, in practically no case did the purchase of the police involve these heinous crimes.

646
00:57:13.180 --> 00:57:18.740
In almost all cases, they consisted of the police looking the other way while legitimate

647
00:57:18.740 --> 00:57:22.940
voluntary transactions took place.

648
00:57:22.940 --> 00:57:29.140
The common law makes a vital distinction between a crime that is a malum in se and one that

649
00:57:29.140 --> 00:57:32.220
is merely a malum prohibitum.

650
00:57:32.220 --> 00:57:38.740
A malum in se is an act which the mass of the people instinctively feel is a reprehensible

651
00:57:38.740 --> 00:57:41.320
crime, which should be punished.

652
00:57:41.320 --> 00:57:46.820
This coincides roughly with the libertarian's definition of a crime as an invasion of person

653
00:57:46.820 --> 00:57:51.460
or property, assault, theft, and murder.

654
00:57:51.460 --> 00:57:56.640
Other crimes are activities made into crimes by government edict.

655
00:57:56.640 --> 00:58:03.960
It is in this far more widely tolerated area that police corruption occurs.

656
00:58:03.960 --> 00:58:09.860
In short, police corruption occurs in those areas where entrepreneurs supply voluntary

657
00:58:09.860 --> 00:58:15.420
services to consumers, but where the government has decreed that these services are illegal

658
00:58:15.420 --> 00:58:20.120
People, Narcotics, Prostitution and Gambling.

659
00:58:20.120 --> 00:58:25.060
Where gambling, for example, is outlawed, the law places into the hands of the police

660
00:58:25.060 --> 00:58:30.940
assigned to the gambling detail the power to sell the privilege of engaging in the gambling

661
00:58:30.940 --> 00:58:31.940
business.

662
00:58:31.940 --> 00:58:37.880
In short, it is as if the police were empowered to issue special licenses to engage in these

663
00:58:37.880 --> 00:58:43.740
activities and then proceeded to sell these unofficial but vital licenses at whatever

664
00:58:43.740 --> 00:58:52.260
One policeman testified that if the law were to be fully enforced, not a single construction

665
00:58:52.260 --> 00:58:55.560
site in New York City could continue functioning.

666
00:58:55.560 --> 00:59:03.020
So intricately did the government wrap construction sites in a web of trivial and impossible regulations.

667
00:59:03.020 --> 00:59:08.060
In short, whether consciously or not, the government proceeds as follows.

668
00:59:08.060 --> 00:59:15.020
First, it outlaws a certain activity—drugs, gambling, construction, or whatever.

669
00:59:15.020 --> 00:59:20.220
Then the governmental police sell to would-be entrepreneurs in the field the privilege of

670
00:59:20.220 --> 00:59:23.900
entering and continuing in business.

671
00:59:23.900 --> 00:59:28.980
At best, the result of these actions is the imposition of higher cost and more restricted

672
00:59:28.980 --> 00:59:33.660
output of the activity than would have occurred in a free market.

673
00:59:33.660 --> 00:59:36.800
But the effects are still more pernicious.

674
00:59:36.800 --> 00:59:50.400
In that case, a gambler pays off the police not just to continue in business, but also

675
00:59:50.400 --> 00:59:55.400
to freeze out any competitors who might want to enter the industry.

676
00:59:55.400 --> 01:00:00.460
The consumers are then saddled with privileged monopolists and are barred from enjoying the

677
01:00:00.460 --> 01:00:03.240
advantages of competition.

678
01:00:03.240 --> 01:00:08.960
It is no wonder, then, that when prohibition was finally repealed in the early 1930s, the

679
01:00:08.960 --> 01:00:14.720
main opponents of repeal were, along with fundamentalist and prohibitionist groups,

680
01:00:14.720 --> 01:00:19.840
the organized bootleggers, who had enjoyed special monopolistic privileges from their

681
01:00:19.840 --> 01:00:25.760
special arrangements with the police and other enforcement arms of government.

682
01:00:25.760 --> 01:00:30.600
The way, then, to eliminate police corruption is simple but effective.

683
01:00:30.600 --> 01:00:37.400
Abolish the laws against voluntary business activity and against all victimless crimes.

684
01:00:37.400 --> 01:00:42.600
Not only would corruption be eliminated, but a large number of police would then be freed

685
01:00:42.600 --> 01:00:49.080
to operate against the real criminals, the aggressors against person and property.

686
01:00:49.080 --> 01:00:54.440
This after all is supposed to be the function of the police in the first place.

687
01:00:54.440 --> 01:00:59.120
We should realize then that the problem of police corruption, as well as the broader

688
01:00:59.120 --> 01:01:05.120
The broader question of government corruption in general should be placed in a wider context.

689
01:01:05.120 --> 01:01:11.560
The point is that given the unfortunate and unjust laws prohibiting, regulating and taxing

690
01:01:11.560 --> 01:01:17.200
certain activities, corruption is highly beneficial to society.

691
01:01:17.200 --> 01:01:22.360
In a number of countries, without corruption that nullified government prohibitions, taxes

692
01:01:22.360 --> 01:01:29.040
and exactions, virtually no trade or industry would be carried on at all.

693
01:01:29.040 --> 01:01:32.040
and Greases the Wheels of Trade.

694
01:01:32.040 --> 01:01:38.080
The solution, then, is not to deplore corruption and redouble enforcement against it, but to

695
01:01:38.080 --> 01:01:46.040
abolish the crippling policies and laws of government that make corruption necessary.

696
01:01:46.040 --> 01:01:48.360
Gun Laws

697
01:01:48.360 --> 01:01:53.280
For most of the activities in this chapter, liberals tend to favor freedom of trade and

698
01:01:53.280 --> 01:01:59.480
Activity, while conservatives yearn for rigorous enforcement and maximum crackdown against

699
01:01:59.480 --> 01:02:02.200
violators of the law.

700
01:02:02.200 --> 01:02:07.980
Yet mysteriously, in the drive for gun laws, the positions tend to be reversed.

701
01:02:07.980 --> 01:02:13.280
Every time a gun is used in a violent crime, liberals redouble their agitation for the

702
01:02:13.280 --> 01:02:19.120
severe restriction, if not prohibition, of private ownership of guns, while conservatives

703
01:02:19.120 --> 01:02:30.260
If, as libertarians believe, every individual has the right to own his person and property,

704
01:02:30.260 --> 01:02:35.400
it then follows that he has the right to employ violence to defend himself against the violence

705
01:02:35.400 --> 01:02:37.720
of criminal aggressors.

706
01:02:37.720 --> 01:02:44.040
But for some odd reason, liberals have systematically tried to deprive innocent persons of the means

707
01:02:44.040 --> 01:02:47.400
for defending themselves against aggression.

708
01:02:47.400 --> 01:02:52.120
Despite the fact that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that the right

709
01:02:52.120 --> 01:02:58.280
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the government has systematically

710
01:02:58.280 --> 01:03:00.520
eroded much of this right.

711
01:03:00.520 --> 01:03:06.480
Thus, in New York State, as in most other states, the Sullivan Law prohibits the carrying

712
01:03:06.480 --> 01:03:11.720
of concealed weapons without a license issued by the authorities.

713
01:03:11.720 --> 01:03:17.800
Not only has the carrying of guns been grievously restricted by this unconstitutional edict,

714
01:03:17.800 --> 01:03:23.360
but the government has extended this prohibition to almost any object that could possibly serve

715
01:03:23.360 --> 01:03:28.840
as a weapon, even those that could only be used for self-defense.

716
01:03:28.840 --> 01:03:34.440
As a result, potential victims of crime have been barred from carrying knives, tear gas

717
01:03:34.440 --> 01:03:39.920
pens or even hat pins, and people who have used such weapons in defending themselves

718
01:03:39.920 --> 01:03:55.920
In the cities, this invasive prohibition against concealed weapons has in effect stripped victims of any possible self-defense against crime.

719
01:03:55.920 --> 01:04:01.920
It is true that there is no official prohibition against carrying an unconcealed weapon,

720
01:04:01.920 --> 01:04:07.580
But a man in New York City who, several years ago, tested the law by walking the streets

721
01:04:07.580 --> 01:04:12.840
carrying a rifle, was promptly arrested for disturbing the peace.

722
01:04:12.840 --> 01:04:19.960
Furthermore, victims are so hamstrung by provisions against undue force in self-defense that the

723
01:04:19.960 --> 01:04:27.100
criminal is automatically handed an enormous built-in advantage by the existing legal system.

724
01:04:27.100 --> 01:04:32.980
It should be clear that no physical object is in itself aggressive.

725
01:04:32.980 --> 01:04:39.700
Any object, whether it be a gun, a knife or a stick, can be used for aggression, for defense

726
01:04:39.700 --> 01:04:44.040
or for numerous other purposes unconnected with crime.

727
01:04:44.040 --> 01:04:49.140
It makes no more sense to outlaw or restrict the purchase and ownership of guns than it

728
01:04:49.140 --> 01:04:54.840
does to outlaw the possession of knives, clubs, hatpins or stones.

729
01:04:54.840 --> 01:04:58.240
But how are all of these objects to be outlawed?

730
01:04:58.240 --> 01:05:02.760
And if outlawed, how is the prohibition to be enforced?

731
01:05:02.760 --> 01:05:08.120
Instead of pursuing innocent people carrying or possessing various objects, then, the law

732
01:05:08.120 --> 01:05:14.320
should be concerned with combating and apprehending real criminals.

733
01:05:14.320 --> 01:05:19.520
There is, moreover, another consideration which reinforces our conclusion.

734
01:05:19.520 --> 01:05:24.840
If guns are restricted or outlawed, there is no reason to expect that determined criminals

735
01:05:24.840 --> 01:05:27.900
are going to pay much attention to the law.

736
01:05:27.900 --> 01:05:32.560
The criminals, then, will always be able to purchase and carry guns.

737
01:05:32.560 --> 01:05:37.440
It will only be their innocent victims who will suffer from the solicitous liberalism

738
01:05:37.440 --> 01:05:41.840
that imposes laws against guns and other weapons.

739
01:05:41.840 --> 01:05:48.100
Just as drugs, gambling and pornography should be made legal, so too should guns, and any

740
01:05:48.100 --> 01:05:52.880
and many other objects that might serve as weapons of self-defense.

741
01:05:52.880 --> 01:05:58.200
In a notable article attacking control of handguns, the type of gun liberals most want

742
01:05:58.200 --> 01:06:05.240
to restrict, St. Louis University law professor Don B. Cates Jr. chides his fellow liberals

743
01:06:05.240 --> 01:06:10.180
for not applying the same logic to guns that they use for marijuana laws.

744
01:06:10.180 --> 01:06:16.660
Thus, he points out that there are over 50 million handgun owners in America today, and

745
01:06:16.660 --> 01:06:23.140
found that, based on polls and past experience, from two-thirds to over 80% of Americans

746
01:06:23.140 --> 01:06:27.300
would fail to comply with a ban on handguns.

747
01:06:27.300 --> 01:06:33.220
The inevitable result, as in the case of sex and marijuana laws, would be harsh penalties

748
01:06:33.220 --> 01:06:39.660
and yet highly selective enforcement, breeding disrespect for the law and law enforcement

749
01:06:39.660 --> 01:06:40.860
agencies.

750
01:06:40.860 --> 01:06:45.500
And the law would be enforced selectively against those people whom the authorities

751
01:06:45.500 --> 01:06:47.580
Lawyers Didn't Like.

752
01:06:47.580 --> 01:06:54.220
Enforcement becomes progressively more haphazard until, at last, the laws are used only against

753
01:06:54.220 --> 01:06:57.620
those who are unpopular with the police.

754
01:06:57.620 --> 01:07:02.740
We hardly need to be reminded of the odious search-and-seizure tactics police and government

755
01:07:02.740 --> 01:07:08.860
agents have often resorted to in order to trap violators of these laws.

756
01:07:08.860 --> 01:07:14.720
Cates adds that, if these arguments seem familiar, it is probably because they parallel the standard

757
01:07:14.720 --> 01:07:17.720
Third Liberal Argument Against Pot Laws

758
01:07:17.720 --> 01:07:23.840
Cates then adds a highly perceptive insight into this curious liberal blind spot.

759
01:07:23.840 --> 01:07:29.480
For gun prohibition is the brainchild of white middle-class liberals who are oblivious to

760
01:07:29.480 --> 01:07:34.760
the situation of poor and minority people living in areas where the police have given

761
01:07:34.760 --> 01:07:37.060
up on crime control.

762
01:07:37.060 --> 01:07:41.900
Such liberals weren't upset about marijuana laws either, in the 50s, when the busts were

763
01:07:41.900 --> 01:07:44.560
confined to the ghettos.

764
01:07:44.560 --> 01:07:50.300
A viewer in well-policed suburbs or high-security apartments guarded by Pinkertons, whom no

765
01:07:50.300 --> 01:07:52.620
one proposes to disarm.

766
01:07:52.620 --> 01:07:59.580
The oblivious liberal derides gun ownership as an anachronism from the Old West.

767
01:07:59.580 --> 01:08:04.720
Cates further points out the demonstrated empirical value of self-defense armed with

768
01:08:04.720 --> 01:08:06.000
guns.

769
01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:12.480
In Chicago, for example, armed civilians justifiably killed three times as many violent criminals

770
01:08:12.480 --> 01:08:18.040
in the past five years, as did the police. And in a study of several hundred violent

771
01:08:18.040 --> 01:08:23.560
confrontations with criminals, Cates found the armed civilians to be more successful

772
01:08:23.560 --> 01:08:30.520
than the police. The civilians defending themselves captured, wounded, killed or scared off criminals

773
01:08:30.520 --> 01:08:38.960
in 75 percent of the confrontations, whereas the police only had a 61 percent success rate.

774
01:08:38.960 --> 01:08:43.640
It is true that victims who resist robbery are more likely to be injured than those who

775
01:08:43.640 --> 01:08:50.560
remain passive, but Cates points out neglected qualifiers, one, that resistance without a

776
01:08:50.560 --> 01:08:56.880
gun has been twice as hazardous to the victim than resistance with one, and two, that the

777
01:08:56.880 --> 01:09:03.360
choice of resistance is up to the victim and his circumstances and values.

778
01:09:03.360 --> 01:09:08.920
Avoiding injury will be paramount to a white liberal academic with a comfortable bank account

779
01:09:08.920 --> 01:09:26.920
It will necessarily be less important to the casual laborer or welfare recipient who is being robbed of the wherewithal to support his family for a month, or to a black shopkeeper who can't get robbery insurance and will be literally run out of business by successive robberies.

780
01:09:26.920 --> 01:09:34.680
And the 1975 National Survey of Handgun Owners by the Decision-Making Information Organization

781
01:09:34.680 --> 01:09:41.080
found that the leading subgroups who own a gun only for self-defense include blacks,

782
01:09:41.080 --> 01:09:44.160
the lowest income groups and senior citizens.

783
01:09:44.160 --> 01:09:50.440
These are the people, Cates eloquently warns, it is proposed we jail because they insist

784
01:09:50.440 --> 01:09:55.920
on keeping the only protection available for their families in areas in which the police

785
01:09:55.920 --> 01:09:58.640
have given up.

786
01:09:58.640 --> 01:10:00.920
What of historical experience?

787
01:10:00.920 --> 01:10:06.280
Have handgun bans really greatly lowered the degree of violence in society, as liberals

788
01:10:06.280 --> 01:10:07.440
claim?

789
01:10:07.440 --> 01:10:10.240
The evidence is precisely to the contrary.

790
01:10:10.240 --> 01:10:15.200
A massive study done at the University of Wisconsin concluded unequivocally in the fall

791
01:10:15.200 --> 01:10:22.680
of 1975 that gun control laws have no individual or collective effect in reducing the rate

792
01:10:22.680 --> 01:10:24.440
of violent crime.

793
01:10:24.440 --> 01:10:29.720
The Wisconsin study, for example, tested the theory that ordinarily peaceful people will

794
01:10:29.720 --> 01:10:36.100
be irresistibly tempted to shoot their guns if available when tempers are being frayed.

795
01:10:36.100 --> 01:10:43.400
The study found no correlation whatever between rates of handgun ownership and rates of homicide

796
01:10:43.400 --> 01:10:45.960
when compared state by state.

797
01:10:45.960 --> 01:10:52.500
Moreover, this finding is reinforced by a 1976 Harvard study of a Massachusetts law

798
01:10:52.500 --> 01:10:58.660
providing a mandatory minimum year in prison for anyone found possessing a handgun without

799
01:10:58.660 --> 01:11:00.840
a government permit.

800
01:11:00.840 --> 01:11:08.640
It turns out that during the year 1975, this 1974 law did indeed considerably reduce the

801
01:11:08.640 --> 01:11:13.640
carrying of firearms and the number of assaults with firearms.

802
01:11:13.640 --> 01:11:19.320
But lo and behold, the Harvard researchers found to their surprise that there was no

803
01:11:19.320 --> 01:11:26.000
No corresponding reduction in any type of violence, that is, as previous criminological

804
01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:32.780
studies have suggested, deprived of a handgun, a momentarily enraged citizen will resort

805
01:11:32.780 --> 01:11:39.520
to the far more deadly long gun. Deprived of all firearms, he will prove almost as deadly

806
01:11:39.520 --> 01:11:46.520
with knives, hammers, etc. And clearly, if reducing handgun ownership does not reduce

807
01:11:46.520 --> 01:12:02.960
Finally, Cates makes another intriguing point, that a society where peaceful citizens are

808
01:12:02.960 --> 01:12:09.080
armed is far more likely to be one where good samaritans who voluntarily go to the aid of

809
01:12:09.080 --> 01:12:16.160
victims of crime will flourish, but take away people's guns and the public disastrously

810
01:12:16.160 --> 01:12:20.800
for the Victims will tend to leave the matter to the police.

811
01:12:20.800 --> 01:12:26.440
Before New York State outlawed handguns, Good Samaritan instances were far more widespread

812
01:12:26.440 --> 01:12:34.400
than now, and in a recent survey of Good Samaritan cases, no less than 81% of the Samaritans

813
01:12:34.400 --> 01:12:36.720
were owners of guns.

814
01:12:36.720 --> 01:12:42.480
If we wish to encourage a society where citizens come to the aid of neighbors in distress,

815
01:12:42.480 --> 01:12:47.920
must not strip them of the actual power to do something about crime.

816
01:12:47.920 --> 01:12:53.920
Surely it is the height of absurdity to disarm the peaceful public, and then, as is quite

817
01:12:53.920 --> 01:13:00.120
common, to denounce them for apathy for failing to rush to the rescue of victims of criminal

818
01:13:00.120 --> 01:13:00.680
assault.