Libertarian Misunderstanding
I have this libertarian friend. Well, he was a friend. He's cut off contact with me recently. Readers of this blog know I am opposed to libertarianism. I had an exchange with this friend I want to talk about.
He put up a video made by these two guys. They were driving and they pulled up to a check point. The police offer, in a polite and upbeat manner, asked them some standard questions. They remained silent. The police officer, not letting the rudeness get to him just keep asking questions, and politely. After silence from the two young men, they asked if they were free to go. The officer, probably a bit confused, called over a superior. After a few moments, they were on their way with no hostility or ominous attitude.
However, there was hostility and a kind of on edge attitude on part of the kids. So, seeing the discrepancy in attitudes, I asked my smart friend, and he is very smart, why didn't they say anything to the police officer?
His response was, Because they didn't have to!
That is a stupid response. True, it was their right to not say anything they didn't really have to. Fifth amendment I think. But this cannot be the reason they refused to speak, for it is also true they have the right to respond. So, if they have rights to speak and not speak, then invoking their rights as an explanation doesn't actually answer the question. If contradictories followed from the same cause, then it's completely arbitrary which one would happen but not the other, which is really no explanation at all.
For example, if I had a red button, and I pressed it, and it shocked me, and you asked me, why did you get shocked? If I said, because I pressed the red button, you might accept that as an answer. But then suppose immediately after that, I pressed the red button again, and I was not shocked. You would ask me, why weren't you shocked? I would respond, because I pressed the red button. You would immediately see there was something wrong about my appealing to the red button. You would have doubts as to whether the red button explained why it did or didn't shock me.
A common response is, If you don't exercise your rights, you will lose them, so they needed to exercise their right to be silent lest they lose that right. I hear this a lot from 2nd Amendment guys too, but this is also dumb. We have a right to revolt and overthrow the government, but when was the last time we did that? I guess they must have lost it then.
He put up a video made by these two guys. They were driving and they pulled up to a check point. The police offer, in a polite and upbeat manner, asked them some standard questions. They remained silent. The police officer, not letting the rudeness get to him just keep asking questions, and politely. After silence from the two young men, they asked if they were free to go. The officer, probably a bit confused, called over a superior. After a few moments, they were on their way with no hostility or ominous attitude.
However, there was hostility and a kind of on edge attitude on part of the kids. So, seeing the discrepancy in attitudes, I asked my smart friend, and he is very smart, why didn't they say anything to the police officer?
His response was, Because they didn't have to!
That is a stupid response. True, it was their right to not say anything they didn't really have to. Fifth amendment I think. But this cannot be the reason they refused to speak, for it is also true they have the right to respond. So, if they have rights to speak and not speak, then invoking their rights as an explanation doesn't actually answer the question. If contradictories followed from the same cause, then it's completely arbitrary which one would happen but not the other, which is really no explanation at all.
For example, if I had a red button, and I pressed it, and it shocked me, and you asked me, why did you get shocked? If I said, because I pressed the red button, you might accept that as an answer. But then suppose immediately after that, I pressed the red button again, and I was not shocked. You would ask me, why weren't you shocked? I would respond, because I pressed the red button. You would immediately see there was something wrong about my appealing to the red button. You would have doubts as to whether the red button explained why it did or didn't shock me.
A common response is, If you don't exercise your rights, you will lose them, so they needed to exercise their right to be silent lest they lose that right. I hear this a lot from 2nd Amendment guys too, but this is also dumb. We have a right to revolt and overthrow the government, but when was the last time we did that? I guess they must have lost it then.
Comments
Post a Comment