Libertarian said,
Well, from what I’ve learned about libertarianism so far, I’d much sooner become a libertarian than a conservative.
Libertarian also said,
Taken to an extreme, of course. Nobody’s wants to ban all potentially harmful objects. People are going to figure out ways to get themselves killed even if you lock them in padded cells. But the line should be drawn somewhere. Maybe not at fireworks. But perhaps at dynamite, where the potential for mayhem far outweighs the object’s usefulness to civilians. Plus, you can kill a whole lot of people with dynamite, as opposed to toilet bowl cleaner.
Would laws against behavior be any more effective than laws against objects in the case of fireworks? I can only guess that banning fireworks would be more effective at stopping fires than banning the unsafe use of fireworks simply by virtue of the fact that a firework ban would be much easier to enforce. But is it worth restricting individual freedoms? Maybe not in the case of fireworks, but in other cases it might be. Some freedoms are a hell of a lot more important than others. I wouldn’t lump my right to own dynamite in there with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and even ::: bites tongue ::: right to bear arms.
My opinion is that the most beneficial and pragmatic policy would restrict behavior if practical and ban objects if applicable — while at the same time taking into account individual liberties. As always, it’s a balancing act for which I offer no simple solution.
- JB