Tags
crimes, justice, Law, libertarianism, Lysander Spooner, policy, political philosophy, vice, Vices Are Not Crimes, virtue
“If, then, it became so difficult, so nearly impossible, in most cases, to determine what is, and what is not, vice; and especially if it be so difficult, in nearly all cases, to determine where virtue ends, and vice begins; and if these questions, which no one can really and truly determine for anybody but himself, are not to be left free and open for experiment by all, each person is deprived of the highest of all his rights as a human being, to wit: his right to inquire, investigate, reason, try experiments, judge, and ascertain for himself, what is, to him, virtue, and what is, to him, vice; in other words: what, on the whole, conduces to his happiness, and what, on the whole, tends to his unhappiness. If this great right is not to be left free and open to all, then each man’s whole right, as a reasoning human being, to ‘liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ is denied him.
We all come into the world in ignorance of ourselves, and of everything around us. By a fundamental law of our natures we are all constantly impelled by the desire of happiness, and the fear of pain… No one of us, therefore, can learn this indispensable lesson of happiness and unhappiness, of virtue and vice, for another. Each must learn it for himself.”
__________
From sections V and VI of Lysander Spooner’s 1875 text Vices Are Not Crimes.
Thanks to my good friend C. for sending this text my way. C.’s unyielding libertarianism — or is it anarcho-capitalism? — has been refreshing to return home to, especially as I’ve left the warm centrist cocoon of Washington, D.C. George Orwell said that it is not what a person thinks that’s important, but rather how he thinks; and while I don’t subscribe to the what of C.’s arguments, I’m an unabashed fan of the how. It takes real intellectual will and moral independence to mount the case that the state itself — not just a party or faction — is illegitimate, but C. does this with total energy, seriousness and rigor.
I have different ideas on the matter, and try to play the part of the good sparring partner, but I like the breath of fresh air. The challenge to re-establish first principles is always worthwhile; to enjoy the dialectic of argument is amongst the most rewarding endeavors I know.
Paul Matthews said:
Uh, the flaw lies in Spooner’s definition of virtue and vice, respectively: what “conduces to his happiness, and what, on the whole, tends to his unhappiness” If the universe were Spooner, Lysander would be correct. As it was (and is) not, Lysander (and we) must deal with those pesky “another”s. In the West we have been doing it since the time of Solon. Although from time to time the sixteen year-old inside of me wants to agree with Spooner.
jrbenjamin said:
I think I can trace the line of your argument, though I sort of resent the implied point that it’s only a teenage mentality which can believe in robust individual liberty.
When I was sixteen I would not have sided with Spooner, and that’s not only because I could not have fully understood his perspective. I now however have a different view.
I think Spooner’s conception of vice and virtue is more or less solid. The terms are relative. A vice may harm the person committing it; this point is essential. Vices therefore may be distinguished from crimes in this framework, because the former have the potential to hurt only the person who does them.
‘Crime’ in this case refers to an act with a distinct agent and distinct recipient. So long as these to entities are not distinct, and so long as one is not coerced into either role, the action performed is a mere ‘vice’.
Assuming this definition, could you think of a ‘vice’ we should disallow?
Thanks for your comments and for reading.
Paul Matthews said:
Hello, JR
I was speaking of myself at sixteen. I did not intend to disparage.
I think you are being charitable in characterizing Spooner’s sentiment (in this excerpt ) as an only an endorsement of “robust individual liberty.” (Now be careful with throwing those elbows.) I would say “radical” individual liberty would be a bit more accurate as Spooner allows no (zero, null) role for others in the definition of “vice and “virtue.” As to your question, I take issue with the presupposition “assuming the definition” (of’ vice’ in distinction to ‘crime’ as something which does not have a distinct agent and a distinct recipient) for two reasons: 1) This runs to the heart of my comment, experience sometimes painfully disproved (my) adolescent notion that I was an island of consciousness blissfully disconnected to all the others in this world. 2) I’d prefer to stick with accepted definitions of ‘vice’ (wicked, or immoral behavior) and ‘virtue’ (moral excellence) which would seem to entail a recipient, or in any case do not exclude one. That said, and accepting your finely drawn definition for the purpose of argument — because otherwise we would both be hunkered down behind the ramparts of our own self-serving definitions. I’ll throw out voyeurism in those instances, specifically where the recipient is unaware of the action. (Got to admit, especially in our brave new world of socialized medical insurance, I struggle to imagine any behavior beyond the utterly trivial that does not affect others. Picking noses?)
BTW I greatly enjoy your blog, JR, and was not intending to be provocative, or to begin a protracted debate. The post struck me as dissonant (and not a little bit either) with respect to the world-view, such as it is, captured by your blog up to the point. Then again, I don’t get a chance to read that many of the posts. Maybe I was filling in the blanks with my own world-view, and the remedy is to read Bully Pulpit more carefully and often – at least until the day I say “rubbish,” and never read again. Regards.
Colin Aulds said:
You can quibble over semantics if you want, but it’s a waste of time. Its better to accept the definitions as the writer gives them (even if you disagree), or else you’ll never debate the real question, which in this case is whether or not one should be disallowed from engaging in an activity that does not *harm* the person or property of others.
Notice how Spooner never says that we are each an island unto ourselves (as your post would suggest). No, Spooner (and in fact any austrian economist) would be the first to admit the benefits of living in society and the division of labor it provides. Without others, we would all live in abject poverty.
The point is not that my actions will not affect you; the point is that some actions will directly harm your person or property. If they do not harm your person or property, then they must be allowed.
The fact that your conception of justice as a 16 year old is superior (more consistent) than your conception of it now is telling, which is why it makes sense that you, either wittingly or not, have diluted spooners argument as something less than sophisticated.
Crimes without victims are no crimes at all. So…if you’ll let the hooker keep hooking, let the smoker keep smoking, and let the pusher keep pushing, I’ll let you stay foolish.