 I think a lot of people think I'm going to make a video about Big L Libertarianism. I'm not, and I hope you're not too disappointed. I sympathize somewhat with libertarians, though I'm not one myself anymore. I had my fling with the Big L Party back in college when I was briefly county chair, as the previous county chair stepped down to run for office. I find some other arguments interesting, and I think the primary appeal is that they're consistent to an ideology, rather than to issues. Ron Paul, the faux Republican, idealizes this principle. His inability to be elected largely stems from the fact that he sticks to his principles, even when they don't represent the views of the mainstream of the Republican Party. This video is about the Libertarian argument, which goes something like this. The government has no right to tell people what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes, places of business, or public spaces. I want to be very clear. This isn't a fallacy by itself. Personal freedom is a universally good thing. I just want to discuss when I find it particularly unconvincing as an argument. First, let's start with a case study. Imagine the presidential candidates are on their way to a conference together and the plane crash lands on a distant island. The candidates are the only survivors, and they have to forage and fish for food, remain on guard for ships or airplanes on the horizon, and also the usual housekeeping chores. So they divide up the tasks. Today Romney is in charge of fishing, Newt, the cooking and foraging. Centaurum keeps watch for planes and ships, and Ron Paul is in charge of gathering firewood and maintaining the latrine and fire. Only Ron Paul decides he really doesn't want to do that. He's decided that he'd rather build a hammock and spend his days staring at the palm trees. The group get together and attempt to persuade him, explaining the danger of starvation or the missed rescue attempt that would come from someone else covering his duties. Ron Paul insists that he has no interest in cooperating. The rest of the group agree that if he doesn't share in the work, he should receive much less food. Ron Paul explains that he would rather be a little hungry than help. At that point, the group faces a choice. They can force him under duress to comply, say no food if he doesn't do a bare minimum at his job, or threaten to beat him up if he doesn't do his job. And that forced compliance would benefit the community, but hurt Ron's personal liberty. They can respect his wishes, and the community suffers at the cost of respecting Ron Paul's increased liberty. They can redraw their responsibilities, allowing less free time for everyone so that Ron Paul can freeload. Put yourself in their shoes. It would be very tempting to use threats to motivate your fellow community member, but you may want to day off later, and the community would remember how quick you were to be punitive against the slacker. Every choice you make has some consequence. Either the community suffers or the individual suffers. Feel free to share your own preferences in comments. Let's redirect this scenario to the real world we all live in. Suppose that the community decides that the cost of smoking is too high. They could completely outlawed, and that would benefit the community, but at a cost to liberty of individual smokers. Instead, we levy punitive taxes, the so-called sin taxes, to offset the cost to the society of that individual's harmful choices. How is smoking harmful to society? What increases medical costs borne by the healthcare system? It decreases productivity, making a group less competitive. It creates an industry dedicated to promoting harmful behaviors. So we always have a tension between personal liberty and social costs. When does personal liberty always trump social costs? I would propose in cases of civil rights, equality, rule of law, privacy, right to protest, right to seek redress, freedom from repression, and right to participate in government, for example. Our freedoms are dependent on these first generation rights, because without them it's too easy to silence dissidents or political minorities. It's in our second generation rights that things get more complicated. We all value our personal freedoms, but society also values community obligations. From this we get highly controversial ideas, like public smoking bans, the recreational drug wars, and Roe vs. Wade. Let's look at three such issues. One, the U.S. Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, individual mandate. The U.S. takes a lot of flak from other countries for not having a robust public health care system. President Obama made an effort to improve that situation, controversial though it is, in a bill that includes, among other things, a mandate that every individual has to have medical coverage. This law is under review now by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it may be judged unconstitutional. It violates the liberty of individuals who must bear the cost of medical insurance. This hits those who are just above the cutoff for government support, the hardest, the lower middle class, where insurance may be a significant burden. Let's look at the societal costs, though. When someone without insurance develops a serious illness, they typically go to an emergency room for care, and they enter the system without any way to pay for that care. That usually results in a cost being passed to other users of the facility or to the health care system in general. Two, helmet laws. Some states, but not all, require that motorcycle or bicycle riders wear protective headgear. This again represents a trade-off position. The cost to personal liberty is that you can be fined or jailed for your risky behavior. The cost to society can be measured in insurance premium increases, as any motorist involved in an accident with a bike rider has a higher chance of being judged responsible for a fatality. The fatality itself represents a social cost at multiple levels. Traffic delays, the cost and availability of emergency medical care and transport, life insurance premiums, emotional trauma to bystanders. When the community legislates safety laws, whether they be about cell phone use while driving, seatbelt laws, or mandatory fire inspections, those laws are about preventing people from making risky decisions that affect the rest of the community. That's not to say that we have to follow the slippery slope to every person being forbidden to take the slightest risk, requiring that we sit inside all day twiddling our thumbs and thinking clean thoughts. Instead, we try to strike a balance between what's fair for the individual and also fair for the community. I bring this one up because I've been surprised by the zeal of people who oppose restrictions on raw milk sales. The issues are nearly identical to those of helmet laws. The community gets to decide what's most fair in balancing personal and societal costs. In some communities, that means allowing farm or direct sales. In others, a complete ban or complete permission with a licensing framework. The personal liberty to drink something that some people believe has magical health benefits have to be weighed against the increased chance of outbreaks of communicable disease that hurt or kill, especially since those who are injured are often children. I think a lot of people assume that when I say that something is risky or harmful, that I'm necessarily suggesting we make it illegal. All it really means is a more complex cost-benefit analysis. People always hate it when their rights are infringed, but they also hate it when the selfish actions of one or two people result in cost to the entire community. The unintended externalities are often hard to see in these complex issues, but unless you are the sole occupant of a distant island, the choices you make always affect the people around you. Thanks for watching.