In the last few days I have found myself forced to think a little more deeply than usual and reconsider the issue of 'line-drawing'.To what extent do I believe in libertarian principles?
Well, I have never been an out and out libertarian - that simply could never sit easily with my faith, although as a democrat, I must respect the rights of others to express opinions with which I do not agree.
Perhaps a return to Thomas Jefferson can lend some perspective:
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
Does this help in deciding where lines must be drawn? What are the cut-off points and perhaps more to that point, where are they?
It may well be that there is no absolute here; no single authority of Man to which we may turn. Perhaps every case and situation should be judged on its individual merits - or lack of them.
The traditional appeal to the wisdom of the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' may aid us in the thinking - certainly Jefferson wanted to trust the people.
Can we perhaps ask then: "What would be the opinion of any reasonable, thinking person with no political axe to grind?"
Does that help when democracy asks, nay demands, that we should accept the unthinkable in the views of others although only unusually in their implementation?
To what extent can the state draw a line to protect its citizenry and avoid becoming the appalling 'nanny state' which debilitates us today? - The thing is, that if that 'bloke in Clapham' is truly representative - he would most assuredly know.
That there be debate on libertarian grounds on the removal of all laws constricting ownership of firearms, for one example, is surely valid. Nonetheless, I feel that no political party could ever embrace such like as a policy which would be electoral suicide - certainly that is how they would perceive it.
But, what if my perception of public opinion on this is a wrong one? - Surely then, such matters must be submitted to referenda in the Swiss fashion in order to hear the true voice of the people.
What about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'? Where does that fit the pattern?
"Democracy is about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Andreas Pizsa.
Where and when might it be proper for a government to rule out the will of the people?
Think of the countless occasions where government in the UK has applied its own moral values and has told the people what it is going to get, knowing full well that it is not what the people want.
Oh dear. My head hurts.
