I know that in a libertarian society drugs in all forms should be legal. My issue though is if people over dose or do things they shouldn’t do while under the influence they can and will be a burden on society both financially and emotionally. Driving while on heroin will cause serious traffic injuries. I know that alcohol is dangerous and people drink and drive all the time, but I don’t really like that either. I’m torn

1 Like

You’re torn on what? Legalization, feelings on drugs, what?

People are responsible for their actions sober or not. I’m not seeing how od’ing burdens society. A free society anyway.

The owners of roads are well within their rights to prohibit impaired driving.

IMO, due to the cost of being on drugs all the time, the market would prevent people from doing as many drugs as some libertarians like to think it would.


Pretty much echo what Mel said. It’s generally the “system” that allows drug users to be a burden. In a free society many people wouldn’t be able to function in the world. The ones who truly burden society would either die or have to become productive as they wouldn’t have money for drugs, food, housing, transportation… Right now you can go to an department of social services, or social security office and see how the system perpetuates burdensome addicts. Diving while impaired shouldn’t really be the issue, it would be more likely that unsafe driving would not be tolerated. DUI laws don’t necessarily help anything all they do is get people caught up into the criminal justice system. I’ve seen people drive perfectly well when high and I’ve seen people drive like garbage while stone sober, who’s the danger there??


The end result would eventually be people forming an organization to punish people who “violate the NAP” like this. Would they call it government? I dunno, but it’s a government.

1 Like

Whatever it would be, the irony would be palpable.

1 Like

In practice it wouldn’t be punishment would it? It would be defensive action against an aggressor. And the organization wouldn’t be a government as we see it today. As this organization, if one did come to exist would be voluntary. If one didn’t like the rules of that particular piece of land they could move elsewhere and support whatever they felt were just rules. No matter where you go if you are in society there will always be a hierarchy and set of rules to follow. The only alternative in a free society would be to become completely self sufficient and live in your own world, solo and not interact with anyone else.

But we don’t live in a world where most people aren’t wired to be mesmerized by sociopaths. “Voluntary” becomes “taxation” through mafia-like organizations quickly.

1 Like

…and over the years, I’ve learned to become leery of all forms of collectivism, even voluntary and in the name of liberty. When people collectivize they seem to do stupid and dangerous things, and voluntary collectivism seems to get less voluntary as time goes by. You end up with team stupidity like Ian getting banned from the FSP, and things like that.

1 Like

It’s nice to imagine technology progressing to the point of giving the power of the same weaponry and retaliatory and protective force to every individual human at a substantially low cost. But that just isn’t the case now.

1 Like

Libertarians United for Individualism!

I believe Kurt Vonnegut would call that a granfalloon.

1 Like

In my experience in the testing grounds of NH, it’s seems to be worse in practice than involuntary collectivism that you would call the government here in the US. Or hell, even private corporate management structure Because usually nobody wants to take leadership, or they don’t feel compelled to help in any way. So things get done half-assed, or just never get done period. And in the real world that leaves room for the assholes to come in and do what they do.

1 Like

I see the point. seems like generally only people who are sociopaths want to lead. So they end up leading and turning right back into “government”.
But back to the point of drugs. What good can become of restrictions on drugs? The current state of things is proof that criminalization of drugs is not effective. And DWI/DUI laws probably only marginally deter the behavior if at all. But what they also do is: DUI–> pay a fine ultimately another DUI–> loose licenses (and job?), go to jail, become a better criminal and enter a worse lifestyle? I get that you don’t want people driving around blind drunk and stacking us with overdose costs but we already have that. Things have a way of working themselves a solution if left to nature and the free market. Who knows what might come about if we weren’t cock-blocked by regulation and laws.

1 Like

What we have right now is technically a result of all of that. Most people ultimately decide to be controlled in such a fashion.

All many people want is an option to opt out of that controlled society and not pay for crap they don’t want or want to support.

I estimate that less than 5% of the population ultimately wants such a situation. That is not “many people”.

Really, I do want a solution to this human vs. anarchist problem. But every one so far proposed has been impractical.

Ok so let that peaceful 5% live a peaceful life free of aggression and theft by thenstsye? Say NH succeeded and took no help or money from the government, why not let those people who wish to, voluntarily move there and live free? What’s so impractical about that? Society would come up with a way to handle the challenges drugs present. And in the end if someone isn’t aggressing against others, let them do as they will. It’s no ones business if someone willingly destroys their life over a vice.

Isn’t it against the NAP for 95% of the NH population that wants the current government structure to be forced to live without one or move? This isn’t a practical solution.

No, forcing someone not to initiate force is not a NAP violation.

You’re tortiously interfering with their social contract.