Delaware Libertarian: Explaining the Libertarian mindset to Liberals: the question of prior restraint

I came upon this excellent discussion while looking for a linkage between the concepts of speed limits and prior restraint.

Steve Newton wrote:

Of course, the Liberal argument here is that we have to use public policy to protect the public from potential harm.

Unfortunately, this equates with taking away rights from those who have not done, or even contemplated doing, anything wrong rather than emphasizing the implementation of consequences for those who actually behave in a criminal manner...

I see more advantage in arresting and charging people for crimes they have actually committed than in making simple, everyday activities illegal on the grounds that they might conceivably hurt somebody someday...

All of these restrictions were presented and approved as sensible restrictions on things that could be easily misused, but in reality served specific ideological ends that involving eliminating the rights of certain groups of American citizens...

The absence of guns is also--sad to say, even in America--a potential pre-condition for exploitation, abuse, and tyranny...

"Anonymous" (RAH) commented:

I will govern myself; the government does not govern me.

The Bill of Rights does not give rights. It restricts the federal government from governing on those rights...

If humans are capable of running our own government and do not need a king to tell us what to do, then we are capable of making our own safety decisions. You can advocate for a position, like “buckle up” but do not mandate it. That is when the government gets tyrannical...

So a good way to judge a law is whether the law punishes good decent folk or the criminals. Gun control is all about control. The gun is the excuse.

Delaware Libertarian: Explaining the Libertarian mindset to Liberals: the question of prior restraint