Sorry, I have to do this.
I'm having difficulty with 2 Libertarian concepts and I'm hoping someone can point out something that I am missing.
The first difficulty that I'm having is victimless crime. The problem that I have with not persecuting victimless crime is that some victimless crimes have a potential for victims later. I know that doesn't make sense, so I'll give an example...
A police officer pulls over a driver late at night because he is driving erratically. He has suspiscions that the driver is drunk, but since he hasn't hit anything and there aren't any victims, he lets him go on his way. A few blocks later the same driver kills a family of four. If the intent of the law is to protect the victims, isn't part of that intent to reasonably try to make sure that they aren't victims to begin with?
A second example is a guy boarding a plane with a stick of dynamite doesn't have any victims until the dynamite goes off. Do we wait for it to go off to act?
The next problem that I'm having is with specific property rights on real estate. The problem that I'm having is that the next generation should have the same property rights that we do. Because real estate is a finite resource and they deserve the same property rights that we do, our rights should not impede their rights. This brings me to the point of resources and pollution. If I own a property, do I have the right to clear-cut all the trees? Can I deny the next generation the right to have wood? Since trees are a renewable resource, the answer is easy in my opinion. If I can make my process sustainable, no harm is done. If I can't, I should pay for the harm. But pollution is a bigger problem. I understand that if my pollution leaches from my land onto my neighbors, I have harmed my neighbor and he deserves restitution, but what if I'm able to confine my pollution to my land only. If I've polluted to the point that my land is unlivable, I have effectively removed potential land from the system for the next generation. I have done them harm and all generations after that until the pollution disappates. If that pollution is radioactive, this could be hundreds of years. If I mandate that this property can't be sold by my desendents and therefore is taken out of circulation by other means, do I sidestep the harm? Can my desendents still be responsible for the damage that I created? Can there be any sustainable scenario where real estate diminishes while population grows?
Listen you guys have been better to me than most people. I'm sure you'll answer my concerns in the same well thought out way that led me to accept other principles, but I'm still a party of 1 and I need something that fits my mold of right and wrong. It's not really about me. It's about my kids and their kids, and their kids. I can't rally against the evil of the establishment, if my actions are making the establishment more evil. There has to be accountabilty. It's not politics with me. It's just right and wrong. I'm not gonna be a burden on another generation.