One of my earliest independent libertarian realizations, around the time I was a pre-teen or young teen, was that simple possession-- of anything, anywhere-- could never be a real crime; a wrong. That for something to be wrong, it had to be used in a way which harmed someone. There had to be possession plus harmful action. Possession was passive; there was no harm. Unless the thing you possess is radioactive or emitting toxic fumes ("active" being the key), obviously.
It was the action alone, never the possession.
And being "offended" by the presence of something isn't the same as being harmed by it. If you are offended, you are violating yourself and no one else is responsible for that.
My parents always watched "the news" and every evening I was hearing reports that someone had been arrested for "possession"-- usually of drugs, but sometimes of other objects.
At that time, I was still a supporter of prohibition. I had never heard anyone question it in the slightest way and it wasn't an important issue to me.
Even so, the realization dawned on me that this wasn't a real crime. It couldn't be. They possessed something but hadn't hurt anyone with it, or even threatened to do so. I hadn't thought of the concept of counterfeit "laws" at that time, but I instinctively knew that any rules against possessing anything-- and not against actually doing something harmful with it-- were wrong.
Later I stopped making imaginary distinctions between what people did in the name of government and what they did as individuals. If it's wrong for government to do it, it doesn't become OK just because you're not a government employee acting on behalf of government.
This, along with my independent recognition around the same time that "property taxes" were unethical, formed the foundation of my later libertarian thinking.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Find me on Patreon
