Is it reasonable to say that libertarians, and even lovers of liberty who are rational, free-market, anarchists, believe that members of a community do have some public duties? Even while we recognize that people have a God-given right to reject those duties, just as they have the right to stupidly refuse to accept responsibility for their actions?

As Paul of Tarsus wrote centuries ago (paraphrased), “We have liberty to do all things, but not all things profit us.”

To put it in a rather trivial way: I recognize and support your right to burn a US or State flag. But that is NOT saying that I approve of you doing so. (And promise I will do my best to control my anger at you doing that.)

So, with three dead in Idaho Falls last weekend, seven wounded, the perp dead (by his own hand), and two bystanders who intervened? We are seeing more and more praise for those two men. Which is the proper and right thing to do.

Rob Moore, in commenting on the shootings in Idaho last weekend, expressed these thoughts:

“We don’t have perfect solutions. Some people are more comfortable letting people die until the police show up. They are more comfortable taking pictures with their phone. Fortunately, there are millions of people who don’t want to wait for the police if they can stop the killing.

“About one-out-of-ten adults are armed in public every day. People who carry concealed firearm have felt the weight of the gun. It is a lethal tool. It can take a life. It can also save a life. They’ve given it a lot of thought. Their holster weighs down their belt. The gun weighs down their heart. They know that they will never be the same if they have to kill someone. They know they will never be the same if they sit and watch an innocent person get killed.

“The more these armed citizens think about it, the better they do. It isn’t a matter of becoming emotionally callous to violence. Far from it. It means they have accepted the result and are willing to pay the price. The more they pay in advance, the less they pay after. There is always an emotional price to pay. We are lucky that so many of us are willing to pay it.”

Did those two men have a duty to respond, to intervene? To put themselves into greater danger from the killer to help others? Libertarians will disagree, of course. Those who are christians may answer differently from others. But just being a part of a society does, to many, imply that certain duties should be freely accepted, provided the person has the ability to do those tasks. At the same time, libertarians will be reluctant (and hopefully refuse) to force someone to take some action. (As contrasted to requiring that someone refrain from doing something.) It is, of course, difficult to sort out.

Our readers thoughts are solicited on this. And some specific questions do come to mind:

• If we are carrying, concealed or openly, do we therefore accept an obligation to defend others, or only ourselves?
• Do we have an obligation to stop at a Stop sign? To yield at a Yield sign?
• If we carry a first aid kit and have been trained in first aid, are we therefore obligated to assist someone near us who is injured or sick?
• If we see a crime (an act of aggression) in progress, do we have a duty to take action to prevent that crime from being committed? A duty to call for assistance? (Say, call 9-1-1?)

There are no doubt many more we can and should ask. What are your thoughts?