*I hope someone actually takes the time to read all of this -- it took me over 2 hours to post.
*
The difference between government and corporations is that government is force and corporations are not. When I get taxed, I will go to jail if I don't pay. When Nike offers new shoes, nothing happens if I ignore them.
If the market is totally free Nike would become a monopoly. If the Nike is monopoly, you would have choice but to buy from them unless you make your own shoe. With government, you can change what you want or what you don't want.
Get ticked off at your phone company and you can switch to a different one. Don't like Microsoft's browser? Use a different one. Get ticked off at your government and your only recourse is to leave the country
Or change the laws.
So when the religouse morals of others are used to judge or to attempt to govern my morality and when the government steps in to tread on our rights. I think " Fascist " and " where's the ammo " .
Who says it has to be "religious morals"? How do you define what's right and what's wrong? "as long as it doesn't affect me it's OK"? << is that it?
Fascism, by the way, is the principle that government has the HIGHEST priority rather than personal or individual freedoms. What Libertarians are doing are going from one extreme to the other. Conservatives and Liberals on the other hand have at least some middle ground which is why, Duke, they outnumber Libertarians and Fascists. I don't advocate total governmental authority. Yet at the same time I do not advocate total personal/individual freedoms.
If the law is deemed unjust or a change is needed, the population has the power to remove, or change it by the wonderful process we're currently teaching in the Middle East, called democracy. Yes, life sucks if you disagree with them. Personally I'd enjoy being able to drive 100 mph on highways.
Beautiful! Couldn't have said it better myself. 👍
I can't deny that there are severe cases of corruption or abuse by dishonest members of both corporate and political world, but it only means that the government needs more transparency and thorough management. Would you ditch the whole law enforcement system because of the numerous corruption cases, power abuses and ties with organized crime?
Excellent point!
Yep, government sometime means force. So does money in a free market. Force is not the issue, abuse of force is.
Exactly.
Less government would mean significantly less corruption.
No, it wouldn't. If the proportion of corrupt officials remains the same, the size of government is irrelevant.
Government always means force. Even if that force isnt in the form of physical incarceration, that doesnt mean that the force wasnt present. I was, for example, forced to pay my taxes this year even though nobody came and broke my legs.
It was your choice to pay your taxes.
Money does not equal force unless youre talking about money buying legislation through a corrupt bureaucratic government.
Which can/has happen.
Again, majority rule is unacceptable. Can we agree that if the majority wanted to pass a law stating that all red-haired people were to be shot that it would not be acceptable? That is the purpose of a bill of rights to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Didn't work for Black people for a while did it?
Not at all. You're totally missing the point. Libertarianism means: "Total freedom for everybody, to suit their own needs, without infringing on anybody elses's rights.
I know what it means. I was trying to say that giving people unlimited freedoms invariably leads to people's rights being violated.
Ohh, yeah?! Say I'm gay and I want to get married. NOW who's freedom am I encroaching upon...?
In that case, you would not be encroaching upon anyone's freedom.
Yet in six states it's actually illegal, and in 43 of the others I won't get a marriage license anyway.
It's illegal because that is what the majority wanted. As was stated before (jpmontoya), that is what democracy is all about. If the majority wanted to legalized gay marriage, marijuana, cocaine, drunk driving, etc. it would be legal.
Hell, if I lived in West Virginia, among others, it would be illegal for me to have consensual sex with an adult woman if we weren't married to each other. So much for your theory of 'nothing to worry about'. When you legislate morality, civil liberties fall completely by the wayside.
It depends on what is legislated. If you do not approve of that law, you do not have to move to West Virginia. Clearly, the majority of citizens of West Virginia approve of the law.
Everything's potentially dangerous. Putting yourself in a 3,000-lb metal box that's loosely connected to the ground by 100 square inches of rubber and hurtling yourself down the road is 'potentially dangerous', but people do it every day, and I don't see many people lobbying to criminalize cars.
That's an oversimplification. Of course getting behind the wheel of a 3,000-lb metal box is dangerous. Drinking a 6-pack and then getting behind the wheel of a 3,000-lb metal box INCREASES the likelihood of an accident. That's the real issue -- among other things.
So you want security, even at - or maybe because of - the cost of reductions in freedom. In other words, freedom scares you, so nobody should have it.
I never said that. You are saying people should be given total freedom to do whatever the heck they please. All I'm saying is: certain liberties must be restricted. Not ALL liberties -- because then that would be fascism.
So lets take that opposite way. We've already established that driving cars is a 'potentially dangerous freedom', so lets legislate that civil liberty safely out of existence.
Why? It doesn't have to be that way. People can drive cars. They wouldn't exist if we didn't need them. However, telling people that they have the "right" (their freedom, their liberty, their responsibility) to drink to the point where they can't even stand up straight and get behind the wheel of car (because it's their choice, freedom, liberty) is socially irresponsible. The likelihood that my freedom will be taken away is significantly increased when people are allowed to do whatever they want.
Everybody now rides those three-wheeled trikes that old people pedal around in Florida. Nice and safe. But wait! Human nature kicks in and we have to 'test our limits of freedom', so we get gangs of menacing trikers who take steroids and do huge leg presses. These uber-trikers terrorize the rest of us by flying around the trikeways, drag racing through crowded boardwalks, and snatching old ladies' bags out of their shopping baskets as they blast by at a whopping 12 miles an hour.
I actually enjoyed that story!
So there. we've just severely limited a civil liberty without gaining any corresponding increase in security.
We both know that that's never going to happen. The analogy I came up with is a universal situation that all drivers can identify with.
Why not? If personal freedom is not something human nature can handle, why shouldn't we take steps to protect everyone from themselves?
High horsepower cars have a place in human society. We are competitive creatures and I see nothing wrong with having a car with 600 horsepower -- as long as it's used in a sanctioned race. By putting a limit on the power of cars for safety purposes is to deny the responsible people the opportunity to enjoy fast cars in a controlled environment. That's why not.
It's highly ironic, because the people you claim to be immune from trying to moild society to fit their dogma are the people who have, throughout recorded history, been the people who have tried their hardest to do just that.
I never claimed that they were immune from trying to mold society. You are describing the people of the EXTREME right. Example: the Nazi killed 6 million innocent Jewish people and 4,000,000 other people. That to me, is extreme.
And if you think its just 'extremists of the Right' who are trying that, I suggest you look again at my initial comment in this post.
I read the initial comment. The conclusion that can be drawn from that is this:
People who live in West Virginia are predominantly Right-wing (further to the right, though, than say someone from New York).
So throw them out. I'm serious. A hateful letter in and of itself cannot harm you.
It's called terrorism. Whether it's physical of psychological, it's terrorism and is intrusion on my freedom. The freedom to be able to walk the streets without having to be suspicious/afraid of white supremacists. There are many instances of civil rights violations that start out just like this.
But if someone burns a cross on your lawn, they are violating your civil and property rights and the police will come and make them stop.
Usually.
If the police won't come, the system itself is corrupt and more legislation will do nothing to change that.
Not true. If the punishment for the crime were SEVERE enough, the geniuses that do things like distribute hate letters would think twice before they even press the "PRINT" button on the copy machine.
Should we legislate against this website?
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that. Most ISPs do NOT allow material like this to be shown anyway.
Who judges that? Who decides what a person should see or not?
As long as we live in a Democracy, I would like to think the majority.
...for YOU. So you don't smoke weed - wise choice! ...for YOU.
But who are you to decide what I should do with my life?
I appreciate that. 👍
Who says it had to be my decision, though? If everyone wanted weed to be legal, it would be legal.
Telling me that I am not allowed to smoke marijuana because it makes me dumber and interferes with my productivity is on the same slippery slope as telling me I'm not allowed to be an architect because the country needs more elemetary school teachers. You willing to step over that edge?
No. Smoking weed and job choice are two VERY different circumstances. Regardless of what you do for a living, you are helping your community, your country, this entire PLANET. Smoking marijuana will only lead to my liberties (and the liberties of others) being crushed.
It's my life. NOBODY has the right to tell me what I should do with it, so long as I mind my own business and don't harm others.
Whether or not you (again, not specifically YOU Duke, a general "you") want to admit it, your decisions not only affect you, they affect those around you too. << And yes, I'm being very vague on purpose. I don't feel like having to go through individual "decisions" over and over again. You (in general) can use your own imagination.
If I want to make myself stupid and sleep 18 hours a day, that's my right, so long as I stay off the welfare rolls.
Of course it's your right. But who else would you be affecting by doing something like that? Your wife? Kids? Family? Friends? That's another problem I have with Libertarians...
It's a private airplane. The airline has the right to exclude anybody they want from boarding the plane, if they feel that person poses a threat to the plane and other passengers. If that person won't leave the airport's property after being denied entry to the plane, then the police become involved, because that person is violating the airline's property rights.
Doesn't that goes against everything the Libertarians stand for though? Regardless as to whether it's public or private?
The important thing I've been trying to say --and I hope is getting through-- is that an individual's participation/interaction with a corporation is consentual, while participation/interaction with government is mandatory/compulsory.
Unless you live in a communist society, you have no choice but to deal with a corporation. Yes, you can pick and choose which corporation to interact with, but you're still limited in the sense that you have to deal with them. Participation with government only seems mandatory/compulsory because our government is
representative of the people. A corporation on the other hand is considered its own entity/individual.
I would like to remind everyone about this crucial difference because the difference is having an alternative. As long as you have a choice, you have freedom.
I'll give you that.
But there is no alternative to government.
So my vote doesn't count? I can't lobby my local politicians?
You can't say "well, I don't like the President's Social Security reforms today, so I just not going to pay for it"
You can always vote for someone else, or have the law changed.
or "I don't like the government's ban on gay marriages, so I'm just going to get married anyway." That option doesn't exist.
You can always vote for someone else or have the law changed.
This is why the role and scope of government should be minimal, if it is to honor the freedom of it's citizens. Because government action is diametrically opposed to personal freedom. Sam Walton (Walmart) can't force me to buy anything. Uncle Sam can.
Unless Walmart is the only store... then yes it could. Uncle Sam? No. The government is representative of the people.
No. It is not selective freedom to suit my needs and to hell with everyone else. It is freedom for everyone to the greatest extent possible. Possible meaning that civilized society can function with that much freedom.
I get that part.
You asked me if I have faith in government employees just like I have in the average Joe. I have faith in people to make choices that they think are in their best interest. I think this way because it is what people are naturally designed to do.
That mean that (as you suggest), given the opportunity, people will screw over other people. Libertarianism doesn't leave you with that vulnerability, however, because your rights will be protected by law. Nobody is advocating that we get rid of police.
By enacting a law that "doesn't leave one with that vulnerability" you are STILL limiting people's freedom. The only difference is by doing what you're saying, you're taking a reactive approach to potential problems. It's better to take a proactive approach. Rather than allowing people to burn crosses (whether or not they hitch it on somebody else's lawn), outlaw it completely and you won't have to deal with it.
But here is where the distinction exists between regular people and the government. If you give the government the power to search and seize whatever they want, then you have given some people the ability to screw you over with no consequences.
Who said there were no consequences? That's what laws are for!
In otherwords, you've given them MORE power than the average Joe has.
Not if there are laws in place.
I trust that those people will do what is in their own best interest - somebody will eventually come along in that position and screw others over. The people who get screwed will have no recourse.
Not if there are laws in place.
That is what I hope to avoid.
Me too. Which is why certain civil liberties need to be restricted. Not all, just some. If you're one of the millions of people who DO NOT burn crosses, what do you care if there is a law against it?!
I agree with part of what you are saying - that people, given the chance, will infringe the rights of others. I am not advocating that they be given that chance, you are.
I am not advocating that they be given the chance. I made that clear SEVERAL times. You on the other hand said:
Dan
The benefits of being able to drink alcohol may outweigh the costs of innocents being killed.
If that's not advocating giving people the chance to infringe on the rights of others, then I must really be
.
You are advocating that government officials be trusted more than normal folk - that they be given the power to screw over whoever they want and must simply be trusted to altruistically do whatever is in the best interest of the country (as evidenced by your search and seizure statement). I do NOT trust people to act altruistically.
And you were saying the complete opposite. I was only using that [the search & seizure example] as a counterpoint.
Again, I DO trust people to act in their self interest - which means I'm fine with letting them smoke dope. That doesn't mean they're free to get in a car and kill me because they were high.
You just said it was.
That doesn't mean that they're free to cause me pain by yelling fire in a crowded theater. It DOES however mean that they should be free to smoke dope or yell fire - they just have to live up to the consequences if their actions cause harm.
Like that'll ever work.
...actually I think I responded to most of what you said earlier. Let me know if you want me to address any of your earlier statements specifically.
Nope, your cool.
Since MrktMkr among others appears to be somewhat confused about what Libertarianism really is, here's the Libertarian Party's website.
Also, here's a pretty good definition of what it is to be a Libertarian.
I'm not confused as to what Libertarianism is, but thank you for the links anyway. By the way, you can call me Brian.
Its our government . If we desire it to be less restrictive then its our responsibility to attempt to change it. The government belongs to us and is answerable to us .
Exactly. So if you see the government heading in one direction, don't think it's because they're out to get you. They're only doing what "we" as the collective want them to do.
...but apparently we're in the minority compared to people like MrktMkr and jpmontoya, which is yet another compelling argument in favor of civil liberties and 'individual democracy' versus 'majority rule'.
You're absolutely right, and I explained why Libertarians and Fascists are a minorty near the beginning of the post.
Duke
That's correct, but let's consider a subject like gay marriage. This is an issue where the majority are voting away the civil liberties of a minority for no other reason but that they are uncomfortable about them and they can do it. So checks and balances are definitely not protecting those individuals' rights.
That's what a Democracy is all about. I'm not saying its right to alienate a minority, but that's the cost of freedom in a Democratic society.
)are comfortable having racist letters in your mailbox -- I'm not.
*tries to close can of worms*
] they will get behind the wheel of a car and interfere with the rights of others.
If I offended you, then I'm sincerely sorry, but I thought it was a good analogy Both are restrictions on people's lives, and thus I see banning gay marriage just as offensive as banning blacks from living a humane life, being able to vote, etc. Both situations are completely absurd.
