Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Duke]

Of course, not -- and what I find really hard to believe is that you would actually bring that up.

But that's where I fail to understand you.

"Majority rules" is fine for you when you happen to be in the majority. But it's anathema when you happen to be in the minority. You can't rationally play it both ways. If you are willing - eager - to impose your 'majority morality' on others, then you need to accept when a different majority opinion is imposed upon you.

While slavery and gay rights are radically different in degree, they are identical in concept. Sage raises a perfectly valid logical point: In the first half of the 19th century in America, 'majority rule' said it was legal to own human beings. In the first half of the 21st century, 'majority rule' is trying to prohibit something that is in fact completely consensual for all parties concerned and doesn't even have the issue of coercion involved! Yet you have no problem with it because you happen to be in that majority.

Just a tad hypocritical, in my opinion.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

But there is right/wrong – It's wrong to infringe on other's rights: their right to not be plowed into by a drunk driver (any driver), their right to not have their property vandalized, etc.

I agree and I understand what you saying. However, when I made that comment it was in reference to the fact that Libertarians want "total freedom and total responsibility". How can there be a right/wrong (LONG BEFORE RIGHTS BECOME AN ISSUE) if everyone has absolute freedom with no restrictions whatsoever?

Morals that don't directly harm you are what Libertarians want to "ignore", if you will.

I understand that, but that's just being evasive. Anyone can say getting behind the wheel of car drunk won't directly harm me. However, if a drunk driver T-bones someone at 80mph and that person is killed, is THAT what has to come down to before Libertarians "acknowledge" morality?

You have every right to be offended by John and Joe getting married (in other words, you have every right to say that that's against your morals, and I won't argue with that), but you do not have the right to infringe on their rights, because whether they get married or not will infringe on your rights in any way, shape, or form.

I agree with last bit. However, consider this situation (which I will try to keep as short as possible). Let's say someone is offended by violence in the media. The Libertarian would say, "Oh well, just change the channel!" << am I right? Because why should EVERYONE suffer just because a few "whiney" people don't want violent video games/DVDs etc. Completely understandable.
However, when violence in media is inextricably linked to the violence in reality, how are the civil rights of the person who is a proponent of a few restrictions on free speech suppose to be protected?

It won't cause your house to explode, it won't cause you physical harm, it won't damage your car. And thus, you (as you like to say, the general "you" ) do not have any right to impose your morals on anybody else.

Only in this situation will I agree with you. However, Libertarians as a whole cannot just stick to one social issue. There are plenty of other issues in society where throwing more freedom at it will only end up in disaster.

Why? 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.

No need to apologize, I'm not feeling to well today and this is a very heated subject. I probably misinterpreted it at first glance, but yes, it is a good analogy. However, in my opinion, holding a person as property is a lot "worse" (for lack of a better word) than telling certain people they cannot get married.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

But that's where I fail to understand you.

I edited the post and explained why I said what I said.

"Majority rules" is fine for you when you happen to be in the majority. But it's anathema when you happen to be in the minority. You can't rationally play it both ways. If you are willing - eager - to impose your 'majority morality' on others, then you need to accept when a different majority opinion is imposed upon you.

I never said majority rules was a good thing. All I said was "that is just the way things are."

While slavery and gay rights are radically different in degree,

I pointed that out.

they are identical in concept. Sage raises a perfectly valid logical point: In the first half of the 19th century in America, 'majority rule' said it was legal to own human beings. In the first half of the 21st century, 'majority rule' is trying to prohibit something that is in fact completely consensual for all parties concerned and doesn't even have the issue of coercion involved!

I agreed with him on that issue.

Yet you have no problem with it because you happen to be in that majority.

Why make that assumption? Because I'm more conservative than you are?

Just a tad hypocritical, in my opinion.

Not if you knew what my true feelings were on the subject.

 

[Sage]

How can there be a right/wrong (LONG BEFORE RIGHTS BECOME AN ISSUE) if everyone has absolute freedom with no restrictions whatsoever?

But again, there are restrictions, which is what separates anarchy from Libertarian philosophy. The restriction is that you cannot trample on other's rights. That covers a lot of ground.

I understand that, but that's just being evasive. Anyone can say getting behind the wheel of car drunk won't directly harm me. However, if a drunk driver T-bones someone at 80mph and that person is killed, is THAT what has to come down to before Libertarians "acknowledge" morality?

Here's a point I probably should've made before touching that issue (and which will help answer your question here): According to Libertarian "morality", it doesn't matter how you impede on other people's rights, but that you have done so. In the driving case, it doesn't matter what causes the accident—drunk driving, being distracted by the radio, looking in your rear-view mirror too long, falling asleep—but rather that you've killed somebody. That's the issue – that you've destroyed a person's right to, well, living. It shouldn't make a lick of a difference whether you did that because you were drunk or you fell asleep – both are reckless, and both caused you to kill somebody. This leads to: You can't regulate sleepiness, so why regulate drunkenness?

I agree with last bit. However, consider this situation (which I will try to keep as short as possible). Let's say someone is offended by violence in the media. The Libertarian would say, "Oh well, just change the channel!" << am I right?

Yup!

Because why should EVERYONE suffer just because a few "whiney" people don't want violent video games/DVDs etc. Completely understandable.
However, when violence in media is inextricably linked to the violence in reality, how are the civil rights of the person who is a proponent of a few restrictions on free speech suppose to be protected?

By punishing the acts of violence. It's people's responsibility to not copy violent acts they see on TV. That's what Libertarians hold people responsible for.

Only in this situation will I agree with you. However, Libertarians as a whole cannot just stick to one social issue. There are plenty of other issues in society where throwing more freedom at it will only end up in disaster.

Well, throw more at us. I was just sticking to the gay marriage issue, because it was relevant to all the points I wanted to discuss.

However, in my opinion, holding a person as property is a lot "worse" (for lack of a better word) than telling certain people they cannot get married.

Ah, but why should there be degrees of "worseness"? From a Libertarian perspective, if it's wrong, then it's simply wrong – it doesn't matter how wrong it is, but rather that it shouldn't exist at all.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm sorry, but you're really still not getting it. You seem to refuse to understand that morality can exist without severe restrictions on freedom and punishments for transgressing.

Only in an idyllic society where racism, terrorism, bigotry, hatred etc. does not exist.

My morality says that I won't steal from anyone, damage their property or injure them. OK so far.

My morality also tells me that I don't know what's best for anyone besides myself. I don't own that person's life. I can't tell them they shouldn't have premarital sex or shoot smack, because I have no right to do so. If I care, I can explain to them why those things may be bad ideas. But I have no right to decide for them and they have no right to decide for ME.

So if you leave the decision up to the individual, where does right/wrong come into play?

I wouldn't steal even if I knew I could get away with it. It's not moral. I would never attack a person who didn't attack me first. According to you, as a Libertarian, even as a human, I should be unable to prevent myself from doing those things.

I never said you would "unable to prevent yourself from committing crimes". I'm saying that there are many people out there who will take advantage of the "anything goes" policy.

You really seem to have a very depressing take on human nature.

That is not true. I'm simply pointing out reasons why Libertarianism cannot work. There are many good qualities that people possess.

You seem to think that nobody will do anything constructive except by legal obligation

I neither stated nor implied that.

and you seem to think that no one will be responsible just because they think it's the right thing to do.

I never stated nor implied that either.

 

[Sage]

So if you leave the decision up to the individual, where does right/wrong come into play?

"Right" is not infringing on other people's rights, "wrong" is infringing on others' rights. Of course, that's not what I believe within my own morals (I believe that racism is wrong, even if it's committed "within the mind"), but that's all law should handle. Law can't handle morals – there are too many, too varied, too conflicting.

 

[Swift]

But there is right/wrong – It's wrong to infringe on other's rights: their right to not be plowed into by a drunk driver (any driver), their right to not have their property vandalized, etc.

Morals that don't directly harm you are what Libertarians want to "ignore", if you will. You have every right to be offended by John and Joe getting married (in other words, you have every right to say that that's against your morals, and I won't argue with that), but you do not have the right to infringe on their rights, because whether they get married or not will infringe on your rights in any way, shape, or form. It won't cause your house to explode, it won't cause you physical harm, it won't damage your car. And thus, you (as you like to say, the general "you" ) do not have any right to impose your morals on anybody else.


Why? 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.

Actually, Gay marriage does infringe on my rights. Because if gay people can get married, it means they can adopt children. Are you going to tell me that two men can raise child? Talk about gender confusion. It doesn't matter if they have a girl or boy. Now, my children go to school with children that have "two dads" or "two moms" Hmm...someone is going to feel very jacked up. Sorry, I'm just so against gay marraige with so many factors. The Least not being biblical, but I don't want to turn this into a theological debate.

The question is this, where do you get your "rules" for what is and isn't offense. What is and isn't moral. There has to be a basis for it. I didn't read anything on that site that told me where they got there "morals" from. They mention the founding fathers, but we all know the vast majority of them were Christians. So, now what?

"Right" is not infringing on other people's rights, "wrong" is infringing on others' rights. Of course, that's not what I believe within my own morals (I believe that racism is wrong, even if it's committed "within the mind"), but that's all law should handle. Law can't handle morals – there are too many, too varied, too conflicting.

So, what are the rights that are so often mentioned. That's what I'm getting at. Are we talking the bill of rights, ten commandments, what?

 

[Sage]

Actually, Gay marriage does infringe on my rights. Because if gay people can get married, it means they can adopt children. Are you going to tell me that two men can raise child? Talk about gender confusion. It doesn't matter if they have a girl or boy. Now, my children go to school with children that have "two dads" or "two moms" Hmm...someone is going to feel very jacked up. Sorry, I'm just so against gay marraige with so many factors. The Least not being biblical, but I don't want to turn this into a theological debate.

You don't have the right to not feel "jacked up" (or "confused") though – I feel that way when somebody attacks Atheism, but they have every right to do so. A person has every right to tell me that I'm going to hell and I'm working with the Devil and blah blah blah, as long as they don't burn my house down or something like that (infringing on my property rights).

The question is this, where do you get your "rules" for what is and isn't offense. What is and isn't moral. There has to be a basis for it. I didn't read anything on that site that told me where they got there "morals" from. They mention the founding fathers, but we all know the vast majority of them were Christians. So, now what?

Yes, many of them were Christians, but most knew that Christian morals should not interfere with government.

So, what are the rights that are so often mentioned. That's what I'm getting at. Are we talking the bill of rights, ten commandments, what?

To be perfectly honest (and yes, I'm admitting a flaw in my line of thinking, though not necessarily Libertarian thinking), I never gave that too much thought, though property and life are the biggies. Duke could probably elaborate better than I, but I imagine Bill of Rights are probably what "officially" drive Libertarian principles on what are and aren't rights.

I'm glad you brought that up, since I never gave it too much thought – though, I don't expect it'll change my viewpoints, but rather make them stronger.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

But again, there are restrictions, which is what separates anarchy from Libertarian philosophy. The restriction is that you cannot trample on other's rights. That covers a lot of ground.

That seems to be the ONLY thing separating Libertarian philosophy from anarchy. The reason why I continue to challenge this portion of the philosophy is because without CERTAIN restrictions (other than just saying "you can't trample on that guys rights!") other people's rights WILL be trampled over anyway -- and that is not conjecture, it is an inevitability.

Here's a point I probably should've made before touching that issue (and which will help answer your question here): According to Libertarian "morality", it doesn't matter how you impede on other people's rights, but that you have done so. In the driving case, it doesn't matter what causes the accident—drunk driving, being distracted by the radio, looking in your rear-view mirror too long, falling asleep—but rather that you've killed somebody. That's the issue – that you've destroyed a person's right to, well, living. It shouldn't make a lick of a difference whether you did that because you were drunk or you fell asleep – both are reckless, and both caused you to kill somebody. This leads to: You can't regulate sleepiness, so why regulate drunkenness?

I hate to have to answer a quote with a quote but:

...around 17,000 people are killed in alcohol-related road crashes each year in America, and 42,000 are killed overall. A common figure in America is that around one third of the fatal, alcohol-related crashes in the USA involve a repeat-offending drunk driver, so clearly the lethal risks from the first-time-caught is approximately double that from repeat-offenders.

If more people are allowed to drink and drive, based on these statistics, one can infer that the number of alcohol-related road fatalities (as well as overall road fatalities) will increase.

By punishing the acts of violence. It's people's responsibility to not copy violent acts they see on TV. That's what Libertarians hold people responsible for.

Again, it all comes down to PROACTIVE vs REACTIVE. Is it better to punish "civil rights offenders" after 17,000 people have died for the year, or make getting behind the wheel of a car after "a night out with some friends" more difficult. If you take the PROACTIVE approach, you can actually save lives. Why don't people get that?! Would you be willing to forego a "freedom" or two if you knew you could save the life of another? Or is your freedom SO important to you, that you would systematically ignore potentially life-threating situations all in the name of "FREEDOM"?

Well, throw more at us. I was just sticking to the gay marriage issue, because it was relevant to all the points I wanted to discuss.

I definitely will. It's getting late in the Eastern time zone and I have to get some sleep. But I will be monitoring the Opinions thread "religiously" from now on (no pun intended).

Ah, but why should there be degrees of "worseness"? From a Libertarian perspective, if it's wrong, then it's simply wrong – it doesn't matter how wrong it is, but rather that it shouldn't exist at all.

That is where we will have a divergence of opinion, and though I respect your opinions, I cannot agree with that. I will agree, however, that anything wrong should not exist at all.

 

[Swift]

Yes, many of them were Christians, but most knew that Christian morals should not interfere with government.

If that's what they thought, why was there prayer before every meeting of congress for about 100 years or so. Why were church services held there on Sunday? Why is in God We trust on our money, in "God Bless America" and in our pledge of alligence?

You don't have the right to not feel "jacked up" (or "confused") though – I feel that way when somebody attacks Atheism, but they have every right to do so. A person has every right to tell me that I'm going to hell and I'm working with the Devil and blah blah blah, as long as they don't burn my house down or something like that (infringing on my property rights).

So you're telling me I don't have the right to be offended? That's infringing on my rights! I'm guessing that was a mistyping though.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Actually, Gay marriage does infringe on my rights. Because if gay people can get married, it means they can adopt children. Are you going to tell me that two men can raise child? Talk about gender confusion. It doesn't matter if they have a girl or boy. Now, my children go to school with children that have "two dads" or "two moms" Hmm...someone is going to feel very jacked up. Sorry, I'm just so against gay marraige with so many factors. The Least not being biblical, but I don't want to turn this into a theological debate.

I understand your viewpoint and for the longest time I've held the same beliefs. Now, however, I find myself "not worrying" if you will about gay marriage -- yes, CONTRARY to what you were attempting to prove, Duke. I'm more concerned with rights that have an immediate effect (or can have an immediate effect) on my personal RIGHT to live in safety.

The question is this, where do you get your "rules" for what is and isn't offense. What is and isn't moral. There has to be a basis for it. I didn't read anything on that site that told me where they got there "morals" from. They mention the founding fathers, but we all know the vast majority of them were Christians. So, now what?

One of the many reasons why Libertarianism is flawed. They do not define what is moral and what is not. Everything is run by the free-market economy.

So, what are the rights that are so often mentioned. That's what I'm getting at. Are we talking the bill of rights, ten commandments, what?

Another pertinent question. Libertarians purposely avoid attacking complex issues. They generalize so much its terrifying. "Unlimited personal freedom, unlimited personal responsibility, no intrusion on other people's rights... and that's it."

 

[Sage]

That seems to be the ONLY thing separating Libertarian philosophy from anarchy. The reason why I continue to challenge this portion of the philosophy is because without CERTAIN restrictions (other than just saying "you can't trample on that guys rights!") other people's rights WILL be trampled over anyway -- and that is not conjecture, it is an inevitability.

I was going to answer this, but I need a little clarification first: The "rights" you speak of here (highlighted in red)… do you mean more like Swift's perception of rights (for example, Christians who feel that kids should have the right to not be confused about having two daddies), or do you mean more of the Libertarian perception of rights (anybody can yell their head off at me and tell me I'm going to hell, as long as they don't destroy my property or physically strike me or anything like that)? Depending on which you mean, that'll change my answer drastically.

If more people are allowed to drink and drive, based on these statistics, one can infer that the number of alcohol-related road fatalities (as well as overall road fatalities) will increase.

Again, it all comes down to PROACTIVE vs REACTIVE. Is it better to punish "civil rights offenders" after 17,000 people have died for the year, or make getting behind the wheel of a car after "a night out with some friends" more difficult. If you take the PROACTIVE approach, you can actually save lives. Why don't people get that?! Would you be willing to forego a "freedom" or two if you knew you could save the life of another? Or is your freedom SO important to you, that you would systematically ignore potentially life-threating situations all in the name of "FREEDOM"?

That's why there's a punishment – that's the deterrent. Any reasonable person can figure out that drunk driving will lead to a greater chance of them getting in a life-threatening accident, thus leading to a greater chance of them infringing on the rights of Joe Victim. Thus, the punishment for involuntary manslaughter should be enough to deter people from drinking and driving (or doing anything else to kill people) – and if that means stiffer penalties, then so be it. The preset punishment—the deterrent—is proactive.

BTW, I just realized something we might be on different pages about – I think you have the impression that I'm saying that even if a police officer sees somebody driving drunk, they shouldn't arrest that person until they hit somebody (thus, being reactive – reacting to the accident). What I'm actually saying is that it shouldn't matter if the person is weaving because of being drunk or because they're fiddling with the radio – either way, it's reckless driving, and the police officer should stop and arrest the person for putting others in danger.

I think it's important that I say that, since I might've given you the impression that you only punish someone after they've caused the problem, but not so – putting others in danger is just as bad, even if nobody actually gets hurt. My big point is that it doesn't matter how. If someone can actually drive, drunk, without putting anybody else in any kind of danger whatsoever, then they should be able to (it just so happens that nobody—that I know of, anyway—is able to do that, but you never know).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If that's what they thought, why was there prayer before every meeting of congress for about 100 years or so. Why were church services held there on Sunday? Why is in God We trust on our money, in "God Bless America" and in our pledge of alligence?

That is what I would like to know. Everything seemed to change after the Scopes Trial.

So you're telling me I don't have the right to be offended? That's infringing on my rights! I'm guessing that was a mistyping though.

Ironic isn't it.

 

[Sage]

If that's what they thought, why was there prayer before every meeting of congress for about 100 years or so.

They have the right to observe their faith. My point was that faith cannot be a part of actual laws.

Why were church services held there on Sunday?

^^ Ditto.

Why is in God We trust on our money, in "God Bless America" and in our pledge of alligence?

Well, the Founding Fathers didn't do that, and anyway, it's kind of a moot point, since I'm vehemently against having that on our money and in our pledge. (In other words, I can't justify it, since I think it's wrong! It'd be kinda hard to argue in favor of something that I'm strongly against.)

So you're telling me I don't have the right to be offended? That's infringing on my rights! I'm guessing that was a mistyping though.

No, not a mistyping. Nobody has the right to not be offended. Like I said, if some religious zealot told me that I was going to hell, I'd be offended, but they have every right to say that to me (to a certain extent – they can't cross the boundaries of "disturbing the peace", but that's not the main point). I find fat girls who show their fat stomachs offensive – that doesn't mean I have the right to force them to cover up though.

 

[Swift]

They have the right to observe their faith. My point was that faith cannot be a part of actual laws.


^^ Ditto.


Well, the Founding Fathers didn't do that, and anyway, it's kind of a moot point, since I'm vehemently against having that on our money and in our pledge. (In other words, I can't justify it, since I think it's wrong! It'd be kinda hard to argue in favor of something that I'm strongly against.)


No, not a mistyping. Nobody has the right to not be offended. Like I said, if some religious zealot told me that I was going to hell, I'd be offended, but they have every right to say that to me (to a certain extent – they can't cross the boundaries of "disturbing the peace", but that's not the main point). I find fat girls who show their fat stomachs offensive – that doesn't mean I have the right to force them to cover up though.

I think you misunderstand my points about the founding fathers. I was saying that they were christians and understood the Godly principles of free will. But with free will comes responsibilities and boundaries. You and Duke keep mentioning these responsibilites, but nobody has defined any rules.

BTW, I don't subscribe to any specific party, but at the moment, the republican party most closely represents my views.

Let me ask you this, how does the Libertarians feel about abortion?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I was going to answer this, but I need a little clarification first: The "rights" you speak of here (highlighted in red)… do you mean more like Swift's perception of rights (for example, Christians who feel that kids should have the right to not be confused about having two daddies), or do you mean more of the Libertarian perception of rights (anybody can yell their head off at me and tell me I'm going to hell, as long as they don't destroy my property or physically strike me or anything like that)? Depending on which you mean, that'll change my answer drastically.

Both, actually, because they are not mutually exclusive.

That's why there's a punishment – that's the deterrent. Any reasonable person can figure out that drunk driving will lead to a greater chance of them getting in a life-threatening accident, thus leading to a greater chance of them infringing on the rights of Joe Victim. Thus, the punishment for involuntary manslaughter should be enough to deter people from drinking and driving (or doing anything else to kill people) – and if that means stiffer penalties, then so be it. The preset punishment—the deterrent—is proactive.

If punishment were enough of a deterrent in this society, do you think crime (whether it's intentional or accidental) would be a prevalent as it is now?

BTW, I just realized something we might be on different pages about – I think you have the impression that I'm saying that even if a police officer sees somebody driving drunk, they shouldn't arrest that person until they hit somebody (thus, being reactive – reacting to the accident). What I'm actually saying is that it shouldn't matter if the person is weaving because of being drunk or because they're fiddling with the radio – either way, it's reckless driving, and the police officer should stop and arrest the person for putting others in danger.

I think it's important that I say that, since I might've given you the impression that you only punish someone after they've caused the problem, but not so – putting others in danger is just as bad, even if nobody actually gets hurt. My big point is that it doesn't matter how. If someone can actually drive, drunk, without putting anybody else in any kind of danger whatsoever, then they should be able to (it just so happens that nobody—that I know of, anyway—is able to do that, but you never know).

I understand what you're saying, but that is not what I was saying.
In response to your "big point", again this is where will have a divergence of opinion. Even after reading those grim statistics you still seem to believe that drunk drivers have the right get behind the wheel of a car -- quite frankly I find that disturbing. I can't say I blame you, though, as Libertarians refuse to define any rules regarding morality. The only rules in place if it were up to Libertarians are rules that would punish criminal behavior, not deter them.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I think you misunderstand my points about the founding fathers. I was saying that they were christians and understood the Godly principles of free will. But with free will comes responsibilities and boundaries. You and Duke keep mentioning these responsibilites, but nobody has defined any rules.

That is what Libertarianism is. They cannot define rules in regard to morality. You bring up an EXCELLENT point though about the founding fathers.

BTW, I don't subscribe to any specific party, but at the moment, the republican party most closely represents my views.

SCORE!!!​

💡 j/k​

Let me ask you this, how does the Libertarians feel about abortion?

There may even be a divergence of opinion on that matter as well.

 

[Sage]

I think you misunderstand my points about the founding fathers. I was saying that they were christians and understood the Godly principles of free will. But with free will comes responsibilities and boundaries. You and Duke keep mentioning these responsibilites, but nobody has defined any rules.

I thought we have. The rule is don't infringe on other people's rights; everyone's responsibility is to (surprise!) not infringe on other people's rights. There's not much more to it than that, unless I misunderstand what you're asking…?

Let me ask you this, how does the Libertarians feel about abortion?

That's actually a very tricky issue from a Libertarian perspective, because it's damn near impossible to figure out when the baby has natural rights (is it when they come out of the womb? is it when their brain is developed?). There's a thread that was made some months ago where danoff and Duke discussed this.

Both, actually, because they are not mutually exclusive.

Erm, so you're saying that Swift and I have the same perception of "rights"? 'Cuz I don't think we do…

If punishment were enough of a deterrent in this society, do you think crime (whether it's intentional or accidental) would be a prevalent as it is now?

Many of our punishments are ridiculous. There are people who go to jail for 5 or 6 years for murder – that's death sentence material, not a few piddly years in jail.

So, yes, if our punishments were up to snuff, I think it would be a reasonable deterrent. But many punishments these days are a joke. (Also a joke in the other direction – For example, Martha Stewart shouldn't have had to serve jail time for an act that hurt nobody.)

I understand what you're saying, but that is not what I was saying.
In response to your "big point", again this is where will have a divergence of opinion. Even after reading those grim statistics you still seem to believe that drunk drivers have the right get behind the wheel of a car -- quite frankly I find that disturbing.

Drunken drivers who cannot drive safely (as far as both of us know, that would be everybody) do not have the right to get behind the wheel of a car, because they will put people in danger. That's what I'm saying. If a driver is dangerous (and drunk drivers happen to be inherently dangerous), then they need to be punished and kept off the streets. My point is that you don't specifically define drunk drivers, but rather reckless drivers. Because, again, there could be some magical person on this Earth who could drink 5 beers and have no change in his ability to pilot a vehicle – I doubt that such a person exists, but after watching a few episodes of Ripley's, you realize that there are a lot of amazing people out there, so you can't indiscriminately discriminate.

Let me turn the tables on you: Would you rather have all the reckless drivers off of the roads, or just all of the drunks?

Do you see where I'm going with this now?

 

[Swift]

I thought we have. The rule is don't infringe on other people's rights; everyone's responsibility is to (surprise!) not infringe on other people's rights. There's not much more to it than that, unless I misunderstand what you're asking…?

So, who defines what is infringement?

 

[Duke]

I agree and I understand what you saying. However, when I made that comment it was in reference to the fact that Libertarians want "total freedom and total responsibility". How can there be a right/wrong (LONG BEFORE RIGHTS BECOME AN ISSUE) if everyone has absolute freedom with no restrictions whatsoever?

This is where the fundamental disconnect keeps occurring in your understanding. The restriction is that you are not allowed to interfere with another individual's rights. Somehow you keep failing to recognize this. Lately you've started saying that this is not specific enough, so here:

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. [emphasis added]

Here's a link to the summary of the LP platform.

Anyone can say getting behind the wheel of car drunk won't directly harm me. However, if a drunk driver T-bones someone at 80mph and that person is killed, is THAT what has to come down to before Libertarians "acknowledge" morality?

You keep coming back to the issue of some imagined 'right to drive drunk'. Sage has covered it pretty well with his point about driving recklessly for any reason at all. No one has said it's OK to drive drunk. danoff said he supported high levels of regulation for public lands, and roads are public lands. You have the right to get drunk. You have the right to drive. You don't have the right to combine the two on public property. The penalties for doing so should be very stiff and should be well publicized. There should be stiff enough penalties for reckless driving that people don't do it. That's proactive. End of story. Do you think we should stop every car every trip to check for impaired drivers? Do you think I should have to submit a blood sample that tests clear of alcohol or drugs before my car will start? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I agree with last bit. However, consider this situation (which I will try to keep as short as possible). Let's say someone is offended by violence in the media. The Libertarian would say, "Oh well, just change the channel!" << am I right? Because why should EVERYONE suffer just because a few "whiney" people don't want violent video games/DVDs etc. Completely understandable. However, when violence in media is inextricably linked to the violence in reality, how are the civil rights of the person who is a proponent of a few restrictions on free speech suppose to be protected?

So this is what you're saying: you don't believe in the responsibility part and you are blaming Libertarianism for that failure.

For what it's worth I support standards for violence and, for lack of a better word, decency in media that are available to minors without parental approval. However, if I want to let my 12 year old play Doom III, I should be allowed to do so.

Instead of searching for the scapegoat of violent media, how about we spend those efforts in educating people about the basic right of not having violence initiated against you? Make it clear that those who do violence will be restrained or eliminated. I'm tempted to go off on a tangent about how to set up the justice system this way, but I'll keep that for another time.

Regardless of peoples' (and parents', in particular) failure to live up to their responsibilities, they are not magically relieved of those responsibilities. It's still my job to behave civilly and to teach my kids to behave civilly, whether I want that job or not. Sage said it perfectly:

By punishing the acts of violence. It's people's responsibility to not copy violent acts they see on TV. That's what Libertarians hold people responsible for.

Only in an idyllic society where racism, terrorism, bigotry, hatred etc. does not exist.

I disagree. I am moral, on my own recognizance and of my own free will, in a society where those things exist.

So if you leave the decision up to the individual, where does right/wrong come into play?

Sage said it perfectly again. It's crystal clear: right is anything that does not interefere with another persons rights to physical health, well being, and property. Wrong is the opposite of that. See the LP quote in blue above for more elaboration.

Why is some concept of right and wrong beyond that automatically better, or required? Why should 'consenting adult' issues be a question? Let's use that term to cover basically everything that an adult might do in private: drugs, sex, etc. As soon as you start calling for those restrictions on moral grounds, the question immediately becomes: WHO SETS THE STANDARD? It's instantly muddy and subjective. My morality is very different from yours, just as yours is very different from an orthodox fundamentalists. Instead, the answers are crystal clear as soon as you remove the restrictions. Does it cause hurt to anybody not invloved, or their property? Did everybody invloved agree to it in advance? These questions are easy to answer.

Actually, Gay marriage does infringe on my rights. Because if gay people can get married, it means they can adopt children. Are you going to tell me that two men can raise child? Talk about gender confusion. It doesn't matter if they have a girl or boy. Now, my children go to school with children that have "two dads" or "two moms" Hmm...someone is going to feel very jacked up.

So it's OK for someone else to feel jacked up, so long as it's not you. I'll leave my opinions (and yours) on the suitability of homosexuals to be parents out of it, because it's not relevant. What is relevant is that you have just demonstrated the problem. NOTE: Christians are being used here as a convenient example, not as the ONLY example.

You've just used legislated morality to push your upset off onto someone else, without regard to their upset. People of this stripe often say "the freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. Nobody said you would never have to see religion or religious people." BINGO. Nobody ever said that... BUT nobody ever said you would be protected from seeing something you didn't like, either. It's a two-way street.

You don't have the right to be protected from seeing anything of which you disapprove. You only have the right to be protected from being required to participate in it, or have physical damage done by it. No one says you have to like gay people, or socialize with them. But you don't have any more right to make them go away than they have to make you go away. Personally I'm quite offended by Bible thumpers, and I spend time doing damage control with my kids and explaining why I think their behaviour is wrong. But that doesn't grant me the power to say that they should be repressed so that I never have to see them.

The question is this, where do you get your "rules" for what is and isn't offense. What is and isn't moral. There has to be a basis for it. I didn't read anything on that site that told me where they got there "morals" from. They mention the founding fathers, but we all know the vast majority of them were Christians. So, now what?

Ta da. That's the crux of the biscuit, right there. The beauty of this system is that once you accept the fundamental right of each individual - not to be directly harmed by the actions of others - as sacrosanct, it's up to each person to decide from where he draws his own morals. You're free to lead the upstanding, pious, temperate life you wish. You're free to raise your kids as you wish, and explain to them your values so they understand your decisions. That's all perfectly protected by the system. You can always make your own decisions about what you approve, and act accordingly.

But so long as they don't force you to participate, you need to leave others free to make those decisions for themselves. Remember, no matter how 'decent' you may feel yourself to be, to someone else, you're probably immoral and scandalous. If you try to legislate the morals of those you perceive to be less moral than you, then you become vulnerable to the same legislation from those who percieve themselves to be more moral than you.

So, what are the rights that are so often mentioned. That's what I'm getting at. Are we talking the bill of rights, ten commandments, what?

We've pretty much covered that. However, the Bill of Rights does an admirable job defining them - you can particularly see the influence of Thomas Jefferson in it. Jefferson, incidentally, was a Deist, not a Christian.

That seems to be the ONLY thing separating Libertarian philosophy from anarchy.

But that "ONLY thing" is a fundamental difference that you keep glossing over.

The reason why I continue to challenge this portion of the philosophy is because without CERTAIN restrictions (other than just saying "you can't trample on that guys rights!") other people's rights WILL be trampled over anyway -- and that is not conjecture, it is an inevitability.

...and so stiff punishments (should) exist for dealing with transgressions. If someone is going to ignore the law, they're going to ignore the law, no matter where you set the threshold. You've alluded to that yourself. Setting 'moral' restrictions higher does nothing to prevent that. So you define basic, inalienable actions as totally unacceptable, and you set stiff penalties for criminals who perpetrate them. Make it simple, make it powerful, make it consistent. Your chances of people understanding it and abiding by it just went up dramatically.

If that's what they thought, why was there prayer before every meeting of congress for about 100 years or so. Why were church services held there on Sunday? Why is in God We trust on our money, in "God Bless America" and in our pledge of alligence?

There was prayer because they were ignoring the Constitution.

There is "In God We Trust" on the money because in about 1862 a bunch of religious Conservatives railroaded it through Congress as a way of further separating the Union from the Confederacy and furthering their own agenda. For the 70 or so years following the Revolution, federal currency did not have those words on it and in fact featured Lady Liberty, a non-religious symbol.

The words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Alligiance in the McCarthy era (yes, the 1950s, folks, well over 100 years after it was originally written and accepted without those words), again by religious conservatives, as a way of trying to separate 'Godless Communists' from their vision of America.

So you're telling me I don't have the right to be offended? That's infringing on my rights! I'm guessing that was a mistyping though.

Nope. You've got every right to be offended. You just don't have any right to force people of whom you don't approve to go away (unless they're on your property)... just like I don't have any right to force Fred Phelps to go away, no matter what I'd personally enjoy doing to him with a crowbar and a pair of jumper cables.

I think you misunderstand my points about the founding fathers. I was saying that they were christians and understood the Godly principles of free will. But with free will comes responsibilities and boundaries. You and Duke keep mentioning these responsibilites, but nobody has defined any rules.

The responsibilites and boundaries are clear: you will not cause physical harm to others or their property. If you make the choice to do so, you should be required to pay resititution to the victims, and you should be punished for that transgression by having a similar removal of your rights.

Let me ask you this, how does the Libertarians feel about abortion?

Libertarians feel that each individual needs to make that decision for themselves. At some point the fetus becomes an individual and assumes its own inalienable rights. For some Libertarians, that means the moment of conception. For me, that means when the fetus could be viable outside the mother's womb. Say, in ballpark terms, the 6th month of pregnancy. But the point is, each person makes that decision for him/herself, and acts accordingly. People are always free to NOT have abortions if they disapprove of it.

 

[Danoff]

“Give me absolute safety, or give me death.”

It’s a quote from John Stossel’s book “Give Me a Break” where he ridicules this notion that laws can be used to prevent rights from being violated.

This thread has turned into one of the biggest quoting wars I’ve seen in a while – it’s difficult to keep up with and it would take me all day at this point to respond to everything I’ve read (yes I did read almost all of it – I got tired of reading it toward the end because there was a lot of repetition).

There are five main arguments I see here against libertariansim

1) People will not act morally if given limited freedom (inalienable human rights)
2) I have a right to restrict others’ freedom if it decreases the chances of me being hurt.
3) Rights will be infringed as a result of freedom (eg: If someone is allowed to drink and drive, they will very likely hurt someone else). This is used as an argument to restrict the action, rather than the harm.
4) Companies, when allowed to grow and thrive will eventually become monopolies and restrict choice.
5) Majority rule is acceptable.

I’ve probably skipped about 2 dozen, but let me address these basic five.

(1)

It is true that people will not act morally if given total freedom. Some (like Duke and myself) would act morally regardless of law, others choose to act immorally in spite of law and would certainly continue to do so, if not more, were they given total freedom. That is anarchy and that is why anarchy is unacceptable.

However, we must give up this quest to try to prevent any harm from ever occurring. It lands everyone in a padded cell eventually as all freedom is restricted – and I refuse to get pulled into a cost/benefits argument over civil liberties. No one person should have the right to decide which costs outweigh which benefits, and majority rule is unacceptable (see number 5).

The bottom line is that people are going to get hurt by those who will choose to violate the rules. All we can do is ensure that the rules are equitable.

I am fine with rules regulating driving. The public owns the roads, and the public can regulate them. I am not fine with rules regulating behavior on private property (eg: smoking bans, yelling fire in a theater, etc.) The public does not own that property and should not regulate behavior on that property.

So it is correct that people will not act morally even if given freedom with responsibility. But how would that be different than now? At least then we can ensure that the laws are good – that innocent people are not being punished – that people who have infringed on no one else’s rights will not be punished.

(2)

Human beings are born with certain, inalienable rights. Among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe those words with ever fiber of my existence. This means that you have no right to restrict other people’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. It means, rather, that the function of government is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is not your right to take away mine in hopes of making yourself safer. I have a right to own a gun. A store owner has a right to sell me a gun (replace the word gun with knife if you have strong feelings about guns and you’ll get my point). You have no right to tell me that I cannot own a gun – that is my liberty. You have no right to tell a store owner that he cannot sell me a gun – that is his liberty.

That being said, any item whose sole purpose is only be used to infringe the rights of others (an atomic bomb for example) can be prohibited by the state.

What gives you the power to choose which rights I have? You might respond with the “majority rule” answer. In that case, see number 5.

(3)

Rights will always be infringed as a result of freedom. That is the penalty for living in a free society. Some people will chose to break laws and harm others, even though it is prohibited. That is a constant of life and will not change. It is not a noble pursuit to attempt to reduce that as much as possible by restricting liberties.


If someone yells “fire” in a crowded theater it might harm people. Your response would be to prevent me from ever yelling fire – make the act of yelling “fire” illegal rather than the act of harming people illegal. That very well may prevent some people from getting hurt, but now what if I yell “bomb”. Now you have to make that illegal. But then I could yell “attack”, or “look out”, or “everybody down on the ground now, this is a stickup” or “everybody down on the ground forthwith, this is a stickup” or “all black people down on the ground henceforth, this is a holdup”. What about yelling “I’m going to kill everyone in this room” that would have to be made illegal.

Eventually you’re back to just having one law which covers all of your bases, you can’t cause people harm. Yell whatever the hell you want in a theater, but if you cause harm, you’re responsible.

You might think that by allowing people to yell “fire” (as long as they don’t harm anyone) the reactionary nature of the policing would lead to more people hurt than if we restricted it in the first place (in spite of my examples above). I would say to you that if the punishment is severe, even reactionary policing is sufficient. For example, policing speeding offenders is reactionary (because it is illegal to speed regardless of whether they cause harm). Only AFTER people have sped. You may think “this is fine, you can be reactionary in policing the cause, as long as the effect (harm) is avoided.” I would submit that with the speeding example, even reactionary policing would be sufficient to prevent 99% of speeding if the penalty were, say… death.

If speeding were punishable by death, then virtually nobody would do it. If causing harm by yelling fire in a theater were punishable by death, virtually nobody would yell fire in a theater. Now you have achieved your results and the law is still equitable. You’ve made reactionary policing effective.

(4)

I’m going to have to speed this up. No, monopolies will not spring into being just because the market is free – rather the opposite – the freer the market, the more choice we have. And the opposite is true for government. The more regulations we have, the fewer choices we have. An example of this is Amtrack.

(5)

Strict majority rule is unacceptable. This is why we have a bill of rights. I will restate my original example of why majority rule is unacceptable (which nobody has bothered to respond to). If the majority rules that something unethical be done (eg: slavery) that does not mean that it should be done. A violation of the inalienable rights of human beings in the name of majority rule is unacceptable. If the world were left to majority rule, the rights of the minority would constantly be infringed by the majority. In strict majority rule, you’ve given exactly what you fear the most – some people the right to screw over other people. That is what you’ve been saying is so wrong with freedom. I have shown why that does not happen under the libertarian philosophy. You have yet to show what that will not happen under majority rule.

Given the opportunity people will always do what is in their own best interest. We must anticipate that, and put in place systems of government, commerce, and law enforcement that uses that to its advantage.

 

[Swift]

This is where the fundamental disconnect keeps occurring in your understanding… *snip!*

Duke, I like you, so please don't get upset with me. But to think that an unborn child isn't a person until it can survive outside the mothers womb is ludicrous. Life is life. If people don't want a child, then don't have sex. Period. I know you're going to say it's an individual right, but what about the rights of the child? They don't have a voice yet, but they are being murdered before they get a chance. Also, legal abortions spread STD's. How? What's the biggest concern for women about sex? Pregnancy, they figure if I get pregnant, I can get an abortion. So, they go ahead and have sex, possibly with a condom or other form of contraceptive. And them bam! they get hit with some kind of STD that DOESN'T need fluid transfer to be spread. Can you say herpes? Now, here's what I don't get about the libertarian philosophy. How do we treat these people? With AIDS, herpes and other incurable diseases? Do we just say, "hey, it was your fault. So you take care of it?"

What thenis the libertarian stance on Capital Punishment?

Also, the boundaries are not clear because it is impossible to clearly define "harm" Is it when my or your children are adversly effected by someone's language, lifestyle, driving habits, etc. Or does there have to be a direct point of injury?

You say you don't like Bible thumpers, well, I don't like it when people preach nothing buy the judgement and nothing about the love of God. That just tears me right up.

Oh, I'm sure you know this, but Thomas Jefferson didn't have anything to do with the forming of the Constitiuion itself, not including any ammendments. He merely penned it. I do admire Thomas Jefferson, why? Because the ORIGINAL decleration of independence would've, in effect, set the slaves free. But the wonderful politicians of the south made him reword and change it so they could keep the slaves. Yes, I know Jefferson was a slave owner as well as most of the rest of the men at the time of the creation of the Constitution.

Also, I don't understand how the literal creators of the Constituiton could ignore the very policies that they fought for. They understood that they had what they had because God granted it to them. Not because they just got mad and decided to fight back.

Now, as far as the Libertarian stances go, I find them quite scary. Because you CANNOT define injury in a cut and dry, black and white way. It simply can't be done. Yes, there are some issues that are quite obvious, but others that are not. Such as the "right" to smoke. I think smokers should have to pay more for medical insurance since they are more likely to get sick, period. Why should I have to suffer because Joe Blow has an addiction to a product that causes chronic illness? They also say make drugs legal, while it would certainly help eleviate the prison and enforcement situations. It would absolutely destroy public wellness, such as it is. I mean come on, how many people would smoke a joint if it wasn't illegal? A lot, and pot is a lot worse for the body then cigarrettes. So, what about those situations. When people are strung out on the legal drugs and then need medical help? Do we just leave that on the shoulders of the community? How is that fair when we KNOW that they are bad for your health. The same can be said for tobacco and alchohol. But I'm not going to open that can of worms.

BTW, I'm actually enjoying this conversation.

=danoffI am fine with rules regulating driving. The public owns the roads, and the public can regulate them. I am not fine with rules regulating behavior on private property (eg: smoking bans, yelling fire in a theater, etc.) The public does not own that property and should not regulate behavior on that property.

What about smoking bans on gov't property? Like schools, state funded colleges, the street!(you just said the public owns the roads) and other places. I think that a person should only be able to smoke inside their own home because that's the ONLY way that it is impossible for it to infringe on my rights not to breathe that mess.

 

[Danoff]

Duke, I like you, so please don't get upset with me. But to think that an unborn child isn't a person until it can survive outside the mothers womb is ludicrous. Life is life. If people don't want a child, then don't have sex. Period. I know you're going to say it's an individual right, but what about the rights of the child? They don't have a voice yet, but they are being murdered before they get a chance. Also, legal abortions spread STD's. How? What's the biggest concern for women about sex? Pregnancy, they figure if I get pregnant, I can get an abortion. So, they go ahead and have sex, possibly with a condom or other form of contraceptive. And them bam! they get hit with some kind of STD that DOESN'T need fluid transfer to be spread. Can you say herpes? Now, here's what I don't get about the libertarian philosophy. How do we treat these people? With AIDS, herpes and other incurable diseases? Do we just say, "hey, it was your fault. So you take care of it?"

Abortion is not a party issue with libertarians. We disagree within the party. You should take this discussion to the abortion thread.

What thenis the libertarian stance on Capital Punishment?

I think the libertarian party leaves room for thinking either way on capital punishment.

Now, as far as the Libertarian stances go, I find them quite scary. Because you CANNOT define injury in a cut and dry, black and white way. It simply can't be done. Yes, there are some issues that are quite obvious, but others that are not. Such as the "right" to smoke. I think smokers should have to pay more for medical insurance since they are more likely to get sick, period. Why should I have to suffer because Joe Blow has an addiction to a product that causes chronic illness? They also say make drugs legal, while it would certainly help eleviate the prison and enforcement situations. It would absolutely destroy public wellness, such as it is. I mean come on, how many people would smoke a joint if it wasn't illegal? A lot, and pot is a lot worse for the body then cigarrettes. So, what about those situations. When people are strung out on the legal drugs and then need medical help? Do we just leave that on the shoulders of the community? How is that fair when we KNOW that they are bad for your health. The same can be said for tobacco and alchohol. But I'm not going to open that can of worms.

Aaah. The crimes of universal health care. No, we should not leave it on the shoulders of the community. No, a person who smokes should not rely on you to pay his health costs.

In fact, nobody should rely on anyone else to pay their health costs. We shoud all pay our own way rather than trying to legislate how smokers live their lives.

This is the difficulty of government regulation, it's never enough. Once they say that they have to take care of everyone, we all start trying to make sure that everyone lives their lives a certain way - when in fact, the problem is that the government has set out to take care of everyone.

 

[Swift]

Abortion is not a party issue with libertarians. We disagree within the party. You should take this discussion to the abortion thread.



I think the libertarian party leaves room for thinking either way on capital punishment.



Aaah. The crimes of universal health care. No, we should not leave it on the shoulders of the community. No, a person who smokes should not rely on you to pay his health costs.

In fact, nobody should rely on anyone else to pay their health costs. We shoud all pay our own way rather than trying to legislate how smokers live their lives.

This is the difficulty of government regulation, it's never enough. Once they say that they have to take care of everyone, we all start trying to make sure that everyone lives their lives a certain way - when in fact, the problem is that the government has set out to take care of everyone.

Ok, so two of the biggest issues in America today and the party doesn't even have a solid stance? Sheesh.

Now, I'm not for one second saying that the republican party's stances are airtight and perfect. But there seem to be a lot of wholes in the libertarian party philosophy.

 

[Danoff]

Now, I'm not for one second saying that the republican party's stances are airtight and perfect. But there seem to be a lot of wholes in the libertarian party philosophy.

What "philosophy" is it that the republicans or democrats have that allow them to reach a conclusion?

I think it makes perfect sense not to have a clear party stance on capital punishment or abortion. They depend so much on personal beliefs. When you believe life begins, whether you believe anyone should be executed.

They're tough areas that I haven't seen a philosophy really breech. It all comes down to a judgement call. Now I'm not totally sure that the libertarian party doesn't have an official stand on these issues, but I'm saying that you'll find lots of libertarians who think both ways on these issues. There's nothing fundamental about the libertarian philosophy that will tell you how to think on these issues.

 

[Swift]

What "philosophy" is it that the republicans or democrats have that allow them to reach a conclusion?

I think it makes perfect sense not to have a clear party stance on capital punishment or abortion. They depend so much on personal beliefs. When you believe life begins, whether you believe anyone should be executed.

They're tough areas that I haven't seen a philosophy really breech. It all comes down to a judgement call. Now I'm not totally sure that the libertarian party doesn't have an official stand on these issues, but I'm saying that you'll find lots of libertarians who think both ways on these issues. There's nothing fundamental about the libertarian philosophy that will tell you how to think on these issues.

I find that to be extremely contradictory. If the party is all about personal responsibility, should the punishment for murder not be death? I know our constitution protects us from cruel and unusal punishment. But it's not cruel to kill someone that killed another.

Those of you that are on the side of Libertarianism were doing just fine, until this statement.

 

[Danoff]

I find that to be extremely contradictory. If the party is all about personal responsibility, should the punishment for murder not be death? I know our constitution protects us from cruel and unusal punishment. But it's not cruel to kill someone that killed another.

Those of you that are on the side of Libertarianism were doing just fine, until this statement.

Some people think that our justice system is not ever accurate enough to warrant the death penalty. Some people think that since our justice system is not 100% correct, we should never execute anyone - that executing an innocent person even once is unacceptible and unjustifiable.

I happen to disagree. But that sentiment does not go against the ideas of personal responsibility. It's not contradictory with the libertarian philosphy and so those people can rightly call themselves libertarians.

 

[Duke]

Duke, I like you, so please don't get upset with me. But to think that an unborn child isn't a person until it can survive outside the mothers womb is ludicrous. Life is life.

That's fine. That's your belief and I will make no attempt to argue you out of it. You're perfectly within your rights to have come to that conclusion and to act accordingly. I support you in it.

If people don't want a child, then don't have sex. Period. I know you're going to say it's an individual right,

It's an individual right. But it's an individual right with consequences and if you choose to have sex you accept those consequences, whether you've ignored them or not. It's still your responsibility.

...but what about the rights of the child? They don't have a voice yet, but they are being murdered before they get a chance.

I've explained my position, and I've explained my support for you to decide your own opinion.

Also, legal abortions spread STD's. How? What's the biggest concern for women about sex? Pregnancy, they figure if I get pregnant, I can get an abortion. So, they go ahead and have sex, possibly with a condom or other form of contraceptive. And them bam! they get hit with some kind of STD that DOESN'T need fluid transfer to be spread. Can you say herpes?

That doesn't logically follow. Even if contraception could be 100% effective, people would still be exposed to the effects of STDs with or without abortion being in the picture at all. However, the consequences of having promiscuous sex are indeed exposure to STDs. Again, it's the individual's responsibility to consider this when choosing sex partners... and again, ignoring that responsibility does not relieve you of it.

Now, here's what I don't get about the libertarian philosophy. How do we treat these people? With AIDS, herpes and other incurable diseases? Do we just say, "hey, it was your fault. So you take care of it?"

Is it better to say "hey, it's not your fault, we'll take care of it? I don't quite understand your point. Medical research will advance and should advance. People should avail themselves of that via insurance or finding free clinics willing to donate time to curing those people.

Or better yet, people should think it through in the first place and be extremely careful with whom they have sex. Again, ignoring your responsibilities doesn't make them go away.

Ok, well then what's the libertarian stance on Capital Punishment?

I can't speak for all Libertarians, but as far as I'm concerned you forfeit your right to protection from harm by attacking another individual. If the crime is violent enough, then the punishment should include death.

Also, the boundaries are not clear because it is impossible to clearly define "harm" Is it when my or your children are adversly effected by someone's language, lifestyle, driving habits, etc. Or does there have to be a direct point of injury?

Yes, there has to be direct point of injury to yourselves, your property, or the public peace. Otherwise you step over a slippery slope. For every argument you can state where your 'rights' have been indirectly violated - say, having your kids see a gay couple - I can claim that my 'rights' have been violated by having my kids see people being repressed for something that causes no harm.

Again, it opens up the question of setting the standards. If you feel vindicated by legislating against everything you find offensive, you need to put yourself in the mirror and see that someone else has just been offended by being legislated against.

You say you don't like Bible thumpers, well, I don't like it when people preach nothing bu[t] the judgement and nothing about the love of God. That just tears me right up.

So, do you feel the need to legislate against those people? I don't. I feel the need to avoid them and explain to my kids why I think they're wrong.

Oh, I'm sure you know this, but Thomas Jefferson didn't have anything to do with the forming of the Constitiuion itself, not including any ammendments. He merely penned it.

I sincerely disgaree with this. If you think he just wrote down what everybody said, you are quite mistaken. He did not write it in a vacuum, but nor did he avoid putting his beliefs all through it.

Also, I don't understand how the literal creators of the Constituiton could ignore the very policies that they fought for. They understood that they had what they had because God granted it to them. Not because they just got mad and decided to fight back.

They set them aside because, led by Jefferson, they understood that their personal religious beliefs were not universal. You can't make a blanket statement like the words in red above. On an individual basis, you may be right in some instances, but in others, you are most assuredly not. Either way, they understood that no one religion could be considered universal and so they carefully - extremely carefully - crafted a Constitution that allowed unlimited private religious practice while simultaneously protecting that private practice from any public interference.

Now, as far as the Libertarian stances go, I find them quite scary. Because you CANNOT define injury in a cut and dry, black and white way. It simply can't be done. Yes, there are some issues that are quite obvious, but others that are not. Such as the "right" to smoke. I think smokers should have to pay more for medical insurance since they are more likely to get sick, period. Why should I have to suffer because Joe Blow has an addiction to a product that causes chronic illness?

You shouldn't have to. Smokers should pay for the cost of their actions. Insurance premiums should be higher for smokers; as high as necessary for insurance companies to recoup whatever they pay for smoking-related claims. Medicare should not exist, but since it does, it certainly shouldn't cover the consequences of a voluntary action like smoking.

Smoking should be prohibited in publicly-owned places, in accordance with protections against 'disturbing the public peace'. But smoking should be legal on private property, such as restaurants. The restaurant owner has the right to decide if alienating his non-smoking patrons is worth catering to his smoking patrons. Patrons of both types have the right to boycott restaurants that do not cater to their particular needs.

They also say make drugs legal, while it would certainly help eleviate the prison and enforcement situations. It would absolutely destroy public wellness, such as it is. I mean come on, how many people would smoke a joint if it wasn't illegal? A lot, and pot is a lot worse for the body then cigarrettes. So, what about those situations.

Why would it automatically destroy public wellness?

I used to smoke marijuana, a long time ago. The legality of it was irrelevant, other than having a certain impact on where and how I chose to smoke it. Yet I decided that it was a stupid idea for me to do it because I decided I didn't like the effect it had on me. So I stopped. Look up a user named milefile. Despite being a heavy user of marijuana and a staunch supporter of the individual's right to use it in private, he came to the same conclusion, and he stopped using it as well.

When people are strung out on the legal drugs and then need medical help? Do we just leave that on the shoulders of the community? How is that fair when we KNOW that they are bad for your health. The same can be said for tobacco and alchohol. But I'm not going to open that can of worms.

Again, the responsibility in no way resides with the community; it resides with the individual. It's not fair to assign it to the community, you are correct. Every person has the repsonsibility to know the health impacts of ingesting drugs, and that information is readily available to all. The consequences of taking your first shot of heroin are clear and known to all but the most isolated of aboriginies throughout the planet. Yet people do so... regardless of the legality. And making that choice means you deal with the consequences, or you die. The information was known in advance, the user either considered it or decided not to, and made his choice. That's not society's responsibility, it's his.

So long as he doesn't resort to mugging old ladies to support his habit, or lurching around disturbing the public peace while wasted, it's his choice to make over his own life, whether I feel it was a mistake or not.

BTW, I'm actually enjoying this conversation.

And so am I.

 

[Swift]

Some people think that our justice system is not ever accurate enough to warrant the death penalty. Some people think that since our justice system is not 100% correct, we should never execute anyone - that executing an innocent person even once is unacceptible and unjustifiable.

I happen to disagree. But that sentiment does not go against the ideas of personal responsibility. It's not contradictory with the libertarian philosphy and so those people can rightly call themselves libertarians.

Sorry, but that's really garbage. If you kill someone, ouside of self defense and soldiering, then you deserve to die. Period.

I don't like death or killing. And I do believe that killing an innocent person is horribly wrong. But there are PLENTY of cases where there is no doubt. I find it ridiculous that I have to pay for a convict that killed people to survive in prison for X amount of years. That's ludicrous.

After reading the libertarian view on crime, they linked EVERYTHING back to drugs. Drugs are not the only crimes being commited or the only things that spark criminal intent.

As I said before, if the party can't take a stance on an issue like capital punishment and abortion, then in my mind, it's simple not a viable party.

 

[Danoff]

Drugs are not the only crimes being commited or the only things that spark criminal intent.

I disaree. I think that man's mind is the only thing that can spark criminal intent.

Sorry, but that's really garbage. If you kill someone, ouside of self defense and soldiering, then you deserve to die. Period.

I don't want to defend those libertarians who oppose the death penalty. I am all for it. I agree with the above statement. But I'm not going to pretend that the law gets it right every time.

don't like death or killing. And I do believe that killing an innocent person is horribly wrong. But there are PLENTY of cases where there is no doubt. I find it ridiculous that I have to pay for a convict that killed people to survive in prison for X amount of years. That's ludicrous.

The money argument won't win your side here. Trust me, I've argued IN FAVOR of the death penalty plenty of times. I'm pretty sure it has been shown that it costs MORE to execute criminals than it does to incarcerate them for life.

As I said before, if the party can't take a stance on an issue like capital punishment and abortion, then in my mind, it's simple not a viable party.

I'm sure the party has an official stance on capital punishment, but you'll find lots of people within the party on either side. The bottom line is this. Do you really need your political party to pick sides on every single issue? Do you have to follow your party on every single issue? I don't. I'm not defined by my political party. If I disagree with them (and I do in some cases), then I disagree. That doesn't meant that I don't hold with their philosophy.