Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Famine]

Humans have rights and responsibilities. Some rights also are conflicting. You can't say that your wiew on human rights is somehow more "correct" than others.

A right can't be a right if, without doing anything against someone else's rights, you no longer have a right to it.

Any system where the rights of the innocent conflict is a system that does not define rights properly. So yes, yes he can.

Of course I could say that I have a right for clean air to breathe. Don't drive petrol cars and generate energy with coal!

Let's hope people never cough or fart in your system then.

 

[Foxhound93]

A right can't be a right if, without doing anything against someone else's rights, you no longer have a right to it.

Any system where the rights of the innocent conflict is a system that does not define rights properly. So yes, yes he can.

And you are saying that UN described human rights aren't actually rights. What is rights after all? You can have that definition, however there is definitional issues when defining rights and it is not that simple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Things gets even more complicated when we talk about human rights.

 

[FoolKiller]

Fine. There is one problem: human rights are relative term. Someone might see it different than others. For example, lets look at Universal Declaration of Human Rights presented by UN: Article 22. or 26.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a22
There is always a choice between different values and that is why we have democracy. Yes, social democracy (or whatever it is called in english) may conflict with right to personal property but libertarianism does conflict with some rights too. For example those two articles I mentioned.

Article 22 requires violating Article 17.

Article 26 requires the potential to violate Article 4 in a workforce shortage.

Honestly read the document and consider what is needed to enforce those "rights" in all situations. You will find you must contradict other rights to make it happen. It is a self-contradictory document of feel good sentiments.

It gives you a right to property, but also gives others the right to property taken for you. It guarantees you the labor of other individuals who have the right to not be held in slavery or servitude. Can a teacher refuse to teach certain students?


Oh, one more.

And Article 26(2) is social engineering to control Article 19, which is interesting because Article 19 specifically says, "without interference."

 

[Danoff]

Humans have rights and responsibilities. Some rights also are conflicting.

There are no conflicting rights. The only time this occurs is when you identify something as a right that is not one.

You can't say that your wiew on human rights is somehow more "correct" than others.

There is only one correct view on that subject. All others are incorrect.

Of course I could say that I have a right for clean air to breathe.

You do have a right not to be harmed by someone else's emissions yes.

And I don't know what US guardianship laws contains.

If a parent is guilty of child abuse (lack of education, food, clothing, shelter, even socialization), the parent will have custody removed for the child and another guardian will be found. In the event that a deadbeat parent has a backup guardian specified (fat chance), that person would be contacted. After that, family is generally contacted. If no one was willing to play the role the state would look for foster guardians.

 

[Famine]

And you are saying that UN described human rights aren't actually rights.

I'm not specifically saying that no, but I can do if what they describe as human rights aren't rights.

Having read the universal declaration of human rights a few times I can indeed say that what they describe as human rights are not human rights, as many require the labour of other people and several of them contradict. @FoolKiller filled some of that in for you.

What is rights after all?

A right is something to which you, as a sentient, rational being, have self entitlement - which logically stem from your sentience and rationality itself.

You can have that definition, however there is definitional issues when defining rights and it is not that simple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Things gets even more complicated when we talk about human rights.

There is no reason for it to be complicated, except to obfuscate - such obfuscation being beneficial to those who would ignore rights with laws.

As you've seen, every question yet posed to the individuals on this forum who do not complicate rights in this manner has been easily and sensibly answered. Now ask a lawyer

 

[LeMansAid]

You do have a right not to be harmed by someone else's emissions yes.

That's a can of worms though isn't it? Cars, cigarettes, cattle farms, they're all trying to kill me. Does that mean that every car that passes me has a driver that is violating my right to life? If there's no tolerance, much of the population will violate my rights at some point. If there is a tolerance, is there a way of deriving it from absolute and not just arbitrary logic?

 

[Danoff]

That's a can of worms though isn't it? Cars, cigarettes, cattle farms, they're all trying to kill me. Does that mean that every car that passes me has a driver that is violating my right to life? If there's no tolerance, much of the population will violate my rights at some point. If there is a tolerance, is there a way of deriving it from absolute and not just arbitrary logic?

You'd need to be able to prove damages (usually in court). Try proving the harm that someone's second hand smoke that you smelled while you were walking down the sidewalk caused you.

 

[KSaiyu]

It's hardly a trojan horse if it's the aim of the school... Remember, private education is opt-in.

To change the aim of the school is my question. You seem to think by virtue of it being private that creates some sort of guarantee against subversion of the governers. In fact Operation Trojan Horse wanted to make schools switch to academy status to make it easier to install governers in tune with the plot.

And that's exactly what happens NOW. The overwhelming majority of parents take no responsibility for their children's education and stuff them into the nearest state school oblivious to what they're being taught and by whom...

And who, in the current world regulates what they're being taught, and by whom..

That would be proving "that the behaviour resulted in harm", which you rejected out of hand as "would never happen".

You're a scientist. You don't need me to point out the difference between proving a behaviour caused harm and something increasing the risk of harm significantly. For example I developed asthma after spending years in the snooker halls as a teenager before the smoking ban. Was that probably a causative factor - yes. Can I prove it - no. Same with the car example. If those children grow up to have a significantly greater incidence of asthma, or years down the line lung cancer we may be able to prove a causal link for the group, but for each individual case? Would never happen. And if that's the burden of proof required for public health legislation in a libertarian world, then I'd argue it's not progressive.

Let's ask the question again. Did you want to prosecute someone for something that can't be proven?

Prosecute for significantly increasing the risk, yes. Same as I would for a parent taking a child for a drive without a proper child seat.

Where it would be less of an issue than it is today since people would be more likely to take responsibility for things.

Alright, let's imagine there is a shift in parents' recognition of their responsibilities. There will still be a minority who are unable to change, what happens to their children?

No. The child can either by taught by the guardian or the guardian can find someone else to teach the child - whether there be compensation for it or not. Thresholds of learning would have to be met - basic reading and math skills for example. Fail to meet that and you get a case worker assigned who's job it is to determine whether you are abusing your child due to lack of education (I see this as a proper role of government).

So if there are no schools in the area teaching a secular, balanced education you would have to move or homeschool.

Belting your kids into the back seat of your car and pulling out of your driveway increases the risk of them encountering a life-threatening condition. So clearly anyone transporting their kids in their car should have charges brought against them for manslaughter, by that logic.

That's flawed logic as it's not distinguishing between reasonable and reasonably avoidable risk.

----

I'm also curious about the deaf child hypothetical I asked earlier.

 

[BobK]

That's flawed logic as it's not distinguishing between reasonable and reasonably avoidable risk.

So where is the line between "reasonable risk" and "unreasonable risk"?

And who gets to draw it?

 

[KSaiyu]

So where is the line between "reasonable risk" and "unreasonable risk"?

And who gets to draw it?

Government, based on advice from relevant authorities (eg Health authorities).

With the logic you suggested we shouldn't let children even leave the house as there is a risk of them being injured as pedestrians. It's an all or nothing approach not really relevant to the real world.

 

[Dotini]

a simple, balanced education. Is that a right for children?

What is rights after all? You can have that definition, however there is definitional issues when defining rights and it is not that simple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Things gets even more complicated when we talk about human rights.

I think it's a very, very good idea to carefully read, appreciate and frequently cite the wiki article and other scholarly articles on rights. That way, everyone will be speaking about the same things.

Now, it must also be appreciated that this thread is about libertarianism , and that there are many flavors, stripes and strains of libertarians. I am one, and my strain is a heady brew of anarchist and paleo-conservative. My favorite libertarian philosophers are John Zerzan () and Pat Buchanan (). Some prefer Ayn Rand (), but not me. But at least I accept the wiki article as a basis for the discussion of rights with such a broad swath of people like we have here at the forum.

So when discussing rights and libertarianism, it's good to meet on a common ground of language and definition. Insist on this, and reject idiosyncratic notions of rights based on what is claimed to be "logic" alone.

 

[Exorcet]

Alright, let's imagine there is a shift in parents' recognition of their responsibilities. There will still be a minority who are unable to change, what happens to their children?

Why are we focusing only on the parents? It's not like everyone else in the world will suddenly drop concern for other people's children just because there's less government oversight.

The parents who have trouble supporting their children will have the help of other people around them. The parents that don't want to support their children violate their rights and lose their own rights as parents. In that case the children can be cared for by someone else. Family, friends, adoptive parents, etc.

 

[Danoff]

Prosecute for significantly increasing the risk, yes. Same as I would for a parent taking a child for a drive without a proper child seat.

If you're taking the child for a drive on a road owned by someone else, they get to regulate the standards for the equipment you use.

Alright, let's imagine there is a shift in parents' recognition of their responsibilities. There will still be a minority who are unable to change, what happens to their children?

People who are unwilling to be guardians should not be guardians.

So if there are no schools in the area teaching a secular, balanced education you would have to move or homeschool.

I know that it's ridiculous to think that someone might buy a house in a particular area for proximity to a school... crazy thought... but that should factor in. Here are your options:

- Buy a house near a school you like so that you can easily drive your kids to it
- Buy a house far from a school you like and commute your kids to the school (this is not an option right now because of public schools)
- Arrange for transportation for your kids to a distant school (this is not an option right now because of public schools)
- Choose an online school (this is not an option right now)
- Home school
- Hire a tutor

Right now the public school system in America can only be described as class warfare against the poor. Poor neighborhoods only have access to the worst public schools. It doesn't matter how much those parents want to pay to get their kids into a better school, unless they can afford hundreds of thousands of additional cost in debt to buy a house in a nicer neighborhood and a massive increase in property tax, their kids will never gain access to those better schools. I think that tying your school to your house is one of the more ridiculous aspects of American society.

I'm also curious about the deaf child hypothetical I asked earlier.

I think I already answered it when I said that people with certain genetic disorders, where it is well known that the child has a high likelihood of having the same disorder, should be prosecuted for having a child with that disorder.

So when discussing rights and libertarianism, it's good to meet on a common ground of language and definition. Insist on this, and reject idiosyncratic notions of rights based on what is claimed to be "logic" alone.

Logic is not an idiosyncrasy. I don't know why you chose that word, but it is not applicable in this sentence. I suspect you wanted to choose a harsher (and still not applicable) word, and toned it down to "idiosyncratic". Regardless this does not describe logic. Neither does any other inflammatory word you might have been considering.

And no, it is not sensible to reject logic - that is the definition of irrational, and it is not fruitful to engage in irrational discussion on this subject.

 

[KSaiyu]

People who are unwilling to be guardians should not be guardians.

Remember this stemmed from talking about Operation Trojan Horse. Parents weren't denying their children a minimum standard of education (well, I believe they were but that's debatable and another topic). We were talking about the possibility of there being no options provided for secular, balanced education. The parents who don't see their children receiving this education as a responsibility will send their child to the inadequate school. Saying they shouldn't be guardians because of this is not really an answer.

Right now the public school system in America can only be described as class warfare against the poor. Poor neighborhoods only have access to the worst public schools. It doesn't matter how much those parents want to pay to get their kids into a better school, unless they can afford hundreds of thousands of additional cost in debt to buy a house in a nicer neighborhood and a massive increase in property tax, their kids will never gain access to those better schools. I think that tying your school to your house is one of the more ridiculous aspects of American society.

It's the same here. You'll find I'm a staunch supporter of schools turning to academy status if they can prove to provide quality education regardless of area. See the ARK school chain who I quoted earlier, which runs some of the best non-fee paying, non-selective schools in the country.

 

[Danoff]

Remember this stemmed from talking about Operation Trojan Horse. Parents weren't denying their children a minimum standard of education (well, I believe they were but that's debatable and another topic). We were talking about the possibility of there being no options provided for secular, balanced education. The parents who don't see their children receiving this education as a responsibility will send their child to the inadequate school. Saying they shouldn't be guardians because of this is not really an answer.

I don't really see how you can argue that a parent who refuses their responsibility should be left in custody of the child. That's awfully fundamental. Do you feel this way about food as well? Clothing? Shelter? Is education the only basic necessity where you suggest that a parent should be able to shrug off their responsibilities and retain custody?

 

[FoolKiller]

Something I found interesting the other day.

People keep asking how a private road would work. Let's ask the British gentleman who built one.
http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/03/man-g...own-and-charges-2-for-cars-to-use-it-4819615/

A British businessman who has grown tired of council works closing off a road near his home has built his own detour, and is now charging motorists £2 each to use it.

Mike Watts, 62, was forced to drive around a section of the A431 between Bath and Bristol because a landslide had closed the road in February. Council works were due to carry on until the end of the year.

Not wanting to wait that long, Watts employed his own crew of road workers and built a 365m-long bypass in the field next to the closed-off section.

The Kelston toll road, set up by Mike Watts, charges motorists £2 to bypass roadworks (Picture: SWNS)
He spent £150,000 of his own money, so has now set up a toll booth and is charging cars £2 to drive along his road (and £1 for motorbikes). Regular users can bulk-buy 12 passes for £10.

Motorists can avoid the toll, of course, but it means having to make a ten-mile detour, so most are happy to pay the money.

Cars using the 365m toll road avoid a ten-mile detour (Picture: SWNS)
He explained: ‘Building a toll road is not an easy everyday thing that people do, and in fact this is the first private toll road in Britain in at least 100 years.

‘But I have had a 100 per cent positive response from the public on this.

Mike Watts spent £150,000 building the bypass, which is why he’s keen to recoup some of the costs (Picture: SWNS)
‘I think people are very grateful that we have taken the risk to keep pushing with this.

‘It’s not easy to build your own toll road, I can tell you that, but we’ve got there in the end.’

 

[JMoney]

I would be a libertarian if not bound by the principles of the Bible. Most of my friends are libertarians and, like me, hate government restrictions and regulations on life, but when it comes to some social issues I'm in favor of government intervention in order to prevent what I believe is sin.

 

[DK]

Switch "Bible" for "Qur'an" in that post and you sound like a Saudi policeman.

 

[Danoff]

I would be a libertarian if not bound by the principles of the Bible. Most of my friends are libertarians and, like me, hate government restrictions and regulations on life, but when it comes to some social issues I'm in favor of government intervention in order to prevent what I believe is sin.

God didn't prevent sin, why should you?

 

[FoolKiller]

I would be a libertarian if not bound by the principles of the Bible. Most of my friends are libertarians and, like me, hate government restrictions and regulations on life, but when it comes to some social issues I'm in favor of government intervention in order to prevent what I believe is sin.

If you believe in what America was supposed to be, forcing your religious beliefs on others is not part of that ideal. It was something I had to come to terms with at one point. Once I realized that my thought process was why parts of the Middle East are the way they are and is why people like the Pilgrims came to America, the more I realized my folly.

I can live my life God, a Family, Country, but I cannot make others do that. And to be honest, Jesus never said we should. He wouldn't even let force be used to protect him.

Or to put it another way, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

 

[niky]

Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Naughty, naughty boy.

I think, given that, we can set aside enforcing sodomy laws and proscriptions against eating pork.

 

[LeMansAid]

Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Naughty, naughty boy.

No, that turned out to be Brian didn't it?

 

[JMoney]

God didn't prevent sin, why should you?

Because doing so grants me God's favor. Sure, it's none of my business if a pregnant woman wants to abort, but that doesn't make it right. If a system can be set in place to prevent such an event, like a law, I'm all for it. God gave us free will, but that doesn't mean the government should.

Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Naughty, naughty boy.

I think, given that, we can set aside enforcing sodomy laws and proscriptions against eating pork.

Do you want to debate me or take words out of my mouth?

I eat bacon almost every morning.

If you believe in what America was supposed to be, forcing your religious beliefs on others is not part of that ideal. It was something I had to come to terms with at one point. Once I realized that my thought process was why parts of the Middle East are the way they are and is why people like the Pilgrims came to America, the more I realized my folly.

The middle east has always been religiously strict, but not always chaotic and violent. Look at the Ottoman Empire- they allowed other religions in their nation (and were trailblazers for doing such) while keeping laws to honor Islam, the state religion. If the Ottomans hadn't fallen after the Great War, they might have protected Israel when it was first founded. America was founded similarly to the Ottoman Empire-- it was founded by a religious group and protected people of other religions.

If America was supposed to be a place where religion was not enforced, then why did slavery persist for 90 years after? Why did we just recently legalize abortion, and why are we just now overturning a ban on gay marriage? In truth, America never was the "land of the free".

 

[Danoff]

Because doing so grants me God's favor. Sure, it's none of my business if a pregnant woman wants to abort, but that doesn't make it right. If a system can be set in place to prevent such an event, like a law, I'm all for it. God gave us free will, but that doesn't mean the government should.

Doesn't it? God and Jesus never set out to use force to prevent sin (the way government does). They set out to change minds. You should want people to be free to sin and choose not to - that's what grants you your deity's favor.

 

[JMoney]

Doesn't it? God and Jesus never set out to use force to prevent sin (the way government does). They set out to change minds. You should want people to be free to sin and choose not to - that's what grants you your deity's favor.

Not quite. God did use force to prevent sin, or to punish those who sinned, many times in the Old Testament. Christ, however, was sent to redeem those who sinned. Christ's sacrifice would not have been necessary without sin. I believe that those who lead sinful lives and reject God are not rewarded with eternal life, so I would want to prevent the sins they might commit, as Christ said to make disciples of all nations.

 

[FoolKiller]

the state religion.

Which America does not have. Exactly the opposite.

America was founded similarly to the Ottoman Empire-- it was founded by a religious group and protected people of other religions.

And how exactly do you suggest protecting other religions while enforcing your own? I grew up being taught that dancing and alcohol were sins. I saw Footloose. John Lithgow was not a nice man. And that brings up a very important point. Religions today have a lot of human influence. People believe stuff never mentioned in the Bible, taking meaning from words that wasn't used before.

How far would you take it? Enforcing The Ten Commandments? More?

If America was supposed to be a place where religion was not enforced, then why did slavery persist for 90 years after?

Because the country would have fallen apart before it began if those who wanted to stop slavery did not give in. Stopping slavery when we did still almost did that.

Why did we just recently legalize abortion, and why are we just now overturning a ban on gay marriage?

Why did alcohol only get banned in the 1920s, but allowed again not too long after? The ban was religious peopl grabbing control. Blue laws that exist today, which most of the county you live in is very familiar with, are still kept in place by religious leaders.

In truth, America never was the "land of the free".

Sadly, this is true. That's no reason to give up on it.

Refer to the Ottoman Empire if you wish, but I highly doubt they had Sarah Palins, Michelle Bachmanns, Jerry Falwells, or other similar types. Imagine a country where the Westboro Baptist Church produces a political leader. I would much rather look at someone I think is living immorally than risk being forced to live under the most strict religious rules imaginable.

And as @Danoff points out, what good is not sinning if you do it only because the law makes you?

 

[JMoney]

@FoolKiller There's a difference between enforcing the principles of a religion, and enforcing the religion. America, at one point, enforced the basic priciples of Christianity while not actually enforcing all Ten Commandments. That is what I would be in favor of- after all, without other religions here there would be nobody to evangelize and turn Christian, which God wants us to do.

If we do enfore some aspects of Christianity then we can show those of other beliefs that Christianity is the better way.

And no, the Ottoman Empire was nothing remotely like the Westboro Baptist Church. The Ottomans tolerated other religions such as Christianity and Judaism, but taxed them heavier than Muslims in an attempt to get them to convert to Islam. And it worked, although in America it would be unconstitutional. If the Westboro Baptist Church were a country it would be more of a North Korea- type government; those who disagreed would be put to death.

 

[niky]

Do you want to debate me or take words out of my mouth?

View attachment 200020

I eat bacon almost every morning.

Here, here... just having a bit of fun.

But on a more serious note... there are no laws based on religious principle that have any business being laws.

Abortion? That's a matter of human rights. The rights of the unborn child versus the mother. The reason it is so contentious is because of the debate of when a child becomes an autonomous person or can be legally considered an autonomous person.

Mind you, the Catholic Church believes it's a sin to waste sperm. Which is where sodomy laws come in. Because both are tenuously based on the ancient Hebrew practice of having a man roger his dead brother's wife to knock her up.

Beyond that, what else, is there, really? Laws should exist only to protect people from other people. Period. Any law that restricts what you can do to yourself and for yourself is unjust and unchristian.

Not quite. God did use force to prevent sin, or to punish those who sinned, many times in the Old Testament.

This is why I bring up sodomy and pork. Because using anything that happens in the Old Testament as justification for legislation means that you tend to accept a very strict interpretation of Hebraic law. Which includes stoning adulterers to death, killing infidels and owning slaves.

That God killed people for peeking at the destruction of their homes, for belonging to other religions, or for simply being the firstborn in their household.

He wasn't a very just God.

The God of Christ isn't perfect, but he makes a whole lot more sense. And Christ's God prescribed the separation of Religion and State. Not that the Church that followed ever followed its own advice.

 

[FoolKiller]

@FoolKiller There's a difference between enforcing the principles of a religion, and enforcing the religion. America, at one point, enforced the basic priciples of Christianity while not actually enforcing all Ten Commandments.

How so?

How is not allowing homosexual marriage a basic principle? I really think it would help direct the conversation if you gave some specifics that you would or would not make law' and why.

Right now, from your response, we either misunderstand you or you are balancing a very tricky line.

I will say this: The Jesus I understand was caring, loving, pacifist, and did not use force. He used understanding and love. He accused the Jewish priests of creating and enforcing rules that were not God's will and warned against men who use their title and/or place of power to twist The Word of a God. He was turning the other cheek, spreading the word through acts. He took the dregs of society and gave them a better way, giving them a choice.

From what I can gather, he was closer to libertarian than right-wing religious conservative. You know, that whole cast the first stone, judge not kind of mentality.

 

[JMoney]

How is not allowing homosexual marriage a basic principle?

I didn't say it was.

I really think it would help direct the conversation if you gave some specifics that you would or would not make law' and why.

Not sure what this means, but we are supposed to be discussing libertarianism, not my dream government.

I will say this: The Jesus I understand was caring, loving, pacifist, and did not use force. He used understanding and love. He accused the Jewish priests of creating and enforcing rules that were not God's will and warned against men who use their title and/or place of power to twist The Word of a God. He was turning the other cheek, spreading the word through acts. He took the dregs of society and gave them a better way, giving them a choice.

That is essentially correct.

From what I can gather, he was closer to libertarian than right-wing religious conservative. You know, that whole cast the first stone, judge not kind of mentality.

Just because Jesus saved a cheating woman from death doesn't mean he was against the law she broke. It only means he was against the punishment she was going to receive, in which case I would agree with him; stoning is a disproportionate response to adultery. In any case, we can't go around putting political labels on Jesus. Christ was love, not a libertarian or a republican.

That God killed people for peeking at the destruction of their homes, for belonging to other religions, or for simply being the firstborn in their household.

He wasn't a very just God.

The God of Christ isn't perfect, but he makes a whole lot more sense. And Christ's God prescribed the separation of Religion and State. Not that the Church that followed ever followed its own advice.

The God of Abraham and the God of Christ are the same being; Christ was different from God. It is true that Christ advised the separation of the church from the Roman Empire, but that doesn't men he was against the separation of church and state altogether. In His time, government was primitive. Constitutions, rights, none of that existed yet.