Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Joel]

As Famine said, you serve the community's wishes. Some will want Muslim governors only in their school (think the Muslim ghettos). This is duly provided, with extremists in their midst. Congratulations, that whole community has no escape. You contain the spread by (as you rightly point out) stopping infiltration individually. But you have done nothing for the ones infected. And the years and years of indoctrination to follow.

You still have the idea of the state being in charge of this stuff. There would be no local school governor to "infect".

Yes, there will be private schools which teach things you find distasteful, just like there's private homes, businesses, schools, websites, and publishing firms which teach, sell, believe, say, or publish things you find offensive. The difference here is there isn't a threat of someone corrupt in government changing all schools to something you find distasteful.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's attractive. I'd want to know in facing the current terrorist threat to the UK and its citizens what countermeasures would be offered. When would government step in essentially. Would terrorist sympathetic madrassas be allowed for instance

I think the real question is if the current terrorist threat would even exist. A libertarian society wouldn't have empowered them against communists in the past, picked sides (or even gotten involved) in Middle East conflicts to protect the leader who will be most likely to do what we want, invaded countries under the guise of hunting down those who are supposedly threatening us with no known long range missiles or WMDs, nor taken out thousands of civilians, including children, in order to kill one man they suspect of being a threat or even our own underage citizens who was related to someone suspected of terrorism plotting.

A libertarian society wouldn't be involved overseas in places where Islamic extremists can convince people to risk their lives to kill us.

Some go so far as to say our national security policy has created our current national security problem. Personally, I think it goes back further than that. Extremists always exist, but interference in foreign affairs draws more attention to us, and arguably gives the leaders fodder to use to recruit others to their cause. In a non-interventionist society would al-Qaeda even have had the power to do the things they have done? In a society that does not allow government to heavily interfere in the lives of its citizens would homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh be as large of a worry?

While I don't believe we are completely responsible for extremist threats, I do believe we have made it worse.

And I am not convinced that what threats we are told exist are actually there or just a bogeyman to make the citizenry agree out of fear.

Here is a better question: How do you justify a society that has no qualms killing as many, or more, civilians as the terrorists, including hundreds of children?

The Amish are surrounded by the modern world - how many of them compare what they hear to the world around them.

Never heard of Rumpspringa?

 

[Famine]

Never been to a Muslim ghetto have we.

Ghettos (and ethnic quarters) are a direct result of non-libertarian policies and a pretty skewed approach to multiculturalism - so the question is, as @FoolKiller states, would they even exist in a libertarian society?

I think you're beginning to see what the problem is with asking how libertarians would approach a threat to national security. Not only would you need to radically redefine the term away from its current catch all "people who say things that are against the established authority", but many of the situations that have bred more tangible threats to the safety of the population wouldn't even occur in the first place.


At its kindest we can take the question to mean "What would a libertarian government that came to power tomorrow do to protect citizens from current dangers to their safety from existing potential acts of terror?" and take it from there - but so long as you're defining 'people who think that everyone should join their religion and people who don't should die' as threats to national security, your question won't have any meaning in the context of a libertarian government.

 

[KSaiyu]

I think the real question is if the current terrorist threat would even exist. A libertarian society wouldn't have empowered them against communists in the past, picked sides (or even gotten involved) in Middle East conflicts to protect the leader who will be most likely to do what we want, invaded countries under the guise of hunting down those who are supposedly threatening us with no known long range missiles or WMDs, nor taken out thousands of civilians, including children, in order to kill one man they suspect of being a threat or even our own underage citizens who was related to someone suspected of terrorism plotting.

It would, but with a different aetiology. Islamism works by playing the victim card. At that last talk we were told that the West was to blame for the Iraq war by its action, and that the West should be hated for its inaction when they don't intervene against Syria! Basically the end result is the same = Hate the West, and the circumstances are changed to suit. So alright let's rewrite history:

We have a libertarian Britain and America and the last intervention we did was help set up Israel..

"They helped the Zionists, look at your brothers in Palestine now!"
"Jews in America and Britain give money to Israel and their government does nothing!"
"Look at what they created and they won't intervene against these invaders!"

Let's go crazy and say Israel never existed.

"Why are we in the ghettos and the Jew is successful. This must be a Zionist country!"
"Why do we have free speech here? You can't talk about Mohammad in this way!"
"Why are these Jewish cartoons allowed to print The Prophet! DIE!"

Jewish hatred underpins a lot of Islamism. To get away with anti-semitism they use "anti-Israeli", so when George Galloway declared Bradford an "Israeli free zone" he was really saying it was Jew free.

Your explanation also doesn't explain why 500 people attended the Copenhagen shooters funeral - last I saw Denmark wasn't really big in Middle Eastern interference.

No, the problem is in immigration policy. Bring too many unskilled asylum seekers in and you ask for trouble. That is what you would have needed to stop in a libertarian world. Even then you still have no guarantees that the Muslims you did allow in wouldn't radicalise (see Australia). You'd also have to guarantee against a caliphate ever forming in the Middle East and Muslims never going to join that Caliphate and returning to spread the message. Really the key is integration into society, maybe even an archaic but pragmatic approach to the religion a la Singapore.

And I am not convinced that what threats we are told exist are actually there or just a bogeyman to make the citizenry agree out of fear.

Let's take the latest numbers of returning citizens from Syria - 300

10% of these plan to spread the message through schools, that's 30.
10% of these succeed getting into such power, that's 3.
2 of these infiltrate schools in the ghetto, which aren't hard as some ghettos in East London have flow the ISIS flag. The other creates his own school and sets up a chain since he's pretty well off - let's limit it at 2 for now. That's 4 total schools.
There's 30 in a class from Reception to Year 6, and 2 classes per year per school.
(30x7x2x4) =
1680

1680 children are exposed during school from the age of 5-11. And then comes high school! I've personally seen a student at a top London university praise Allah for David Cameron acknowledging that Michael Adebolajo was turned by our security services. Just imagine what that indoctrination from the age of 5 will do to a generation.

Here is a better question: How do you justify a society that has no qualms killing as many, or more, civilians as the terrorists, including hundreds of children?

They imagine they are at war. Unfortunately I don't know if it's in their imagination any more.

Never heard of Rumpspringa?

No I hadn't, but from that it looks of it most don't end up leaving:

Most of them do not wander far from their family's homes during this time, and large numbers ultimately choose to join the church

 

[Dotini]

@KSaiyu , the basic libertarian position is that government should do as little as it can get away with. If they are attacking us, we must fight. Short of that, try to do nothing.

They are over here because we are over there. Get out!

You bring up the sensitive issue of Israel. My personal take: For some reason, I like Jews. They are often smart, witty and funny. Half of my best friends growing up were Jewish. My main squeeze of the last 20 years is a non-observant Jewish lady. With what we've already done for them, if Israel can't make a go of it in the middle east, I'd be willing to set them up on a suitably Biblical federal desert in Nevada and Utah.

 

[Exorcet]

It would, but with a different aetiology. Islamism works by playing the victim card. At that last talk we were told that the West was to blame for the Iraq war by its action, and that the West should be hated for its inaction when they don't intervene against Syria! Basically the end result is the same = Hate the West, and the circumstances are changed to suit.

That's probably made easier when you can point to examples where the west had direct negative impacts on people's lives.

So alright let's rewrite history:

We have a libertarian Britain and America and the last intervention we did was help set up Israel..

"They helped the Zionists, look at your brothers in Palestine now!"
"Jews in America and Britain give money to Israel and their government does nothing!"
"Look at what they created and they won't intervene against these invaders!"

They can also say "They're not messing with us, so let's leave them alone so it stays that way."

Changing the government won't prevent people from saying whatever they want, but it can change how effective their message is. You can't blame a non-interventionist government for intervening where it doesn't belong. Anyone with half an ounce of sense will see that.

Let's take the latest numbers of returning citizens from Syria - 300

10% of these plan to spread the message through schools, that's 30.
10% of these succeed getting into such power, that's 3.
2 of these infiltrate schools in the ghetto, which aren't hard as some ghettos in East London have flow the ISIS flag. The other creates his own school and sets up a chain since he's pretty well off - let's limit it at 2 for now. That's 4 total schools.
There's 30 in a class from Reception to Year 6, and 2 classes per year per school.
(30x7x2x4) =
1680

1680 children are exposed during school from the age of 5-11. And then comes high school! I've personally seen a student at a top London university praise Allah for David Cameron acknowledging that Michael Adebolajo was turned by our security services. Just imagine what that indoctrination from the age of 5 will do to a generation.

Would you rather they only hear indoctrination from age 5, or also hear alternatives from that age on?

No I hadn't, but from that it looks of it most don't end up leaving:

If they want to stay there and mind their own business, it's not a problem.

 

[Keef]

Never been to a Muslim ghetto have we.

Definitely haven't

I don't think there are any Muslim ghettos in the US because Muslims didn't start emigrating to the US in any decent numbers until after various ghetto-inducing economic and housing policies had ended.

 

[FoolKiller]

It would, but with a different aetiology. Islamism works by playing the victim card. At that last talk we were told that the West was to blame for the Iraq war by its action, and that the West should be hated for its inaction when they don't intervene against Syria! Basically the end result is the same = Hate the West, and the circumstances are changed to suit.

Not sure when your "last talk" was, but I am pretty sure it is after the US already had setup a heavy interventionist foreign policy. That has been the mindset here since at least WWII.

And I can see how they reach that point. "They attack us for certain behaviors in one place, but then don't help us fight against those same behaviors from others in another place." The end result is the same because US actions are not consistent with behavior, but rather with certain types of people. We support those we think we can control.

So alright let's rewrite history:

We have a libertarian Britain and America and the last intervention we did was help set up Israel..

I'm not completely convinced that even that would have happened.

Let's go crazy and say Israel never existed.

OK But before we go forward, let's revisit one part of my post that you, conveniently, did not quote.

Extremists always exist,

<snip>

While I don't believe we are completely responsible for extremist threats, I do believe we have made it worse.

With that reminder, let's continue on.

"Why are we in the ghettos and the Jew is successful. This must be a Zionist country!"
"Why do we have free speech here? You can't talk about Mohammad in this way!"
"Why are these Jewish cartoons allowed to print The Prophet! DIE!"

You assume that without intervention the world today would be exactly the same. How do you know that Muslims would be in ghettos? If you assume a certain ethnic group will wind up in a ghetto no matter what history existed before it then it is a bit prejudiced.

To determine what the outcome would be we would need to determine exactly why Muslim ghettos exist but others don't. It's similar in the US with predominantly black ghettos. I know here that they are told that doing what it takes to get out is being "the man" or other highly derogatory terms. So, the same leaders who tell them to be angry about their situation make it sound wrong to get out of it. Living in that environment also causes exposure to things that make it harder to improve your standing in life, such as gangs and drugs. But no one moved there thinking it was a nice place to live and raise a family. No, there were other issues that played a role, some cultural, some due to racial biases, and some due to government policies.

Jewish hatred underpins a lot of Islamism.

Inter-religion hatred underpins a lot of religions. Many have managed to get over it over time. What was different?

Your explanation also doesn't explain why 500 people attended the Copenhagen shooters funeral - last I saw Denmark wasn't really big in Middle Eastern interference.

You mean the Denmark that is a founding and active member of NATO? The same NATO that does participate in a lot of Middle Eastern interference?

No, the problem is in immigration policy. Bring too many unskilled asylum seekers in and you ask for trouble. That is what you would have needed to stop in a libertarian world. Even then you still have no guarantees that the Muslims you did allow in wouldn't radicalise (see Australia). You'd also have to guarantee against a caliphate ever forming in the Middle East and Muslims never going to join that Caliphate and returning to spread the message. Really the key is integration into society, maybe even an archaic but pragmatic approach to the religion a la Singapore.

I don't disagree that large numbers of asylum seekers coming in at once can create issues of many forms, but at the same time, would it be as necessary, or would radicals hide among the numbers, if there was less interventionism?

Let's take the latest numbers of returning citizens from Syria - 300

10% of these plan to spread the message through schools, that's 30.
10% of these succeed getting into such power, that's 3.
2 of these infiltrate schools in the ghetto, which aren't hard as some ghettos in East London have flow the ISIS flag. The other creates his own school and sets up a chain since he's pretty well off - let's limit it at 2 for now. That's 4 total schools.
There's 30 in a class from Reception to Year 6, and 2 classes per year per school.
(30x7x2x4) =
1680

1680 children are exposed during school from the age of 5-11.

Children here are exposed to all kinds of ideas. You live in a world with the internet. Children can be exposed to everything. A parent is still the major influencer in a child's life, and in a libertarian society that child could go to any school they choose and any exposure could be avoided by parents who so chose. We have been down this road many, many, many, many times. You seem obsessed with this infiltrated education system thing, and ignore the fact that a libertarian society would have a completely different structure to education. I mean, truth be told I had numerous socio-political ideals thrust upon me in school. Everyone does. I didn't believe them all. My parents complained about some. As a parent of a schoolchild myself I am getting involved in our Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) so that I can help to influence my daughter's education in the way that I see best. I do not fear someone infiltrating her school because I am taking the effort to be involved. And if they did and I couldn't stop it, I do have her in a private school, so I can take her out.

And then comes high school! I've personally seen a student at a top London university praise Allah for David Cameron acknowledging that Michael Adebolajo was turned by our security services.

Free thought! Everybody down!

Sorry. This means nothing to me. Sympathizing with the enemy is not a new thing, or illegal. The times we tried to treat it that way we destroyed the lives of hundreds of innocent people.

Just imagine what that indoctrination from the age of 5 will do to a generation.

This is exactly why I don't want my daughter in a public school. All that pro-government indoctrination.

They imagine they are at war. Unfortunately I don't know if it's in their imagination any more.

Is "they" the westernized countries that are killing civilians or the extremists that are killing civilians? Either way, bombs going off, know matter how you define it for PR reasons, looks a lot like war to me.

No I hadn't, but from that it looks of it most don't end up leaving:

By choice. They can choose to experience different ways of living and then choose if that is preferable to them or if they want to come back to their community without repercussion. Some do leave.

 

[KSaiyu]

I dunno man. Maybe it's just me but I miss the days when I didn't have to contact SO15 as part of my week at university. And when did dealing with the Home Office become part of a primary school receptionists job (for Americans read elementary school and Homeland Security)? It's hard to convince people on the outside we are at war, but when the headlines happen as part of your life there's only so much you can say before you accept that it's fruitless.

Islam needs to be on our side against Islamism, because pretty soon it's going to get even uglier over here. Whether that happens before the next Israeli assault against Palestine who knows, but this is now OT so I think I'm satisfied with what the libertarian response would be to Britain's current threat.

EDIT: You should probably be aware that infiltration affects everything in the public sphere - not even UKIP are safe....

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news...pakistani-politician-entrepreneur-new-7879983

https://truthwilloutinwalthamforest.wordpress.com/category/afzal-akram/

There is a concerted effort by Islamists to subvert the public sector in Britain, and it is about time Brits and ESPECIALLY British Muslims woke up to this threat to future relations with the general public and their community.

 

[LeMansAid]

Phew.... War on Police thread..... aka The Tangent Maker.

Are there any actions that you believe should be stopped prior to harm coming to another?

Only if the chance of harm is 100% should it be banned. Though there are of course risks I'm personally not willing to take.

What about my example of someone indiscriminately throwing bricks from a roof? Depending on specific conditions, the risk could be 0.01% or 99.9% chance of injury. Would you leave them be in both cases?

 

[Exorcet]

Phew.... War on Police thread..... aka The Tangent Maker.

Indeed. Maybe we should just close all the other threads, seems we only need one.

What about my example of someone indiscriminately throwing bricks from a roof? Depending on specific conditions, the risk could be 0.01% or 99.9% chance of injury. Would you leave them be in both cases?

If they own the roof and the place where the bricks land, they can throw whatever off it. I wouldn't allow it on my roof.

 

[LeMansAid]

If they own the roof and the place where the bricks land, they can throw whatever off it. I wouldn't allow it on my roof.

Most of these bricks are landing a few inches inside their private property, all of them so far have landed somewhere within that private property, but the thrower can't actually see where they are landing.

We'll just wait and see what happens?

 

[Exorcet]

If this person is basically a random brick throwing machine, you could technically say there is a 100% chance that he will at some point toss an illegal brick. Still, until he does, he hasn't done harm.

I think this hypothetical situation has started to break down. Even in a world where brick throwing is not outlawed, you aren't left defenseless. If you decide you don't want to be bricked, get together and get your neighbors to sign an agreement against brick throwing in your area. It would be community enforced rather than government enforced. If someone doesn't want to agree, you can always "brickproof" your property or move.

 

[LeMansAid]

Even in a world where brick throwing is not outlawed, you aren't left defenseless. If you decide you don't want to be bricked, get together and get your neighbors to sign an agreement against brick throwing in your area. It would be community enforced rather than government enforced. If someone doesn't want to agree, you can always "brickproof" your property or move.

That doesn't help the person that is walking past and cops the one that finally leaves the boundaries of the property.

Maybe you're picturing this as some far fetched hypothetical, but I'm seeing a home owner that is in the process of disposing of excess bricks after a renovation. In your world, police can't do a thing to stop the dangerous behaviour, right?

 

[Exorcet]

That doesn't help the person that is walking past and cops the one that finally leaves the boundaries of the property.

Maybe you're picturing this as some far fetched hypothetical, but I'm seeing a home owner that is in the process of disposing of excess bricks after a renovation. In your world, police can't do a thing to stop the dangerous behaviour, right?

I say that it's breaking down partly because it's without context. The libertarian view is that if you don't cause trouble for someone else, then you're fine. The example kind of sounds like we changed the laws to be libertarian but made no other changes. Like I mentioned before, it's a transfer of authority and responsibility from government to individuals. The point is not to do whatever you like, because as long as you have to deal with other people you probably won't be able to. The point is that nothing is outright banned unless is must be.

To have a functioning libertarian society, you'd need to do more than just delete some laws. People will have to play along and take more responsibility for certain things. What does this mean for the passer by? It might not be very good news if this is just a house with a brick throwing owner in an area with no protection from brick throwing. Or it might not be a problem in a community that had more foresight. Don't get me wrong it's possible that something is overlooked and you get into a dangerous situation, but then the same would go for the systems in place right now.

 

[LeMansAid]

I say that it's breaking down partly because it's without context. The libertarian view is that if you don't cause trouble for someone else, then you're fine. The example kind of sounds like we changed the laws to be libertarian but made no other changes. Like I mentioned before, it's a transfer of authority and responsibility from government to individuals. The point is not to do whatever you like, because as long as you have to deal with other people you probably won't be able to. The point is that nothing is outright banned unless is must be.

To have a functioning libertarian society, you'd need to do more than just delete some laws. People will have to play along and take more responsibility for certain things. What does this mean for the passer by? It might not be very good news if this is just a house with a brick throwing owner in an area with no protection from brick throwing. Or it might not be a problem in a community that had more foresight. Don't get me wrong it's possible that something is overlooked and you get into a dangerous situation, but then the same would go for the systems in place right now.

I think it's gone to where I was at with Danoff on another example. As far as I can see it ends up meaning that restrictions and rules are attached to the sale of land and houses. In the end though, how would it not end up nigh on the same as what is in place now? Just more convoluted. In protecting people from risk, shifting from the status quo to a libertarian system is to some degree like switching from the short hand to the long hand version of governing.

Should we maybe start testing people to determine when they have become adults? I can't see why people should have their freedoms restricted because of a sweeping generalisation and arbitrary tip over point. That to me would be an equal short hand to long hand situation, but in some cases, far more pertinent.

 

[Exorcet]

I think it's gone to where I was at with Danoff on another example. As far as I can see it ends up meaning that restrictions and rules are attached to the sale of land and houses. In the end though, how would it not end up nigh on the same as what is in place now? Just more convoluted.

For me, the entire point is protection of rights. Efficiency and practicality do not trump rights. A libertarian society could end up very similar to what we have now, and it could also end up being quite complicated with every city block having its own set of laws. The upside though is that you would prevent outright bans on things (ie no outright ban on drugs, even if they may end up being banned locally in many places). It prevents the majority from enforcing their ways on minorities.

I'm not overly worried about a libertarian society being too convoluted though. It's likely that people will go with what works. You'll have some extreme views that have their own very specific rules and such, but they will probably end up in their own little corners for the most part. Laws can already vary widely from place to place in a country as is (each state in the US) so it's not like this will be anything new.

Should we maybe start testing people to determine when they have become adults? I can't see why people should have their freedoms restricted because of a sweeping generalisation and arbitrary tip over point. That to me would be an equal short hand to long hand situation, but in some cases, far more pertinent.

If you want a true libertarian society, you need to tackle every issue. I would like to see legal adult age tackled, yes. Saying "when they are 18" isn't accurate. I don't have a detailed solution for this issue though.

 

[Danoff]

Most of these bricks are landing a few inches inside their private property, all of them so far have landed somewhere within that private property, but the thrower can't actually see where they are landing.

We'll just wait and see what happens?

Negligence is a factor in sentencing. If his brick flies too far and hit someone/something and he gets prosecuted, the sentence goes up because he wasn't taking any precautions to ensure that his behavior was safe. Drunk driving is similar, you get into an accident while drunk, sentencing is more severe because you were negligent.

BTW in my neighborhood it's against the local rules to leave your trash can at the curb for more than 24 hours out of the week. How's that for strange location-specific laws.

Lastly, the age of adulthood is a line in the sand drawn from a pragmatic perspective. It's designed to be early enough to catch most, but not so early as to include too many who aren't ready. It's a bright line where none exists, and that's fine as long as it's based on sound principles. We also recognize that it's an arbitrary line, and so children get certain rights/responsibilities before then, and don't get some until after then, and can sometimes petition for special reasons to bypass the age.

 

[LeMansAid]

Negligence is a factor in sentencing. If his brick flies too far and hit someone/something and he gets prosecuted, the sentence goes up because he wasn't taking any precautions to ensure that his behavior was safe. Drunk driving is similar, you get into an accident while drunk, sentencing is more severe because you were negligent.

I'm not of the opinion that people expect to be caught when doing something wrong or negligent. If true, greater punishment means nothing to would-be victims, and greater punishment means much less to me than protecting innocents.

I'm sold on the "Do what you want as long as you're not hurting others" concept, but a bit caught on the "Do what you want as long as you're not hurting others, even when putting the health and safety of others at high risk" - and torn that * the latter somewhat undermines * the former.

Edit - * my view on

 

[Danoff]

I'm not of the opinion that people expect to be caught when doing something wrong or negligent. If true, greater punishment means nothing to would-be victims, and greater punishment means much less to me than protecting innocents.

I'm sold on the "Do what you want as long as you're not hurting others" concept, but a bit caught on the "Do what you want as long as you're not hurting others, even when putting the health and safety of others at high risk" - and torn that the latter somewhat undermines the former.

Yea, people don't necessarily expect to get caught. I think you could argue that everyone who engages in drunk driving expects to get away with it. But they take it more seriously none-the-less when they know how steep the penalty is. A stiff penalty makes your threshold for risk go down.

All of life is a balance of risk. You're used to considering the risk and weighing the reward. Sure, that behavior might result in a bee sting, but usually it won't. Well if the bee sting might kill you instead of just hurting, you don't take that chance.

But it's more than that. Part the the reason that the penalty goes up is to keep you from re-engaging in that kind of negligent behavior. It's an attempt to discourage repeat offenders by both keeping them behind bars for longer (and unable to repetitively offend), and to take the offense more seriously.

 

[LeMansAid]

Yea, people don't necessarily expect to get caught. I think you could argue that everyone who engages in drunk driving expects to get away with it. But they take it more seriously none-the-less when they know how steep the penalty is. A stiff penalty makes your threshold for risk go down.

Though there would be greater separation from potential punishment. In my opinion, punishment for putting others at risk encourages minimising risk, while punishment for failure to navigate risk fosters trying to maximise navigation rather than minimise risk........

All of life is a balance of risk. You're used to considering the risk and weighing the reward. Sure, that behavior might result in a bee sting, but usually it won't. Well if the bee sting might kill you instead of just hurting, you don't take that chance.

A valid comparison, but what's missing (I hark back to the above) is the sense (as opposed to the reality) of control. Running around bare foot on a lawn, a person has no real founded or unfounded surety of being safe from bees. Driving drunk, a person has no founded surety, but may well have unfounded surety that they will avert danger. Humans all too readily fall victim to the illusion of control, but it's the "victim's" victim that I'm really worried about.

 

[Danoff]

Though there would be greater separation from potential punishment. In my opinion, punishment for putting others at risk encourages minimising risk, while punishment for failure to navigate risk fosters trying to maximise navigation rather than minimise risk........

What is the difference in this case between navigating well and minimizing risk?

A valid comparison, but what's missing (I hark back to the above) is the sense (as opposed to the reality) of control. Running around bare foot on a lawn, a person has no real founded or unfounded surety of being safe from bees. Driving drunk, a person has no founded surety, but may well have unfounded surety that they will avert danger. Humans all too readily fall victim to the illusion of control, but it's the "victim's" victim that I'm really worried about.

Can't punish someone for successfully driving home. How can you ever ascertain how in-control they were if they broke no traffic laws and drove perfectly well? In the end, that's all that matters - that the person is in control. Intoxication level is not a great proxy for control either. Some people aren't in control when they're perfectly sober. Others are in control at a level of intoxication at which I would pass out. Let's keep our laws focused on crimes rather than the assumption of crime.

 

[GT40_427]

I bought a book on the topic to try to better educate myself and although I agree with my of their positions, I feel like if we had a more libertarian economy and political structure, it would just be like the robber baron days. No government oversight or intervention, basically no referee, and anybody can just do whatever they want, take advantage of workers, etc. There has to be some regulation.

 

[Mark T]

I think libertarianism will eventually succeed. At present we have too few freedoms, we pay too much tax and the taxes that are taken are wasted. I have no doubt that our consumerism and ability to keep running up debt will cause the system to fail. Every society and government system has failed and it's normally because it tried to do too much on behalf of everyone or for itself (the few in power).

There's this worry that under a libertarian government people would be abused and suffer. In today's world with instant communication we can unite very easily. If an employer is being unscrupulous then the people could refuse to buy their products.

Libertarianism works when people work together and in today's world that's very easy to do.

 

[LeMansAid]

Gah! I had a post ready, then lost it somehow.

Can't punish someone for successfully driving home. How can you ever ascertain how in-control they were if they broke no traffic laws and drove perfectly well? In the end, that's all that matters - that the person is in control. Intoxication level is not a great proxy for control either. Some people aren't in control when they're perfectly sober. Others are in control at a level of intoxication at which I would pass out. Let's keep our laws focused on crimes rather than the assumption of crime.

That's not what the topic was though. We were talking about punishments as deterrents, and whether or not those deterrents work in encouraging responsible behaviour. More specifically though, whether or not the distancing of potential punishment (by shifting it exclusively from risk to actual) allows people to engage with their fallacious sense of control. Maybe you know of the "80% of drivers think that their driving is above average" thing? A statistical impossibility of course, and perhaps a guide to how people may respond to the "challenge" of driving drunk.

I think that the shift from punishing risk of events to punishing actual events is a fair proposal, but I also think that it's misguided to believe that greater punishments would make up for (let alone surpass) the psychology of the risk management status quo, in respect to that "distancing" that I speak of.

Side question - what would be the libertarian view be of a large scale, international situation, like with Iran and nuclear weapons? That until they actually hurt someone, they should be left to do as they please? It might feel like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think libertarianism will eventually succeed. At present we have too few freedoms, we pay too much tax and the taxes that are taken are wasted. I have no doubt that our consumerism and ability to keep running up debt will cause the system to fail. Every society and government system has failed and it's normally because it tried to do too much on behalf of everyone or for itself (the few in power).

There's this worry that under a libertarian government people would be abused and suffer. In today's world with instant communication we can unite very easily. If an employer is being unscrupulous then the people could refuse to buy their products.

Libertarianism works when people work together and in today's world that's very easy to do.

Of course people would be abused and suffer under a libertarian government, to think otherwise is foolish. It would still be the same people with the same weaknesses, the same lusts for greed and power. If an unscrupulous employer exists today, you already have access to instant communication. Whatever is titillating or politicially correct or popular usually gets it's 15 minutes in the limelight then it goes away, I don't see how that will be any different with libertarianism.

 

[Danoff]

That's not what the topic was though. We were talking about punishments as deterrents, and whether or not those deterrents work in encouraging responsible behaviour. More specifically though, whether or not the distancing of potential punishment (by shifting it exclusively from risk to actual) allows people to engage with their fallacious sense of control. Maybe you know of the "80% of drivers think that their driving is above average" thing? A statistical impossibility of course, and perhaps a guide to how people may respond to the "challenge" of driving drunk.

Punishment for crime is only partly a deterrent for those who have not offended. The rest of it is that we want to get people who are willing to commit crimes off the streets, and we want to deter THEM from committing the same crime again. It's hard to use punishment alone as a deterrent from committing the crime in the first place.

Side question - what would be the libertarian view be of a large scale, international situation, like with Iran and nuclear weapons? That until they actually hurt someone, they should be left to do as they please? It might feel like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not.

Iran is a breach of contract. They signed the NPT and were found in breach of that contract. People love to write contracts without a clear description of the penalty for not complying, but that's exactly what was needed with the NPT. Iran basically needs to settle their dispute with the other interested parties of the contract, or be penalized until they do.

 

[mustafur]

Ideally you want the Fiscal polices of Hong Kong combined with the social and political stance as Switzerland.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Ideally you want the Fiscal polices of Hong Kong

... You want the highest property prices and income taxes in the world?

 

[mustafur]

... You want the highest property prices and income taxes in the world?

Income taxes are not the highest not even close (15% maximum ), and property prices are a supply and demand thing, given How lack of space Hong Kong has at it's disposal, supply is obviously going to be low.