Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Sage]

MrktMkr1986 posted this definition of a Libertarian, which I think is a fair one:

Libertarian = a person with a political philosophy that holds that individuals have the right to complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others.

With that in mind, why doesn't everybody like this method or this idea? It isn't all-out freedom (anarchy), but it isn't oppressive either. What's wrong with that? (BTW, I'm assuming that most non-Libertarians want more restrictions – Why? Why restrict more than you have to?)

This should be interesting.

 

[240Z]

I think that most people think in terms of the Two-Party system, in terms of their political philosophy/who they vote for (in the U.S. at least). Other possibilities are not usually considered.

Personally, I think it's a good idea.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

From a purely economic standpoint, some government intervention in a "totally free" market is necessary.

I will refer to a quote I made in the GTPlanet.net Virtual Stock Exchange Thread.

Oil prices may reach market equilibrium at [a very high] price. However, if that were to happen, I'm sure the government would issue price ceilings on gasoline/oil prices just like they did in 1973. I think they kept the price of gasoline at around $0.57/gallon when the market equilibrium at the time for gasoline was closer to $1.50/gallon. Sometimes government intervention in a free market is a good thing.

So you see, if everything were "totally" free despite the fact that individuals are not infringing on personal liberties, it could create more problems, rather than solve them.

 

[grnshwrcrtn]

MrktMkr1986 posted this definition of a Libertarian, which I think is a fair one:



With that in mind, why doesn't everybody like this method or this idea? It isn't all-out freedom (anarchy), but it isn't oppressive either. What's wrong with that? (BTW, I'm assuming that most non-Libertarians want more restrictions – Why? Why restrict more than you have to?)

This should be interesting.

IMO, the philosophy behind libertarianism is certainly an attractive idea but what I think can dissuade people from these ideas is that with total freedom comes reduced control and influence from those in power, and I don’t mean just governments, I’m talking about large corporations and individuals who today can have vast amounts of influence and control. So to me it seems power is relative to freedom, now I don’t have that high knowledge of American politics, but I have heard about the Patriot Act being slipped through congress and believe this was after 9/11 and have heard from some sources that there is a distaste to this act as it gives the government more power and control over the people of the US at the cost of their freedom. (Please, any Americans correct me if I’m wrong) Another fear from total liberty is change, with the ability to do absolutely anything you want, creates highly diverse population, which can be seen as unnerving to a hard-line traditionalist or patriot. I’m not saying that if you are not a libertarian you are some sort of racist/supremacist or discriminatory in anyway, just that if you love your country the way it is any philosophy that invokes change on every one can make you move away from libertarianism. By the way i do believe in freedom for all regardless of race,gender etc but this is just my take on views expressed by others.

 

[Danoff]

I think can dissuade people from these ideas is that with total freedom comes reduced control and influence from those in power, and I don’t mean just governments, I’m talking about large corporations and individuals who today can have vast amounts of influence and control.

[rant] ooooh it's the attack of the all powerful evil corporations again. Somebody help!!! Nike is tryin to get me to buy their shoes!!! Aaaaaaaaaahhh!!! Cigarrette companies are running commericals!! Aaaaahhh!!!

Yes, corporations are all powerful influential evil entities. No, they're not what makes America great, they are, in fact, the bane of America. Without them, we would live peacefully in our mud huts wearing our grass skirts and dieing of malaria. [/rant]

No. The reason that libertarianism doesn't catch on is that almost everyone is arrogant enought to think that in some small way they know better what other people want than the other people know themselves. Almost everyone has a few pet government projects that they like to see - or a few pet restrictions that they have no problem living with and that they think everyone else should have to live with.

The reason libertarianism doesn't catch on is that most people have a little tyrant in them. If the "masses" wanted it, the "masses" could have it.

 

[Duke]

Agreed. Most of the masses are so unused to and subconciously scared of thinking for themselves that they are delighted for the opportunity to avoid doing it, even if that opportunity means giving up a large portion of their Civil Liberties. Mostly it's the liberties that they're not using anyway, so they never miss them... and since they (secretly or not) dislike people who do use their liberties to the fullest, they don't have a problem with controlling others.

Personally I have no desire to control others beyond getting them to leave me alone. I can't be bothered to worry about controlling the morality of anyone else when the time is so much more productively spent fine-tuning my own morality.

Ahh, that explains it. 👍

Libertarian = a person with a political philosophy that holds that individuals have the right to complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others.

WHY?!

Why in the name of trees not?! That has to be the silliest question I've heard in some time... either that, or one that is more self-revealing than Conservatives usually choose to be.

Why is it crazy to want personal freedom and personal responsibility? Unless you're being brutally honest about wanting to control others who don't match your 'moral standards' of behaviour...

 

[grnshwrcrtn]

[rant] ooooh it's the attack of the all powerful evil corporations again. Somebody help!!! Nike is tryin to get me to buy their shoes!!! Aaaaaaaaaahhh!!! Cigarrette companies are running commericals!! Aaaaahhh!!!

Yes, corporations are all powerful influential evil entities. No, they're not what makes America great, they are, in fact, the bane of America. Without them, we would live peacefully in our mud huts wearing our grass skirts and dieing of malaria. [/rant]

No. The reason that libertarianism doesn't catch on is that almost everyone is arrogant enought to think that in some small way they know better what other people want than the other people know themselves. Almost everyone has a few pet government projects that they like to see - or a few pet restrictions that they have no problem living with and that they think everyone else should have to live with.

The reason libertarianism doesn't catch on is that most people have a little tyrant in them. If the "masses" wanted it, the "masses" could have it.

I don't think I mentioned corporations being evil or nike or cigerettes, the point i was trying to make was that those who have power would rather keep it than give it up.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think I mentioned corporations being evil or nike or cigerettes, the point i was trying to make was that those who have power would rather keep it than give it up.

uh huh - and the point I was trying to make (apparently unsuccessfully) was that corporations don't have power - the "masses" have power (for now). If the people wanted freedom and could stand not meddling in other people's business they would have it. But they don't, they want to control - and so they do not have freedom.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Why in the name of trees not?!

That has to be the silliest question I've heard in some time...

​

either that, or one that is more self-revealing than Conservatives usually choose to be.

That sounds about right.

Why is it crazy to want personal freedom and personal responsibility? Unless you're being brutally honest about wanting to control others who don't match your 'moral standards' of behaviour...

Whoa... I never said anything about controlling others... I was leaning more towards civil liberties. It's crazy to want total personal freedom and personal responsibilty because it's dangerous -- again, in terms of civil liberties. Morality is another issue.

Conservatives are deeply suspicious of any attempt to remake society in the service of any ideology or doctrine, whether it's radical libertarianism , socialism , Nazism , or anything else.

Conservatives see history as being full of disastrous schemes that "seemed like good ideas at the time". It is my belief that human society as a whole is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue (for instance EVERYONE BE FREE! 💡 ) will only end up in disaster.

I'd like to go argue about some civil liberties, but that would probably belong in another thread.

 

[///M-Spec]

What's so radical about libertarianism? Take the fiscal freedoms promoted by conservatives and add them to the social freedoms promoted by democrats. That's it. There's nothing radical about that. Why should I have to choose one type of freedom over the other?


M

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What's so radical about libertarianism? Take the fiscal freedoms promoted by conservatives and add them to the social freedoms promoted by democrats. That's it. There's nothing radical about that. Why should I have to choose one type of freedom over the other?


M

I never said you had to choose between the two. I'm only saying that excessive social freedom's cons outweigh their benefits. The fiscal freedom part of libertarianism is the only part of the ideology that makes sense.

 

[Danoff]

I'm only saying that excessive social freedom's cons outweigh their benefits.

Perhaps you could make this a little more concrete. Which cons outweigh which benefits?

 

[///M-Spec]

^ Ditto. Let's talk details. Which freedoms are you talking about, MrktMkr?


M

 

[MrktMkr1986]

^ Ditto. Let's talk details. Which freedoms are you talking about, MrktMkr?


M

Perhaps you could make this a little more concrete. Which cons outweigh which benefits?

I thought I said that before? Civil liberties. I'll go into details later as there are too many CL's to list.

 

[///M-Spec]

Okie dokie. We'll be here


M

 

[Carl.]

[rant] ooooh it's the attack of the all powerful evil corporations again. Somebody help!!! Nike is tryin to get me to buy their shoes!!! Aaaaaaaaaahhh!!! Cigarrette companies are running commericals!! Aaaaahhh!!![/rant]

Um, what about the attack of the komrades.... the big, evil government who's only desire is to control everything? Or the worst of all evil: taxes!!!. Frankly, seeing almost everything with the adjective "public" as an Orwellian nightmare isn't much better than what you describe.

You have to be stupid to see corporations as evil entities here to hurt the world (though some probably fit the bill), but what's the difference between having the same attitude towards the government? (where all evil corrupted bastards are going, according to you).

In the current system, with fair elections, everyone's got a voice on who's in power. In your world, your voice is only as loud as your pockets are deep.

I'll come back later, it's about time I give my impressions on Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Danoff]

In your world, your voice is only as loud as your pockets are deep.

You're proving that you don't understand what I'm saying.

but what's the difference between having the same attitude towards the government? (where all evil corrupted bastards are going, according to you).

Do I think that all government employees or elected leaders are evil corrupted bastards coming to get me? No.

The difference between government and corporations is that government is force and corporations are not. When I get taxed, I will go to jail if I don't pay. When Nike offers new shoes, nothing happens if I ignore them.

When the government passes a new law, I must abide by that law or my freedom will be taken away. Corporations have no power to remove me of my freedom in a world of limited government.

However, in our current system of abundant government, corporations do have some power to remove some of my freedom by lobying the government to meddle in my affiars or the affiars of their competetors. Interesting how when more power is granted, more people try to get it.

Is it that I distrust government? Not so much. It is that I recognize government for what it is, force. And so I advocate that force be used as a very last resort - better to let man make his own decisions when possible.

 

[///M-Spec]

In the current system, with fair elections, everyone's got a voice on who's in power. In your world, your voice is only as loud as your pockets are deep.

That's a fair point, JP. However, a corporation, no matter how powerful, can only operate under the country's laws. A government can create, change or repeal laws, which makes it quite a bit more powerful and allows intrusions (and, to be fair and frank, benefits) that no corporation can match.

Get ticked off at your phone company and you can switch to a different one. Don't like Microsoft's browser? Use a different one. Get ticked off at your government and your only recourse is to leave the country --assuming you live in a country that even allows that(!)

EDIT: Just to use one tiny example: it used to be in Florida that a resturant gave you a choice of where to sit. Smoking or non-smoking. Economics determined the way resturants and bars divided sections. Now, there is no choice. You simply can't smoke most resturants because that is the law.

This is something no resturant.. could have done on the power of economics alone.

BTW, I should point out that I am a non-smoker and have everything to gain from the new law, but I do not believe the law was fair to resturants.

No corporation can raise or lower prime intrest rates, only the Fed can do that. No corporation could have removed Terri Schaivo's feeding tube. No corporation could have invaded Iraq (yeah yeah, no, not even Halliburton.. I see the snickers from a mile away ). The powers that a government holds are vastly superior to even the largest multi-national conglomerate. I can deny Walmart it's power any time I choose simply by walking into a Target. But I can't deny the power of the government of the United State of America unless I leave it -- and if I owe back taxes, they'll even come after me for THAT!

...okay.. that's the end of my edits, I promise.


M

 

[Duke]

Whoa... I never said anything about controlling others... I was leaning more towards civil liberties. It's crazy to want total personal freedom and personal responsibilty because it's dangerous -- again, in terms of civil liberties. Morality is another issue.

Control my civil liberties, control me. Why would you think it's crazy to want total personal liberty and total personal responsibility?

It's like having a powerful car. Scared to go too fast and have an accident? Then don't push the accelerator down as far. Scared to become a drug addicted promiscuous scag? Then be careful what you take and who you sleep with. It's up to the individual to decide what they want and what they can handle.

But I don't see you pushing for laws controlling how powerful cars are allowed to be... are you? Are you going to tell me I can't buy an Evo VIII - or a Hemi 'Cuda - because you don't think people can handle it?

Ralph Nader to the rescue! Protect me from myself, so you don't have to feel scared.

Conservatives are deeply suspicious of any attempt to remake society in the service of any ideology or doctrine, whether it's radical libertarianism , socialism , Nazism , or anything else.

Frankly, I have to ask, at the grave risk of sounding facetious: You're joking, right? because the Religious Right want nothing more than to remake society in the service of their ideology and doctrine. Be it the Christian Coalition or the Taliban... or "anything else". That was quite an ironic statement.

Conservatives see history as being full of disastrous schemes that "seemed like good ideas at the time". It is my belief that human society as a whole is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue (for instance EVERYONE BE FREE! 💡 ) will only end up in disaster.

So... what about the numerous (disastrous) attempts to prune and shape it into some kind of whitebread Christian Conservancy or some radical Islamic Fundamentalist hegemony? Or "anything else"?

The thing with civil liberties is that they protect the noncomformists and the individuals. We're all individuals, and in some small way, we're each a nonconformist. I can imagine nothing scarier than throwing that away in the name of pretending that there is a 'one size fits all' way of life, just because that particlular way happens to make some people feel better.

I'd like to go argue about some civil liberties, but that would probably belong in another thread.

I think it belongs here. Civil liberties are part and parcel of the Libertarian platform. In other words, that your life is your own and you are free to do with it what you will, so long as you do not infringe on anybody else's right to the same thing.

It's simple: if you're scared of or dissapprove of some particular activity, then just don't do it. Your rights are protected by the 'no infringement' caveat above. There's no need at all - and in fact it's frankly dangerous - to legislate against 'consenting adult' liberties just because you happen to disapprove of them.

 

[dbartucci]

Oil prices may reach market equilibrium at [a very high] price. However, if that were to happen, I'm sure the government would issue price ceilings on gasoline/oil prices just like they did in 1973. I think they kept the price of gasoline at around $0.57/gallon when the market equilibrium at the time for gasoline was closer to $1.50/gallon. Sometimes government intervention in a free market is a good thing.

As a student of public economics I can assure you there are many instances in which government intervention is necessary. Consider the case of a pure public good. Or the Tragedy of the Commons.

 

[Danoff]

As a student of public economics I can assure you there are many instances in which government intervention is necessary. Consider the case of a pure public good. Or the Tragedy of the Commons.

Would you mind posting links about these cases or describing them here please? Even just one example in which government intervention is necessary would help this discussion.

 

[ledhed]

" Give me liberty or give me death" . its not just a slogan , its part of my core beliefs and I always thought it was one of the key parts to being an " American " . So when the religouse morals of others are used to judge or to attempt to govern my morality and when the government steps in to tread on our rights. I think " Fascist " and " where's the ammo " .

 

[Carl.]

You're proving that you don't understand what I'm saying.

It pretty much describes it. You want to let free market rules decide instead of government ruling, decided by a democratic process (granted, it can be corrupted, but do you think a free market would be exempt from corruption?)

Do I think that all government employees or elected leaders are evil corrupted bastards coming to get me? No.

I didn't think so, as I don't think the opposite was the point when someone denounce abuses from the corporate world. Let's leave seeing opposite views as intrinsically evil to world politics, shall we?

The difference between government and corporations is that government is force and corporations are not. When I get taxed, I will go to jail if I don't pay. When Nike offers new shoes, nothing happens if I ignore them.

When the government passes a new law, I must abide by that law or my freedom will be taken away.

If the law is deemed unjust or a change is needed, the population has the power to remove, or change it by the wonderful process we're currently teaching in the Middle East, called democracy. Yes, life sucks if you disagree with them. Personally I'd enjoy being able to drive 100 mph on highways.

Corporations have no power to remove me of my freedom in a world of limited government.

However, in our current system of abundant government, corporations do have some power to remove some of my freedom by lobying the government to meddle in my affiars or the affiars of their competetors. Interesting how when more power is granted, more people try to get it.

I can't deny that there are severe cases of corruption or abuse by dishonest members of both corporate and political world, but it only means that the government needs more transparency and thorough management. Would you ditch the whole law enforcement system because of the numerous corruption cases, power abuses and ties with organized crime?

Is it that I distrust government? Not so much. It is that I recognize government for what it is, force. And so I advocate that force be used as a very last resort - better to let man make his own decisions when possible.

Yep, government sometime means force. So does money in a free market. Force is not the issue, abuse of force is.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Control my civil liberties, control me.

Unless you're either into illegal activities, or do things that would encroach upon the freedom of others, you have nothing to worry about.

Why would you think it's crazy to want total personal liberty and total personal responsibility?

It's potentially dangerous.

It's like having a powerful car. Scared to go too fast and have an accident? Then don't push the accelerator down as far. Scared to become a drug addicted promiscuous scag? Then be careful what you take and who you sleep with. It's up to the individual to decide what they want and what they can handle.

Excellent analogy!

However, it's basic human nature to test the limits of our capabilities. You give people total freedom to do whatever they please, and they will take advantage of it.

Here's MY analogy:

Your local highway has a 55mph speed limit. The city decides to raise the speed limit to 75mph. Are you going to continue to go 55mph because "that's the way it was before"? Of course not. You're going to continue to "test the limits". The same rule applies to giving people total freedom.

But I don't see you pushing for laws controlling how powerful cars are allowed to be... are you?

No, there's need to.

Are you going to tell me I can't buy an Evo VIII - or a Hemi 'Cuda - because you don't think people can handle it?

Never said that. I am saying, though, that people who drive ANY car (whether it's an 88 horsepower 4-cyl, or a 627 horsepower 12-cyl) will take advantage of any opportunity they get once certain restrictions are lifted. Subconsciously, we do it everyday. When you drive through a densely populated area and the speed limits are lowered to about 30mph you'll usually stay around that speed. However once, the speed limit is raised to 45mph (for example) when you go from one road to another, I can guarantee that you're not going to continue at the same speed you were going before. You will undoubtedly accelerate to the new speed limit, and they cycle continues.

Ralph Nader to the rescue! Protect me from myself, so you don't have to feel scared.

I love a bit a satire, especially in a heated debate! Lightens the mood.

Frankly, I have to ask, at the grave risk of sounding facetious: You're joking, right?

No, I am not joking. I try to avoid making jokes when talking about politics/religion because it is such a sensitive subject.

because the Religious Right want nothing more than to remake society in the service of their ideology and doctrine. Be it the Christian Coalition or the Taliban... or "anything else".

Those are the extremists of the Right.

That was quite an ironic statement.

I don't see the irony of it. At all.

So... what about the numerous (disastrous) attempts to prune and shape it into some kind of whitebread Christian Conservancy or some radical Islamic Fundamentalist hegemony? Or "anything else"?

I'm glad you brought that up. It's just as dangerous.

The thing with civil liberties is that they protect the noncomformists and the individuals.

Sure it does. Yet at the same time it can cause more problems too.

MORE EXAMPLES:

Free speech: Good in theory. However, is it right to yell fire in a crowded theater? Is it right to burn a cross in an interracial couple's lawn? Is it right to distribute hate material? I STRONGLY recommend you read the article linked because not only did this occur where I live, it helps to prove my argument.

You give people the opportunity to speak out about anything and everything AND THEY WILL ABUSE THE OPPORTUNITY. They will abuse their freedom. Maybe YOU (and this is a general "you", not specifically to you Duke )are comfortable having racist letters in your mailbox -- I'm not.

All of the above examples in some way either incite violence/aggression/panic, and/or impinge on rights of others. The costs still outweigh the benefits.

Free to use whatever "substances" one chooses: Good in theory. Bad in practice. The government would not have outlawed certain drugs if it they thought they were "good" for people. Some say they would prefer the legalization of marijuana. I say, as I said before, the costs outweigh the benefits.

HERE's WHY FROM A PURELY ECONOMIC STANDPOINT:

Studies have shown that long-term usage of cannabis causes decreased IQ (not that I believe in IQ tests anyway ) and memory because the drug decreases blood flow to the front areas of the brain.

Now I ask you this. Why would the government go through so much trouble subsidizing education in form of grants, loans, community colleges etc. if they wanted to make people (excuse for lack of a better term) dumber? The more educated one is, the more they'll be able to contribute to the economy. And yes, I know that there are plenty of examples where people without any formal education have been able to contribute [a great deal] to the economy, however, the average lifetime income of a college graduate is considerably higher than that of a high school graduate -- hence the need for an education, and no dope.

Not to mention other effects of marijuana usage...

Criminal Justice rights:

The rights guaranteed to criminal suspects, defendants, offenders and prisoners were not included in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of criminals. They are fundamental political rights that protect all Americans from governmental abuse of power. These rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They include the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to reasonable bail, the right to due process of law and the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. This "bundle of rights" is indispensable to a free society.

Right...

If there's a suspected terrorist trying to smuggle a bomb onto an airplane, who cares about "unreasonable search and seizure"?! A bomb is bomb. What's more important in this case? The right to a bit of privacy? Or savings lives? If you're not carrying bombs you have nothing to worry about.

I would comment more on the other amendments, but I have homework to do. I will definitely be editing this post in the near future.

 

[dbartucci]

The tragedy of the commons basically stems from incomplete property rights, any time you have a good that is used in common every person has an incentive to underprovide it and overuse it. A government can correct this inefficiency.

A pure public good is one that is non-rivalrous in consumption and non-excludable. A good example is national defence. It's very hard for me to be defended in canada, but my neighbour not to be, and the fact that I'm defended doesn't prevent anyone else from being defended. A government is necessary to provide any manner of public protection, or we'll go Hobbes 'nasty, brutish, and short' existence.

In terms of economics, government, or some over-arching planner is necessary for efficiency and equity concerns.

I apologize for my lack of detail, these are the best I could do off the top of my head, while I work on an assignment in a Game Theory class.

*Governments are also required to enforce contracts.

 

[Carl.]

That's a fair point, JP. However, a corporation, no matter how powerful, can only operate under the country's laws. A government can create, change or repeal laws, which makes it quite a bit more powerful and allows intrusions (and, to be fair and frank, benefits) that no corporation can match.

Wich is why, as I stated, it needs thorough processes and transparency, to reduce conflicts of interests and corruption.

Get ticked off at your phone company and you can switch to a different one. Don't like Microsoft's browser? Use a different one. Get ticked off at your government and your only recourse is to leave the country --assuming you live in a country that even allows that(!)

And when a population gets ticked off of some laws, they remove them. I understand it can be frustrating since it's not an individual decision, but to me it's the basis of democracy.

EDIT: Just to use one tiny example: it used to be in Florida that a resturant gave you a choice of where to sit. Smoking or non-smoking. Economics determined the way resturants and bars divided sections. Now, there is no choice. You simply can't smoke most resturants because that is the law.

This is something no resturant.. could have done on the power of economics alone.

BTW, I should point out that I am a non-smoker and have everything to gain from the new law, but I do not believe the law was fair to resturants.

I see it as a relief for non-smoker customers and even more for restauration workers, and most restaurants had no real physical divisions between their sections, like the smoke would magically turn back at a non-smoking sign.
I'm quite pissed off when I get caught in a speed trap at 85 mph on a deserted stretch of highway at 2 pm, but as much as I want to shove the ticket up mr officer's a..(and to all the bureaucracy behind him), that doesn't mean speed limits are wrong or useless.

No corporation could have invaded Iraq (yeah yeah, no, not even Halliburton.. I see the snickers from a mile away ).

Well, everyone here seems to agree that there may be corruption at about any level of the government, is there some sort of immunity from this in the case of foreign affairs or military business? *tries to close can of worms*

The powers that a government holds are vastly superior to even the largest multi-national conglomerate. I can deny Walmart it's power any time I choose simply by walking into a Target. But I can't deny the power of the government of the United State of America unless I leave it

You alone can't deny it, that's for sure. The whole population though, has this ability. It's all about invidualism vs living in society.

I know it sometimes stinks. For example, according to the polls, between 40% and 60% of Americans are currently paying billions for a war they don't support. Again, that's what democracy is.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Earlier post updated.

 

[Danoff]

First post in response to JP

It pretty much describes it. You want to let free market rules decide instead of government ruling, decided by a democratic process (granted, it can be corrupted, but do you think a free market would be exempt from corruption?)

The market rules are not force - and market rules are far superior at determining what the public wants than removed government officials.

If the law is deemed unjust or a change is needed, the population has the power to remove, or change it by the wonderful process we're currently teaching in the Middle East, called democracy.

I believe you’re describing majority rule, which is not the same thing as democracy. Unless you understand why majority rule is unacceptable… can we agree that certain things are not up for a vote?

Yes, life sucks if you disagree with them. Personally I'd enjoy being able to drive 100 mph on highways.

Ah, a good example of the trade between freedom and safety. Highways are publicly owned and can (and should) be regulated. I’m fine with regulating the hell out of publicly owned land.

I can't deny that there are severe cases of corruption or abuse by dishonest members of both corporate and political world, but it only means that the government needs more transparency and thorough management. Would you ditch the whole law enforcement system because of the numerous corruption cases, power abuses and ties with organized crime?

Obviously not, just as I would not ditch the entire government due to some corruption. But you’ve either missed or dodged my point – the larger government gets – the more laws it has – the more complicated the system of rule will live under gets – the more power our government has and the more corrupt that power will become. Corporations could not elicit the legislative power they have today if our legislative process weren’t so damned complex. Less government would mean significantly less corruption.

Yep, government sometime means force. So does money in a free market. Force is not the issue, abuse of force is.

Government always means force. Even if that force isn’t in the form of physical incarceration, that doesn’t mean that the force wasn’t present. I was, for example, forced to pay my taxes this year – even though nobody came and broke my legs.

The free market on the otherhand is not force. Money does not mean force. Nike cannot force me to buy their shoes. A cigarette company cannot force me to smoke. A car company cannot force me to buy their car. Even if that car company used money to muscle all other car companies out of business, they could not force me to purchase their produce. Money does not equal force unless you’re talking about money buying legislation through a corrupt bureaucratic government.

And when a population gets ticked off of some laws, they remove them. I understand it can be frustrating since it's not an individual decision, but to me it's the basis of democracy.

Again, majority rule is unacceptable. Can we agree that if the majority wanted to pass a law stating that all red-haired people were to be shot that it would not be acceptable? That is the purpose of a bill of rights – to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

I see it as a relief for non-smoker customers and even more for restauration workers, and most restaurants had no real physical divisions between their sections, like the smoke would magically turn back at a non-smoking sign.

Who cares how you see it? Look at it from the people who are being restricted! No, I’m not talking about the smokers. I’m talking about the restaurant owner. Now, he is not legally allowed to serve a group of people. One group of people has been singled out and persecuted and now the freedom of a store owner is compromised.

Did non-smokers have to eat there? No. there was nothing forcing them to go endure some second-hand smoke. Still it irritated them, so they took away someone’s right to serve food to the customer of his choice.

 

[Danoff]

Second post, in response to mrktmkr

Unless you're either into illegal activities, or do things that would encroach upon the freedom of others, you have nothing to worry about.

What is defined as illegal is exactly what is at issue here. If you define illegal to be everything, he would most certainly be involved in illegal activities.

Your local highway has a 55mph speed limit. The city decides to raise the speed limit to 75mph. Are you going to continue to go 55mph because "that's the way it was before"? Of course not. You're going to continue to "test the limits". The same rule applies to giving people total freedom.

…test the limits …see what we can get away with huh? I’ve never tested the limits of murder statutes. I’ve never tested the limits on tax evasion. If the penalty for speeding were death and there was a cop every 5 feet, nobody would speed.

Is it right to burn a cross in an interracial couple's lawn?

Well.. um if it’s their lawn, then it’s illegal. You’d be infringing their property rights.

Good in theory. However, is it right to yell fire in a crowded theater?

“right” and “should be illegal” are two different things. I don’t think it’s right for someone to refuse to help a dying person. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal. There is a difference between, “do you think it’s right.” and “do you think that person should be forced to (or not to) do something under penalty of jail.”

People should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. But if someone gets hurt they should be liable (if there wasn’t a fire).

You give people the opportunity to speak out about anything and everything AND THEY WILL ABUSE THE OPPORTUNITY. They will abuse their freedom.

No faith in mankind huh? You think we’re a bunch of monkeys that can’t live by rules? Who cares if they abuse their freedom as long as they don’t infringe the rights of others – and if they infringe the rights of others they should be penalized because they’re monkeys that can’t live by rules.

Maybe YOU (and this is a general "you", not specifically to you Duke )are comfortable having racist letters in your mailbox -- I'm not.

I suppose that means that you have the right to pass a law restricting the rights of the people who want to put racists letters in mailboxes. You don’t have a right not to get mail. However, were the mail run by a company you could have that company refuse mail from certain sources – or that company could advertise that they cut down on spam (much like AOL advertises that about email).

All of the above examples in some way either incite violence/aggression/panic, and/or impinge on rights of others. The costs still outweigh the benefits.

The benefits of being able to drink alcohol may outweigh the costs of innocents being killed. The benefits of using knives may outweigh the costs of innocents being killed. Who are you to decide what outweighs what? Who are you to tell me that I can’t drink alcohol because I might be stupid and go kill someone? Who am I to tell you that you can’t use a knife because you might accidentally cut yourself (or me)?

Free to use whatever "substances" one chooses: Good in theory. Bad in practice. The government would not have outlawed certain drugs if it they thought they were "good" for people. Some say they would prefer the legalization of marijuana. I say, as I said before, the costs outweigh the benefits.

HERE's WHY FROM A PURELY ECONOMIC STANDPOINT:

Studies have shown that long-term usage of cannabis causes decreased IQ (not that I believe in IQ tests anyway ) and memory because the drug decreases blood flow to the front areas of the brain.

So? If they want to lower their IQ who are you to tell them not to? Because you want to make more money? Am I reading this right? You want them contributing to the economy so you refuse to allow them to make themselves stupider is this correct? It’s not right to control people’s lives like that. It’s their life, let them choose how they wish – especially if it does you no harm.

If there's a suspected terrorist trying to smuggle a bomb onto an airplane, who cares about "unreasonable search and seizure"?

I do. I care a ****load about it. I care that our government follows rules, because as soon as it gets to search or seize whoever or whatever it wants to, someone (one of the many government employees) will abuse that power.

 

[Danoff]

Third post (last one for now) in response to dbartucci,

The tragedy of the commons basically stems from incomplete property rights, any time you have a good that is used in common every person has an incentive to underprovide it and overuse it. A government can correct this inefficiency.

By not seizing land for public use in the first place. You’re describing the inherent flaw with all things publicly owned and you use it as a reason for even more government involvement.

A pure public good is one that is non-rivalrous in consumption and non-excludable. A good example is national defence. It's very hard for me to be defended in canada, but my neighbour not to be, and the fact that I'm defended doesn't prevent anyone else from being defended. A government is necessary to provide any manner of public protection, or we'll go Hobbes 'nasty, brutish, and short' existence.

Of course. Anarchy is unacceptable. Government is necessary for things like defense. I absolutely whole-heartedly agree. You’re probably not going to find anyone on GTPlanet that will make a decent argument in favor of anarchy.

In terms of economics, government, or some over-arching planner is necessary for efficiency and equity concerns.

The over-arching planner has been time and again proven (in other countries and in the US) to be incorrect and inequitable compared to the invisible hand of the free market. Who gets to be the planner? What kind of power does this person have over the common man? Where is this power derived?

For example, if I want to blow my money on booze in China, that may not be good for the American economy. But it’s my goddamn money. I can spend it on booze in China if I want to – and people will want to. Is there a wonderful reason to force them not to? It only incites unrest among the population. It only makes people want to rebel against their oppressors, overthrow the government, and set up a Chinese-booze-friendly regime.

*Governments are also required to enforce contracts.

…and laws in general. Again, Anarchy = Bad.