EPA is flat out gone, the consumer can decide if the environment is important to them buy voting with their wallet.
Imagine I live on a river. I have a small-scale commercial vegetable garden on my property, and I use river water for irrigation. What happens if you decide to build a factory upstream from me, and you end up dumping some of the factory waste in the river? Can I do anything about that?
Or what happens if you build a factory that produces a lot of smoke nearby my property? My house ends up turning black from the soot, and the whole place smells like an ashtray. Is there something I can do to force the factory to reduce its emissions?
No, because you don't count, because you're not a big enough portion of the free market for anyone to give a shit. Suck it up, you communist pansy!
Abortion-Only if the mother is going to die should an abortion be performed(its my religions fault), because I believe it is a form of murder and thusly has a negative effect on another individual.
No illegal immigration/punish employers
Freedom!*
*Things I don't like don't count.
On the whole, I'm not sure why anyone would vote for something like that. I doubt you could make a case for how it would improve our/any society.
My general sense is that "will this proposal appeal to others and attract votes" is not a criteria which Libertarians consider important in evaluating proposals.
Without the FCC, you could build a high-powered radio transmitter on your property that totally kills all wireless reception in the surrounding area. The transmitter might play havoc with Wifi, and it could seriously degrade your neighbours' TV/radio reception. You could even broadcast over the top of a competitor's radio station if you wanted to. There would be no regulator to stop you.
Without the FCC, you could build a high-powered radio transmitter on your property that totally kills all wireless reception in the surrounding area. The transmitter might play havoc with Wifi, and it could seriously degrade your neighbours' TV/radio reception. You could even broadcast over the top of a competitor's radio station if you wanted to. There would be no regulator to stop you.
They are actually a lot like Marxists in that sense. They criticize the current system, pointing out a number of flaws with it, then spout some idealistic statements about how things would be different if they were running things. But there is little consideration given to the everyday practicalities of their new "utopia".
People can hire racially if they choose and be segregationist if they choose, but everyone knows that racism is bad for business (except for maybe in the deep deep deep south)
If you are attempting to appeal to rich, white, old guys who don't like hanging around "those people," racism could be good for business. The same is true for women. A lot of private golf courses have only a few token women.
Very few government regulations:FDA does exist but is not required to put products out. EPA is flat out gone, the consumer can decide if the environment is important to them buy voting with their wallet.
Would you like to buy some of my patented medicine? It is guaranteed to cure headaches, insomnia, and insanity! Don't worry about the fact that the ingredients aren't listed.
Do you actually believe people will decide not to buy something because it is environmentally unfriendly? People buy shit that they know will fuck them up directly like cigarettes and unhealthy foods.
No illegal immigration/punish employers
How is this a libertarian policy? Why shouldn't you apply free trade to the transportation of peoples from one place to another for business purposes?
Your post helps show how much libertarian policy is to have essentially no government except for the military and a few laws.
1.) The Secret Service Denny's case where the black secret service men were not served, cost the company millions of dollars and forced them to evaluate their company. Bad for business
2.) You may or may not choose to buy patented medicine...your choice/your risk.
3.) You are right about the environment, if people don't give a shit why should we bother to reform...especially when other nations such as china and india cause way more pollution per capita.
4.) Why no illegal immigration? Simple, because the libertarian platform i propose is for the America, not the world. They are not citizens so they should not be provided for and they can be possible security threats since they are not screened in any ways.
I guess I also forgot to metion that welfare would be highly curtailed accept for people who literally can't take care of themselves (children, mentally handicapped, etc.)
Ill try to give more responses when my internet isn't so flaky, so you can tear those apart too ;-)
Abortion-Only if the mother is going to die should an abortion be performed(its my religions fault), because I believe it is a form of murder and thusly has a negative effect on another individual.
No illegal immigration/punish employers
Freedom!*
*Things I don't like don't count.
On the whole, I'm not sure why anyone would vote for something like that. I doubt you could make a case for how it would improve our/any society.
Well murder is not allowed in the libertarian society (any society?), and at this point I consider the fetus to be a valid human. If science proves to me that the fetus is in fact not human, then free abortions for everyone!!!!!
EPA is flat out gone, the consumer can decide if the environment is important to them buy voting with their wallet.
Imagine I live on a river. I have a small-scale commercial vegetable garden on my property, and I use river water for irrigation. What happens if you decide to build a factory upstream from me, and you end up dumping some of the factory waste in the river? Can I do anything about that?
Or what happens if you build a factory that produces a lot of smoke nearby my property? My house ends up turning black from the soot, and the whole place smells like an ashtray. Is there something I can do to force the factory to reduce its emissions?
What if a company dumps a chemical that can make children retarded and tells them it is safe to play in that chemical? What if a company buys out all possible competitors and creates a stranglehold on the market?
Dumping chemicals that cause children to be retarded would actually be against the libertarian model, sorry if i didn't explain it enough. The whole idea of the system is that people may enter into contracts on their own free will and that you may not harm other human beings. Dumping of chemicals directly near someone, would be considered breaking the law.
The important functions of the FCC and EPA would be absorbed by the police/legislative branch that would maintain the fact that people "aren't harming one another". The removal of the FCC is more against the censorship issues that I find quite distasteful.
If you believe in natural monopolies than some minor anti-trust laws could remain, but it seems to me that most monopolies that existed were based on utilities (AT and T), or control over natural resources. Most companies can never truely create monopolies.
I guess I also forgot to metion that welfare would be highly curtailed accept for people who literally can't take care of themselves (children, mentally handicapped, etc.)
So doesn't that force me to either work or starve?
I guess I also forgot to metion that welfare would be highly curtailed accept for people who literally can't take care of themselves (children, mentally handicapped, etc.)
So doesn't that force me to either work or starve?
As opposed to now????? I guess you can also steal. I think in pretty much any society you have to contribute or die. Coercion is part of life, and the goal of libertarianism is to minimize it...
I guess I also forgot to metion that welfare would be highly curtailed accept for people who literally can't take care of themselves (children, mentally handicapped, etc.)
So doesn't that force me to either work or starve?
As opposed to now????? I guess you can also steal. I think in pretty much any society you have to contribute or die. Coercion is part of life, and the goal of libertarianism is to minimize it...
Minimize it by the government. That doesn't necessarily mean more choice overall.
]3.) You are right about the environment, if people don't give a shit why should we bother to reform...especially when other nations such as china and india cause way more pollution per capita.
If you want to be taken the least bit seriously, you could at least pretend to know what you're talking about. I assume we're talking CO2 emissions, here?
Per capita, the US is far and away number one. China? 22nd. India? 25th. There are hundreds of millions more people in China and India, you twit. It should have been obvious that unless China and India were far and away the number 1 and 2 emitters they couldn't possibly be ahead of smaller nations per capita.
This isn't helping in the least the "Libertarians don't think anything they say through" impression you've been giving off.
Senjutsu on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
]3.) You are right about the environment, if people don't give a shit why should we bother to reform...especially when other nations such as china and india cause way more pollution per capita.
If you want to be taken the least bit seriously, you could at least pretend to know what you're talking about. I assume we're talking CO2 emissions, here?
Per capita, the US is far and away number one. China? 22nd. India? 25th. There are hundreds of millions more people in China and India, you twit. It should have been obvious that unless China and India were far and away the number 1 and 2 emitters they couldn't possibly be ahead of smaller nations per capita.
This isn't helping in the least the "Libertarians don't think anything they say through" impression you've been giving off.
Not to mention "If people don't give a shit, then why should we bother to reform?" is a terrible question. First, it presumes that the individuals who do care will be able to solve a collective-action problem on an individual level despite all the freeriders waiting in the wings. Furthermore, even if no one cared at all, or only very few people cared, we should still bother to reform because the consequences will be catastrophic if we don't.
The important functions of the FCC and EPA would be absorbed by the police/legislative branch that would maintain the fact that people "aren't harming one another".
Oh, cool, I get it! And then to make sure everything's running efficiently, we could split up police functions into different branches of the police. Say, among others, one branch just for dealing with violations of the law involving communications, and one branch just for dealing with violations of the law involving environmental hazards!
The sweeping changes brought on by this great libertarian reform would be totally alien to me at first, but I think I could get used to them!
1.) The Secret Service Denny's case where the black secret service men were not served, cost the company millions of dollars and forced them to evaluate their company. Bad for business
2.) You may or may not choose to buy patented medicine...your choice/your risk.
3.) You are right about the environment, if people don't give a shit why should we bother to reform...especially when other nations such as china and india cause way more pollution per capita.
4.) Why no illegal immigration? Simple, because the libertarian platform i propose is for the America, not the world. They are not citizens so they should not be provided for and they can be possible security threats since they are not screened in any ways.
I guess I also forgot to metion that welfare would be highly curtailed accept for people who literally can't take care of themselves (children, mentally handicapped, etc.)
1.) And you think this case could be brought in your society where discrimination is de jure legal instead of just de facto?
2.) You mean FDA approved medicine. A patent is something else entirely.
3.) Because it will kill us, and i dont want to die
4.) So why not make it all legal immigration? I mean, all you are doing is restricting people liberties. Slaves arent citizens either, fuck them! In fact, by curtailing immigration not only are you restricting the liberty of people who arent citizens, but you are also restricting the liberties of me, cause i want to may mexicans 10 bucks a day to re-roof my house, and without a huge influx of labor, prices wont ever go that low.
P.S. I forgot to mention that welfare IS highly curtailed except for people who literally cant take care of themselves.
ed: But seriously, how can you say that america is for citizens and non-citizens arent afforded these liberties, and then not allow slavery?
So I'm getting from this thread nothing more than my original long-standing notion, which is that not all libertarians are trolls, but none of them have a clue how the world actually works.
Katholic, you wanna look up 'tragedy of the commons' before you talk about environmental issues again, unless you like being considered a dolt.
]3.) You are right about the environment, if people don't give a shit why should we bother to reform...especially when other nations such as china and india cause way more pollution per capita.
If you want to be taken the least bit seriously, you could at least pretend to know what you're talking about. I assume we're talking CO2 emissions, here?
Per capita, the US is far and away number one. China? 22nd. India? 25th. There are hundreds of millions more people in China and India, you twit. It should have been obvious that unless China and India were far and away the number 1 and 2 emitters they couldn't possibly be ahead of smaller nations per capita.
This isn't helping in the least the "Libertarians don't think anything they say through" impression you've been giving off.
Not to mention "If people don't give a shit, then why should we bother to reform?" is a terrible question. First, it presumes that the individuals who do care will be able to solve a collective-action problem on an individual level despite all the freeriders waiting in the wings. Furthermore, even if no one cared at all, or only very few people cared, we should still bother to reform because the consequences will be catastrophic if we don't.
It also presumes that people like Steve Milloy don't exist, making a living being corporate hatchetmen and feeding the public misinformation. If you're persuaded through false arguments that something's not a problem, then you're not going to care, are you? Even though you've been lied to.
People can hire racially if they choose and be segregationist if they choose, but everyone knows that racism is bad for business (except for maybe in the deep deep deep south)
Libertarian responses to such lists are beyond amazing.
"Businesses would be stupid to do those things." Then they're stupid, because they do them. Private racial discrimination, for instance, lasted a hundred years; and it wasn't ended by businessmen changing their minds, but by blacks and liberals organizing. The Libertarian Party platform actually hopes to legally re-enable private discrimination.
Dumping chemicals that cause children to be retarded would actually be against the libertarian model, sorry if i didn't explain it enough. The whole idea of the system is that people may enter into contracts on their own free will and that you may not harm other human beings. Dumping of chemicals directly near someone, would be considered breaking the law.
How near is near someone?
Is through the smoke stacks on your own property near someone?
What dumping physical waste on your property, but with non-airtight fumes?
Or burying it underground, where it leeches into the local water table?
Or if birds start flying onto your property, contaiminating themselves, and then flying to someone else?
What about if you don't fence off your property right, and some kids trespass, as an "attractive nuisance"?
The removal of the FCC is more against the censorship issues that I find quite distasteful.
So how would you decide we allocate the limitted EM bandwidth? Can I buy some used equipment and start broadcasting on the same frequencies as the big boys now?
1.) The Secret Service Denny's case where the black secret service men were not served, cost the company millions of dollars and forced them to evaluate their company. Bad for business
2.) You may or may not choose to buy patented medicine...your choice/your risk.
3.) You are right about the environment, if people don't give a shit why should we bother to reform...especially when other nations such as china and india cause way more pollution per capita.
4.) Why no illegal immigration? Simple, because the libertarian platform i propose is for the America, not the world. They are not citizens so they should not be provided for and they can be possible security threats since they are not screened in any ways.
I guess I also forgot to metion that welfare would be highly curtailed accept for people who literally can't take care of themselves (children, mentally handicapped, etc.)
1.) I've heard this one before, and it continues to amuse me. So the libertarian rationale is that companies would engage in moral behavior in the absense of the law, because they were financially punished as a result of the law? Hey genius, Denny's discriminated against someone even though they knew they could be fined. This isn't the first time, either. You honestly think that they wouldn't be a lot more racist if there had never been civil rights laws, ever? (Other examples I've seen have been libertarians using the Covair lawsuit to prove that cars would be safe without lawsuits. Uh... yeah.).
3.) Great. So basically, I get to be sick and die because someone else didn't think to boycott a company. This is also doubly cool if the company serves products primarily to people who aren't within walking distance of the factory itself, and hence, have no direct stake in what the company actually does.
4.) How exactly are you going to define "illegal" immigration in the absense of the law?
So I'm getting from this thread nothing more than my original long-standing notion, which is that not all libertarians are trolls, but none of them have a clue how the world actually works.
Katholic, you wanna look up 'tragedy of the commons' before you talk about environmental issues again, unless you like being considered a dolt.
Most libertarian trolls, specifically college aged ones, are like the emo kids of politics.
1) Cynical "life sucks" attitude. Or more specifically, "Life sucks, because of the government." They just know that they would be getting laid more often if it wasn't for those lousy minimum wage laws.
2) Persecution complex. "Oh woe is me, if only those idiots knew better, then they'd get me. But I'm too deep, too deep, I say!"
3) They tend to pride themselves on being non-conformist, independent, free thinkers. Despite this, they all have a habit of parroting the exact same arguments, with the exact same analogies, and the the exact same logical fallacies. When you try to point out a counter example, they'll have the exact same responses, which usually have absolutely nothing to do with your counter argument, mainly because they're incapable of thinking on their own. (e.g., on three separate occassions with three separate people, I had a libertarian insist that recycling paper was bad for forests, because it discouraged tree farmers from farming trees. When I explained the absurdity of this, including the issue of soil depletion, the response I got was a completely unrelated, "Soil depletion? That's stupid! It's not like there's a potato shortage because people eat french fries!" When I pointed out that on an unrelated note, there actually WAS a potato shortage observed in recent years, the response was then some sort of nonsensical "Look, just because that's true doesn't take away the point I was trying to make.). On this thread, we keep getting told that we can't lump all libertarians together, and that they're all different and that they're not all insane. Until they start discussing the actual policies, and it's just the same old shit as always.
Yes, I know, people will accuse me of strawmanning and generalizing, but all of this comes from personal experience. Nothing in this thread seems to suggest that people have generally misjudged libertarians in anyway.
The most ironic thing about libertarians is that they put so much faith in the market place, even though they seem to suck so hard when it comes to marketing their platform in the market place of ideas to a mainstream audience. We know why the wealthy elite will listen to libertarians -- the promise of tax cuts -- but what exactly do libertarians have to offer everyone else? Nothing but the vague promise of more "freedom," which generally translates into a vast drop in terms of quality of life. Hence, the need to keep it vague. Can any libertarian explain why they're having such a hard time selling their ideology, without having to blame the corrupt two-party system, or the fact that the population is composed by idiots who aren't bright enough to understand libertarianism, even though we should somehow trust them to flourish within a non-paternal libertarian marketplace? Because it seems like you're losing at your own game here.
If you believe in natural monopolies than some minor anti-trust laws could remain, but it seems to me that most monopolies that existed were based on utilities (AT and T), or control over natural resources. Most companies can never truely create monopolies.
Adam Smith would beg to differ.
In any industry where a significant amount of capital is required to start a business, that industry will tend towards monopoly over time unless regulated.
True, rarely is there a total, 100% monopoly, but that's in part because we have regulations.
Anyway, it's always funny to me that people espouse the "free market," when it was originally was a hypothetical only -- a fantasy land where everyone starts on an equal playing field, and everyone has an equal desire to rise to the top, etc etc.
No, sorry, the porn companies don't get a moral pass just because teenagers don't magically develop the ability to scrutinize contractual law as soon as they turn 18.
I hate to intrude on everyone's nice westernised ideals of how far you can limit the word 'voluntary' to completely remove all personal responsibility of individuals, but yes, getting into porn in America IS voluntary. Men do not stand there forcing the girls to do it; they do not kidnap them and force them into slavery; they do not hunt them and their families down and main or kill them if they refuse; and once they see the camera / naked guy / are asked to strip it's pretty fucking obvious if they weren't already aware why they were there.
It is a free choice that they could say no to, or walk out on at any time. If it is not, then it is illegal, and should be stamped on. That's the line. The vast majority of the business is on the legal side. Also, if any of you (Sentry!) don't think that most of life involves a lot of people trying to coerce or strongarm you into doing things their way, you are desperately naive.
By the way, Feral, that was the weakest counter-argument ever, because as you said, they sign a contract TO HAVE SEX ON CAMERA. Contractual details have fuck all to do with that decision.
I have to sleep. Doubtless I will dream of porn because I'm brainwashed or whatever.
No, sorry, the porn companies don't get a moral pass just because teenagers don't magically develop the ability to scrutinize contractual law as soon as they turn 18.
I hate to intrude on everyone's nice westernised ideals of how far you can limit the word 'voluntary' to completely remove all personal responsibility of individuals, but yes, getting into porn in America IS voluntary. Men do not stand there forcing the girls to do it; they do not kidnap them and force them into slavery; they do not hunt them and their families down and main or kill them if they refuse; and once they see the camera / naked guy / are asked to strip it's pretty fucking obvious if they weren't already aware why they were there.
It is a free choice that they could say no to, or walk out on at any time. If it is not, then it is illegal, and should be stamped on. That's the line. The vast majority of the business is on the legal side. Also, if any of you (Sentry!) don't think that most of life involves a lot of people trying to coerce or strongarm you into doing things their way, you are desperately naive.
By the way, Feral, that was the weakest counter-argument ever, because as you said, they sign a contract TO HAVE SEX ON CAMERA. Contractual details have fuck all to do with that decision.
I have to sleep. Doubtless I will dream of porn because I'm brainwashed or whatever.
Oh, right, you're a Libertarian.
I'm done talking to you.
Edit: I'll at least give you an explanation. Our differences on this subject run far, far deeper than porn and threaten to completely derail the thread if we continue. We've recently had a lot of threads on Libertarianism and I, personally, am not interested in broaching that subject again. Therefore, I'm not going to continue on this line of conversation.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
No, sorry, the porn companies don't get a moral pass just because teenagers don't magically develop the ability to scrutinize contractual law as soon as they turn 18.
I hate to intrude on everyone's nice westernised ideals of how far you can limit the word 'voluntary' to completely remove all personal responsibility of individuals, but yes, getting into porn in America IS voluntary. Men do not stand there forcing the girls to do it; they do not kidnap them and force them into slavery; they do not hunt them and their families down and main or kill them if they refuse; and once they see the camera / naked guy / are asked to strip it's pretty fucking obvious if they weren't already aware why they were there.
It is a free choice that they could say no to, or walk out on at any time. If it is not, then it is illegal, and should be stamped on. That's the line. The vast majority of the business is on the legal side. Also, if any of you (Sentry!) don't think that most of life involves a lot of people trying to coerce or strongarm you into doing things their way, you are desperately naive.
By the way, Feral, that was the weakest counter-argument ever, because as you said, they sign a contract TO HAVE SEX ON CAMERA. Contractual details have fuck all to do with that decision.
I have to sleep. Doubtless I will dream of porn because I'm brainwashed or whatever.
Oh, right, you're a Libertarian.
I'm done talking to you.
Oh... that's what it was. I just thought he was a giant douche.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Oh, right, you're a Libertarian.
I'm done talking to you.
No, I'm a libertarian. See that endless thread for the difference, or be endlessly stupid for not being able to comprehend the difference between a small case and capital 'l'.
And if I were you, I'd be done talking to me because you kept losing the argument, not because I happen to be an individualist.
PS Can I take this opportunity to point at both you and Sentry (fairly left-liberal-socially-responsible views it seems) and shout, for that libertarian thing: OMG UR PREDJUDICING ME N VIOLATING MI HUMAN RIGHTS NOT MI FAULT WHUT I BELEEV UR RACIALIST etc
We're talking about legal porn here. We are NOT discussing illegal activity or corruption or greed or business or law. We're discussing fucking porn. And ESPECIALLY not POLITICS. Either use logic or gtfo.
Just because something is legal does not mean it's morally defensible.
When there is an industry where some players are morally corrupt and some are not, it is better to patronize the morally superior competitors.
Therefore people have a moral responsibility to purchase porn from sources that do not exploit their talent.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
And I'm not ignoring anything, I'm carrying your flippant & blatently wrong generalisation from another thread on a leash so it can bite you in the arse whenever you contradict it (like I suspect I'll be doing with the second quote there). It's called 'rhetoric' and 'debate'.
Yes like I said, bullshit. You're the one devaluing it, I'm just calling it what it is. As a matter of fact I'm majoring in bullshitting. You see, bullshit is rather impressively valuable.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Hello, libertarian. I disagree with your philisophical doctrine.
Hookay, please explain to me where the statement "you must not do X to yourself because I disagree with it" is going wrong, instead of just calling me a libertarian and assuming that proves everything.
Well, you proffed your statement with no justification, so I disagreed with no justification. Fair's fair. Regardless, here are several cases where I can legitimately say "I'm going to prevent you from doing X to yourself:"
1) You are uninformed about X--you don't know enough about X to judge your interests. For example, I could require you to study the effects of kidney transplants before agreeing to donate.
2) Despite posessing the relevant information about X generally, you are inaccurately assesing the situation. For example, you want to do meth regularly for a month because you're convinced that you won't get addicted. Or, you're convinced that you can drive drunk safely.
3) Despite possessing the relevant information, and largely assesing the facts of the situation correctly, you are nonetheless confused about your interests regarding X. You think X will be good for you, I know it won't. For example, a mourning mother insists that she wants to see her son's body after a car crash. I, however, know that mothers almost universally regret seeing the body, and are much higher suicide risks if they do.
These are three very general cases where paternalistic intervention is justified (though the last couple are very similar). Note that these are three ways we justify our role as parents in controling our children's lives: these aren't considerations that magically vanish on turning eighteen. There may be more, but regardless, there you have it. Some very broad catagories of intervention that are justified in the face of the seeming self-containment of the action relative to the agent.
This would be relevant to, say, porn actresses who don't know exactly what they're signing up for, and reliably underestimate the amount of degrading things they'll be subject to, while also reliably overestimating the pay and long-term career possibilities.
Ouch, sometimes reading bits like that physically hurts.
Ok, first premise - which you seem to be basing a lot of the 'correctness' of your examples on, is that just because something is law != it is correct. Everyone can think of some law they disagree with, so this isn't too much of a stretch I hope.
So your individual examples; some are often going outside of my statement.
2) Despite posessing the relevant information about X generally, you are inaccurately assesing the situation. Or, you're convinced that you can drive drunk safely.
Example one of that later: the drink driving example is fallacious - we stop people drink driving not primarily because they might kill themselves, but that a drunk driver at the wheel of a vehicle is a danger to others, thus breaching the 'to yourself' caveat [shocker!] of my statement.
Otherwise this is going to be a simple disagreement along the slippery slope line. Where do you draw the line with the reasoning behind any of these?
You are uninformed about X--you don't know enough about X to judge your interests. For example, I could require you to study the effects of kidney transplants before agreeing to donate.
Does everyone understand the effects of kidney transplants equally even if they do study them? How do you account for intelligence in someone judging their own interests? What makes a decision 'right', and why should you be the one to determine it?
2) Despite posessing the relevant information about X generally, you are inaccurately assesing the situation. For example, you want to do meth regularly for a month because you're convinced that you won't be addicted.
Do you regularly go up to smokers in the street and stamp on their cigarettes by the same reasoning? Few people deny that humans learn through experience, trial & error: how do people ever learn to make good decisions if you never allow them the education of making some bad ones? Do you honestly think it's possible or a good idea to have a society which prevents everyone from making 'bad' decisions?
3) Despite possessing the relevant information, and largely assesing the facts of the situation correctly, you are nonetheless confused about your interests regarding X. You think X will be good for you, I know it won't. For example, a mourning mother insists that she wants to see her son's body after a car crash. I, however, know that mothers almost universally regret seeing the body, and are much higher suicide risks if they do.
No, what you are arguing there is "Despite possessing the relevant information, and largely assessing the facts of the situation correctly, you make a decision I think is wrong." 'Almost' universally is your problem. Few to no things in the world are universal, and where do you get the right to stamp on hope, personal ambition, going against the odds, and most of all personal choice. Might I also point out that this last example is so far on the Stalinist side of philosophy that no mortician could legally prevent a mother seeing her son's body, as far as I'm aware.
You have essentially written a manifesto to justify complete control by yourself over other people.
1. Some people aren't informed enough to know what's best for them: thus I am allowed to choose for them.
2. Some people are informed enough to know what's best for them, but don't have the judgement to make the decision: thus I am allowed to choose for them.
3. Some people are informed enough to know what's best for them, and do have the judgement to make the decision, but they make a decision which I do not agree with: thus I am allowed to choose for them.
It's actually frightening.
Also, if that was how the world was run, oceans would never have been crossed (ships likely to sink), the world never explored (explorers likely to get lost), America would never have been founded (revolutionaries likely to lose), Everest never scaled (climbers likely to die), Moon landings never made (likely to fail), DNA never discovered (two unknown scientists unlikely to be worth funding), the list is endless.
Oh, PS you're obviously also setting up a lovely system for total tyranny of the majority. I hope you don't enjoy any minority pursuit or belief that you aren't willing to surrender to the Greater Good, and don't feel any sympathy for, say, gays or black people having little things equality and that.
And I'm not ignoring anything, I'm carrying your flippant & blatently wrong generalisation from another thread on a leash so it can bite you in the arse whenever you contradict it (like I suspect I'll be doing with the second quote there). It's called 'rhetoric' and 'debate'.
Yes like I said, bullshit. You're the one devaluing it, I'm just calling it what it is. As a matter of fact I'm majoring in bullshitting. You see, bullshit is rather impressively valuable.
Just saw this.
Er, ok. Apparently calling someone on inconsistent arguments is bullshit, and not exposing hypocracy which undermines the credibility of their position. I'll remember that when, I don't know, I want to say anything at all with total disregard for accuracy, relevance or meaning.
PS You still haven't explained how you are reading this if all linguistic structures are bullshit ;-)
Fawkes on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
If you prevent people from doing things to themselves in some particular cases, you must hate liberty and never want to let anyone make any choices ever!
No. For example, when I said "you have a good case for preventing someone from doing meth regularly for a month" you responded with an example about cigarettes, as if being commited to a certain policy vis a vie meth would commit you to the same policy vis a vie cigs. That's retarded.
You were the one making a catagorical assertion: namely, that it is never acceptable to interfere with another person's choice, provided it only affects themself. Now even if you (dubiously) accept that such a catagory of choice exists, you can still dispute that it is never acceptable to interfere. Furthermore, you can dispute that it's never acceptable to interfere without claiming that it's always acceptable to interfere, as you seem to have portrayed me.
I understand that's the thing you cherish above all else. I disagree.
I hope you don't enjoy any minority pursuit or belief that you aren't willing to surrender to the Greater Good, and don't feel any sympathy for, say, gays or black people having little things equality and that.
Hello, libertarian. I disagree with your philisophical doctrine.
I was talking about the philosophical doctrine, like you brought up. Those tend to be based on a few simple principles, which then inform decisions on specific matters.
You jumped straight in with specific examples of exceptions, most of which I disagree with, but I'm not disputing that exceptions exist. I asked you to show where the basic principle of my doctrine was less firm than yours, because the only principle I could extrapolate from what you wrote was that it's essentially ok to interfere in most any situation, as long as you believe you are doing the right thing.
Since I obviously misunderstood, please state the principle of your philosophical doctrine. From what I'm getting so far, this will have to include an iron clad indisputable definition of 'right' and 'wrong', so good luck there.
PS on a tangent, how do you feel about mad fundies with signs saying 'fags should die' and such? I'm interested in how you square imposing your idea of what is right on others, without allowing them to do the same to you?
Fawkes on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Since I obviously misunderstood, please state the principle of your philosophical doctrine.
Roughly, Utilitarianism. On the Connection Between Liberty and Utility roughly expresses my opinion of personal liberty, namely, that I value it very highly because it's a necessary condition to a happy population. However, it's a derivative good--it's only good insofar as it furthers another condition: once it stops furthering that other condition, it is no longer good.
Hence my disagreement with your entirely catagorical statement that "Whoever is saying it, 'you must not do X to yourself because I disagree with it' does not a persuasive argument make."
Really, I hadn't realised that from the gay thread currently running. Perhaps I pick my examples for a reason. ;-)
For pointing out that a lot of your views could easily be used by others to justify stamping on your freedom of choice in how you live?
How does that make me an asshole, exactly?
By the way, your philosophy seems to place a happy population as the only goal. So you'd be ok with the state keeping everyone dosed up on heroin then? Also, your use of 'happy population' is worryingly vague and encompassing. What about happy individuals? What about unhappy individuals within your 'happy population'. What happens when to make the majority happy, you must make a minority unhappy? Presumably the majority must win.
So again, how do you square these views with being gay, say in a Muslim country where the majority are pretty set against gay people.
PS This really belongs in the other thread. Modmove?
By the way, your philosophy seems to place a happy population as the only goal. So you'd be ok with the state keeping everyone dosed up on heroin then?
Yes, I bet that this is what MrMister actually meant when he suggested preventing someone from driving while drunk.
For pointing out that a lot of your views could easily be used by others to justify stamping on your freedom of choice in how you live?
How does that make me an asshole, exactly?
By the way, your philosophy seems to place a happy population as the only goal. So you'd be ok with the state keeping everyone dosed up on heroin then? Also, your use of 'happy population' is worryingly vague and encompassing. What about happy individuals? What about unhappy individuals within your 'happy population'. What happens when to make the majority happy, you must make a minority unhappy? Presumably the majority must win.
So again, how do you square these views with being gay, say in a Muslim country where the majority are pretty set against gay people.
PS This really belongs in the other thread. Modmove?
I'm not going to move it because it centers on libertarian philosophy.
I'd like to say, though, that you're arguing from a poor position, Fawkes. You're using the fact that there is a possibility of bad laws as an argument against all laws. Advocating consumer protection or illegalization of crack doesn't imply a support for hunting down homosexuals. Just because you're arguing from a theoretical libertarian position doesn't mean you get to willfully ignore distinctions.
Well, let's see, Fawkes, based on your version of Libertarianism:
We can ban people from smoking, since second-hand smoke affects others.
We can ban peanut products altogether, since occasionally they can get into other foods, and cause injury in a small portion of the population.
We can forbid people from owning business, because businesses can negatively affect other people.
We can forbid people from doing anything with their own, private property, since that can affect other people.
Really, under your "as long as it only affects me it should be legal" policy, the government can legislate pretty much anything and everything. I mean, really, I never would've figured you for a big fan of authoritarian government.
Well, let's see, Fawkes, based on your version of Libertarianism:
We can ban people from smoking, since second-hand smoke affects others.
We can ban peanut products altogether, since occasionally they can get into other foods, and cause injury in a small portion of the population.
We can forbid people from owning business, because businesses can negatively affect other people.
We can forbid people from doing anything with their own, private property, since that can affect other people.
Really, under your "as long as it only affects me it should be legal" policy, the government can legislate pretty much anything and everything. I mean, really, I never would've figured you for a big fan of authoritarian government.
You clearly think that that those laws would be harmful to the public. Why then would the government allow itself to make them?
This whole situation is of course hypothetical, but the Bill of Rights already deals with this concept that there are some kinds of laws that are inherently more harmful than the actions that they seek to prevent.
Well, let's see, Fawkes, based on your version of Libertarianism:
We can ban people from smoking, since second-hand smoke affects others.
.
Really, under your "as long as it only affects me it should be legal" policy, the government can legislate pretty much anything and everything. I mean, really, I never would've figurWe can ban peanut products altogether, since occasionally they can get into other foods, and cause injury in a small portion of the population.
We can forbid people from owning business, because businesses can negatively affect other people.
We can forbid people from doing anything with their own, private property, since that can affect other peopleed you for a big fan of authoritarian government.
You clearly think that that those laws would be harmful to the public. Why then would the government allow itself to make them?
We're not interested in the public interest, remember? We're Libertarians; we just care about individuals. Individuals who need protection from the flagpole you're putting up on your property which obscures my view.
This whole situation is of course hypothetical, but the Bill of Rights already deals with this concept that there are some kinds of laws that are inherently more harmful than the actions that they seek to prevent.
Banning smoking and peanut products doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. Lots of things which affect personal liberty and are fucking stupid don't, but also don't fall under the "if it only affects me, it should be legal" argument.
Posts
No, because you don't count, because you're not a big enough portion of the free market for anyone to give a shit. Suck it up, you communist pansy!
My general sense is that "will this proposal appeal to others and attract votes" is not a criteria which Libertarians consider important in evaluating proposals.
Without the FCC, you could build a high-powered radio transmitter on your property that totally kills all wireless reception in the surrounding area. The transmitter might play havoc with Wifi, and it could seriously degrade your neighbours' TV/radio reception. You could even broadcast over the top of a competitor's radio station if you wanted to. There would be no regulator to stop you.
I think Libertarians consider it déclassé to actually consider the practical effects of their high-minded ideas.
They are actually a lot like Marxists in that sense. They criticize the current system, pointing out a number of flaws with it, then spout some idealistic statements about how things would be different if they were running things. But there is little consideration given to the everyday practicalities of their new "utopia".
1.) The Secret Service Denny's case where the black secret service men were not served, cost the company millions of dollars and forced them to evaluate their company. Bad for business
2.) You may or may not choose to buy patented medicine...your choice/your risk.
3.) You are right about the environment, if people don't give a shit why should we bother to reform...especially when other nations such as china and india cause way more pollution per capita.
4.) Why no illegal immigration? Simple, because the libertarian platform i propose is for the America, not the world. They are not citizens so they should not be provided for and they can be possible security threats since they are not screened in any ways.
I guess I also forgot to metion that welfare would be highly curtailed accept for people who literally can't take care of themselves (children, mentally handicapped, etc.)
Ill try to give more responses when my internet isn't so flaky, so you can tear those apart too ;-)
Well murder is not allowed in the libertarian society (any society?), and at this point I consider the fetus to be a valid human. If science proves to me that the fetus is in fact not human, then free abortions for everyone!!!!!
Dumping chemicals that cause children to be retarded would actually be against the libertarian model, sorry if i didn't explain it enough. The whole idea of the system is that people may enter into contracts on their own free will and that you may not harm other human beings. Dumping of chemicals directly near someone, would be considered breaking the law.
The important functions of the FCC and EPA would be absorbed by the police/legislative branch that would maintain the fact that people "aren't harming one another". The removal of the FCC is more against the censorship issues that I find quite distasteful.
If you believe in natural monopolies than some minor anti-trust laws could remain, but it seems to me that most monopolies that existed were based on utilities (AT and T), or control over natural resources. Most companies can never truely create monopolies.
So doesn't that force me to either work or starve?
As opposed to now????? I guess you can also steal. I think in pretty much any society you have to contribute or die. Coercion is part of life, and the goal of libertarianism is to minimize it...
Minimize it by the government. That doesn't necessarily mean more choice overall.
Per capita, the US is far and away number one. China? 22nd. India? 25th. There are hundreds of millions more people in China and India, you twit. It should have been obvious that unless China and India were far and away the number 1 and 2 emitters they couldn't possibly be ahead of smaller nations per capita.
This isn't helping in the least the "Libertarians don't think anything they say through" impression you've been giving off.
Not to mention "If people don't give a shit, then why should we bother to reform?" is a terrible question. First, it presumes that the individuals who do care will be able to solve a collective-action problem on an individual level despite all the freeriders waiting in the wings. Furthermore, even if no one cared at all, or only very few people cared, we should still bother to reform because the consequences will be catastrophic if we don't.
The sweeping changes brought on by this great libertarian reform would be totally alien to me at first, but I think I could get used to them!
1.) And you think this case could be brought in your society where discrimination is de jure legal instead of just de facto?
2.) You mean FDA approved medicine. A patent is something else entirely.
3.) Because it will kill us, and i dont want to die
4.) So why not make it all legal immigration? I mean, all you are doing is restricting people liberties. Slaves arent citizens either, fuck them! In fact, by curtailing immigration not only are you restricting the liberty of people who arent citizens, but you are also restricting the liberties of me, cause i want to may mexicans 10 bucks a day to re-roof my house, and without a huge influx of labor, prices wont ever go that low.
P.S. I forgot to mention that welfare IS highly curtailed except for people who literally cant take care of themselves.
ed: But seriously, how can you say that america is for citizens and non-citizens arent afforded these liberties, and then not allow slavery?
Katholic, you wanna look up 'tragedy of the commons' before you talk about environmental issues again, unless you like being considered a dolt.
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html
Libertarian responses to such lists are beyond amazing.
"Businesses would be stupid to do those things." Then they're stupid, because they do them. Private racial discrimination, for instance, lasted a hundred years; and it wasn't ended by businessmen changing their minds, but by blacks and liberals organizing. The Libertarian Party platform actually hopes to legally re-enable private discrimination.
How near is near someone?
Is through the smoke stacks on your own property near someone?
What dumping physical waste on your property, but with non-airtight fumes?
Or burying it underground, where it leeches into the local water table?
Or if birds start flying onto your property, contaiminating themselves, and then flying to someone else?
What about if you don't fence off your property right, and some kids trespass, as an "attractive nuisance"?
So how would you decide we allocate the limitted EM bandwidth? Can I buy some used equipment and start broadcasting on the same frequencies as the big boys now?
1.) I've heard this one before, and it continues to amuse me. So the libertarian rationale is that companies would engage in moral behavior in the absense of the law, because they were financially punished as a result of the law? Hey genius, Denny's discriminated against someone even though they knew they could be fined. This isn't the first time, either. You honestly think that they wouldn't be a lot more racist if there had never been civil rights laws, ever? (Other examples I've seen have been libertarians using the Covair lawsuit to prove that cars would be safe without lawsuits. Uh... yeah.).
3.) Great. So basically, I get to be sick and die because someone else didn't think to boycott a company. This is also doubly cool if the company serves products primarily to people who aren't within walking distance of the factory itself, and hence, have no direct stake in what the company actually does.
4.) How exactly are you going to define "illegal" immigration in the absense of the law?
Most libertarian trolls, specifically college aged ones, are like the emo kids of politics.
1) Cynical "life sucks" attitude. Or more specifically, "Life sucks, because of the government." They just know that they would be getting laid more often if it wasn't for those lousy minimum wage laws.
2) Persecution complex. "Oh woe is me, if only those idiots knew better, then they'd get me. But I'm too deep, too deep, I say!"
3) They tend to pride themselves on being non-conformist, independent, free thinkers. Despite this, they all have a habit of parroting the exact same arguments, with the exact same analogies, and the the exact same logical fallacies. When you try to point out a counter example, they'll have the exact same responses, which usually have absolutely nothing to do with your counter argument, mainly because they're incapable of thinking on their own. (e.g., on three separate occassions with three separate people, I had a libertarian insist that recycling paper was bad for forests, because it discouraged tree farmers from farming trees. When I explained the absurdity of this, including the issue of soil depletion, the response I got was a completely unrelated, "Soil depletion? That's stupid! It's not like there's a potato shortage because people eat french fries!" When I pointed out that on an unrelated note, there actually WAS a potato shortage observed in recent years, the response was then some sort of nonsensical "Look, just because that's true doesn't take away the point I was trying to make.). On this thread, we keep getting told that we can't lump all libertarians together, and that they're all different and that they're not all insane. Until they start discussing the actual policies, and it's just the same old shit as always.
Yes, I know, people will accuse me of strawmanning and generalizing, but all of this comes from personal experience. Nothing in this thread seems to suggest that people have generally misjudged libertarians in anyway.
The most ironic thing about libertarians is that they put so much faith in the market place, even though they seem to suck so hard when it comes to marketing their platform in the market place of ideas to a mainstream audience. We know why the wealthy elite will listen to libertarians -- the promise of tax cuts -- but what exactly do libertarians have to offer everyone else? Nothing but the vague promise of more "freedom," which generally translates into a vast drop in terms of quality of life. Hence, the need to keep it vague. Can any libertarian explain why they're having such a hard time selling their ideology, without having to blame the corrupt two-party system, or the fact that the population is composed by idiots who aren't bright enough to understand libertarianism, even though we should somehow trust them to flourish within a non-paternal libertarian marketplace? Because it seems like you're losing at your own game here.
Adam Smith would beg to differ.
In any industry where a significant amount of capital is required to start a business, that industry will tend towards monopoly over time unless regulated.
True, rarely is there a total, 100% monopoly, but that's in part because we have regulations.
Anyway, it's always funny to me that people espouse the "free market," when it was originally was a hypothetical only -- a fantasy land where everyone starts on an equal playing field, and everyone has an equal desire to rise to the top, etc etc.
Unregulated market != free market.
I hate to intrude on everyone's nice westernised ideals of how far you can limit the word 'voluntary' to completely remove all personal responsibility of individuals, but yes, getting into porn in America IS voluntary. Men do not stand there forcing the girls to do it; they do not kidnap them and force them into slavery; they do not hunt them and their families down and main or kill them if they refuse; and once they see the camera / naked guy / are asked to strip it's pretty fucking obvious if they weren't already aware why they were there.
It is a free choice that they could say no to, or walk out on at any time. If it is not, then it is illegal, and should be stamped on. That's the line. The vast majority of the business is on the legal side. Also, if any of you (Sentry!) don't think that most of life involves a lot of people trying to coerce or strongarm you into doing things their way, you are desperately naive.
By the way, Feral, that was the weakest counter-argument ever, because as you said, they sign a contract TO HAVE SEX ON CAMERA. Contractual details have fuck all to do with that decision.
I have to sleep. Doubtless I will dream of porn because I'm brainwashed or whatever.
Oh, right, you're a Libertarian.
I'm done talking to you.
Edit: I'll at least give you an explanation. Our differences on this subject run far, far deeper than porn and threaten to completely derail the thread if we continue. We've recently had a lot of threads on Libertarianism and I, personally, am not interested in broaching that subject again. Therefore, I'm not going to continue on this line of conversation.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Oh... that's what it was. I just thought he was a giant douche.
No, I'm a libertarian. See that endless thread for the difference, or be endlessly stupid for not being able to comprehend the difference between a small case and capital 'l'.
And if I were you, I'd be done talking to me because you kept losing the argument, not because I happen to be an individualist.
PS Can I take this opportunity to point at both you and Sentry (fairly left-liberal-socially-responsible views it seems) and shout, for that libertarian thing: OMG UR PREDJUDICING ME N VIOLATING MI HUMAN RIGHTS NOT MI FAULT WHUT I BELEEV UR RACIALIST etc
Really, try and have some consistency.
Just because something is legal does not mean it's morally defensible.
When there is an industry where some players are morally corrupt and some are not, it is better to patronize the morally superior competitors.
Therefore people have a moral responsibility to purchase porn from sources that do not exploit their talent.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes like I said, bullshit. You're the one devaluing it, I'm just calling it what it is. As a matter of fact I'm majoring in bullshitting. You see, bullshit is rather impressively valuable.
Well, you proffed your statement with no justification, so I disagreed with no justification. Fair's fair. Regardless, here are several cases where I can legitimately say "I'm going to prevent you from doing X to yourself:"
1) You are uninformed about X--you don't know enough about X to judge your interests. For example, I could require you to study the effects of kidney transplants before agreeing to donate.
2) Despite posessing the relevant information about X generally, you are inaccurately assesing the situation. For example, you want to do meth regularly for a month because you're convinced that you won't get addicted. Or, you're convinced that you can drive drunk safely.
3) Despite possessing the relevant information, and largely assesing the facts of the situation correctly, you are nonetheless confused about your interests regarding X. You think X will be good for you, I know it won't. For example, a mourning mother insists that she wants to see her son's body after a car crash. I, however, know that mothers almost universally regret seeing the body, and are much higher suicide risks if they do.
These are three very general cases where paternalistic intervention is justified (though the last couple are very similar). Note that these are three ways we justify our role as parents in controling our children's lives: these aren't considerations that magically vanish on turning eighteen. There may be more, but regardless, there you have it. Some very broad catagories of intervention that are justified in the face of the seeming self-containment of the action relative to the agent.
This would be relevant to, say, porn actresses who don't know exactly what they're signing up for, and reliably underestimate the amount of degrading things they'll be subject to, while also reliably overestimating the pay and long-term career possibilities.
Ouch, sometimes reading bits like that physically hurts.
Ok, first premise - which you seem to be basing a lot of the 'correctness' of your examples on, is that just because something is law != it is correct. Everyone can think of some law they disagree with, so this isn't too much of a stretch I hope.
So your individual examples; some are often going outside of my statement.
Example one of that later: the drink driving example is fallacious - we stop people drink driving not primarily because they might kill themselves, but that a drunk driver at the wheel of a vehicle is a danger to others, thus breaching the 'to yourself' caveat [shocker!] of my statement.
Otherwise this is going to be a simple disagreement along the slippery slope line. Where do you draw the line with the reasoning behind any of these?
Does everyone understand the effects of kidney transplants equally even if they do study them? How do you account for intelligence in someone judging their own interests? What makes a decision 'right', and why should you be the one to determine it?
Do you regularly go up to smokers in the street and stamp on their cigarettes by the same reasoning? Few people deny that humans learn through experience, trial & error: how do people ever learn to make good decisions if you never allow them the education of making some bad ones? Do you honestly think it's possible or a good idea to have a society which prevents everyone from making 'bad' decisions?
No, what you are arguing there is "Despite possessing the relevant information, and largely assessing the facts of the situation correctly, you make a decision I think is wrong." 'Almost' universally is your problem. Few to no things in the world are universal, and where do you get the right to stamp on hope, personal ambition, going against the odds, and most of all personal choice. Might I also point out that this last example is so far on the Stalinist side of philosophy that no mortician could legally prevent a mother seeing her son's body, as far as I'm aware.
You have essentially written a manifesto to justify complete control by yourself over other people.
1. Some people aren't informed enough to know what's best for them: thus I am allowed to choose for them.
2. Some people are informed enough to know what's best for them, but don't have the judgement to make the decision: thus I am allowed to choose for them.
3. Some people are informed enough to know what's best for them, and do have the judgement to make the decision, but they make a decision which I do not agree with: thus I am allowed to choose for them.
It's actually frightening.
Also, if that was how the world was run, oceans would never have been crossed (ships likely to sink), the world never explored (explorers likely to get lost), America would never have been founded (revolutionaries likely to lose), Everest never scaled (climbers likely to die), Moon landings never made (likely to fail), DNA never discovered (two unknown scientists unlikely to be worth funding), the list is endless.
Oh, PS you're obviously also setting up a lovely system for total tyranny of the majority. I hope you don't enjoy any minority pursuit or belief that you aren't willing to surrender to the Greater Good, and don't feel any sympathy for, say, gays or black people having little things equality and that.
Just saw this.
Er, ok. Apparently calling someone on inconsistent arguments is bullshit, and not exposing hypocracy which undermines the credibility of their position. I'll remember that when, I don't know, I want to say anything at all with total disregard for accuracy, relevance or meaning.
PS You still haven't explained how you are reading this if all linguistic structures are bullshit ;-)
No. For example, when I said "you have a good case for preventing someone from doing meth regularly for a month" you responded with an example about cigarettes, as if being commited to a certain policy vis a vie meth would commit you to the same policy vis a vie cigs. That's retarded.
You were the one making a catagorical assertion: namely, that it is never acceptable to interfere with another person's choice, provided it only affects themself. Now even if you (dubiously) accept that such a catagory of choice exists, you can still dispute that it is never acceptable to interfere. Furthermore, you can dispute that it's never acceptable to interfere without claiming that it's always acceptable to interfere, as you seem to have portrayed me.
I understand that's the thing you cherish above all else. I disagree.
I'm gay, taardvark.
Or perhaps just saying someone is full of shit makes it so.
Really, I hadn't realised that from the gay thread currently running. Perhaps I pick my examples for a reason. ;-)
I was talking about the philosophical doctrine, like you brought up. Those tend to be based on a few simple principles, which then inform decisions on specific matters.
You jumped straight in with specific examples of exceptions, most of which I disagree with, but I'm not disputing that exceptions exist. I asked you to show where the basic principle of my doctrine was less firm than yours, because the only principle I could extrapolate from what you wrote was that it's essentially ok to interfere in most any situation, as long as you believe you are doing the right thing.
Since I obviously misunderstood, please state the principle of your philosophical doctrine. From what I'm getting so far, this will have to include an iron clad indisputable definition of 'right' and 'wrong', so good luck there.
PS on a tangent, how do you feel about mad fundies with signs saying 'fags should die' and such? I'm interested in how you square imposing your idea of what is right on others, without allowing them to do the same to you?
Roughly, Utilitarianism. On the Connection Between Liberty and Utility roughly expresses my opinion of personal liberty, namely, that I value it very highly because it's a necessary condition to a happy population. However, it's a derivative good--it's only good insofar as it furthers another condition: once it stops furthering that other condition, it is no longer good.
Hence my disagreement with your entirely catagorical statement that "Whoever is saying it, 'you must not do X to yourself because I disagree with it' does not a persuasive argument make."
Okay, you're an asshole.
For pointing out that a lot of your views could easily be used by others to justify stamping on your freedom of choice in how you live?
How does that make me an asshole, exactly?
By the way, your philosophy seems to place a happy population as the only goal. So you'd be ok with the state keeping everyone dosed up on heroin then? Also, your use of 'happy population' is worryingly vague and encompassing. What about happy individuals? What about unhappy individuals within your 'happy population'. What happens when to make the majority happy, you must make a minority unhappy? Presumably the majority must win.
So again, how do you square these views with being gay, say in a Muslim country where the majority are pretty set against gay people.
PS This really belongs in the other thread. Modmove?
I'm not going to move it because it centers on libertarian philosophy.
I'd like to say, though, that you're arguing from a poor position, Fawkes. You're using the fact that there is a possibility of bad laws as an argument against all laws. Advocating consumer protection or illegalization of crack doesn't imply a support for hunting down homosexuals. Just because you're arguing from a theoretical libertarian position doesn't mean you get to willfully ignore distinctions.
We can ban people from smoking, since second-hand smoke affects others.
We can ban peanut products altogether, since occasionally they can get into other foods, and cause injury in a small portion of the population.
We can forbid people from owning business, because businesses can negatively affect other people.
We can forbid people from doing anything with their own, private property, since that can affect other people.
Really, under your "as long as it only affects me it should be legal" policy, the government can legislate pretty much anything and everything. I mean, really, I never would've figured you for a big fan of authoritarian government.
You clearly think that that those laws would be harmful to the public. Why then would the government allow itself to make them?
This whole situation is of course hypothetical, but the Bill of Rights already deals with this concept that there are some kinds of laws that are inherently more harmful than the actions that they seek to prevent.
Banning smoking and peanut products doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. Lots of things which affect personal liberty and are fucking stupid don't, but also don't fall under the "if it only affects me, it should be legal" argument.