For my Libertarian friends

manofmystery wrote: jammun wrote: After all, they can and did elect a Presidenet.     Do not take this as an endorsement for W because I'm not a fan but come on, isn't it time we stopped being bitter about the 2000 election.  The Supreme Court's decision simply ended the ridiculous recount process that at no point showed Gore ahead.  The alternative was that the recounts continued on until enough ballots were "found" in someones trunk to give Gore the lead .  No wait, things would've just gotten messier then

manofmystery wrote: Judge Mystery rules that government stay at least 50 feet away from American citizens at all times.

What if my wife works for the government? 

That's okay I guess.  I've got 53 feet, so I can cope. 

Now another question comes to my mind...

In the proposed libertarian society, when does one start to be a person who can benefit off the absolute freedom? What I mean is, today a person has some of their freedoms, to call them like that, "suspended" until a certain age. One can't drink until one is 21 (in the US), one can't smoke till 18, one can't drive, one can't even really go and live alone if one wants to. One has to follow parents' orders. When would this all start in libertarian panacea? If we say by 18 people are totally free to be and do what they want, why are we following a goverment-imposed time frame? If it's done by federal law, how can we justify the 18-age magic number for people to start being really free? Parents should decide? When and how does the line get drawn?

I know that was glib, but I need to get some rest.  If I remember to, I'll answer better tomorrow.    Have a nice night.

The T wrote: Now another question comes to my mind... In the proposed libertarian society, when does one start to be a person who can benefit off the absolute freedom? What I mean is, today a person has some of their freedoms, to call them like that, "suspended" until a certain age. One can't drink until one is 21 (in the US), one can't smoke till 18, one can't drive, one can't even really go and live alone if one wants to. One has to follow parents' orders. When would this all start in libertarian panacea? If we say by 18 people are totally free to be and do what they want, why are we following a goverment-imposed time frame? If it's done by federal law, how can we justify the 18-age magic number for people to start being really free? Parents should decide? When and how does the line get drawn?

I don't have a problem with the government setting an (admittedly arbitrary) age for things such as making contracts, indulging in potentially dangerous substances, etc. I am not opposed to all laws, and it is a medical fact that children below a certain age lack the ability to make rational decisions. I do think children should be allowed to gamble, though.

The T wrote: thellama73 wrote:  I do think children should be allowed to gamble, though.  Could we elaborate... Sounds interesting. If youngster can work and earn, they have to be allowed to waste the product of their work as they please is the reasoning?

They can buy candy...seems like a waste to me. 

And I think 16 should be the age when you are considered an adult in every respect.  You can drive a car, buy smokes, buy alcohol, go to war, vote, buy porn, and enter into legal contracts.  Also, if we kept public schooling, people should graduate no later than 16.  Going to school until 18 is really a waste of time and tax money.

Speaking of which, llama, how do you feel about state lottos?

Epignosis wrote: Speaking of which, llama, how do you feel about state lottos?

I don't give them too much thought, but I suppose since they pay for themselves and are not compulsory I don't really mind them.

This leads us into one of the saucier questions for my Libertarians... What about drugs? Should all of them be made legal? I foresee a total agreement on freedom of use, and I guess consistency requires freedom of supply too?