"Freedom" thread or something

Yes, that may be it. There is quite a bitterness now to him. Colbert was always a laugh riot. Used to bug me with how "little" he "knew" and was pure satire and silliness but that was refreshing actually.

Wow, didn't know you guys had time to watch TV between all the government hating
Next thing you'll tell me you had a childhood and played outdoors!

Epignosis wrote: It's called principle.  I adhere to the principle that no one has a right to deprive innocent people of their life, liberty, or property.

Well, I don't. And although many people would tell you they do because it sounds so nice, they don't. Of course, I agree on life. There is never a good reason to take an innocent person's life (or even a guilty person's life). I also agree that no private person has a right to deprive people of their liberty or property, but I do believe the government does, within certain limits. And I bet you that 99% of all people around the globe, if given the choice and informed about what it would entail for them personally, would rather adhere to my principles than yours. The bottom line is: Life in an entirely libertarian society would be hard for a lot of people. For example, if you're poor and you fall seriously ill, there's a good chance that that will be the end of you. We can make our lives easier by giving up certain freedoms, and although I know that you find the thought abhorrent, most people don't.

Epignosis wrote: Once you establish the power of the mob (i.e., government) to help itself to the property of anyone for a "good" reason, you have established the power of the mob to help itself to the property of anyone for any reason.

Yes. I won't even try to deny that, because it's true.

Epignosis wrote: Libertarianism has never been in practice, that I know of.  Can you point to any specific problems that have actually happened under a libertarian establishment?  If you can, I would be glad to not brush it / them away.

What kind of argument is that? "Libertarianism has never been in practice, so I'm going to assume it's flawless until proven otherwise." As you have pointed out, there has never been a libertarian establishment, so of course I can't point to any specific problems that have occurred. Neither could you point to any problems that have been solved under a libertarian establishment. This means exactly nothing, since there has never been one.

But regardless, it's easy to find a problem that would occur under such an establishment. I will use the health care issue again. Under a libertarian system, there would be no universal health care. Anyone who is too poor to afford health care has to buy the medication himself. So if such a person falls ill with a disease that can be treated but is deadly if left untreated, and for which the medication exceeds his budget, what does he do? He can ask other people for financial help, but if they refuse or are unable to provide him with the required money, he will die. I think we can all agree that a problem has occurred if somebody dies. And this is the kind of problem that can be solved (unlike, say, somebody dying of old age). Your political philosophy dictates that such a problem should be left unsolved. I ask: Why? Isn't a little loss of freedom a worthy price to pay for somebody else's life?

thellama73 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Now from mine: Because you are the nation's sovereign. You put the government that passed the regulation into place. If you don't like what they did, try to get them out of office. We hear this a lot, so I would like to address it. In the US there are 538 members of congress and 100 senators, as well as the executive branch. Each person only gets to vote on one congressman and two senators, the president and the vice president. That means that even if all your votes were decisive, you would only have the power to elect 1/128th of the legislature, and that's only at the federal level. Plus, there are the unelected members of the supreme court and the regulatory "czars" who do not have to get congressional approval. How can you seriously make the argument that I put the government in place and therefore should have to abide by its decisions?

You are one citizen out of 300 million. How much power did you expect to have? Such is the nature of democracy: We all share a collective responsibility for something we have almost no power over individually. You don't like that? You should call yourself an anarchist.

thellama73 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: I also agree that no private person has a right to deprive people of their liberty or property, but I do believe the government does, within certain limits. What is a "private person"? HarbouringTheSoul wrote: You are one citizen out of 300 million. How much power did you expect to have? Such is the nature of democracy: We all share a collective responsibility for something we have almost no power over individually. You don't like that? You should call yourself an anarchist. I do call myself an anarchist. Haven't you been paying attention?

To answer your question, at least for me, all of us are both private persons and public citizens.  As a private person you cannot deprive another of his life, liberty or property except in extraordinary circumstances (self-defense for example), as a public citizen, acting in conjunction with all other public citizens you can do the above (although, I would deny the right to deny a person of life under all circumstances except for situations like self-defense by the police, etc.). 

One citizen out of 300 million.  That sure sounds like a very, very small influence you can have on society.  But think for a moment about what you propose changing to.  Not a one man, one vote system, but essentially what is a one dollar, one vote system.  Now I don't know about you, but I'm guessing my power of 1/300M is a lot greater than it would be your way.  Let's see my net worth because of student loans is actually in the negative, so hmmmmmm. 

The Doctor wrote: To answer your question, at least for me, all of us are both private persons and public citizens.  As a private person you cannot deprive another of his life, liberty or property except in extraordinary circumstances (self-defense for example), as a public citizen, acting in conjunction with all other public citizens you can do the above (although, I would deny the right to deny a person of life under all circumstances except for situations like self-defense by the police, etc.).

Okay, but you say "a public citizen acting in conjunction with all other public citizens" can deprive people of their property. But the tax collectors are not acting in conjunction with all other public citizens, because many of us do not agree with their actions, did not vote for them, and think what they do is immoral.

It sounds to me like you are arguing that whatever the majority does is just, and the minority has no right to object because "they are the government." I know you don't believe that, however, because you argue passionately for positions that the majority don't embrace.

You think the death penalty is immoral. Are you wrong to oppose it because "a public citizen acting in conjunction with all public citizens" have determined that it's okay?

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: The Doctor wrote: To answer your question, at least for me, all of us are both private persons and public citizens.  As a private person you cannot deprive another of his life, liberty or property except in extraordinary circumstances (self-defense for example), as a public citizen, acting in conjunction with all other public citizens you can do the above (although, I would deny the right to deny a person of life under all circumstances except for situations like self-defense by the police, etc.). In hindsight it wasn't a very good term to use, but that's pretty much what I meant by it. I don't believe that a person actually has an inviolable right to liberty and property. For the most part, sure, but I believe there are certain circumstances where this shouldn't be the case. So does pretty much everyone else. Your belief is a fringe belief shared, in this pure form at least, by very few people. Not that I expect that this bothers you. thellama73 wrote: I do call myself an anarchist. Haven't you been paying attention? I've never seen you call yourself an anarchist, only a libertarian.

Was that meant for Logan or for me? 

thellama73 wrote: It sounds to me like you are arguing that whatever the majority does is just, and the minority has no right to object because "they are the government." I know you don't believe that, however, because you argue passionately for positions that the majority don't embrace.

The minority has a right to object and oppose, but it doesn't have a right to get their way.

The Doctor wrote: Was that meant for Logan or for me?

For Logan. I guess I should have made that clear.

thellama73 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: It sounds to me like you are arguing that whatever the majority does is just, and the minority has no right to object because "they are the government." I know you don't believe that, however, because you argue passionately for positions that the majority don't embrace. The minority has a right to object and oppose, but it doesn't have a right to get their way. Well I am objecting and opposing and not getting my way, so I am within my rights. Yay me!

I don't think anyone has tried to deny you that.

Anyway, I have a question. You believe that everybody has certain rights, yet you don't believe in government. Who makes sure that those rights are upheld?

or you don't pay them and they bust your kneecaps.... no wait, that was Al Capone.

thellama73 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Anyway, I have a question. You believe that everybody has certain rights, yet you don't believe in government. Who makes sure that those rights are upheld? Anyone can, really. In my preferred system there would be private security firms (there are now, but they are hampered by the government's monopoly) who would function like insurance companies. You pay them and they protect you, or you don't pay them and protect yourself.

So if you can't afford to pay for security, you have no guarantee that your rights will be enforced? What kind of useless rights are those? In your "system" (or lack thereof), people can do whatever they want because the "rights" you grant everybody are a meaningless concept that only exists in theory and can be disregarded without harm. If my security firm is more powerful than yours, what stops me from stealing your money? What stops people from hiring others to kill their enemies?

It seems kind of odd to me that you hold the principles of life, liberty and property so high, yet you advocate a system in which these rights aren't guaranteed at all and anybody who is more powerful than you can take them away from you.

manofmystery wrote: So, does that mean that the majority has to right to dominate the minority, or not?

Yes. I'm not saying democracy is perfect. But try to find me a system where no group dominates another.

Every decision in a democracy is made by an minority. The majority are invariably silent or indifferent.