"Freedom" thread or something

Epignosis wrote: It's not an argument.  It's the truth.  Libertarianism has never failed because it has never been tried.  Makes sense to me.

Of course it's the truth. But it's an entirely trivial, meaningless truth. It adds nothing to our discussion.

Epignosis wrote: But don't change the subject- you assumed that "evil overlords" will pop up in a government-less place.  I asked you for evidence of this historically, and you could give none.

Of course I could give none. You gave me an impossible task. That doesn't mean that anything meaningful follows from it. Apart from that, you're making the bigger assumption here: That "evil overlords" (which I should add are merely an extreme example of any kind of evil person) cannot exist without a government. I'm making the default assumption, namely that they can exist and I don't know the conditions in which they do. You're the one who's trying to convince me of a correlation, so you come forth with the evidence. And "there has never been evil in a government-less society" is not evidence, as should be self-evident.

Epignosis wrote: Libertarianism is not a "system" or something that is designed to "work."  Libertarianism is an ideal that those who hold it believe to be morally right.  We are not pursuers of Utopia.  There is no "end picture" we are striving towards.  For example, we believe stealing is wrong when an individual does it, so we also believe stealing is wrong when a group does it and calls it something else.

If libertarianism is just a moral code, then why are we even talking about it? How is your personal moral code relevant to any of us? Are you trying to convince us to adopt it? Personally, I'm not interested in the moral code, I'm just interested in the political ideas that stem from it. If the only justification of those political ideas is the moral code behind it, then they are practically worthless because no society can be based on a moral code that most of its subjects don't even agree with.

Epignosis wrote: I don't believe government is like slavery.  Where did you get that idea?     The US government must work for us, not the other way around.  That's what the Constitution says, anyway.

Good, so far we agree.

Epignosis wrote: But if it doesn't, and that government starts killing its own citizens via drone strikes without due process, are you okay with that just because it was elected by a citizenry who are "too practical" to vote otherwise?

No, I'm not okay with that. But I believe it is the citizens' duty to do something about it, because clearly nobody else will. Does that have anything to do with the validity of government as a principle?

Epignosis wrote: You didn't read the article, did you?

I did. It was irrelevant to the statement you were trying to refute. I clearly stated that in a government-less system people can do whatever they want without asking someone for power first. Now you give me an example of someone who asked for power, got it and then (allegedly, I won't debate if that's actually true) misused it. I never said that this doesn't happen in systems with a government. Now if you can find me an example of someone who exerts power over people without having asked for power in the first place, then we might be talking. But even then, I would only concur that the specific government in which this happens isn't working correctly, not that the concept itself is wrong.

Epignosis wrote: Gerinski wrote: The libertarian agenda suggests that reaching the point of having to regulate procreation, those with money will be allowed to have as many children as they wish and those without money will be requested to be sterile. Where is this suggested?

I realized I didn't explain why I think releasing complete control of healthcare to the free market results in death.   It's simple, really - it's just a more extreme version of what we have in America now.   Right now, the insurance companies decide which treatments they will pay for, and which they will not.   So you have stories where someone got cancer, the insurance company decided that treating it would do no good, even though the doctors said it would, patient dies. People will go to any length for their health, including bankruptcy.   The "free market" knows this.   Now you are very influenced by this Calvinistic view that everyone is evil and the fear this results in - I'm imploring you to apply this view to the "free market" in the area of healthcare.   Right now, American society is being enslaved by immoral greed in the area of healthcare, and it's costing lives.

Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote: Gerinski wrote: The libertarian agenda suggests that reaching the point of having to regulate procreation, those with money will be allowed to have as many children as they wish and those without money will be requested to be sterile. Where is this suggested?  In the free market principles.

The overpopulation worry is nonsense, as has been demonstrated over and over again in history. Malthus, anyone?

The birth rate in most developed countries is now at or below replacement level (actually very dangerous for the economy.)

The fact that you think libertarianism would endorse mandatory sterilization shows that you haven't been paying attention at all. The situation that you describe could only take place under a powerful and oppressive government, where the rich are able to buy political power and the poor fall prey to all the regulations. Totalitarianism is far more discriminatory against the poor than libertarianism ever could be.

I would like to add that I agree with Rob that, while I do think libertarianism would result in greatly increased welfare for mankind, that is not why I support the idea. I support the idea because I think people have rights which should not be violated. I do not have the right to harm your body or take your property. You do not have the right to do it to me. That's all. It continually baffles me that so simple an assertion of non-aggression is always treated like some kind of radical extremism.

Sorry with so many replies I don't know how to manage the quotes anymore!!! 

Gerinski wrote: Sorry with so many replies I don't know how to manage the quotes anymore!!!

No worries! 

I'm spent for today anyway, and have not accomplished what I wanted to get done, so I need to go do that. 

Gerinski wrote: There are always desperate people willing to do anything for a loaf of bread, even killing, getting sexually abused or risking their lives in drug traffic. I don't think this needs to set the standard for how society needs to work in terms of offer and demand.

I have never really understood this argument. The offers we accept or decline to accept are based on the value we place on various things. If you offer me a job and I find the conditions of employment preferable to my current situation, I will accept. Otherwise, I will not.

Are you arguing that I should be prevented from accepting, or that you should be prevented from offering (by force, mind you) even though we would both agree that we better off for having made the deal?

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: I would like to add that I agree with Rob that, while I do think libertarianism would result in greatly increased welfare for mankind, that is not why I support the idea. I support the idea because I think people have rights which should not be violated. I do not have the right to harm your body or take your property. You do not have the right to do it to me. That's all. It continually baffles me that so simple an assertion of non-aggression is always treated like some kind of radical extremism. Surely by this point it shouldn't baffle you anymore that non-aggression takes to its logical extreme is not a principle agreed upon by most.

It DOES baffle me. I think if I asked people "should I be allowed to exert force upon you without your consent when you have done me no wrong?" they would say no. I think if I asked them "should I be allowed to if I have a government job?" they would still probably say no. Why people can't see that this is exactly what the government does and why people are okay with that remains a mystery to me.

thellama73 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: I would like to add that I agree with Rob that, while I do think libertarianism would result in greatly increased welfare for mankind, that is not why I support the idea. I support the idea because I think people have rights which should not be violated. I do not have the right to harm your body or take your property. You do not have the right to do it to me. That's all. It continually baffles me that so simple an assertion of non-aggression is always treated like some kind of radical extremism. Surely by this point it shouldn't baffle you anymore that non-aggression takes to its logical extreme is not a principle agreed upon by most. It DOES baffle me. I think if I asked people "should I be allowed to exert force upon you without your consent when you have done me no wrong?" they would say no. I think if I asked them "should I be allowed to if I have a government job?" they would still probably say no. Why people can't see that this is exactly what the government does and why people are okay with that remains a mystery to me.

I think if you asked people "should I be allowed to exert force upon you without your consent when you have done me no wrong and I'm an elected government official and it's not against the law?", they would say yes. Maybe you'd have to explain to them exactly what that entails, but considering that it happens everyday and to everybody and people don't seem to have a problem with it, I'm sure they wouldn't object.