"Freedom" thread or something

^Space travel, Pat. By the time we are anywhere close to overloading the planet with people (if ever) we will have colonies on Mars that we can start filling up.

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.

Ooh!  Ooh!  I'll explain why it's seen as extremism.  Now you want us to believe that your motto is "live and let live."  It's a nice saying.  But there's a couple problems with it.

First of all, you have people like Rob who talk about holing himself up at home with his guns and shooting anyone who comes to collect taxes, if the government ever does raise taxes on us.  That's extremism.  And it won't accomplish what you think it'll accomplish.  You should look to the life of Gandhi for a better idea.

Second of all, the "live and let live" motto is missing something.  This poem illustrates what I think it missing:

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the socialists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for the Catholics,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

It's missing this: "live, let live, and protect life."

You see, you believe in the illusion of non-choice.  To illustrate what I mean by that, picture a young couple sitting on a bench.  The male reaches down and grabs the hand of the young girl.  She is not sure how she feels about this young man.  She thinks he's alright - definitely not a bad character, and not ugly.  But she wonders if she could do better.  But maybe she couldn't?  She doesn't know.  She doesn't want to grasp his hand and make him think she returns the feeling...but she doesn't want to pull her hand away and hurt his feelings.  So she sits there with her hand completely limp, not taking any action.  She believes in the illusion of non-choice.  But non-choice is a choice.  The young girl thinks she is avoiding a message, but she is still sending a message.

In the same way, when we refuse to help the sick and the dying who do not have the means to help themselves, we are showing that we believe in the illusion of non-choice.  We think we do not have responsibility for them.  But if we have the means through which to help, and we refuse to, we are responsible for their deaths.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: ]  I don't assume "evil overlords" will pop up in a government-less place. I merely don't preclude it. And because there is no historical evidence, we must be prepared for both possible outcomes, including the scenario where they will pop up without government, when considering abolishing government. If we don't consider this scenario, we are assuming that it's false, which would be an unjustified assumption. And while there might be scenarios where "evil overlords" rise to power because of government (I'm not disputing that), that doesn't mean they can't rise to power for other reasons. If government were the only reason for this to happen, that would be an argument for abolishing it. But you would have to provide evidence for that first.

Libertarians do not promise a dearth in "evil overlords."  Neither does any other philosophy of rule.  So it's unfair to single out Libertarianism for this.  What Libertarian does do (which no other philosophy of rule does) is assure people that aggressive infringements upon their person or property are not legally sanctioned.

I'd like to know how an "evil overlord" would come up in a truly Libertarian society anyway.  You've given me no reason to believe your hypothetical situation is realistic.

thellama73 wrote:   You have weird tastes in television. Why do you want to ban a practice you admittedly want to witness? Also, why do you want to prevent someone from taking what, from his perspective, is a good job? Suppose it was the only job he could get, would you rather him starve because the law says he can't work at what he's good at?

dtguitarfan wrote: You see, you believe in the illusion of non-choice.  To illustrate what I mean by that, picture a young couple sitting on a bench.  The male reaches down and grabs the hand of the young girl.  She is not sure how she feels about this young man.  She thinks he's alright - definitely not a bad character, and not ugly.  But she wonders if she could do better.  But maybe she couldn't?  She doesn't know.  She doesn't want to grasp his hand and make him think she returns the feeling...but she doesn't want to pull her hand away and hurt his feelings.  So she sits there with her hand completely limp, not taking any action.  She believes in the illusion of non-choice.  But non-choice is a choice.  The young girl thinks she is avoiding a message, but she is still sending a message. In the same way, when we refuse to help the sick and the dying who do not have the means to help themselves, we are showing that we believe in the illusion of non-choice.  We think we do not have responsibility for them.  But if we have the means through which to help, and we refuse to, we are responsible for their deaths.

And I'm going to take a chance and be forthright here:

You analogies are just awful.  Atrocious, really.

Maybe there should be a government program to help people make better analogies, I don't know.

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: First of all, you have people like Rob who talk about holing himself up at home with his guns and shooting anyone who comes to collect taxes, if the government ever does raise taxes on us. You don't know me at all.  Wow.

Do I need to find posts where you talked about this? 
Have you changed your mind on the subject?

dtguitarfan wrote: You only think they're awful because you disagree with me.  The point is that there is no "non-choice".

No one is disputing that. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

I don't see what point you're trying to make.

thellama73 wrote: The people who are actually affected by regulations often have a big problem with it when it destroys their livelihood, but can't seem to translate that into libertarianism.

People are always angry when something bad happens to them. But not everybody who gets fired becomes a communist, so I don't know why you would think that somebody would become a libertarian just because he is mistreated by government.

thellama73 wrote: What about unelected government employees like those at the EPA or FDA? Or are they okay because they were hired by someone who was appointed by someone who was elected?

Yeah.

Epignosis wrote: Libertarians do not promise a dearth in "evil overlords."  Neither does any other philosophy of rule.  So it's unfair to single out Libertarianism for this.  What Libertarian does do (which no other philosophy of rule does) is assure people that aggressive infringements upon their person or property are not legally sanctioned.

Fine, but I don't see the practical benefit in that. Like most people, I believe that "infringements" (can't really call it an infringement on something if I don't believe it's an absolute right) upon someone's person or property aren't necessarily a bad thing if conducted fairly and transparently by an elected organization. Which is a very roundabout way of saying I don't have a problem with taxes and similar things. Likewise, I don't believe that it makes a big difference if an unfair infringement is legally sanctioned or not - arbitrary murder isn't made any better if there's a law that allows it.

Epignosis wrote: What would happen is somebody rose to power in a government world?  What happens?  What has happened?

It happens every time there's an election. Especially in the Western world, most of these elections seem to go over rather well and don't involve "evil overlords" of any sort.

Epignosis wrote: What do you think would happen in a truly Libertarian nation if a thug decided to try to start running things for himself?  What do you think would happen?  I think you should answer your own hypothetical.

The thug could, for example, pay and arm other thugs to aid him. People would naturally revolt against that, it would lead to a civil war and if the thug loses, the remaining citizens would probably establish a government to keep that from happening again. Now I'm not speculating on the likelihood of hypothetical scenarios, but since you asked me, that is a fairly plausible scenario I can think of that would be far from ideal.

Epignosis wrote: Has your sense of morality seriously never changed?  Mine has.  And the only way that happened was by talking to people who disagreed with me.  So you're wrong because of me.  And because of The T, by the way, who used to be a socialist and now is a Libertarian.

I find it hard to conceive of a way you could convince me that a person has the unalienable right to their property, or a way I could convince you of the opposite. Some moral convictions are such absolute fundamentals of our thinking, there's no way to justify them because our whole worldview is based on them. Maybe it's possible for people to just change their minds about these beliefs, but I seriously doubt that would be because of rational thought. So please, continue talking about morality. I see no benefit in participating.

Epignosis wrote: An ideal based on a single moral principle.

I don't see any significant difference between the two definitions.

Epignosis wrote: A chef being okay with sickening his restaurant's guests is an extension of his moral code.  My point was that moral codes are relevant to everyone in all walks of life.  If I think it's morally right for me to beat you to death because you looked at me funny, my moral code becomes very, very real to you, does it not?

Okay, I guess I should be more precise. Your moral code might affect me personally in the sense that your actions are based on it, but it's not relevant to the way I think, and vice versa.

Epignosis wrote: What about assassinations?

Considering you're trying to abolish the very government that would punish you for that, I guess it's worth a shot (pun sincerely not intended). But good luck if you fail or nobody supports you.

Epignosis wrote: That's not true.  Lots of regular citizens have and can start wars.  They're called revolutions.

A single person doesn't start a revolution. A large group of people starts a revolution, and that group doesn't get to exert any (permanent, at least - there's no way to get rid of temporary exertion of power in any kind of system) power unless they gain enough public support.


Edited by HarbouringTheSoul - June 17 2013 at 16:40

thellama73 wrote: Finally, if you have the means to help and don't, you are responsible is not something you could possibly believe.

I was thinking about this.  I remember a few years ago there was a story where a man was hit by a car, and died on the side of the road as people walked by, doing nothing to help.  The whole thing was caught on a traffic camera, and was repeatedly aired on the news stations around the country.  I remember because it was in Hartford, CT, and I lived in CT at the time.  People in CT were so upset, and would say things like: "how could they do that?  Just walk by?  Couldn't they at least call 911?  How could this happen in my state?  I'm so disappointed in us!"  Do you hear that?  Society is sharing the guilt.  We know that these people should have helped, and we know that they should feel guilty for not helping.
Now, if a family is unable to get cancer treatment that the doctors say should cure their family member because they don't have a bank account with a balance in the millions, I believe society should step up and help this family.  And I believe that if they do not, they should feel guilt.  It's not such a crazy stretch to make.

dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: Finally, if you have the means to help and don't, you are responsible is not something you could possibly believe. I was thinking about this.  I remember a few years ago there was a story where a man was hit by a car, and died on the side of the road as people walked by, doing nothing to help.  The whole thing was caught on a traffic camera, and was repeatedly aired on the news stations around the country.  I remember because it was in Hartford, CT, and I lived in CT at the time.  People in CT were so upset, and would say things like: "how could they do that?  Just walk by?  Couldn't they at least call 911?  How could this happen in my state?  I'm so disappointed in us!"  Do you hear that?  Society is sharing the guilt.  We know that these people should have helped, and we know that they should feel guilty for not helping. Now, if a family is unable to get cancer treatment that the doctors say should cure their family member because they don't have a bank account with a balance in the millions, I believe society should step up and help this family.  And I believe that if they do not, they should feel guilt.  It's not such a crazy stretch to make.

I remember that, and I completely agree that people should have helped. But there is a difference between "should have helped" and "are responsible for the death."

Are you going to address my point of why you don't sell your computer (or your clothes, or your DT albums) to help those worse off than you?