"Freedom" thread or something

JJLehto wrote:

Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   Law should deal merely with two general principles: 1. Do all you have agreed to do and 2. Do not encroach upon other persons and their property (I got those from Richard Maybury by the way, who has written some works on economics and law that are so clear and lucid that a seventh-grader can understand them and so insightful that many economists could learn from them).  Of course, every legal system has case law, which applies these principles to specific instances.  I have no problem with that.  The issue I have is when laws, as they do now, break outside the boundaries of these principles and then become multiplied ad infinitum until the government is in control of the most minute parts of our lives.  That's what's happening now and I want to stop it now. Again, it's just a matter of necessary efficiency for dealing with the modern world, perhaps those 2 principles were enough 300 years ago, but we are in the 21st century, the world has become extremely complex, you can't expect to manage the extremely complex modern world interactions applying just those 2 principles without any lower-level laws, you would need as many lawyers and judges as inhabitants to deal with all the sorts of conflicts that arise in real modern-world life (without precise lower-lever laws as we have them, the number of conflicts would be unbelievably many more than we do actually have). As we progress in the debate, my diagnostic at this moment is that you libertarians have trouble with 2 fundamental issues: 1) democracy: you do not accept the principle that majorities can decide for the whole of the population 2) the increasing complexity of the modern world: you would like to return to some 'back to basics' as it was possible 300 years ago when interpersonal and intercultural relations were rather simple and could be dealt with following rather simple principles and based on person-to-person agreements. But like it or not, reality is that both items are extremely difficult to evade. Unless you accept democracy a huge load of issues arise (unless you deny the existence of social interactions and go each family back to your cave, or accept being ruled by an omnipotent leader), and the fact that the world is more complex now than 300 years ago is also rather unavoidable, unless as I mentioned before, you choose for going live in an Amish community.

Sorry, I don't know if somebody has replied to this already, I don't have time right now to read through everything.

I accept the democratic-republic system as the best of a number of possible but imperfect political systems.  It's not perfect, but I see no better way to run a country (I don't accept anarcho-capitalism, although some libertarians do).  In order to prevent a tyranny of the majority I support the establishment of constitutional limits on the scope of the democratic-republic government.

The fact that the modern world is more complex than previous civilizations has no bearing on the two points of natural law I listed.  Humans are still very much the same as they were three hundred years ago; we hurt and steal from and screw each other over in the same ways as before, only in different media - but whether someone steals your suit of armor or your identity, the principles do not change.  Certainly the legal system must evolve, but it must evolve inside the confines of these principles, deriving new case law from preexisting legal axioms.  As long as human nature is the same, these principles must stay the same.

Well...you're being a bit of a lumper there, Gerinski.

Most libertarians I've known and seen advocate democracy. Sure a good number may want an anarcho-capitalist system but this seems to be near the fringe even for the limited government movement.
Indeed, it is a complex world, which is of course one of the libertarian arguments against too much state hand in something as complex as an economy...

A good point was made, humans are humans. Limitations are needed, because we are...human! Too much power/control/authority is never good. And I mean that universally.
Too much government but also too much power in religion is bad (IMO worse), and even science.
There is nothing wrong with any of those things, but too much power in any of em leads to, well we know the results.

I've noticed we seem to "need" a power to submit to. Government or religion. I still cant fathom how so many are very hateful of government, but the supposed purpose of religion is to submit your humanity to an even greater power. I kinda reject both (religion I totally reject), but many others turn to science, and its no different.  It's a beautiful thing that probably advances society more than anything else, but that is its role.

Im a bit disturbed at the power trip "science" has taken, and especially the cult of it that has developed.  While a noble field, scientists are humans, I dont trust giving them too much authority same as anyone. I admit a scientist is smarter and more versed in their field than me, but I have every right to still question, and I really see a groupthink developing about it. Especially economics, which is not even a hard science.

Uh, yeah rant over, point being I see a need for government, but it MUST be limited by the fact of human nature, as any element in society must be.





Edited by JJLehto - June 19 2013 at 17:19

JJLehto wrote: A good point was made, humans are humans. Limitations are needed, because we are...human! Too much power/control/authority is never good. And I mean that universally.

Who will enforce those limitations?

JJLehto wrote: Uh, yeah rant over, point being I see a need for government, but it MUST be limited by the fact of human nature, as any element in society must be.

Of what will your government consist?

Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: A good point was made, humans are humans. Limitations are needed, because we are...human! Too much power/control/authority is never good. And I mean that universally. Who will enforce those limitations? JJLehto wrote: Uh, yeah rant over, point being I see a need for government, but it MUST be limited by the fact of human nature, as any element in society must be. Of what will your government consist?

Finally, some reality!
Needed as it is, I do kinda hate getting bogged down in the philosophy.
First, needless to say government, like a company, like a union, like the market is not a "thing" but just people.

Honestly, Rob IDK! While I never considered myself a strict constitutionalist I used to say that does at least give a clear cut line for where the Federal Government can end, thus is a natural limiting factor.
And it's been used as toilet paper, so that's no limitation 
Law is not much better, law is violated all the time, especially by government.
I'm 1000% open to ideas, what do you say Rob? You are not an anarcho capitalist that I know of, therefore you must support some level. How would you limit it?

I really want to know! If anyone has an answer, I'm all ears.
I guess in the end it's up to us the people. When it gets out of hand we have to try and reel it back in. We ultimately can fight the power of state, of a company, of science run amuck or religion. We can do anything, cept we're lazy, affluent and..lazy   


Edited by JJLehto - June 19 2013 at 17:47

JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: A good point was made, humans are humans. Limitations are needed, because we are...human! Too much power/control/authority is never good. And I mean that universally. Who will enforce those limitations? JJLehto wrote: Uh, yeah rant over, point being I see a need for government, but it MUST be limited by the fact of human nature, as any element in society must be. Of what will your government consist? Finally, some reality! Needed as it is, I do kinda hate getting bogged down in the philosophy. First, needless to say government, like a company, like a union, like the market is not a "thing" but just people. Honestly, Rob IDK! While I never considered myself a strict constitutionalist I used to say that does at least give a clear cut line for where the Federal Government can end, thus is a natural limiting factor. And it's been used as toilet paper, so that's no limitation  Law is not much better, law is violated all the time, especially by government. I'm 1000% open to ideas, what do you say Rob? You are not an anarcho capitalist that I know of, therefore you must support some level. How would you limit it? I really want to know! If anyone has an answer, I'm all ears. I guess in the end it's up to us the people. When it gets out of hand we have to try and reel it back in. We ultimately can fight the power of state, of a company, of science run amuck or religion. We can do anything, cept we're lazy, affluent and..lazy

No offense, but your posts make me think you smoke a lot of weed.

I would have answered "no offense, but your posts make me think you drink a lot of beer" .

Padraic wrote: The T wrote: I would have answered "no offense, but your posts make me think you drink a lot of beer" . Maybe Brian and I should adjourn to the political thread.  This thread is a nice academic exercise, but lately I'm more interested in real world politics, where governments are here to stay and not going away.

Pffft who am I to counter it Teo? I'm painfully aware of much of a mess my brain is!
It's also why I keep failing to write I cant make a post in under 9000 words, how can I make a coherent book? I also have been trying to really keep my anger/brooding down so that keeps my dystopia rage subdued


It's true Pat. You hit it right on the head, I love this type stuff but I do get bored with it and frankly, the government (and the Fed) are indeed here to stay so I try my best to always find the "middle ground" that can lessen the infamous "harshness" of the market economy but limiting government as much as possible.

And I never went anarcho capitalist like some of these dudes anyway. It may not be what we wanna hear but it seems obvious that: unemployment and low wage population are necessary for a capitalist society. Does anyone here disagree?
Fine enough, capitalism is superior and promotes freedom, but I just can't accept cutting off welfare and etc Especially with our becoming a service economy.



Edited by JJLehto - June 19 2013 at 22:21

JJLehto wrote: let's end the state monopoly on booze!

If it doesn't happen this year, it's never going to happen.  Tantalizingly close.

See, it's sh*t like this that certainly bring out my libertarian side.  Opponents have seriously been bringing arguments that us residents of the commonwealth will all be falling down drunk if this passes.  No, dipsh*t, we just want to buy a bottle of wine in the supermarket like every other state.