"Freedom" thread or something

Padraic wrote: 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.

I found out the...fun way, apparently there is an ounce limit on how many cans of beer can be sold at once.
Meaning when we wanted a 30 pack, it's either a distributor or if at just a licensed store had to buy 2 12 packs. And since I couldn't have both at the same time, I needed to buy one, go off premises, set the case down on the side, go in and buy the next.

Sheesh!



Edited by JJLehto - June 20 2013 at 00:04

I still don't understand how blue laws haven't been ruled unconstitutional.

In other news, the agency responsible for collecting taxes is paying $70 million in bonuses at the behest of a union despite automatic spending cuts.  Never mind that the IRS executive in charge of the corrupt tax-exempt division got Presidential approval for her bonuses totaling $103,390.

Meanwhile, teachers in NC haven't had a raise in five years (to be fair, we got a 1% "cost of living" increase for 2013...the 2% social security tax rise ate that up and then some).  I'm responsible for helping to develop about 130 young people's literacy skills each year with more "accountability" measures in place, all in the face of a new curriculum and organizations that make my job harder than it needs to be (despite their intentions).

I'm not saying this to complain- I'm saying this to make a contrast and demonstrate just one of the myriad of examples I don't think the big government idealists can justify.

Gerinski wrote: Politicians and public administrators are corrupted by the very rich and powerful? Yes but, what makes you think that the very rich and powerful will not bribe the private businesses which will replace the public functions to still have them protect their interests? Are private businesses not corruptible? don't they give substantial bonuses to their management when they manage to make big profits by profiting from you? don't they network and benefit each other? is the private sector really any more honest than the public one? do you really think that because 'private allows competition' the problem of money going to pockets which do not deserve it will be finished?

Private businesses are quite corruptible.  But I can refuse to do business with them, and if enough people forgo their goods or services, they will no longer be profitable.  If I refuse a private business, there is nothing it can do to me.

If I refuse the government, it can put me in jail.

Epignosis wrote:  If I refuse a private business, there is nothing it can do to me. If I refuse the government, it can put me in jail.

Epignosis wrote: Gerinski wrote: There are things for which there can be no competition, only one entity can exist. Deciding laws. You can not have different entities competing for deciding laws (yes you can, they are called political parties, but only 1 entity can take the final decision). Yes, we already have different entities deciding laws.  They're called "countries."  Your native Spain has different laws than Belgium, yes?

I was obviously meaning within one country. You may not have 'private law-making'.

Epignosis wrote:   Gerinski wrote: Justice, you can not have private judges (as I joked before 'let's go to court! OK yours or mine?). I do not advocate "private judges" myself.  I would prefer a council of impartial volunteers who would hear a dispute, deliberate, and render a decision.

JJLehto wrote: Gerinski does have a point, what can be done about what is basically bribing our politicians?

Not have politicians.

Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote: Gerinski wrote: There are things for which there can be no competition, only one entity can exist. Deciding laws. You can not have different entities competing for deciding laws (yes you can, they are called political parties, but only 1 entity can take the final decision). Yes, we already have different entities deciding laws.  They're called "countries."  Your native Spain has different laws than Belgium, yes? I was obviously meaning within one country. You may not have 'private law-making'.

Why not?  In my house there are many laws.  My neighbors have different laws in their homes than I do.  Businesses have laws.  The school where I work has laws (no tobacco products on campus is one of them).  There are consequences for not following these laws.

In a Libertarian place, if people wanted to start their own government and abide by its laws and pay taxes, they would be welcome to do so: They just couldn't force anyone to join them or pay taxes who didn't agree to the terms. 

Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote:   Gerinski wrote: Justice, you can not have private judges (as I joked before 'let's go to court! OK yours or mine?). I do not advocate "private judges" myself.  I would prefer a council of impartial volunteers who would hear a dispute, deliberate, and render a decision. Aren't trials in the states decided by jury? The judge decides just the sentence right? OK you would rather have a 'judge committee' formed by more than one judge than a single-judge system. Fine for me but I don't see a big advantage justifying the need for many more judges. 'Impartial volunteers' can sound scary. I can imagine those impartial volunteers in the times of KKK.

The only difference with our jury system now is that instead of volunteers, we have people who are forced to do it.  How does is the latter system preclude the KKK from being involved? 

Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote:   Gerinski wrote: Police, do you really believe in the practical possibility of private police forces competing? how are they going to cooperate with each other in solving cases? how are they going to apply consistent standards? what about a police firm which promises its customers to treat black people with special hardness and favor whites? and another police which promises the opposite to the blacks? Regulating trade, you can not have competing different alternatives, you need one unique standard. Let's go back to our hypothetical island.  There is no government.  There is no police.  I was murdered.  What do you do? Send you flowers and sail away asap to some other island with government and police, most likely.

Congratulations- you're dead, because you just sailed away with a murderer.

(Either you evaded the question or you really don't care about justice)

Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Gerinski does have a point, what can be done about what is basically bribing our politicians? Not have politicians. Let's go back living in the jungle?  Now seriously, once you accept living in democracy (and that means accepting that sometimes you will be in the minority and have to accept doing what you do not agree with) the way to the future IMO is 'people's democracy'. With the current technologies it's really easy, just someone needs to set up a web which constantly puts the questions being debated up to popular vote. I saw the posts before about booze sales in some states so let's take that for example, you just post a poll in the site 'do you want to be allowed to buy booze on sunday in your local market?' and let the population vote (this is a simplistic example and of course the precise formulation of questions is extremely important in any popular referendum, but please get my point). Such a site would be constantly subjecting to popular poll any question which is up to current debate and letting those in charge to decide know what do the population really think about the subject. Current technologies allow easily to find out the opinions of the people, not just that of the politicians, which is what we have been used to live with for many decades. Now it's our chance. I believe that when confronted with objective data about what do the people really believe and want, politicians and administrators will not be able to turn their back from it for too long, at some point they will be forced to face it.

Why is this a decision for popular vote?  What does my buying gin on Sunday have to do with somebody who doesn't want to buy gin?

What if the question for the referendum was, "Do you want to be allowed to practice Christianity?"  Or "Do you want to be allowed to have children?"  Or "Do you want to be allowed to be homosexual?"

You see, popular opinion doesn't make something right.

And no- it's not as easy as setting "up a web" that lets people vote.  That will ensure endless and untraceable fraud.

Gerinski wrote: It is necessary though to understand and accept that 'people' are not always well informed enough to decide rightly about every subject at stake. Often non-expert people can not grasp the full reach or consequences of a certain subject, and can easily have opinions which while well-intended largely miss the point. So I am certainly not pleading for a real 'popular democracy' where everything is decided by popular referendum, surely not. But when people's opinion is openly known, those in charge to decide are forced to take it into consideration, and if they think the popular opinion is wrong they are forced to argument their more expert points of view towards the population, and gradually this makes the population wiser and society more transparent, and in the long term it creates a better society. Only for really delicate matters, national security etc, I can accept certain opacity and keeping those subjects away from popular opinion.

No- it will mean that the most able demagogue will prevail.  Which is no different that our present situation.

Epignosis wrote: Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote: Gerinski wrote: There are things for which there can be no competition, only one entity can exist. Deciding laws. You can not have different entities competing for deciding laws (yes you can, they are called political parties, but only 1 entity can take the final decision). Yes, we already have different entities deciding laws.  They're called "countries."  Your native Spain has different laws than Belgium, yes? I was obviously meaning within one country. You may not have 'private law-making'. Why not?  In my house there are many laws.  My neighbors have different laws in their homes than I do.  Businesses have laws.  The school where I work has laws (no tobacco products on campus is one of them).  There are consequences for not following these laws. In a Libertarian place, if people wanted to start their own government and abide by its laws and pay taxes, they would be welcome to do so: They just couldn't force anyone to join them or pay taxes who didn't agree to the terms.

Rob please!!! don't make me express things as if I was talking to a child, you know what I meant. The 'laws' in your house may be different from those from your neighbor's, but within your house someone decided the 'laws'. It's not like you have competing laws on offer and your son Aaron can choose to follow the laws proposed by private law-maker Dad and your daughter Lucy can choose to follow those proposed by private law-maker Grandpa.

I said before that I would have nothing against the idea of starting an experimental libertarian country and seeing what happens. In your example you say the conversely equivalent, in a libertarian place you would accept those preferring a governed society to start their own. We are on the same plane, we can create separate countries fitting our ideology. I have actually thought about that for a long time, instead of having people with different ideologies having to share the same country and continuously arguing with each other and wasting energy in politics, why not splitting the country and let each individual live in the country following his ideology? No politics needed anymore (or at least not regarding the basic ideology). It's a very attractive idea and would be interesting seeing which one fares better, it has significant practical difficulties but why not bringing the idea up ti debate?

Epignosis wrote:   Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote:   Gerinski wrote: Justice, you can not have private judges (as I joked before 'let's go to court! OK yours or mine?). I do not advocate "private judges" myself.  I would prefer a council of impartial volunteers who would hear a dispute, deliberate, and render a decision. Aren't trials in the states decided by jury? The judge decides just the sentence right? OK you would rather have a 'judge committee' formed by more than one judge than a single-judge system. Fine for me but I don't see a big advantage justifying the need for many more judges. 'Impartial volunteers' can sound scary. I can imagine those impartial volunteers in the times of KKK. The only difference with our jury system now is that instead of volunteers, we have people who are forced to do it.  How does is the latter system preclude the KKK from being involved?

Gerinski wrote: I said before that I would have nothing against the idea of starting an experimental libertarian country and seeing what happens. In your example you say the conversely equivalent, in a libertarian place you would accept those preferring a governed society to start their own. We are on the same plane, we can create separate countries fitting our ideology. I have actually thought about that for a long time, instead of having people with different ideologies having to share the same country and continuously arguing with each other and wasting energy in politics, why not splitting the country and let each individual live in the country following his ideology? No politics needed anymore (or at least not regarding the basic ideology). It's a very attractive idea and would be interesting seeing which one fares better, it has significant practical difficulties but why not bringing the idea up ti debate?

With this I agree. 

Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote:   The only difference with our jury system now is that instead of volunteers, we have people who are forced to do it.  How does is the latter system preclude the KKK from being involved?  Well I guess that the fact that they are forced guarantees more their impartiality than if they are 'volunteers'.

I don't see how. 

Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote:   Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote:   Gerinski wrote: Police, do you really believe in the practical possibility of private police forces competing? how are they going to cooperate with each other in solving cases? how are they going to apply consistent standards? what about a police firm which promises its customers to treat black people with special hardness and favor whites? and another police which promises the opposite to the blacks? Regulating trade, you can not have competing different alternatives, you need one unique standard. Let's go back to our hypothetical island.  There is no government.  There is no police.  I was murdered.  What do you do? Send you flowers and sail away asap to some other island with government and police, most likely. Congratulations- you're dead, because you just sailed away with a murderer. (Either you evaded the question or you really don't care about justice) Neither, really. What do you want me to answer? that the community members will hunt your killer and hang him by the balls?

That's preferable to letting a murderer get away with it and continue killing innocent people.

Gerinski wrote: I'm not trained in catching murderers and given that I'm not too keen on risking my life, so once I know murderers do exist in our island I prefer to leave the job to professionals and pay them the service. I will ask the other island inhabitants if they share my point of view, if the majority does, we will agree to pay each a fee and have some specialist trained guy to take care of that for us, we will call him the policeman of the island.

Suppose the trained guy you "hired" is the murderer? 

Or suppose everyone else is like you- not trained and not too keen on risking your life (which you are doing anyway by abiding a murderer among you). 

Or suppose no one takes action (as you initially proposed), and the next night, the murderer strikes again.  This time it is your friend who is the victim. 

I'm not asking all this to aggravate you: My point is that interpersonal morals are easier to talk about when you bring the population down to a manageable number.  You are so comfortable with your system, that it's worth asking what you would do if that system did not exist.

Think of it another way- you have your trained police, and a drug cartel starts buying them off (like bootleggers did here in the 1920s).  Suddenly the police are corrupt and are not protecting you.  My point is that, like government, police are not inherently beneficial or even desirable.




Edited by Epignosis - June 20 2013 at 09:21