A question for libertarians.

[coffeecrazy1]

Your post digs at the heart of what terrifies most members of the public...i.e. members of the two dominant parties.

The truth is, the vast majority of the public, including yourself(and this is not ad hominem...this is a statement in response to your post), hates the concept of freedom. What most people like to imagine is conditional freedom, where what they like is allowed, and what they do not, is not.

For instance:

1)Most people hate drugs, therefore they are illegal.
2)Many people hate guns, therefore they are illegal.
3)Almost everyone hates other people's actions which radically differ from their own, especially in terms of how others' actions fit with their personal morality.
4)Largely, most want business to be regulated because they are not the primary beneficiaries of the profit that the select few who own the companies enjoy.
5)Most people believe children to be the paramount of societal and personal aims, therefore no child should be left behind...every child deserves an education.

As a libertarian, my response to your first three questions is this: what business of it is anyone what drugs I choose to injest, or what guns I have in my closet, until I affect someone else adversely with either? What difference does it make to you until I kill you with my bullets, or drive my car into the side of your house. When that happens, then there is a violation. Then, there is a fracture of the law.

Every single law in this country that is preventative in nature is designed to do one thing: MAKE PEOPLE FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES. You are kidding yourself if you believe that they exist to prevent a certain action.

Regarding your fourth question, I fail to understand why people are so resistant to sheer profit-driven ventures, when time and again they have proven to be the most efficient, the best run, and the most fully realized operations. The truth is that one result of the upheaval of the 1960's movement is that people can no longer be proud of their achievements. To do so is shameless at best, and hubristic at worst. I, as a libertarian, wholeheartedly reject the notion that I am duty-bound to share my earnings with anyone. While I live on this Earth, it belongs to me. If it makes you feel better to give your money away, then go nuts, have a ball.

I, personally, hate money. I hate it so much that I want to accumulate enough so that I never have to think about it again. That is my goal, and there is nothing wrong with it. But, any government restrictions on the perfect efficiency of the free market and the natural balance of supply and demand makes my achievement of my goal more difficult. To that end, I do not believe there is a soul in this country who likes worrying about money. I believe that this very concept is a large part of the pursuit of happiness aspect of our Declaration of Independence. Money does not buy happiness, but it does more readily allow the pursuit, and nothing is more American than that.

Finally, regarding your fifth question...first of all, I think it's high time we start demanding more of ourselves, not less...and that is especially so of parents. Animals in the wild do not need to be told to prepare their youth for adulthood, and we should not have to tell parents to prepare their children, either.

And, I have a feeling that for-profit schools would deliver a much more solid education than any public school for the very reason that business do better: THEY CANNOT AFFORD NOT TO DO SO. When survival is based on performance, people tend to perform. If you don't believe me, look at the ultimate example: Communist USSR.

[fluxrad]

I have two responses since I don't feel like composing an essay on this.

[ QUOTE ]
As a libertarian, my response to your first three questions is this: what business of it is anyone what drugs I choose to injest, or what guns I have in my closet, until I affect someone else adversely with either? What difference does it make to you until I kill you with my bullets, or drive my car into the side of your house. When that happens, then there is a violation. Then, there is a fracture of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

History has shown time and time again that this attitude is an extremely dangerous one. Particularly because by the time you try to fix a problem that has become immediate, it is usually to late. This is where I cite Germany 1939 and the New Orleans levies as two examples.

I also take extreme offense at your notion that I somehow hate freedom. Would that we could live in absolute freedom. I would most certainly be the first in line to vote for whoever could make that possible. But we cannot. If you truly believed in absolute freedom, you would be an anarchist. If you do not consider yourself one, then answer the following questions:

1. Why do you believe that we need any form of government if we are capable of living with absolute freedom?
2. If you think we can exist with both, then what is the purpose of the government's existence?
3. As a corollary, am I free not to pay my taxes in a truly libertarian society? If you argue that I am "free to suffer the consequences" by spending time in prison, then I would argue that we are all absolutely free right now.
4. If you believe there must be some limit on freedoms based, if for nothing else, on the establishment of a working government then how can you say that I hate freedom when you are perfectly willing to restrict people's freedoms. It would seem you just favor a few less restrictions (again, I haven't said where I stand. I've just criticized where you stand).

[ QUOTE ]
Animals in the wild do not need to be told to prepare their youth for adulthood, and we should not have to tell parents to prepare their children, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. There are a lot of things that shouldn't be the way they are.

[SheetWise]

I was thinking the same thing -- build prisons for who? With all gun laws repealed, most justice would be dispensed quickly and on the spot.

[Triumph36]

Becuase that's really who should be dispensing justice - regular people in the heat of the moment. They tend to make the best judgements. That phrase 'let cooler heads prevail' was written by a bunch of gun-hating liberals who think Hessler and Koch were an 80s German pop duo.

As for coffeecrazy's rant about the hatred of freedom, that concept of freedom is completely arbitrary - as are most. No one can sincerely believe in the freedom to do what you will - you cut it off at the freedom to do what you will, as long as it does not affect another. Once again the Libertarian oversimplification shows itself - that second clause is far more difficult than it appears. The items you mention have a tendency to very much affect others, which is why they are restricted or banned. It is possible that this restriction creates more problems than free use - that's something I don't know, and I doubt any of us will ever know.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
As for coffeecrazy's rant about the hatred of freedom, that concept of freedom is completely arbitrary - as are most.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with most of what coffeecrazy wrote. We may never realize the dynamics at work that keep people civil. When New Orleans was evacuated, and the population essentially reduced to criminals and police, there was no order. As pvn pointed out, the only change from the previous week was that the property owners had left. Would there have been the same outbreak of lawlessness had it been the police that left while the citizenry stayed? I think not. Sometimes we think too poorly of ourselves -- and believe the government when they tell us that we need them.

[dragon14]

[ QUOTE ]
Every single law in this country that is preventative in nature is designed to do one thing: MAKE PEOPLE FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES. You are kidding yourself if you believe that they exist to prevent a certain action

[/ QUOTE ]

Mandatory seatbelt laws save lives, raising the minimum drinking age saves lives, banning happy hours in bars saves lives, etc. Reality trumps libertarian theory much of the time, therefore it is positive when the government steps in to protect society.

[ QUOTE ]
As a libertarian, my response to your first three questions is this: what business of it is anyone what drugs I choose to injest, or what guns I have in my closet, until I affect someone else adversely with either? What difference does it make to you until I kill you with my bullets, or drive my car into the side of your house. When that happens, then there is a violation. Then, there is a fracture of the law.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be evading reality again. Watch a documentary of someone addicted to crystal meth or ice. Addicts suffer severe physical and mental damage as a result of narcotics abuse. They are unable to hold down a job or watch over their kids. They may turn to crime or prostitution in order to support their habits (drugs wouldn't be free even when they are illegal).

Suppose on an average day in a park in your hometown that your kids play at that 90% of the people there are either drunk or smoking crack. Would you send your kids there since there is no crime being committed at the time?

Would you explain to your kids that there really is no morality at all so feel free to partake in whatever narcotics they choose so they can experience freedom in all its' wonders?

The idea of waiting until a crime is committed and then worrying about it is foolish. One doesn't pass out alcohol to a bunch of 16 year olds at a party and wait to see if they drink and drive, one makes an attempt to stop a problem before it occurs.

There's plenty of evidence already out there that narcotics cause severe harm to humans so it's logical to make an effort to stop humans from using them. Someone smoking ice six times a day is not enjoying freedom, they are a prisoner of addiction.

I would love for all the libertarians to start their own country and invite all violent gun owners, drug addicts, gambling addicts, etc., to their country. They would very quickly learn why we have preventative laws in this country. Of course the libertarian economy should run quite well with a large criminal element in it. Former drug dealers would instantly forgo a life of crime in favor of entrepreneurship.

[ACPlayer]

2000 libertarians form a brand new community in the middle of Somewhere.

Do they pass any laws? Do they hire a mayor, sherriff? Who pays their salary and what do they do all day?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Mandatory seatbelt laws save lives, raising the minimum drinking age saves lives, banning happy hours in bars saves lives, etc. Reality trumps libertarian theory much of the time, therefore it is positive when the government steps in to protect society.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your logic, skydiving, roller coasters, swimming pools, motorcycles, baseball bats, and steak knives should all be outlawed.

By your logic, the fact that something is not forbidden must mean that it is morally right and should be encouraged. That's obviously not true.

By your logic, all citizens have the potential to commit a crime, and should therefore be locked up just in case.

By your logic, outlawing bad people will make bad people cease to exist. Good luck with that one.

[renodoc]

I don't think the naysayers in this thread have any clue at all about Libertarians.

Libertarians would pass laws protecting property rights and personal rights. The purpose of government is to protect these rights and to protect the borders.

Mandatory seat belt laws etc are the direct result of tax payors subsidizing the health care of the populace. I don't doubt that seatbelts save lives and serious injury. But the only reason the government is interested is because in many cases government programs will cover the medical costs of the injury sustained. The insurance lobby probably likes seatbelt laws also.

Drug laws create criminals. Less drug laws= less criminals. Addicts will exist regardless of the legality of the substances.

Violent gun owners would be criminals in a libertarian society.

Assuming 90% of the population would be drunk or smoking crack at a park is ludicrous, unless of course you live in San Francisco or some other liberal armpit.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
2000 libertarians form a brand new community in the middle of Somewhere.

Do they pass any laws? Do they hire a mayor, sherriff? Who pays their salary and what do they do all day?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, those libertarians are crazy. Man, we should just keep expanding government intrusions and regulations and licensing and bureaucracy even more! Because otherwise the only alternative is a world in chaos where nothing gets done and everyone is either a slave, or starving to death.

natedogg