I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[Whaleboy]

Morality and the law are two concepts that should be separated. Keep it logical and the result is something like the Mill Limit. Morality can be chosen upon that, but in that case, to each his own. My philosophy teachers say it "kinda works"

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Sandman
Even if they are prepared to compromise their belief in the ownership of one's body in order to prevent this from happening, the lack of birth-registration and compulsory education, not to mention the hordes of street children, will make a libertarian society a very attractive place to live for paedophiles.

Interesting point. All I can say is if you read Republican or Democrat plank philosophies, you will see incredible extremism there as well. Here I see alot of extreme Libertearian positions being taken to the extreme. We are human, believe it or not.

I was a paperboy for about 5 years, from 5th grade to 10th grade, and I in no way feel exploited. In fact, I was very glad, as a kid, I had the chance to make money.

Public Schools: A much more teneble and workable solution is simply more local control. So yes, Libertarians would be in favor of abandoning the department of education. But something as extreme as ditching all public education is akin to Al Gore wanting the death penalty for dealing drugs. It was an extreme position, but opinions in America, no matter what the media tells you , are quite diverse.

As I have said before, I have talked face to face with 1000's of strangers about politics, and they say unbbelievable things when they lean in close to you and say things under their breath. Many didn't even know what LIbertarian was, so they would say things to me like "Mexicans are not ready for freedom" or "I think draft should be mandatory for everyone" or "I let my 14 year old smoke pot" or "Bush was connected to 9-11"

Back to public education: the Libertarian philosophy says privatize, privatize, privatize. Now, with the common American wisdom that Public Schools are the only way, even though our education system only standard, but our spending per student is #1 by far, why not let some counties, perhaps even some states attempt a private Education System? I wonder if Idaho, or Wyoming or Nevada could come up with a working model?

This is the United States of America, and our strength is supposed to be in our diversity, but if we are not even allowed to be diverse, nay even have politicians run who caryy diverse opinions....

[GePap]

All those other industrilized countries that produce better educated kids have one thing in common: an education ministry run by the center, with little local control. Local control of education is a nice theory, but it will lead to great inequality in the quality of education, and thus idfferent levels of general production.

Oh, and for Imran: I don;t think for a second the Nazi's thought that what they were doing was moral: there is a reason they hid everything, used euphamism, tried to have the least number of people know what they wewre doing, and eventually tried to mechanize the act as much as posisble to lower staff turnover: they knew the immorality of the act when seen by the general morality of their time and place (Western Morality). BUt they did it for the same reason everyone excuses an act they understand as immoral: for victory and survival. The same reason people give for the necessity Hiroshima, and so forth and so on was what they used: a greater good that surplanted, went beyond mere morality, something higher and more important. What we are left to argue is the logic upon which the scenerio under which a barbaric act is defined as necessary is flawed or not flawed.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Still looking for any disabled libertarians...

You see. I think I know what role they would have in a libertarian society. They'd be beggars.

[Berzerker]

Laz, do you suppose you might find some disabled veterans of the Vietnam War who share the libertarian philosophy? After all, it was our "beloved" democracy that sent them to be disabled.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ah, yes. Do I take it that the militaristic loophole extends towards supporting disabled veterans too?

[Berzerker]

Disabled vets would receive support for fighting and getting wounded, fortunately there wouldn't be many under a libertarian system. I see you avoided my question...ahem...

That's your beloved democracy... Yes, let us support the veterans...and the Dems and Repubs will make sure there are plenty to support after throwing them into meat grinders...

If you think the fact someone is willing to fight for their country is a "loophole" you don't understand much about contracts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

a greater good that surplanted, went beyond mere morality, something higher and more important

But isn't the greater good 'morality'? Maybe not the common morality of that time and place, but for the greater, better morality that would be vindicated in the future. It's still morality.

[Berzerker]

Imran, I thought you defined morality by what "society" says?

[Imran Siddiqui]

In modern times (in the West), yes. Society has more power now that it ever has in the past.

Morality is determined by society only if the society has the power to make the decision and it depends on what constitutes the society. Not like King Louis XIV had to ask the peasants what was moral. He went to his society (the aristocrats) and posed the question to them. Or not, Divine Right of Kings is a very nice theory and once in a while I'm sure he defined morality being since he was in charge.

And the Pope, I'm sure he didn't have to ask very far what was moral. He may have gone to his society (the Cardinal class), but he didn't have to.

Morality is defined by society, when society has power, or the person in charge. In the end, morality is determined by who has the most power (which today in the West is mostly 'society' instead of one person).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Disabled vets would receive support for fighting and getting wounded, fortunately there wouldn't be many under a libertarian system. I see you avoided my question...ahem...

I thought it was a rhetorical question. Still it's reassuring to see that a tiny fraction of a Libertarian nation's disabled would be able to preserve some dignity.

I imagine that a lot of disabled Vietnam veterans might be disgruntled with the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations, but I've seen little evidence to suggest that even a bare majority have embraced libertarianism as a result. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of those still voting would do for the Dems or the Reps, but feel free to provide figures that disprove that.

What personal message would you have for children born with Cerebral Palsy and Spina Bifida in a Libertarian nation? It's always struck me that Libertarianism is pretty much the sole preserve of the smugly able-bodied and self-confident.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Morality is defined by society, when society has power, or the person in charge. In the end, morality is determined by who has the most power (which today in the West is mostly 'society' instead of one person).

But that would mean the King defined morality because he had the power.

Laz -

I thought it was a rhetorical question. Still it's reassuring to see that a tiny fraction of a Libertarian nation's disabled would be able to preserve some dignity.

You think a disabled person only retains dignity if others (forced or not) take care of them? I suspect most disabled people would consider that an insult.

I imagine that a lot of disabled Vietnam veterans might be disgruntled with the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations, but I've seen little evidence to suggest that even a bare majority have embraced libertarianism as a result.

Well, those presidents weren't alone, their political parties created that mess too along with ~58,000 dead and God knows how many wounded and disabled. If you're going to take swipes at libertarians take a look in the mirror first. And you're changing the parameters of your indictment of libertarianism, you asserted no disabled person would support libertarianism, now it's a bare majority of disabled vets. You can take back the indictment or keep dancing away, let's see some "dignity" from you...

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of those still voting would do for the Dems or the Reps, but feel free to provide figures that disprove that.

The majority of those who vote, disabled or not, vote for them.

What personal message would you have for children born with Cerebral Palsy and Spina Bifida in a Libertarian nation? It's always struck me that Libertarianism is pretty much the sole preserve of the smugly able-bodied and self-confident.

Many, perhaps most children born with defects don't get handouts from the government now, what message is that? The same as in a libertarian system? Hey Laz, no one's stopping you from giving your money to the disabled. If you could convince your fellow liberals to give, or just match what the rest of us give, problem solved, right?

Yes, I'm quite familiar with liberals who think they are moral for stealing other people's money and who think their victim's are immoral if we don't applaud as you steal our money. Asking for charity is more dignified than stealing and even with all the taxes we have there are plenty of organisations set up to help people, more than enough to help those so disabled they can't work and have no other means of support... But liberals need people dependent on them so abolishing a welfare system designed to create more dependency would reduce their power.

[Berzerker]

Okay Laz, what do you think of this idea? We abolish the entire welfare state except for support of those disabled Americans who can't support themselves and don't have families to support them.

[Whaleboy]

MORALITY IS IRRELEVANT!!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Laz -

You think a disabled person only retains dignity if others (forced or not) take care of them? I suspect most disabled people would consider that an insult.

I think it's highly unlikely that an unsupported person with profound disabilities will retain much dignity. Playing the PC trap doesn't work on me, Berzerker- it tends to fail on the brutally pragmatic. It all boils down to what "taking care of them" means, you see. Take a look at the status of the profoundly disabled in nations where they receive inadequate support (these theoretical libertarian nations or poor, backward 3rd world hellholes. To me the two are interchangeable) and see what their prospects are like.

Well, those presidents weren't alone, their political parties created that mess too along with ~58,000 dead and God knows how many wounded and disabled. If you're going to take swipes at libertarians take a look in the mirror first. And you're changing the parameters of your indictment of libertarianism, you asserted no disabled person would support libertarianism, now it's a bare majority of disabled vets. You can take back the indictment or keep dancing away, let's see some "dignity" from you...

Cobblers. Having seen you define the libertarian stance I'm now conceding that a tiny minority of the overall levels of disabled might just support libertarian causes. As "dancing away" goes, that's the fall of a single snowball off the face of a glacier.

Many, perhaps most children born with defects don't get handouts from the government now, what message is that? The same as in a libertarian system? Hey Laz, no one's stopping you from giving your money to the disabled. If you could convince your fellow liberals to give, or just match what the rest of us give, problem solved, right?

So your government's useless? That's no argument for scrapping support to those already suffering from their incompetence, is it?

Charity fails. It never worked even back in medieval times, and that's why the Poor Laws were passed. That's why in Britain every donkey receives 10 times as much charity funding as every handicapped child. **** that.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with liberals who think they are moral for stealing other people's money and who think their victim's are immoral if we don't applaud as you steal our money. Asking for charity is more dignified than stealing and even with all the taxes we have there are plenty of organisations set up to help people, more than enough to help those so disabled they can't work and have no other means of support... But liberals need people dependent on them so abolishing a welfare system designed to create more dependency would reduce their power.

Yes! "Liberal = Thief"! The battlecry of the struggling Libertarian.

Well, as far as I can see Libertarianism is just an botched attempt to slap an oily veneer of pseudo-respectability on rampant sociopathy, propagated only by the plumply-smug. If it's your lifestyle choice, go get 15 pit bulls and an M-16 and go live in a bunker somewhere because that'll get you a darned sight closer to your dream than impotent flailings on the internet. Until then, pay your taxes like a good civilian.