I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[David Floyd]

Laz,

What personal message would you have for children born with Cerebral Palsy and Spina Bifida in a Libertarian nation?

What personal message? Well, only that children born with cerebral palsy don't have any more of a claim on my money than children born without cerebral palsy - that is, no claim at all. Why should need create entitlement? That's ridiculous.

I think it's highly unlikely that an unsupported person with profound disabilities will retain much dignity.

And I'm not really sure that's relevant. Dignity/pride doesn't matter for **** when compared to rights.

So your government's useless?

Certainly not. It's very useful, in that it is used to keep people - even needy people - from robbing me.

Charity fails.

Oh well. Again, need doesn't create entitlement.

I'd have probably starved to death,

Only if you didn't eat.

or ended up in prison in 1990

Only if you committed crimes, for example, stealing food.

Poor bloody families of handicapped kids requiring 24-hour support. Who would support them?

I dunno. Not really my problem, though. In any case, these families always had the option to abort, or, for that matter, refuse to have kids if they could not economically afford them.

Monk,

It seems to me you've made a choice to live in the U.S instead of some lawless country without authorities of any sort. I'm sure such countries exist out there in the third world, countries where you can own any guns you'd like, take all the drugs you'd like and never see a tax collector. I understand why you prefer a place that has running water, peace and prosperity, but as far as I can see, your decision to live in the U.S means you've actually valued your material goods and your personal security higher than your freedom. So the question is how this can be consistant with the rest of your beliefs?

Your position fails because of your premise that Libertarians are in favor of lawless countries. This obviously isn't the case at all - we favor strong laws that prevent people from violating the individual freedom of anyone else.

UR,

Death by starvation is a very strong form of coercion.

No it isn't. Dying is natural. Starving is also natural, if you don't eat. The threat that you might die if you don't commit an immoral act neither forces you to act immorally or justifies the potential act. Death is simply a fact of life.

Suppose you need conditions a1, a2, ... an to do E, lacking any one of these means you are not free to do E. Free as in the ability to do something as per your wish.

No, freedom is not "doing whatever you want" - rather, freedom is simply the absence of coercion, or, put more precisely, the absence of human coercion (although I think the word "human" is implied with the word "coercion", in this context).

Imran,

I'm not getting into a debate about moral relativity with you - I've already adequately demonstrated to you that moral relativity makes no sense.

[Monk]

Berzerker,

Maybe I was a bit unclear on things, I'll break it down and ask that if you don't agree with the conclusion, you'll point out the faulty parts of the argument:

Premise 1: You live in Kansas.
Premise 2: Going by your definition of freedom, that's not the most free place in the world.
Premise 3: If you so desire, you have the options to move.

Conclusion: Your personal freedom isn't your highest priority in the matter of choosing where you live. The fact that you're staying where you are means that you've valued something else - friends, family, running water, security or whatever - higher than your personal freedom.

I'm not saying that you have to pack your bags if you don't like what the government does. I'm merely wondering why, when freedom seems to be your number one priority, you haven't made that choice on your own.

And if you think the "let's pack our bags for (insert ****ed-up third world country here) argument is far-fetched then we can apply the same concept to states within the U.S. I assume your state isn't the freest place in your country, so I can't understand your decision to remain there.

[Monk]

Oh, and hi Floyd! Of course, if you want to answer Berzerker's question and tell us why you chose Texas, you're welcome to do so. I'll just read your recent post.

[David Floyd]

Premise 1: You live in Kansas.
Premise 2: Going by your definition of freedom, that's not the most free place in the world.

Interesting. Remember that, by free, we mean "lack of coercion", and by extension, laws preventing others from violating our rights. You can easily argue that a FEW nations in Western Europe protect social freedoms to a greater degree, however, these nations do not protect economic freedoms much at all, in comparison. I'm not sure that you could come up with a nation in which economic freedoms are protected to a greater degree, and I'm fairly certain that you cannot come up with a nation in which BOTH social AND economic freedoms are protected to a greater degree than in the US.

So, certainly, the US does not qualify as a truly free nation - but neither does any other nation.

I assume your state isn't the freest place in your country, so I can't understand your decision to remain there.

I don't know about Berzerker, but I'm strongly considering joining the Free State Project. At this point, there are numerous things that prevent this from being a possibility (first and foremost, the project isn't even in full swing, and also, significantly, I want to graduate first).

[David Floyd]

Of course, if you want to answer Berzerker's question and tell us why you chose Texas, you're welcome to do so.

Actually, I lived in Texas, up through my 18th birthday, as a result of my parents. Following my 18th birthday, I lived/live in Texas because I go to school at UT, which is one of the better universities in the nation that I could afford. Will I necessarily STAY in Texas? Possibly not.

[Monk]

Floyd,

I don't know what state in the U.S is most "free", not by your and not by my definition, but I'm pretty sure it's not Texas. So when you say you want to graduate first, I say that's a sensible choice and the essence of my entire argument; there are things - in this case, a good education - that you guys value higher than freedom from coercion.

[Monk]

On the related note, that Free State Project is actually a cool idea. I don't think it will ever work though, I can't imagine that the people in the population centers of the South and West are ever going to move all the way to New Hampshire. The actual as well as the psychological distance is just too big.

If you search Google for "governor of New Hampshire", the first link that comes up asks: "Are You Eligible for Federal Government Benefits?"

[Berzerker]

Monk -

Berzerker,

Maybe I was a bit unclear on things, I'll break it down and ask that if you don't agree with the conclusion, you'll point out the faulty parts of the argument:

Premise 1: You live in Kansas.
Premise 2: Going by your definition of freedom, that's not the most free place in the world.
Premise 3: If you so desire, you have the options to move.

Conclusion: Your personal freedom isn't your highest priority in the matter of choosing where you live. The fact that you're staying where you are means that you've valued something else - friends, family, running water, security or whatever - higher than your personal freedom.

I'm not saying that you have to pack your bags if you don't like what the government does. I'm merely wondering why, when freedom seems to be your number one priority, you haven't made that choice on your own.

And if you think the "let's pack our bags for (insert ****ed-up third world country here) argument is far-fetched then we can apply the same concept to states within the U.S. I assume your state isn't the freest place in your country, so I can't understand your decision to remain there.

I had and have commitments to family limiting my freedom. When those commitments are fulfilled, I may move... Where? I'm not sure at this point, but away from Kansas. Monk, you're still missing the point, it is illogical and hypocritical for liberals to argue that people who don't want to be forced to fund what liberals want from government can simply move away. They wouldn't accept that as a valid argument if Republicans told them to move if they don't like Bush. And if Bush and the GOP decided to fund right wing religious schools with liberals' money, the liberals wouldn't move away even though they'd strongly object, so their hypocritical dismissal of our arguments in opposition to their desires shows just how vapid they can be...
It's the old "love it or leave it" nonsense.

We have no moral burden to leave our homes because liberals have found a relatively safe way to steal from us, for many people, leaving commitments behind would be immoral. Now, you say I place a higher priority on these commitments than my freedom. Yup, so what? That means you get to prioritise away my freedom too? We all prioritise in one way or another with freedom taking a baskseat to commitments, from people who want to raise kids to people who accept jobs in exchange for money, that doesn't create for us a "right" to steal from others.

I know the left wants to make this just about "selfishness" because they think stealing and spending other people's money makes them compassionate and anyone who disagrees is immoral, but for me to be a liberal requires that I accept their assertion that stealing is moral as long as I hire a politician to do the stealing... No amount of "you're selfish" can convince me stealing is moral, it's not about "selfishness", it's about my refusal to steal from others... If that's "selfish", then it just shows why the liberal ideology isn't playing with a full deck...

So when liberals call me selfish for not helping them steal from others, I remind them that what they are asking me to do violates my moral code. If my moral code allowed, no, demanded I commit murder, would liberals be "selfish" for refusing to help me murder others? Government already takes more than half of many people's income and all the liberals can do is spit (verbally) in their faces if they object (even when they don't object, consider the liberal mantra about "the rich aren't paying their fair share"). That makes "the rich" out to be freeloaders when they already pay a ****load in taxes. The fact liberals never show any gratitude to the people they tax the hell out of to pay for their "compassion" shows just what kind of people they are - ingrates. Sorry for being harsh, but that's how I see it...

[NeOmega]

I have a good friend up here in Bremerton, Wa who is a Libertarian and recently graduated from KSU with a degree in Chemical engineering.

Wa is cool, because we have a mail in voting system now, where realistically anyone who wants to vote absentee can, no questions asked. Also, by state law, the Libertarian party is now a major party in Wa state.
Because of a guy named tim Eyeman, it is cool to hate taxes here, but social views are still really liberal.
But it is really far from New Hampshire.

[Berzerker]

Yes, I was more than a bit amused to see voters in liberal Seattle scream bloody murder about a 10 cent tax on their Starbuck's coffee to help the kiddies. Short story, the tax measure was defeated ~2-1. Were the liberals "selfish"?

[Dis]

yes, they should be willing to give away 10 cents of their hard-earned money to help the children.

Won't someone please think of the children!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Freedom is useless? Spoken like a true lefty.

BERZERKER JUST CALLED THE U.S. GOVERNMENT "FREEDOM"!!!!!!

BERZERKER JUST CALLED THE TAX-COLLECTIN', WELFARE PAYIN', IRAQ INVADIN' U.S. ADMINISTRATION "FREEDOM"!!!!

HE'S OUT OF THE CLUB!!!! HE WILL NOT SPEND THE BLESSED HEREAFTER ETERNITY LAPPING AT THE GRIZZLED OLD LOINS OF AYN RAND!!! HE'S A BACKSLIDER!!!! HE'S A TAX PAYIN' WHORE LIKE THE REST OF US AND HE'S GETTIN' A STAR-SPANGLED STIFFIE OUT OF IT!!!! OH SAINTED DAY!!!!

Bad Libertarian! Bad!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Floyd, I can't be bothered to parse up your post, so just add a "Walk on by....." after each point. You have a rock where your heart should be.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Re-read my post until you understand it. I am not wasting any more time on your troll.

It's not a troll, it's a perfectly valid concern. Your post does not address the issue of paedophilia directly in any way, and only indirectly by touching on public education and child work. Don't pretend you've answered my question, and I'm too stupid to not notice. It's quite impossible for me to infer your attitudes towards paedophilia from your positions on paper rounds and public schooling. I was talking about compulsory schooling, BTW, not public schooling.

It's a 'response' worthy of any politician.

I'll try again.

Do libertarians consider child pornography to be protected under the right to free speech?

Do libertarians consider child prostitution to be protected under the right to own one's own body?

Assuming that the answer to the above is 'no', would a libertarian society nevertheless be an easier place for paedophiles to abuse children?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Laz -

3rd world nations are theoretically libertarian?

Congratulations Berserker! You just won this week's award for not reading the post you answered! To me the two are interchangeable (that's "interchangeable", Berserker. "Interchangeable". Got that? Good. Note also the "To me", inevitably used to signpost subjectivity) because I'm convinced their natural tendency would be/is a tendency to slide into becoming nasty, brutish ****-holes. I had a feeling that line would hook you when I wrote it- somehow I got the impression you wouldn't exercise caution and enquire what my opinion meant.

Dignity is not obtained by stealing, "legally" or not.

When acquisition is lawful it ain't theft, and there ain't a damned thing any number of debates on "natural rights" can do to stop that. You bet your well-nourished and healthy butt that the lawful use of funds raised by taxation to which one is fully entitled is one hell of a good way to ensure dignity in life.

Is that a retraction? A tiny minority of "abled" people support libertarianism so what does that say about your indictment? away, Laz...

Well shucks. You convinced me. Libertarianism is about as popular as necrotising fasciitis of the genitals among both able-bodied people and the disabled. We're agreed. I'll hold my hand up and agree with that.

Though I'll still maintain that it's even less popular among the disabled. Going to prove me wrong?

Laz, people weren't free in medieval times. If charity fails, it's because liberals don't put their own money where their mouths are. But charity succeeds in this country, look at how much money was raised in the wake of 9/11.

No, Berzerker. Charity fails because people are ill-informed, have conflicting agenda, are overly swayed by sentimentality in favour of cute wickle bummy wabbits, and don't put their money where their mouths are. You missed out several, you see? It's still failure, however. We seem to agree on that point.

9-11, by any standards, was hardly typical, and it would be highly disingenous of you to suggest it was. Do CP charities ever have their plight publicised by wall-to-wall TV coverage 24 hours a day over just about every TV station on the planet? Nope.

Just speaking the truth, do you think Swiss and German institutions should have to return wealth stolen from Jews? If so, why? You obviously believe stealing isn't stealing if it's "legal".

Yes I do believe the Nazi plunder should by returned. Because they were stolen. And once again, appropriation is only stealing if it's unlawful. That's the law, baby. We could keep this up for days, you know.

I have a better idea, try stealing from others without hiding behind government.

That would be breaking the law, Berzerker. Why would I want to do that?

Why? I was "homeless" and without government handouts and I didn't starve or end up in jail. Contrary to this liberal mindset that the poor need you, I sure didn't when I was poor.

Full story please. I'd love to know how you got by. Don't tell me.....student years? Parental handouts? I feel your pain.

You aren't paying attention, I asked if you would support abolishing the welfare system except for the disabled who can't be supported privately. Btw, it isn't my fault if you kill your child because I refuse to take food from my family to support yours. You are responsible, doh! Let us know when you get back from Africa and your mission to help the disabled there... Oh wait, you say that's their problem?

The answer (God I hate stating the bleeding obvious for those who can't pick up on inferrals) is "no".

Walk on by.....

Africa is, indeed, my problem- at least partially. I don't know where you got the idea that it wasn't. I'm happy about the portion of my taxes going on overseas development. That's why I feel no particular to make ANOTHER trip to Africa. Thanks for letting me bring that up, incidentally.