Libertarian Purity Test

[David Floyd]

The people of Texas rebelled of their own free will and then chose to join the US, as was their right.

I agree.

We were under no obligation try to buy the territoty or such since it was ours due to the annexation.

Well, as far as annexation goes, there are Constitutional questions with that, but that aside...

Of course we weren't obligated to buy that territory. But look at it like this. Let's say that Texas claimed the Mexican state of Chihuahua, or parts of New Mexico, as well. Does the fact that Texas claimed territory necessarily make it part of Texas, and then part of the United States?

Once Mexico made a play to reconquer Texas,

Now wait a second. Moving troops into a small disputed region between two rivers hardly counts as "reconquering Texas". It IS a bad response to a diplomatic problem, as was the response of the US. It should have been handled diplomatically. And the US DID have an obligation to avoid war - that's not a codified legal obligation, but rather a moral one.

war had begun and so we were then free to prosecute it.

I'm curious as to why you think that a limited conflict over a few thousand square miles of territory at the most, is enough to justify a large war encompassing much of North America, and culminating in the occupation of a national capital and the annexation of millions of square miles of territory. Do you think that is in any way right, or, for that matter, proportional?

Mexico never had any intention to invade the US, or even to militarily retake Texas after it joined the US. Yes, they put troops into the area between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers. I can understand (but not really agree with) an argument saying that it was OK for the US to eject the Mexicans from the region, but I can't understand an argument saying that a minor border dispute justified the Mexican War.

Again, the US made no attempt to find a reasonable solution, and simply used the entire episode as an excuse to go to war. And you know what? I don't even know for a fact that Texas was correct in the position they took regarding borders - they could have been, or they could not have been. Don't you think that it would have been more important to find out for sure who was right, and then try to work things out peacefully, before even CONSIDERING a military option?

[Berzerker]

Drogue -

No, monopolies, in a completely unregulated economy, would be long lived.

Name one.

Since being a monopoly, it is relatively easy in most cases to put up barriers to entry.

Only if those so-called barriers are enforced by law or force - both of which violate the market. How would you prevent me from entry into the marketplace to compete with you?

If you own the only sources of oil in the area, or the only piece of machinary that produces that product, it's very hard for competition to enter the market.

What's stopping you from buying oil elsewhere? If there was only one oil supplier in your area and they were screwing consumers, oil producers from other areas would quickly move in. The Founders even supported short term monopolies, they created the patent system to protect inventors.

The Government does not have a monopoly over education, you still have private schools (called public schools here strangely) so there is competition.

Private schools that have to compete with government subsidised public schools. Imagine if the Ford Motor Company got a law passed requiring everyone buying a car to buy a Ford before any other car. You could buy the car you want only after buying the Ford. Many people simply could not afford the Ford and the car they want, so they'd be stuck with the Ford. The same is true with education, government "taxes" us to pay for the public schools making it beyond the means of millions to pay for the private school they desire for their children. And not surprisingly, just as most public schools are providing an inferior education, I'm sure Ford would produce an inferior car if they didn't have to compete in the marketplace for our dollars.

I just don't think we should disband free education for all.

It isn't free.

I'm all for destroying monopolies, but I think some things are too important to be solely in the hands of market forces.

The market is driven by millions of decisions made every day by consumers and producers. When you say some things are too important for us to decide on, that means you are wiser than everyone else. That is why command economies have been failing, because economies are far too complex for a ruling elite to run.

you said about monopolies being short lived, why would be need anti-trust laws?

We don't need them, that was politicians buying votes during the Fabian socialist movement. The Founders saw no need for anti-trust laws or they would have empowered Congress to create such laws. We don't need a national helium reserve, but we have one anyway. It would be cheaper for the US military in Germany to buy energy from the Germans, but special interests want the taxpayers to pay more to send coal produced here over to Germany.

Here we have the NHS (National Health Service) and I'm very glad about that. Healthcare is too important for money to be an issue at the point of sale IMO.

And you have rationing while we still have the best medical care in the world inspite of government meddling.

There is some freedom.

And a man chained to a wall has some "freedom" too, but that isn't freedom. I gave you the definition of freedom and you ignored it.

I have some freedom of speech. I can say what I want, although there are regulations on 'hate speech' (via insightment to racial hatred etc) and libel/slander.

"Hate" speech/crime is a liberal/leftist attempt to treat people differently based on their skin color or sexual inclination. You won't see a homosexual or ethnic minority charged with "hate" speech/crimes. If we are indeed free to maliciously lie about others, how does a law prohibiting such behavior prove we are free or that freedom is not absolute? The communists passed laws against speaking out against the government, would you argue people in that system were free?

You may say that isn't free speech, but it's a damn sight freer than some countries, where opposition to the Government is banned etc.

Slander and libel are not acts of freedom any more than perjury.

Hence we have some free speech, but not total free speech.

Freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, it means you can do what you want as long as you don't coerce or constrain others.

I have nothing against economic freedom, I just don't see it as very important, and in many cases, less important to me than equality.

Then would you subject yourself equally to the taxation you want imposed on others since you value equality over economic freedom? How are you any different than the social conservatives who want to take away our personal freedom? Between people like you and the conservatives, freedom is under attack from all sides, but since you are one of those attacking freedom, you lack the moral authority to complain about and oppose others attacking the freedoms you cherish.

Exactly. Freedom is no absolute.

Interesting, the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action sounds like an absolute to me. Can you explain how the existence of coercion or constraints equals the absence of coercion and constraints?

Even Libertarians have conditions ([everyone is free] so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others) so to argue there is no ‘some freedom’ is silly.

If I infringe upon your rights, am I not imposing coercion or constraints upon you? And since freedom is the ABSENCE of coercion or constraint on choice or action, how can you claim acts of coercion or constraint meet the definition of freedom? You're still ignoring the meaning of freedom, and to use your ignorance to accuse libertarians of opposing freedom is...to use your word...silly...

Every belief is on a scale, with extremes at each end. And very very few (if any) people are right at the extreme.

So freedom now depends on a popularity contest? Would you claim slaves are free if they are outnumbered by people who have a definition of freedom allowing for slavery?

GP -

Break out of the purity ****-size mindset for a second.

I won't violate principles because they sometimes get in the way of appeasing the majority.

I'm not debating wether ANY imposition is wrong. I'm asking wether worse impositions are...worse.

I don't even recall addressing you in this thread, so why are you quoting my response to Drogue?

Surely confiscation of 1% of property is different (in effect on your life quality) than confiscation of 90%.

And? Drogue and I are debating the definition of freedom, both your examples infringe upon the freedom of those who own the property you are "confiscating". The fact you may decide to confiscate 1% or 90% doesn't change the fact you are claiming the moral authority to take what belongs to others.

Just like confinement for a day would be different than confinement for 20 years.

And this means you can be confined for a day without violating your freedom?

Sure, you can say both are wrong. but to say both the same in effect? Crazy!

Where did I say they were both the same? And why are they wrong? Attributing your strawmen to me won't work.

Strangelove -

The requirements weren't discriminatory, they merely required that certain subjects be taught in order to guarentee at least some minmum of quality among physicians.

Not true, protecting us from "snake oil salesman" was the lie people were told to support the licensing, but the goal was to create a monopoly benefitting the AMA and related organizations.

You should realise that many people aren't in a position shop around for a doctor.

Sure they are, but with Uncle Sam "protecting" us, many people simply assume the doctor they are going to is "approved".

There are still many communities that have only one doctor serving them. Furthermore when you are sick you're not really in the mood to shop around.

"Mood" aside, government does not exist to protect us from our own decisions. If a doctor in a community was not up to the task, they'd lose business as other doctors moved in to fill the void. Even when America was largely rural, there was no government licensing of doctors. Now, there are few communities in this situation.

Sava -

Thomas Jefferson believed in public education so that the people could be educated enough to choose their leaders.

Can you provide proof Jefferson supported federal education subsidies?

Without Democracy, there's no way freedom would survive.

You should read what the Founders said about "Democracy", they hated it. They equated it with mob rule, and they were right.

So while the hypocritical ideologies of true Libertarianism might sound good in your head, they don't translate to the real world.

If you're going to accuse us of hypocrisy, try proving it first. Btw, your attempt to equate libertariansim with feudalism is stupid, feudal lords used violence to compel peasants to do their bidding. Ironically, you have more in common with the feudal lords, you advocate the use of violence to compel us to do your bidding as well...

[Berzerker]

As I understand the war with Mexico, Texans had an agreement with Mexico to allow some level of autonomy. But Mexico tried to violate that agreement and Texans asked for help from the USA.

[SnowFire]

Oh, that little thing called the Atlantic, that other little thing called the Pacific, and that other little thing called logistics.

This isn't true for all countries though, and if your plans for not being in the West had gone through, we would have had a longer land border too.

So here's the question that people are trying to get at. Suppose you set up your happy Floydaria, except it unfortunately is in the middle of a rather aggressive region- think Poland in 1650 or Israel in 1970. Maybe Floydaria committed some imperialist sins in the past, since you seem to think that all war is actually just retribution for those kinds of things (Myself, I prefer to blame the Japanese for WW2, but hey, whatever). But now it's come round to being a happy Floydian state. Unfortunately, it's so enlightened that its strong economy makes it a juicy target, and frankly with voluntary enlistment, there isn't much of an army. It's quite a bit smaller than its neighbors, too. So are you still in favor of being an idealist and not having any government preparation for war, and just hope for the best that General Carnage won't marche through tommorow and set up a brutal dictatorship, eliminating everything you worked for? Or would you be willing to actually tax people enough to build an army, and be willing to conscript if neccessary, to try and preserve the other freedoms you have?

I'm curious. Assume modern-day prices on buildling an army, too (considering how extravegent some of the weapons we build today are, I find it highly unlikely that user fees will fund more than 3 aircraft, for instance).

[Drogue]

I did not want to get drawn back into this, as I thought it had ended, but I feel I mush counter some of the twisting of positions and Stawmans here.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Name one.

We've never has a completely deregulated economy, so that situation has never arose. I simply stated what economic thought regarding monopolies is.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Only if those so-called barriers are enforced by law or force - both of which violate the market. How would you prevent me from entry into the marketplace to compete with you?

You do not need legislation to enforce a monopoly, you need a monopoly on raw materials, or being the only person with the knowledge of how to make something. there are many ways you can create a monopoly.

Originally posted by Berzerker
What's stopping you from buying oil elsewhere? If there was only one oil supplier in your area and they were screwing consumers, oil producers from other areas would quickly move in. The Founders even supported short term monopolies, they created the patent system to protect inventors.

The founders? As in of the USA? That was so long ago that their world bears little resemblance to the economics of today. There is nothing stopping you from buying it elsewhere, presuming there is an elsewhere.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Private schools that have to compete with government subsidised public schools. Imagine if the Ford Motor Company got a law passed requiring everyone buying a car to buy a Ford before any other car. You could buy the car you want only after buying the Ford. Many people simply could not afford the Ford and the car they want, so they'd be stuck with the Ford. The same is true with education, government "taxes" us to pay for the public schools making it beyond the means of millions to pay for the private school they desire for their children. And not surprisingly, just as most public schools are providing an inferior education, I'm sure Ford would produce an inferior car if they didn't have to compete in the marketplace for our dollars.

Most public schools have less money, and so cannot provide the same level of education. Education is a right for everyone. I do not want to live in a world where most people have not gone to school and had as basic education. It is the only way to help people work themselves to riches.

Originally posted by Berzerker
It isn't free.

No, but it is at the point of sale. I believe Education is a right for everyone, and no one should be denied it. Therefore, I think it is of enough benefit to society to warrent a tax so that everyone can be educated, and have a chance to work themselves up into a comfortable life.

Originally posted by Berzerker
The market is driven by millions of decisions made every day by consumers and producers. When you say some things are too important for us to decide on, that means you are wiser than everyone else. That is why command economies have been failing, because economies are far too complex for a ruling elite to run.

No, I'm saying that the market does not take into account the social costs or social benefits. And I do not want, nor have I ever advocated a command economy. I want a mixed economy, like most western countries have at the moment. The state should not run the economy, but they should run the services like a company, but with the objective of providing the bst service rather than the most profit.

Originally posted by Berzerker
We don't need them, that was politicians buying votes during the Fabian socialist movement. The Founders saw no need for anti-trust laws or they would have empowered Congress to create such laws. We don't need a national helium reserve, but we have one anyway. It would be cheaper for the US military in Germany to buy energy from the Germans, but special interests want the taxpayers to pay more to send coal produced here over to Germany.

I'd love to show you what would happen without any anti-trust laws, and with complete deregulation. That will never happen, because enough people are aware of the havok it will cause. I agree, the US should by coal from the Germans for the US army based in Germany, but that has nothing to do with anti-trust, more with patriotism and nationalism.

Originally posted by Berzerker
And you have rationing while we still have the best medical care in the world inspite of government meddling.

We have good medical facilities, that are subject to much more testing than in the US. Moreover, we have private treatment too that gives you a wonderful service, for those prepared to pay for it. Rationing? I can go to the doctor or hospital whenever I want, so I don't see how it is rationed. true we don't get all the latest 'miracle techniques' because of cost, but a private company has the same decision, is it worth the money.

Originally posted by Berzerker
And a man chained to a wall has some "freedom" too, but that isn't freedom. I gave you the definition of freedom and you ignored it.

No, I disagreed with it, and gave my own explaination.

Originally posted by Berzerker
"Hate" speech/crime is a liberal/leftist attempt to treat people differently based on their skin color or sexual inclination. You won't see a homosexual or ethnic minority charged with "hate" speech/crimes. If we are indeed free to maliciously lie about others, how does a law prohibiting such behavior prove we are free or that freedom is not absolute? The communists passed laws against speaking out against the government, would you argue people in that system were free?

Actually they are. Many religion extremists, especially Islamic extremists after 11/9 (we do dates with day before month, before anyone corrects me) have been arrested for insightment of racial hatred. And people on both sides we arrested at the Oldham and Burnley riots. We do not treat people differently, if anyone is found to be trying to incite violence, they are liable to be arrested, whatever their colour, creed or religion. What I was saying is we are not free to maliciously lie, but that we still have some free speech. We are free to questionthe government, and to voice our opinion, with a few restrictions. Therefore we have some, but not complete, free speech.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, it means you can do what you want as long as you don't coerce or constrain others.

Well, Libertarianism is that yes. True freedom, freedom of everything, would be just that, you can do what you like, period.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Then would you subject yourself equally to the taxation you want imposed on others since you value equality over economic freedom? How are you any different than the social conservatives who want to take away our personal freedom? Between people like you and the conservatives, freedom is under attack from all sides, but since you are one of those attacking freedom, you lack the moral authority to complain about and oppose others attacking the freedoms you cherish.

I do not attack freedom. I believe in social freedom, just not in complete economic freedom. I believe in tax yes, but so do many people who believe in freedom. I see tax as only a very small loss of freedom, and I do not mind paying tax, because I can see the benefits. However, I do want to keep my rights to question the government on their actions, and my right to vote, and my right to do as a please, so long as I don't break the law. Indeed, I believe the law should be relaxed on many issues. I value my personal freedom very highly. But I value equality, and meritocracy, more highly than the small amount of economic freedom I will lose. Besides, I am perfectly entitled to voice my opinion that my freedom is being compromised, when I feel it is. If it was a freedom I was against, as you have tried to twist my opinion into, then why would I be voicing my opinion that it had be compromised?

Originally posted by Berzerker
Interesting, the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action sounds like an absolute to me. Can you explain how the existence of coercion or constraints equals the absence of coercion and constraints?

They don't. And pure freedom is that, but there is more than having freedom or not having freedom. For example, China has little freedom, the UK has much more, and the USA more still. If you either have freedom or not, then where do you draw the line. If at absolute freedom, then no one is free, nor will me in my lifetime.

Originally posted by Berzerker
If I infringe upon your rights, am I not imposing coercion or constraints upon you? And since freedom is the ABSENCE of coercion or constraint on choice or action, how can you claim acts of coercion or constraint meet the definition of freedom? You're still ignoring the meaning of freedom, and to use your ignorance to accuse libertarians of opposing freedom is...to use your word...silly...

No you are not, but if you are not allowed to infringe upon my rights, then that is infringing upon yours. To murder me, would infringe upon my right to live, however, not allowing you to murder me would infringe upon your rights of freedom of action. Therefore, there is no such thing as true freedom, becasue if one person has it, everybody else does not.
I am not accusing Libertarians of opposing freedom, that is twistig my words. I think Libertarians, as DF said, are no anarchists, and so are tempered by some rationality. it is imposible to have true freedom for everyone, therefore Libertarians as the condition of 'so long as it does not impinge upon the equal rights of others' to promote freedom to it's highest degree. I will reiterate, there is no such thing as absolute freedom for everyone, it is not possible.

Originally posted by Berzerker
So freedom now depends on a popularity contest? Would you claim slaves are free if they are outnumbered by people who have a definition of freedom allowing for slavery?

No, but then I don't see the relevance of that to what you were quoting? I wrote

Every belief is on a scale, with extremes at each end. And very very few (if any) people are right at the extreme.

and you replied with something about popularity and freedom? Freedom is a scale, like any belief, and as such people can believe in no freedom, or they can believe in absolute freedom, or they can believe anything between the two. And most people, if not everyone, would fall inthe latter of those.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I don't even recall addressing you in this thread, so why are you quoting my response to Drogue?

And he has no right to add his point of view? He did not agree with what you said, so he replied, much as I am doing now. Are you denying him his freedom of speech and expression?

Originally posted by Berzerker
And? Drogue and I are debating the definition of freedom, both your examples infringe upon the freedom of those who own the property you are "confiscating". The fact you may decide to confiscate 1% or 90% doesn't change the fact you are claiming the moral authority to take what belongs to others.

Well, I was debating the nature of freedom, and that it is not eithe black or white, there is much grey. The 1% or 90% does not change the act being against freedom, but it does mean that the 1% act is 90 times less damaging, and 90 times less impingment on that persons right to spend their money, than the 90% tax.

Originally posted by Berzerker
And this means you can be confined for a day without violating your freedom?

No, but it is 7305 times less impingement than imprisonment for 20 years. Following the same principle give in the above answer.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Where did I say they were both the same? And why are they wrong? Attributing your strawmen to me won't work.

You said it either impinges on freedom or it doesn't, and that there was no 'some freedom'. You were implying that it is black or white, and thus since imprisonment is black, an impingement on freedom, both are black. GP was saying that there is a grey, and that the 20 years is a lot darker a grey then the 1 day imprisonment.

Originally posted by Berzerker
You should read what the Founders said about "Democracy", they hated it. They equated it with mob rule, and they were right.

Yes, many years ago. A lot has changed since then, such as there no longer being a need to have a gun to protect against the government, and democracy no longer equaling mob rule. Democracy equals rule by majority, which is much better than any system of imposed rulers IMO. Do you believe in no state or government at all (ie. Anarchism)? If not, how would you appoint leaders?

[TCO]

Floyd, I can't waste any more time. You seem intent on sophistry. Or just not interested in really engaging on the subject. Or you're not that smart. You keep raising red herrings and straw men. Shifting to a different issue from what I ask. (Which is are all recipients of aggression, guilty of aggression themselves? i.e. should we blame the rapist's victim.)

Berzerk, thought you were part of the Ramo/Floyd/me discussion based on post placement. Didn't notice that you were responding to Drague only.

[Ramo]

The people of Texas rebelled of their own free will and then chose to join the US, as was their right. We were under no obligation try to buy the territoty or such since it was ours due to the annexation. Once Mexico made a play to reconquer Texas, war had begun and so we were then free to prosecute it.

Just prior to the Mexican War, Polk intentionally sent an army into the no-mans' land where Mexico claimed sovereignty, which triggered a shot from a border garrison. This is well documented. It's also well-documented that if this gambit failed, Polk would've invaded anyways using other casi belli (for instance, the fact that Mexico rejected the US' offer to buy California, which he percieved as a diplomatic insult). Mexico had absolutely no intention of "reconquering Texas." Certainly not after it was annexed by the US. It was all propaganda.

[Berzerker]

Drogue -

I did not want to get drawn back into this, as I thought it had ended, but I feel I mush counter some of the twisting of positions and Stawmans here.

Feel free to support your allegations.

We've never has a completely deregulated economy, so that situation has never arose. I simply stated what economic thought regarding monopolies is.

We did enough to allow for these alleged monopolies. Citing a lack of evidence to support your claim that monopolies are long lived is illogical. Why would you cite anti-trust laws passed in the late 19th century to support your argument when you now claim there were no monopolies because of regulation?

You do not need legislation to enforce a monopoly, you need a monopoly on raw materials, or being the only person with the knowledge of how to make something. there are many ways you can create a monopoly.

And this has nothing to do with the debate. You claimed marketplace monopolies were long lived but provided no evidence. I claimed the only long lived monopolies were protected by force or law and you said nothing to prove me wrong.

The founders? As in of the USA?

Yes.

That was so long ago that their world bears little resemblance to the economics of today.

They knew about monopolies and yet they created protections for inventors and no anti-trust laws.

There is nothing stopping you from buying it elsewhere, presuming there is an elsewhere.

That was what I said, you were the one claiming monopolies are long lived, not me.

Most public schools have less money, and so cannot provide the same level of education.

That might be true if you equate money with education, I think education depends more on other factors than small differences in expenditures. That's why private schools have the edge, and why public schools produce an inferior product. Washington, D.C. has one of the highest per student budgets and among the worst schools. Explain that.

Education is a right for everyone.

If you define a "right" as a mandate to take what belongs to others, then slave-owning can be considered a right.

I do not want to live in a world where most people have not gone to school and had as basic education.

The world is not your playground.

It is the only way to help people work themselves to riches.

Or they could just claim a "right" to take what belongs to others like you have.

No, but it is at the point of sale.

Huh????? According to you, there is no sale, it's free, remember?

I believe Education is a right for everyone, and no one should be denied it. Therefore, I think it is of enough benefit to society to warrent a tax so that everyone can be educated, and have a chance to work themselves up into a comfortable life.

It's not a matter of "denying" people an education, it's a matter of forcing others to pay for someone else's education. And by forcing one group of people to pay for another's education, many of those being forced cannot afford the private education they want for their children.

No, I'm saying that the market does not take into account the social costs or social benefits.

Of what? You want a regulated economy with socialist features. Since when did you acquire the knowledge to make all the decisions consumers and producers make every day when deciding what to buy or sell? Freedom is a social benefit...

And I do not want, nor have I ever advocated a command economy. I want a mixed economy, like most western countries have at the moment.

I didn't say you believed in a command economy, only that the flaw with command economies is inherent to what you advocate. A mixed economy is a mixture of the market and a command economy. This still means you're claiming a greater wisdom than everyone in the decision making process involved in those aspects of the economy you want control over.

I'd love to show you what would happen without any anti-trust laws, and with complete deregulation.

I don't need your speculations, I can look at US history to see for myself.

That will never happen, because enough people are aware of the havok it will cause.

That assumes the majority is economically literate. The Founders were, I've seen no evidence you or the majority are, but plenty to the contrary.

I agree, the US should by coal from the Germans for the US army based in Germany, but that has nothing to do with anti-trust, more with patriotism and nationalism.

Nonsense! It has to do with your claim that we have anti-trust laws because we need them. Politics is not about what we need, it's about one group of people stealing from another. Politicians from coal producing states are the one's who want taxpayers to pay for the coal from their states to send over to Germany. And they get other politicians to support this inefficiency by voting for the inefficient pork barrel projects they want in their states.

We have good medical facilities, that are subject to much more testing than in the US.

"More testing"? One of the reasons health care is so expensive is because of more testing. Doctors and hospitals test and test again out of fear of lawsuits.

Moreover, we have private treatment too that gives you a wonderful service, for those prepared to pay for it.

Which is better, the private or public service?

Rationing? I can go to the doctor or hospital whenever I want, so I don't see how it is rationed.

Don't you have waiting lists for things like dialysis? Hell, we have rationing here thanks to government involvement with health care.

No, I disagreed with it, and gave my own explaination.

So you disagree with the definition of freedom? That expains why you claim to believe in freedom when you don't, you just re-define words to accomodate your ideology.

Actually they are. Many religion extremists, especially Islamic extremists after 11/9 (we do dates with day before month, before anyone corrects me) have been arrested for insightment of racial hatred.

So what? You aren't free, so citing examples of your unfree system to claim you are free is illogical.

And people on both sides we arrested at the Oldham and Burnley riots. We do not treat people differently, if anyone is found to be trying to incite violence, they are liable to be arrested, whatever their colour, creed or religion.

Trying to cause a riot is not free speech any more than threatening to punch someone.

What I was saying is we are not free to maliciously lie, but that we still have some free speech.

You're still assuming slander is an act of freedom.

We are free to questionthe government, and to voice our opinion, with a few restrictions. Therefore we have some, but not complete, free speech.

Would you claim a law prohibiting murder is a restriction on freedom? If so, explain why the constraint called murder is actually the absence of a constraint?

Well, Libertarianism is that yes. True freedom, freedom of everything, would be just that, you can do what you like, period.

Geez, I just explained how the definition of freedom does not include coercion or constraints and you ignored me again.

I do not attack freedom.

Bull!

I believe in social freedom, just not in complete economic freedom.

Which is an attack on freedom.

I believe in tax yes, but so do many people who believe in freedom.

Who said they believe in freedom? Oh yeah, a person who does not believe in freedom either.

I see tax as only a very small loss of freedom

Then why deny you are attacking freedom?

and I do not mind paying tax, because I can see the benefits.

You didn't answer my question. Do you want to pay the same tax you want imposed on others in accordance with your stated belief in equality?

Indeed, I believe the law should be relaxed on many issues. I value my personal freedom very highly.

But since you don't value the economic freedom of others, why should they respect your personal freedom?

But I value equality

So you want to pay the same tax you want imposed on others?

Besides, I am perfectly entitled to voice my opinion that my freedom is being compromised, when I feel it is.

Gee, not if the monster you helped create decides that will be against the law. And you'd lack the moral authority to condemn the government because you have used that government to take away freedoms you don't care for.

If it was a freedom I was against, as you have tried to twist my opinion into, then why would I be voicing my opinion that it had be compromised?

You've already admitted you want to violate the economic freedom of others, so why are you accusing me of twisting your words?

They don't.

That's right.

And pure freedom is that

Where in the definition of freedom I provided did you find a distinction between this "pure" freedom and the "impure" freedom you claim to support?

but there is more than having freedom or not having freedom. For example, China has little freedom, the UK has much more, and the USA more still. If you either have freedom or not, then where do you draw the line. If at absolute freedom, then no one is free, nor will me in my lifetime.

Will you explain how absolute freedom means no freedom? You've just declared that a man with a 20 foot chain around his ankle is more free than a man with a 10 foot chain around his ankle even though both chains are constraints on both men.

No you are not, but if you are not allowed to infringe upon my rights, then that is infringing upon yours.

If we can equate "rights" with "freedom" just to avoid even more confusion, how do I have a "right" to infringe upon your rights?

To murder me, would infringe upon my right to live, however, not allowing you to murder me would infringe upon your rights of freedom of action.

Freedom is the ABSENCE of COERCION or CONSTRAINT on CHOICE or ACTION. Murder is a constraint, true? So how can the act of murder - a CONSTRAINT - qualify as an act of freedom according to the definition provided?

I am not accusing Libertarians of opposing freedom, that is twistig my words. I think Libertarians, as DF said, are no anarchists, and so are tempered by some rationality. it is imposible to have true freedom for everyone, therefore Libertarians as the condition of 'so long as it does not impinge upon the equal rights of others' to promote freedom to it's highest degree.

Most Libertarians understand what freedom means, you don't. You did accuse Libertarians of opposing freedom based on your inability to understand it's meaning. You've argued that murder is an act of freedom, do you see how ludicrous that is?

I will reiterate, there is no such thing as absolute freedom for everyone, it is not possible.

If you and I were the only people in the world and neither you nor me imposed coercion or constraints on each other, we would be free? If I murdered you, would you be free? This talk about "absolute" freedom appears no where in the definition of freedom, either freedom exists or it does not. Either coercion and constraints are ABSENT or they exist - if the former, freedom exists, if the latter, freedom does not exist.

No, but then I don't see the relevance of that to what you were quoting?

and you replied with something about popularity and freedom? Freedom is a scale, like any belief, and as such people can believe in no freedom, or they can believe in absolute freedom, or they can believe anything between the two. And most people, if not everyone, would fall inthe latter of those.

So explain how I can believe in some coercion and constraints and still believe in freedom when the definition of freedom is the absence of coercion and constraints?

And he has no right to add his point of view?

Actually, no, this is a privately owned forum and we don't have a right to post here.

He did not agree with what you said, so he replied, much as I am doing now. Are you denying him his freedom of speech and expression?

If I was, how did he post? Explain why my question to him constitutes a denial of his alleged freedom to post in this forum?

Well, I was debating the nature of freedom, and that it is not eithe black or white, there is much grey.

There is no grey in the definition of freedom.

The 1% or 90% does not change the act being against freedom, but it does mean that the 1% act is 90 times less damaging, and 90 times less impingment on that persons right to spend their money, than the 90% tax.

Which is what I said, both acts infringe upon freedom. So anyone committing either act - confiscating 1% or 90% - is infringing upon the victim's freedom. Why is this so difficult to understand?

No, but it is 7305 times less impingement than imprisonment for 20 years. Following the same principle give in the above answer.

The only relevant part of your response was "no".

You said it either impinges on freedom or it doesn't, and that there was no 'some freedom'. You were implying that it is black or white, and thus since imprisonment is black, an impingement on freedom, both are black. GP was saying that there is a grey, and that the 20 years is a lot darker a grey then the 1 day imprisonment.

Both violate the freedom of the victim (innocent person). The greater evil of caging someone for 20 years as opposed to 1 day doesn't mean the lesser evil is no longer a violation of the victim's freedom.

Yes, many years ago. A lot has changed since then, such as there no longer being a need to have a gun to protect against the government

Tell that to all the people in the resistance who fought the Nazis.

and democracy no longer equaling mob rule.

When did Democracy become something other than mob rule?

Democracy equals rule by majority, which is much better than any system of imposed rulers IMO.

The majority is the mob. Switching from one group of imposed rulers to another is not moral enlightenment.

Do you believe in no state or government at all (ie. Anarchism)? If not, how would you appoint leaders?

No. The same way we do now, but their power would be limited to doing for us only what we can morally do for ourselves. I cannot morally steal what belongs to you, therefore the politicians I elect cannot steal for me.

[Berzerker]

Berzerk, thought you were part of the Ramo/Floyd/me discussion based on post placement. Didn't notice that you were responding to Drague only.

No problem, I was just curious. Drogue seems to think I was trying to deny you the freedom of responding to my arguments, lol.

[TCO]

SO just out of curiousity, why are libertarians so cut and pastish?

[Dis]

that's a really long post 3 posts up

[Shi Huangdi]

"Now wait a second. Moving troops into a small disputed region between two rivers hardly counts as "reconquering Texas". "

Mexican forces had claimed the region and not recognized Texas' soverignty.Had the war gone Mexico's way and their force been triumphant I doubt they would have failed to retake Texas.

"I'm curious as to why you think that a limited conflict over a few thousand square miles of territory at the most, is enough to justify a large war encompassing much of North America, "

Because once they had violated our territory and attacked our troops, we had a right to penalize them for attacking us.

And besides, WRT California, didn't they secede from Mexico and form the Bear Republic before joining the USA?

"Mexico had absolutely no intention of "reconquering Texas." Certainly "

As I said Mexico had not recognized Texas and if Santa Anna had been victorious and destroyed our forces he would have retaken Texas and possibly gone further into US territory.

Berzerker: Natural monopolies can occur when the cost of entry is high enough to prevent entry into the market or if it is most efficent for one firm to provide a service, or if their is a domination of one resource by a firm

[Berzerker]

GP -

SO just out of curiousity, why are libertarians so cut and pastish?

Hehe, I wouldn't draw a conclusion based on Floyd and I, but I just like to respond as thoroughly as possible. Unfortunately that tends to drive some people away from my posts.

Shi Huangdi -

Natural monopolies can occur when the cost of entry is high enough to prevent entry into the market or if it is most efficent for one firm to provide a service, or if their is a domination of one resource by a firm

I never said monopolies cannot occur, only that they are short lived except when governments start protecting or creating them. But an efficient monopoly is not a market sin, if I have control of a service in my area and I satisfy my customers, they won't get mad and seek other providers. If I do, other providers will see their anger as a big opportunity to move in and take away marketshare.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -

Hehe, I wouldn't draw a conclusion based on Floyd and I, but I just like to respond as thoroughly as possible. Unfortunately that tends to drive some people away from my posts.

Shi Huangdi -

I never said monopolies cannot occur, only that they are short lived except when governments start protecting or creating them. But an efficient monopoly is not a market sin, if I have control of a service in my area and I satisfy my customers, they won't get mad and seek other providers. If I do, other providers will see their anger as a big opportunity to move in and take away marketshare.

Do you know what a deadweightloss is? Ever draw a supply-demand curve for a monoplist charging a parfit maximizing rpice? What happens to soncuremre surpolus and producer surplsyu?

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Berzerker

I never said monopolies cannot occur, only that they are short lived except when governments start protecting or creating them. But an efficient monopoly is not a market sin, if I have control of a service in my area and I satisfy my customers, they won't get mad and seek other providers. If I do, other providers will see their anger as a big opportunity to move in and take away marketshare.

Your model of a functional monopoly is flawed. Since a monopoly by definition coerces or forces competitors out of business. The problem is not that there are no people wishing to enter the market, the problem is that monoplies uses scales of economy to drive out competitition usually by driving prices down to the point where only the monopoly can continue in the market. Once competition has been suppressed or eliminated, the prices are jacked up through the roof. When this happens, what are the choices for the customer? The only choice is to buy from the monopoly or to not buy from the monoploly. If this were to take place across the entire economy you would end up with a communist system.