I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that the size is secondary to government's effectiveness.

Simply because I advocate more government than you would like, doesn't mean I am "advocating" some massive totalitarian regime, Chan.

Stop with the silly exaggeration.

If a collection of individuals wish to form a society, and establish rules and a social contract, then yes, absolutely, if you want to gain the benefits of said society, then you abide by the social contract. Society is far more important than any one individual.

If you think that's oppressive, you are free to break that social contract and leave.

Wow, that's pulling 'em out of left field, there. Excellent non-sequitur, but I'm not following how it's relevant.

Fine. I hate liberty, Chan.

You have a rather sick fantasy about government, yourself, Chan. A word of advice: stop watching The Wall. Anything less than total anarchy is slavery to the government, eh? Come on.....

If you really believe you are a "slave", simply because you have to follow some rules, I can't help you. I have no idea what you are doing in this country. There's plenty of islands you might be able to get away from all the dirty, icky people that you detest, and be as sociopathic as you wish.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

As I said right at the beggining, yes. If you disagree with it that is fine, I am just trying to make you understand it.



I am fine if you disagree with libertarianism, but you do not understand it.

CHAN AND BONEDADDY OR ANY OTHER LIBERTARIAN DO YOU DISAGREE WITH WHAT I HAVE SAID?

If they see that I am going to make a wild guess that the answer is going to be no. Of course their are some small differences on policy, as there is with every other ideology, but for the most part do agree.

How can you expect to understand how libertarianism can work while failing to understand the core concepts of it? That is like trying to understand algebra without understanding basic math.


Fine, then do not go around saying libertarianism is anarchy and selfishness.



Harm is pretty simple. If you are infringing on someone else's liberty/rights then you are harming them. There are some tricky areas where disagreement is to be expected. Like some environmental issues and abortion.


Society does not have rights. Individuals do. What does society need protection from?

Close change banding together to constantly interacting together.

No. Not defy. Fight against, change. There are bad rules, laws, that oppress certain minorities without good reason. Libertarianism pushes to change these laws. Why is it a problem?
He is not harming them. Nudists are a minority. They are not perverts they just have a different way of life. What happened to toleration.


No not that it is all right but that it's wrongs are ok because the majority agrees with them. Individuals are not always right, never said they were. When they are wrong, when they infringe on other individuals rights, that is where government comes into play. To punish and try to rectify the situation.

As I said it is not about breaking the laws, it is about changing them for the better. There are oppressive laws that we try to change. You must agree to some extent that there are some bad laws.
Also I did not say thing were SO oppressive. It is not horrible. But there are many small oppressions. Many not for me personally, but for other individuals. Nudists for example. Respecting other individuals as different from you is very workable in society.

Libertarians, like EVERY other ideology, are not going to agree on every policy. It is not about choosing what ones to obey but changing them for the better. Just like with the constitutional talk change the law don't break the law. The core concepts are what hold libertarians together.


In some cases yes. In some cases laws. It depends on the specific circumstance.

I do not recall any libertarians arguing for that. That could be done with a very hardcore libertarian belief. But that is not what most of us want.



We agree.


...That is not it. We look at things on an individual level. Going back to nudism. If jane doe is a nudist and she can is not having her lifestyle tolerated, even though it does not harm others, then that is a problem. They are tailor made against group of individuals. If that unjustly oppresses just one person then there is a problem.



We both know that egotistical is pretty much the same thing.
The part that I bolded is anti-libertarian. As libertarians would tolerate such behavior, as long as it is not harming others. The people that support make nudism illegal are the ones that support the bolded part.
Again libertarians typically are not defending their liberties, but the liberties of others.

Again we agree.
The only time I can think of when a libertarian would disagree would be in the case of a forceful revolution ad overthrowing of the government.

Nudists for example. It depends on the situation and is constantly changing throughout time. The law oppresses their liberty in the name of the greater good of society. As I said before this is not about breaking laws.

Got a better word for "to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power"
oppress - Definitions from Dictionary.com

There is room for compromise. Eminent domain is ok in an idea, but today it is frequently abused. It really needs to be restricted. I guess these are some of the things that we can do for society. Today things need to change in the opposite direction though. Honestly I did not think of that.

But many times the same greater good does thing that are quite bad.


We are not saying break the laws, but change them. If we wanted to break them then we would be killing politicians or some nonsense. There is a party to try and change them for the better. Although I am not to fond of parties. To protect the individuals and remove the bad laws for tolerance of other individuals.


I do not think many libertarians share "the doomsday, sky-is-falling mentality that the government is out to get everyone, and that anything a person wants to do should be acceptable under all circumstances." belief, but there are problems that is for sure. They are not getting better either. Pushing to change the government for the better. Nor do we want to allow a person to do anything. Just to do what they want if it does not harm others.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

Sure. The tricky part is the degree. If even the slightest bit of discomfort is enough to be considered infringing, it's going to get pretty meaningless.

As I've said before, we need to make sure the right actually exists, before freaking out about its infringement. Sometimes, it boils down to basic bad manners. You don't have any sort of "right" to be nude, and society certainly has the ability to determine what's acceptable or not.

Fraud, quackery, lying, violence, force.......all coming from individuals to assert that they have the right to inflict this upon others.

Maybe we're having a hard time defining "society", here. A society is merely a collective body of individuals, so I am not understanding how society doesn't have rights, either. It basically does by default

Right, and that is impossible unless people create and abide by certain rules that guarantee some security in transaction. If one person decides to "go rogue" on the people around him, that poses a threat. Would it be "oppressive" if those people said "Whoa, hey, you can't do that."?

Not a problem at all. Only perhaps a danger in assessing what a "bad" law is. Some ideas require a certain "time" to come to fruition. If I would have spouted ideas about religious tolerance in the 1300s, I'd be killed. Every idea isn't necessarily good, or even worthy of serious consideration.

Your opinion. I betcha I could find several people who feel physically threatened or spiritualy revolted and soiled by the very sight of a naked guy. A great example is pornography. There's a reason why the magazines are sold in a wrapper, and why strip joints have no windows: moral deference. Sure, YOU may not think it's harmful at all, and I might even agree, but the weight of public opinion wins, sorry.

No, pornography's not technically illegal, but society is certainly able and willing to put restrictions on it, on behalf of "public decency". There's been a big old debate here about putting porn filters on public library computers. What would you say about that?

Absolutely. That's why I disagree with proposals that hinder government's ability to do its job properly in the name of smallness. Without an FDA, for example, who sets reasonable standards and assures the safety of the drugs? The companies themselves? Yeah, right. Here, YOU take that pill, first......

Of course I do. There are some absolutely TERRIBLE laws on the books. Laws that are past their primes, or irrelevant. I argue that the 2nd Amendment is obviously really vague and could certainly use some editing help. Prohibition is a great example of a law that was triedand failed miserably and was repealed.

Yes, I am FAR more open to changing laws than some hardcore Constitutionalists on here. The Founders aren't in command, here.....WE are.

You sure act that way, joe. Every little stoplight becomes argued about in terms of rights. A very limited vocabulary, in my opinion.

My biggest issue with the whole Constitutionality argument is that is completely ignores centuries of practical common sense, precident and progress, and sacrifices it on the altar of a very narrow interpretation.

The Air Force, Congressional Districts, the Electoral College, Executive Orders, Executive Privelege, absolute freedom of speech and press, God, innocent until proven guilty, jury of one's peers, paper money, privacy rights, the right to travel, and a host of other basic longstanding things are NOT in the Constitution. Do we worship a narrow interpretation of strictness so much that we're willing to toss out centuries of precident?

I am not, sorry. Huge, huge waste of time, when we need to be looking forward.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Harm of liberties. It is a basic concept of libertarianism and most of us agree with most positions.

Any liberty that does not harm the liberty of others is a right that should not be infringed. I would say that is a basic libertarian belief, although I am not sure if everyone would agree with me there. Being nude is a right.



All infringing on the rights of other individuals. So it would not be allowed.
Lying though would depend of course.

The individuals that make it up themselves do.


That is why libertarians support government. It of course would be dependent on the action. If the action was nudism the other individuals should tolerate that person as he/she does not harm anyone. The law should reflect that, as in nudism should be legal.


[quote]Not a problem at all. Only perhaps a danger in assessing what a "bad" law is. Some ideas require a certain "time" to come to fruition. If I would have spouted ideas about religious tolerance in the 1300s, I'd be killed. Every idea isn't necessarily good, or even worthy of serious consideration.

Specific policy can vary, just as with any other ideology. But in general there is much agreement on unjust attacks on liberty.


I bet I could find quite of few people that would be "physically threatened or spiritualy revolted and soiled by" the sight of a steroid using body builder. For the most part negative liberties are the only ones that need be looked at. That is basically others tolerating the actions of each other, unless they directly infring on your liberty.

That is the problem right there I referred to that in my last post. You think it is ok for the public to oppress others because there are more of them. I want a tolerant society.

I can not think of one good "public decency law". The only decency restriction should be in private property. I am not fond of government discrimination.


Smallness is looked well upon because the government is much larger than it actually NEEDS to be. If a product did not do what it should or caused problems it did not say it would(accurate labels reference) then the government should come in and rectify the situation in court.



As do I. The second amendment could use an edit. Specifically to limit WMDs. Lets not get really side tracked with that though. We both can name bad laws and that was the only point.

Constitutionalism and libertarianism do not go hand in hand. Libertarians do tend to want the law to be followed. The constitution is the law it should be followed and if that is a problem it should be change. Not just ignored and broken. I think the founders knew that change would be needed, thus we have amendment process.



Well if you did not notice I LOVE to debate.
I don't have a problem debating every little thing tooth and nail. Don't go and think I think it is some horrible atrocity.



Precedent of breaking the law means nothing to me, well that is not true it means we should have more politics in jail. As I said change the law. I am fine with that. They write tons of bills, it would not be terribly hard to amend the constitution when needed. I mean really writing this kind of stuff up is what their job is. You preach people following the law, well the people in government need to do the same. What kind of example is that setting when they just ignore it?

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

No. However, I contend that it is rather pointless trying to 'make' him understand any of these concepts. There are some interesting points that should be taken into account.

He 'chooses' to make statements of opinion as if they are fact regardless of evidence (proof) to the contrary. As such, futher discussion is pointless because you are debating with someone who engages in disengenuous debate.

The real kicker though is this statement above:

Well...........according to skerlnik "HE" does indeed get to decide which rules must be obeyed. 'He' has decided that the constitution need not be obeyed because 'he' finds it 'inconvenient.' It is perfectly acceptable in his mind that these laws be broken because 'he' agrees with the agenda.

This statement is so far from everything that has been previously stated (by libertarians) that it begs special attention. Now....it has been stated OVER AND OVER AND OVER again that violating the rights of others is antithetical to libertarianism. However, 'skerlnik' makes such a statement 'knowing' that it is false. Therefore, a reasonable person can conclude that it is 'he' that advocates 'lying' (making false statements) if 'he' agrees with the agenda.

The final point I would like to make is that 'we' (libertarians) are accused of 'worshiping' the founders of this nation. Though it has been stated on many occasions that we agree with their philosophy and ideals, somehow this equates to 'worship.'

Let me think for a second.....the whole notion that individuals must sacrifice for 'the greater good' has been promoted all throughout history by those great mavens of freedom such as Hitler, Geobbels, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Marx et al. One can conclude that if agreeing with a philosophy equates to 'worship' (as suggested by skerlnik) then skerlnik worships those listed above. Is this not correct? Can someone tell me where I am wrong here?

Our respect and agreement with the founders philosophy of unaeianable (natural) rights is considered an 'extemist' view by skerlnik. Somehow, promoting the philosophy of some of the greatest mass murderers of all time is perfectly acceptable. Where is a fork when needed. I have the urge to jam one down my throat right now.

I have concluded that skerlnik's lack of understanding is not a misunderstanding at all. Every statement made is a purposful and a skillful attempt to misdirect others and margenalize 'our' view.

The overt false statements, the utilizations of pejoratives, and the refusal to acknowledge pertinent facts lends me to believe that skerlnik is not one who simply 'misuderstands' these points of view as opposed to one who wishes to attack these views for a purpose.

I especially like the misdirection utilized by posting a peice written by a well known neo-conservative, as if neo-conservatism was somehow 'conservative' at all. All educated and reasonable people know that 'neo-conservative' policy positions are nothing more than national socialism which is not dissimilar to etreme left ideology such as communism.

Engaging with one who practices disingenuous debate is pointless.

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat

I thank you all for the input. This has gone so far beyond its original intent and into such flights of exaggerated extremism (on both sides) that I agree, it is pointless.

I'll have to to work on phrasing things better, I suppose. It becomes difficult to remember that forum arguments tend to be all or nothing. A willingness to accept two centuries of precident and progress equates to being a "damned government loving nanny stater". A feeling that strict Constitutionalism would have far reaching, negative impact on this country means I support all government and everything it does under all conditions. Apparently, I hate all individuals and rights, too. A simple quote about how the extremes of individualism versus collectivism are both unworkable went wrong. Nobody stepped in to help me, so I must be in the wrong. So, that's it. I'll step back.

I'll still take issue with statements that I think are bizarre or unworkable, but I've learned my lesson about debating general philosophy, here. Disappointing.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Sklernik stated, if a collection of individuals wish to form a society, and establish rules and a social contract, then yes, absolutely, if you want to gain the benefits of said society, then you abide by the social contract. Society is far more important than any one individual.

If you think that's oppressive, you are free to break that social contract and leave.
>>>>


That is what the Federalists considered the Power of each of the states to have.. the power to make up their own government and contracts as they see fit.. NOT the Federal Government.

The real folly to this post is that if the Federal Government in the US does what this poster suggests, one will not be FREE... let alone to leave.. There won't be anywhere to go...

That depends on what you mean by size. I wasn't thinking size in terms of number of people involved in it, I was thinking size in terms of the number of powers it has and the extent to which those powers are exercised.

I never said you were advocating a totalitarian regime. You do, however, clearly advocate government having more power than the individual citizen and you clearly advocate the individual citizen being subservient to the government.

I don't think it's either silly or an exaggeration.



I realize you think the society is more important than the individual but what you're missing is that the only reason society exists is that a group of individuals got together and decided to pool their resources and efforts in order to provide greater benefit to each individual.

I think it's oppressive for you to suggest that the needs of the society outweigh the needs of the individuals for whom that society exists. I think the whole idea of the individual being subservient to the society is oppressive.



Don't you mean "right field"? Oh, and it's entirely relevant because in each of those examples we saw this notion of the "common good" that you advocate in action. You are seemingly proud that you believe the good of the society (and the government) is more important than the good of the individual. I just wanted you to see what happened when others actually put your view into practice.



I really believe that you do.



The Wall? I'm not familiar with that one. And, no, I'm not suggesting total anarchy. I'm suggesting very limited and very localized government. What I would settle for, though, is a federal government that returned to the limits enumerated in the Constitution.

Actually, that isn't what I believe and you know it! It's clear, though, that you believe the individual must be subservient to both society and government. I'm not opposed to all laws, only laws that government does not have the constitutional authority to pass and laws involving anything that does not infringe on the rights of others.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

But that isn't what makes you a "damned government-loving nanny stater." What makes you a "damned government-loving nanny stater" is your insistence that the individual must be subservient to government and to society and your belief that it's okay for government to usurp for itself whatever powers it wants - regardless of what the Constitution says.

No, it's your belief that it's okay for government to freely violate the Constitution whenever the hell it wants, and your belief that the individual must be subservient to government and society that means you support an essentially omnipotent government.

No, you just want the individual to be subservient to government and society.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

But he seems to be unable to separate federal government from state and local governments.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."