Any Libertarians Here? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-09-2007, 06:41 PM   #61
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I am obligated to say that I would support that shopkeepers right to be a racist bastard ...... I support the right to religious discrimination.
And that's why so few people can take libertarians seriously.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 06:51 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 PM
Because we are racists and bigoted against minorities? See because I think that if David Duke sets up a chain of resteraunts and refuses to serve blacks then any sane person should boycott the bastard and protest against it I somehow endorse his racist views? That if I was employed by a Conservative Christian who took offence and my vocal atheism and anti-theism and got fired that it was their right somehow makes me supportive of their point of view?

Or because I believe in maximising individual liberty via strong protections for private property against statists? Im not arguing for a utopian political system, I recognise that civil society demands compromise and surrendering certain liberties and I can accept that - but I still argue in principle the extreme and in practice a compromise that pushes liberty as far as people will legitimately accept.

You may not take those sorts of views seriously; but I and many others rightly take the views of people who know whats best for others and will use government force to see it done are dangerous and should be resisted.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 06:58 PM   #63
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Because we are racists and bigoted against minorities? See because I think that if David Duke sets up a chain of resteraunts and refuses to serve blacks then any sane person should boycott the bastard and protest against it I somehow endorse his racist views? That if I was employed by a Conservative Christian who took offence and my vocal atheism and anti-theism and got fired that it was their right somehow makes me supportive of their point of view?
You said it, not me. Go back and reread your own posts.

Did I hit a nerve?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:02 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer


Now those drugs (except marijuana) don't suffer the problem of second hand smoke; so if people aren't being disengenuous about their support for a pro-freedom philosophy with the view that second hand smoke constitutes non-consensual harm then they should logically support decriminalisation of other drugs and perhaps even the use of those drugs in settings such as clubs.

I much prefer people who are unapologeticly opposed to ilicit drugs on the basis that people shouldn't be able to harm themselves than those who couch their own will for social control in the glamour of supporting a liberty (be it clean air, lower health costs, no more negative liberties).
In a perfect world, an illicit drug habit would affect only the individual who partakes. But it does not.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:04 PM   #65
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Libertarians only operate in a perfect world.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:08 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 PM
An in principle defence of the right for a person to run their business in a bigoted and exclusionary manner on the basis of property coupled with my natural ethical response to such behaviour - boycott and protest - what get's me is that you give an implied statement without needing to offer evidence. I have been consistent in arguing a libertarian position, I haven't waxed poetical about this hypothetical land of do as you please being utopian - quite the opposite in many regards, and have pointed out that the attitude of the original poster of poisoning their body with unfiltered smokes and trans-fats is an act of hedonistic stupidity and yet I get the impression you are trying to present my case in these selected questions as fodder against libertarianism.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:09 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
This is the only area where limitations can be entertained; but that is a question of consensuality verus opportunity and the obligations of the employer to their employees in maintaining a safe workplace.
It really isn't a matter of consent in a lot of jurisdictions. In Canada, for one, under the law you cannot consent to activities which carry a risk of serious bodily harm (clearly exceptions like medical procedures, etc exist, but you get my point).
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:11 PM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


In a perfect world, an illicit drug habit would affect only the individual who partakes. But it does not.
Are we talking about emotional harm of seeing somebody close self-destruct; because there are a lot of people out there who are more or less alone - is it alright for them to do drugs but if you still have family and friend who care it's not alright?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:15 PM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


It really isn't a matter of consent in a lot of jurisdictions. In Canada, for one, under the law you cannot consent to activities which carry a risk of serious bodily harm (clearly exceptions like medical procedures, etc exist, but you get my point).
Then why is smoking legal or sports like boxing.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:16 PM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Well you are arguing that some drug habits do not involve people aside from the user. Not true. They can affect their children, their spouses, their employers, their friends, etc. And it isn't just a matter of self-destruction - if you have a crack addicted single mother, there is an excellent chance their lives will be irreparably damaged by her actions. Her liberty ends where their peril begins. Period.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:18 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Then why is smoking legal or sports like boxing.
Sporting activities are legal insofar as you are consenting to the type of harm that comes in the normal course of the game. That is why you will find a multitude of civil and criminal cases in Canada on the point of hockey - where the force used and the injury suffered exceeded that which the players could legally consent to.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:22 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 PM
This is in the context of secondhand smoke; if I sit around a bunch of smokers and choose to stay there is an implied consent to the exposure, it could even be argued that if an employer continues to work in that environment knowing the risks that they have consented since they could in theory just quit.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:44 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Well you are arguing that some drug habits do not involve people aside from the user. Not true. They can affect their children, their spouses, their employers, their friends, etc. And it isn't just a matter of self-destruction - if you have a crack addicted single mother, there is an excellent chance their lives will be irreparably damaged by her actions. Her liberty ends where their peril begins. Period.
True; and is that not the place for child protective services to remove those kids from a harmful environment - illegal drugs will define a black market and people will always ruin their lives even when it means abandoning their responsibilities and obligations, the argument is not one of being pro-drugs, rather one of supporting decriminalisation and the ending of the war on drugs and associated policies which have failed time after time; it's not utopian to think that a certain proportion of people are going to abuse drugs if they are legal or not.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 07:59 PM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 PM
Heres a question since at the extremes we have been arguing I am forced to defend negative outcomes - what do people believe the role of the state, the role of society and the role of the individual is in the way we live our lives; is it better to have a system where the state enforces social norms with force at the expense of individual choice (sodomy laws and executions) - a situation where individual choice is held as the benchmark and there is no legal limitations (over the counter OxyContin, protected hate speech, legal discrimination and robust property laws) - or one where the state will enforce a degree of control that most people find acceptable and rely on society to dissuade the rest (social democracy)

What does your view of this have to say about
> Censorship and free speech
> Drug use and abuse
> Government monitoring of your personal information and the removal of civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism
> The marriage contract
> Welfare
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 08:06 PM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

Hilarious!

I'm gonna keep this one around next time we have an abortion debate or a gay marriage debate. [/B][/QUOTE]

And what of debates on genocide or slavery. Shall we leave morality at the door for them as well?
I'm not sure you have a grasp on the writings of C.S. Lewis.
Quote:
"Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks and cranks who do that... The real job of every moral teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple principles which we are all so anxious not to see."
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com