Just butting in here.I think the libertarianism that TL espouses, probably would have worked out fine if it was practiced from the outset, and it falls in line with what the founders envisioned, I believe.The problem is, that it wasn't. The government, particularly through the 20th century, pushed itself further and further into the business of the people, As a result, we have tens of millions of people that have no education, no skills, and are completely unable to feed, clothe and house themselves. They are dependent on government, not just for the little bit of money they get, but for everything about their lives.It's a shame too. These people have no handicaps, and yet the government has managed to strip them of all self respect, dignity, drive to do better.......................Freedom. Many of these people have no idea what freedom is. It has been redefined as a right to more handouts, free birth control and abortions. That's the entire list!Much like North Korea couldn't do an overnight shift to a system based on freedom, without the population crumbling under the weight of it due to it's unfamiliarity, the US has also reached a point, that a sudden shift to our founding principles, (that we never should have deviated from), would leave millions of of people not knowing what to do.As we saw in the aftermath of Katrina, and due to government social experimentation and tampering, people have even lost the basic human survival instinct. They sit and wait.If we started on reversing this today, it would take a generation to undo it. Ain't gonna happen though. Obama has even struck down Clinton's successful welfare to work program, and is working diligently to create millions more of these people.Had we stuck to the Ron Paul style of libertarianism from the beginning, we would have a self reliant, educated, common sense citizenry, and drug laws would not be necessary. But that's not the way it happened. A sudden change back to the way it always should have been, would be a disaster.
What a wonderful world that would be. No speed limits, no traffic laws.
No laws against any drugs or driving while on them. No laws against sex with minors of any age, as long as it was consensual.
You sure do have a lot of faith in human nature to always do the right thing. It's not something I share.
I have to disagree with the conclusion you have come to here.People respond to incentives. And we are highly adaptable.So yes under the incentives facing them it is rational to be a taker, rather than a self sufficient maker. And many people live that way. But they have the choice to.In a libertarian society the option would not exist. But hunger and needs of shelter and clothing do.So the incentives change and productive acts become "worth it." They become worth it because working and producing is better than starving- no matter how accustomed to being taken care of one may be.
If roads are privately owned then you agree to abide by the speed limits, etc that come with using that road. In that sense, law exists, but it is still tied to property rights. The owner of the road requires those who use it to respect his stipulations and failure to do so would be a property rights violation of the owner.Driving intoxicated and hitting some would be a property rights violation, and hence something that is in the bounds of a law limited to property rights enforcement.The sex with minors thing is tricky. Parents have the right to control the associations their children are involved in, but a child on their own, who takes care of themselves would be free to make their own decisions about sex.No, it is the opposite.I recognize that humans are flawed and therefore do not trust them to rule over others. Therefore I am an anarchist.And since humans are so flawed the law cannot be subject to their whim. It needs a clear and objective purpose to escape being the arbitrary whim of some politician. And that is protection of property rights.
I recognize that humans are flawed and therefore do not trust them to rule over others. Therefore I am an anarchist.
That's a very naive position.I don't like what the government has done any more than you do. But.............according to your philosophy, there would be nothing wrong with taking a third generation zoo animal and just turning it loose in the habitat that it's species had originally come from. Instinct would take over, and the animal would just "know" what needed to be done to survive.We both know that wouldn't happen, and I think the same can be said for the human species. Millions have never experienced self reliance, in any way, shape or form. To suddenly remove them from the government teat, would create widespread chaos. But maybe that's what you want.
The founders of the country also recognized that humans are flawed, and the government was never intended to rule over anyone.They also understood that laws were a necessary evil. And they went beyond simple property rights.So you have a basic disagreement with the founding of the country?
You're the one being naive here!Do you really think human action is so static? You forget how adaptable humans are. We survive in concentration camps, war zones, in prisons, alone in the woods, alone on a boat in the ocean...Humans survive. It is what we do.A zoo animal is not a human- it does not reason.Let's not down play the role of incentives in shaping behavior.Do you really think a welfare queen is going to sit on her duff and starve to death because the government checks stopped?Lets not be so naive as to downplay the incredible power of want and need.Many of us live like parasites because we can. Take away that choice and people will find a way to meet their needs through production and exchange. Otherwise they will starve and die.And the incentive to stay alive is much stronger than the incentive to be lazy.
People die while lost at sea or out in the wilderness all the time.
Maybe you are smoking pot.
They don't just adapt to the new surroundings and thrive.
Surviving in prison? Well...........yeah. For many, prison is not much different than the lives they were living. Of course they survive.
Your position is not defendable.
I really wish you were right though. It would make things a hell of a lot easier.http://urbantimes.co/2010/08/hurricane-katrina-pain-index-2010-orleans-years/hurricane-katrina-victims-2/
Good question, why not?I know that when Bayer was selling heroin it was a much safer substance.As an individualist and an anarchist I only support laws dealing with property rights violations.
Why not? That is your answer?You conveniently avoided mind altering drugs like lSD and Bathsalts.If were going to go down that road, shouldn't we legalize all drugs?
You neglect history, society deemed drugs to be harmful and wanted laws controlling them, that meant all drugs.Truth is, drugs are a scourge on a peaceful, productive society and society has the right to decide what it deems good, regardless of what you claim as a loss of freedom.Shouldn't I be allowed to walk naked with 100 dogs on a leash down main street? After all, I'm not harming anyone?
Sure they do.And many survive.Are you denying the human drive to survive? Are you denying the human ability to adapt?If so then how did we get here?Bravo. Take the yawn cowardly way out and go personal!You really suggest that humans living today are so used to receiving handouts that even the risk of starvation is not enough to get them off their butts and producing?Good luck defending that!And they adapt to the changing incentives facing them.Tell me- what do you know about human action and incentive structures?Oh no?I have done a good job thus far. What I have not seen is you defend yours.I am supposed to take it on your authority that humans are so changed from what they were that they are incapable of taking care of themselves.Nonsense on stilts.That is just an argument for preserving the status quo.Much of the victimization going on during Katrina was done by the police themselves.Which goes to the heart of what I am saying about the state.
Is that not what I said?
No, for it is a violation of property rights to walk down a road in such a fashion that is not yours.
And the history of drug laws was not about society wanting anything. It was about specific business interests wanting to limit competition and labor groups wanting to end competition from migrant workers.
The law is not the place to enforce your personal brand of morality or your preferences on what other people should do.It is about protecting life and property.
I agree with your views on weed, being that there are worse drugs available at present for legal consumption, so we might as well cut out the drug lords and make state money. However I dont believe people are capable of completely governing themselves. Anarchy+Greedy nature+lack of education and religions= Screwed... Evolutionary speaking, we just aren't there yet.Curious, are you a Zeitgeister?
I hate the status quo.Yes. I maintain that suddenly taking everyone that is living off the government, off the programs, would lead to a major increase in crime. Not a major increase in all of them getting jobs....................they have no skills, therefore, simply getting jobs is off the table.Arguing with you is pointless though, since I don't understand anarchism...................particularly as a solution to our current problems. It appears to be all over the map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism