Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please. (Read 759 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23292
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Reply #90 - Dec 3rd, 2017 at 8:51am
Print Post  
merkelstan wrote on Dec 3rd, 2017 at 8:08am:
Is it ok to 'punch a Communist'?
I can't figure out why you think I'm on a "slippery slope" that leads to exactly what I am arguing against.

It's good to identify communism, when it's enforced by the state as a "system" of political economy, as evil, but even communists who understand the evil nature of communism are free to advocate for communism...

Perhaps they feel "intellectually castrated" when I say that communism as a government enforced "system" is evil... What's that to me? I support their right to advocate evil ideas and would vote to convict someone who assaulted them for what they said... unless what they said was verbal assault. Then it might be a difficult decision. Such things must be judged on an individual basis when you are in possession of the facts.

Is it OK to punch me for saying state enforced communism is evil?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4756
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Reply #91 - Dec 3rd, 2017 at 11:45am
Print Post  
merkelstan wrote on Dec 3rd, 2017 at 8:08am:
I missed where SkyChief said he wanted to outlaw Tiger ownership.

Did you, SkyChief?

I never did.  I asserted that IF tiger ownership were outlawed, it wouldn't be immoral, whereas outlawing gun ownership would.  But I never said I wanted to outlaw Tiger ownership.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5925
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Reply #92 - Dec 3rd, 2017 at 1:29pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Dec 3rd, 2017 at 11:45am:
I never did.  I asserted that IF tiger ownership were outlawed, it wouldn't be immoral, whereas outlawing gun ownership would.  But I never said I wanted to outlaw Tiger ownership.


The problem of gun violence needs to get worse before it can get better. But that also calls for ending the corruption in government that is being held hostage by the NRA's executives.

Their members are so far powerless even though they are 90% n favour of more laws to limit guns.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1065
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Reply #93 - Dec 3rd, 2017 at 2:15pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Dec 3rd, 2017 at 1:29pm:
The problem of gun violence needs to get worse before it can get better. But that also calls for ending the corruption in government that is being held hostage by the NRA's executives.

Their members are so far powerless even though they are 90% n favour of more laws to limit guns.
Should we pass more gun laws or enforce existing ones?  Which should we do first?

It seems like common sense that new laws are irrelevant until we show potential gun criminals that we can enforce existing ones, but maybe you have a different idea about how new laws will be effective even if we don't enforce them?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5280
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Reply #94 - Dec 3rd, 2017 at 4:37pm
Print Post  
merkelstan wrote on Dec 3rd, 2017 at 8:08am:
I missed where SkyChief said he wanted to outlaw Tiger ownership.

Did you, SkyChief?

Jeff has a slippery slope argument here.  Is it ok to 'punch a Communist'?


SkyChief wrote on Dec 1st, 2017 at 1:26pm:
If government were to ban guns, it would take away our means of self-defense, and that would be immoral.   If government were to ban (ownership of) tigers, no rights were violated - it is not immoral.


He says no rights are violated, which means it should be up to the democratic process, and far fewer people want to enjoy a pet tiger than not, so the only logical result is that tigers will be morally banned.

If he says no rights are violated when tiger ownership is banned, then I say no rights are violated when drugs are banned. It's far easier to use a tiger for self-defence than a crack needle. (Hmm... actually that's debatable. I know which one I'd run from faster, but that's because I don't have AIDS. I would imagine an actual aggressor is less likely to care.)

If it's not immoral to ban things, then logic dictates I use my vote to minimise risk to myself. Since I understand druggos are a risk to me, I will vote to ban drugs and, if possible, for more enforcement.

I would also select for alcohol to be illegal, since I don't enjoy that too much either and it also represents individuals with compromised judgment who pose a risk to others because they are drunk. If alcohol is banned (and actually enforced) that represents plus to me, so if it's not immoral I say ban alcohol.

Now, by the time we go through this for everything that poses a risk or even an annoyance to others, everything will be banned. I just did a quick search and found that only 36% of households own dogs. They bark, they sometimes bite, and they kill 20-30 people every year.

The logical course of action for the remaining 64% of households is to ban dogs. They lose nothing, it's not immoral, and even though the risk is tiny this is a pure gain to them. And it should be up to majority decision, right? Barring immorality of a ban, shouldn't the people choose?

So we see how, if banning tigers is not immoral, everything eventually gets banned.

But so be it. I don't give a %$#&. I just don't want people inventing a right to take drugs while I don't have a right to own a tiger.

Jeff wrote on Dec 3rd, 2017 at 7:50am:
You can talk about racism leading to a better world by the extermination all the inferior 'others' if you are so inclined, but it is evil speech that leads to evil actions.


Jeff wrote on Dec 3rd, 2017 at 7:50am:
I wouldn't worry much about logical thinking individuals starting to think that racism is good because they heard my arguments explaining my belief that talking about evil actions in order to convince people that evil is actually good is evil in itself. Such evil speech is permitted.

You accused me of "intellectually castrating you", now you claim I have been "shouting you down, banning you and denouncing your views."


That's right, I do. The same way racism leads to the holocaust, your rabid anti-racism leads to Dissident Right getting banned.

If you and others didn't care so much, the mod wouldn't. By your own damn definition, your speech is evil because it led to evil actions.

I don't accept that definition. I'm just holding you to yours.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23292
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Reply #95 - Dec 3rd, 2017 at 5:06pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Dec 3rd, 2017 at 4:37pm:
That's right, I do. The same way racism leads to the holocaust, your rabid anti-racism leads to Dissident Right getting banned.

Sure, I could probably see the equivalence if I was evil like you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4756
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Reply #96 - Dec 4th, 2017 at 12:55pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Dec 3rd, 2017 at 4:37pm:
If it's not immoral to ban things, then logic dictates I use my vote to minimise risk to myself. Since I understand druggos are a risk to me, I will vote to ban drugs and, if possible, for more enforcement.

Iv'e been voting for over 42 years - never had the opportunity to vote for the ban of a drug. 

I DID have the opportunity to vote for legalization of a drug, though.  Prop 64 passed!   Possession and use of Marijuana is now 100% legal in California.    Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5925
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Reply #97 - Dec 4th, 2017 at 1:13pm
Print Post  
It's hard to find a place to buy it because of the resistance of the rabid christian right. People like burnsred will never accept the people having the freedom to do as they choose with marijuana.

In that respect he's less libertarian than the others on this forum.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23292
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Reply #98 - Dec 4th, 2017 at 4:42pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Dec 4th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Iv'e been voting for over 42 years - never had the opportunity to vote for the ban of a drug. 

Smiley
The problem has been, you almost never got to vote for anybody that wanted to stop banning drugs (except the libertarians, who couldn't win ever anywhere so why waste your vote on them).

The TwoParties "progressives" of all types have been banning drugs since 1930, more and more of them as time goes on.

Looking at it as a political economy issue, black markets generate large profits. The only known way to eliminate black markets is to let markets be free.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1065
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Reply #99 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 9:41am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Dec 4th, 2017 at 4:42pm:
The problem has been, you almost never got to vote for anybody that wanted to stop banning drugs (except the libertarians, who couldn't win ever anywhere so why waste your vote on them).

The TwoParties "progressives" of all types have been banning drugs since 1930, more and more of them as time goes on.

Looking at it as a political economy issue, black markets generate large profits. The only known way to eliminate black markets is to let markets be free.
The way it has evolved, there would not be any need to vote to ban a drug.  Under FDA rules, drugs are automatically banned as soon as they are created until the FDA gets around to ruling them legal.  The large pharmas don't mind that system at all.  It may eat into profits that they could make by releasing drugs immediately but it also makes it nearly impossible for a smaller competitor to enter the market.

The fact that we meekly go along with this while our loved ones die waiting for life-saving drugs to be approved shows how far away we have gotten from freedom.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Libertarian Ideas and Principles Only Please.
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy