ParanoiA

It's interesting' date=' you seem to be having similiar thoughts to me in terms of direct democracy. I think Athenian democracy itself actually had every citizen(meaning adult male) vote on every decision to be made; thereby avoiding the need for a parliament, senate or congress.

[/quote']

 

I thought they still had some representatives of some kind though. I don't know. But some kind of entity would have to prioritize, draft and put bills in motion I would think. Whatever the case, yeah I've been chewing on it for awhile. Maybe we should start a thread on it, if one hasn't been done already.

 

 

The only problem I can forsee which such a system, is that it is held hostage to the mindset of ppls,and if this can be manipulated by external forces; then so can the country.

 

I completely agree. That is my same concern. What about a weighted system though? For example, a drafted senator's vote could have a weight of 33%, while the people's vote has a weight of 67%. I'm not sure I like that actually, but thought I'd toss it out there.

ParanoiA, I'm not sure I understand the gist of your position. With regards to child pornography, are you saying it should be up to individual citizens to make the moral decision and not support it?

Well, with respect to what's going on in other countries, yes. Not my own, because it is and would still be illegal. We're talking about free international markets. If I don't like country "A" because they make child pornography, then I can organize and punish country "A" economically - however little or much it may be. It's not up to my government to police the world.

We don't seem to have any issues with slaves in India and child sex trafficing in a dozen countries now and we're not even a libertarian government, so this is not a unique idea, nor a change from the status quo.

How many of these people do you think exist in a government database? 70%? 50%? 20%? I'm betting on the last one or below. The reason that 10m illegal aliens live in this country is that there is no pressing need to deport them.

Actually there is a pressing need to deport them - jobs and integrity. The arguments I keep hearing from the left is that they do the work the rest of americans won't do. This is true. Americans won't frame a house for 2 dollars an hour. However, this is illegal. I'll bet I can force my kids to do the same thing for a dollar an hour - so is everyone going to come to their defense and claim they're doing the work the rest of us won't do?

It's asinine to me. Democrats are actually in favor of holding these immigrants down - keeping them beat down to working under minimum wage rather than fighting for their integrity and demanding fair wages. And these poor immigrants are marching and protesting in favor of it. Shocking to me.

They really won't. The govt. may not make us pay up front, but we will pay. The govt. don't actually have any money of their own. It all comes from our taxes. So, all the money national ID cards have/will cost in research and develpoment, manufacture delivery and infrastructure (readers, databases etc.) we have already paid/will ultimately pay for.

Great point. This is why government should be by the people, for the people. It's the people that pay for it.

I am generally in favour of an ID card with biometric info on it. The only thing I would insist on was that we didn't have to carry it by law.

 

On the other hand' date=' while I would be happy with an ID card in the UK, I probably wouldn't be happy in the US, because I simply wouldn't trust the government.[/quote']

 

You don't believe your government would ever become untrustworthy? Laws don't usually fizzle out. They stay around for a long, long time...

Do you conceed my point that free-markets just become a matter of degree once you are willing to have some constraints? If you do, then your next step should be to list the things you think a government should restrict, and see if we agree.

Well sure it's just a matter of degree, but that's just math. If it was constraint-free it's just zero. Add one lousy law and suddenly we've crossed some major threshold? The political ideology graph is defined by degree of control over personal and economic issues.

Off the top of my head I can think of restricting/regulating monopolies, chemicals, toxic waste and etc...anything that undermines the free market or national security is up for pragmatic override in my book.

Really? You would feel no moral qualms about giving money to slavers? What about child pornography - should that be legal if the abused child is abroad?

Of course I would. In terms of government position, it's none of our business. In terms of society, we can make it our business by not supporting any of that country's products or motivate a labor stoppage at their US facilities since we will soon become a tax shelter for manufacturing.

That's what I said in my previous post. When we recognize our power in organization and collective cooperation, we can be more responsive and effective as a free will society rather than the big government umbrella. When your government takes a stand against another country, it implicates all americans, whether they support it or not. With the free will approach, a stand is only taken when all americans are truly in support of it.

It's the same public, government and society, but one is an institution while the other is individual. When we take the power away from the government we will learn how to apply it as individuals - power of pursuasion. I believe this would integrate into our culture resulting in a more informed and proactive society.

Just like I'm participating now in not purchasing any miller products due to their support of illegal immigration.

What gives you the right to choose your own behaviour? What gives you the right to disobey my commands? Rights are very abstract things, and I think we have been molded into a very rigid viewpoint on rights by our society. In fact, I think this is one of the factors at the heart of our problems with Islam.

Rights aren't abstract at all. Generally speaking, we all have a natural idea of what is right and wrong based on empathy and pity. The degree we differ can be viewed as the gray area of right and wrong. It's easy to agree that murder is wrong, therefore we should have a right to not be murdered. People use the phrase "god given rights" because it's almost instinctive. We all have that innate inclination to free will - liberty - rights.

To go back even further, consider the logistics necessary for a large group of humans to cooperatively exist. Humans can't live together successfully while acting out their instinctive, violent behavior on each other. We group up and establish rules of conduct at a bare minimum. The axiom for establishing these rules, at some point, will boil down to rights or a long list of wrongs.

Rights are an easy line in the sand and necessary for a nation of laws, such as a democracy. Wrongs seem to be the focus of Islam, and yes, it's a problem. And ours are for sale right now...

For example, what gives the democratic majority the right to tell the minority what to do? This is at the very heart of democracy, but isn't it a restriction of freedom? A true libertarian would think so...

I don't know how true of a libertarian I am since I have several issues with the ideology at its core, but yes I do have a problem with majority rule about everything. I feel the same as Jefferson and Madison in that majority rule is not really a great idea, it's only better than the alternatives.

But, I don't think it's that bad when personal freedoms are not trampled on. When those freedoms are protected, the majority rule is at least plural. The thing is, majority rule is why we have victimless crime and other laws that tread on civil liberties - they're not being protected. And that's what Madison was concerned about.

A democratically restricted government is not truely libertarian. If you are going to accept restrictions on the market in any form (eg. a government which sets laws) then you have accepted the need to regulate the free-market. Then it only becomes an argument on the degree[/b'] of regulation.

Sounds like you're confusing libertarian with anarchy. And no ideology is employed 100% and no sane person believes 100% in any ideology. I can accept limited restrictions on the free market and still be quite libertarian. Just like a conservative can be pro-choice and still be quite conservative.

The kind of regulation in place today would be stripped away almost entirely, with a bare minimum of checks and balances for responsibility's sake if I had my way about it. Monopolies pose a serious threat to the balance of a free market, for one.

That would make some freedoms impossible. If south-east Asia can produce something cheaper because their populations have little freedom' date=' then we would have to either mimic their government or get out of the game.

 

I think most people who identify with the libertarian ideas concerning welfare are on the right track, but fundamentally wrong (). The current problem doesn't come with the welfare [i']itself[/i] but with the way it is given out. From a far away government to anyone who says they want it.

 

Municipal controlled welfare, and a strong city government (and proportionally weaker federal government) would all but solve these problems.

Many feel that welfare is an attitude. And liberals tend to be enablers. If welfare recipients were forced to work for their benefits, there wouldn't be but a fraction of folks on welfare. So, I do agree with you in that the way it is given out creates part of the problem.

However, I don't think it's the government's job to do this. You'd be amazed at how motivated people get when the permanent safety net is gone. Americans are not going to let people starve on the street. Charity will work. But charity is doled out by people who have to control their contribution. It's not a limitless money supply that can be augmented with the stroke of a pen.

This forces people to make changes in their life and do what they need to do to get what they need.

Canada has the same problem, so in order to faciliate the process of pre-paided gas they make the gas attendants pay for the stolen gas if they don't get the plates. Well that's my theory anyway. It's pretty weak to make the attendant responsible for it. Great system eh?

Sounds like both solutions are just shucking the loss off onto someone else. Classic big business model.

Well, I find it interesting no one brought up anything about victimless crime.

This is actually my biggest issue with this country. There are so many people in prison right now - jailed for their behavior only. Two consenting adults agree to sex for money rather than sex for free. Jailed. People all over this land grow a plant that the government doesn't like, which is arguably safer than alcohol. Jailed. That's sick.

That's the heart of libertarianism. No victim = no crime. Who are any of you to tell me I can't smoke a joint? What gives you the right to regulate my behavior? Who am I to tell you, you can't eat a box of twinkies? Where do we get off judging people and throwing them in jail for their behavior? It's sick. It's wrong. Good, hard-working moms and dads sitting in prison with their familiy torn to pieces because they got caught buying a bag of pot.

I just don't see how anyone can pass judgement on people's behavior like that and still sleep at night.

This is a classic case of impacting the majority to stop the minority.

It's like QuikTrip here in Missouri. They have had an increase in gas runs so now, cash customers have to register their name, SSN#, address, - personal info - and QT gives them a gas ID card. So, when you want to pump your gas you have to swipe that ID card first, then they'll trust you and start the pump - you can pay when you're done. Or, you can avoid all of that and use a credit card.

This kind of thing impacts the majority of customers, just so QT can keep an incredibly small fraction of people from ripping them off. If there weren't credit cards, people would be pissed.

This is the same kind of thing. It causes hassle for all of us, just to stop a minority of people getting away with something and from what I understand it won't even work.

Not to mention all of the government invasion. There is already so much privacy violation going on that nobody cares anymore. Status quo is not good in this area. You think it's harmless now. Think ahead. Think beyond your lifetime or your children's lifetimes. Think about incrementalism and how laws like this snowball. Think about the Patriot Act. It's the same kind of civil liberty violation.

There may be associated costs with the foreign products which are not factored in. For example' date=' what if the foreign product was made using slave labour? What if the proceeds from the sale went to fund terrorist activities?

[/quote']

 

Good point. Slave labor in some other country is none of my business and terrorist activities sounds like a national security issue.

 

One thing to consider: Society, in America anyway, behaves as it does by virtue of its environment. We're not used to handling things on our own - almost never. Everytime we have a problem with something or see something we don't like, we want a law to fix it. We demand legislation. We don't cooperate and organize to make change enough in this country.

 

In a libertarian society, the public has more power. The public can effectively override any law when it's cooperative and not forced.

 

So, products made via slave labor? It wouldn't be difficult at all for society to boycott those products and hurt that country even more than anything we have in place today. They could take it as far as they want. You're left with a more informed and proactive society. They have to be, because the government doesn't do all of their thinking for them anymore.

Why?

A free-market is one mechanism for distributing good and services. You may thing it is a good method' date=' but others may not. Why do these others have to conform to your method of distribution?

 

A libertarian position is assuming that the free-market will provide people with the things they need, and the things that will make their lives better (if it doesn't, what is the point?). I disagree that it does.

 

I am not saying that things can't be regulated best by the free-market - I think many things can. I am saying that the free-market is not always the best method, and I think the people should decide what sort of society they want to live in via a democratic government.[/quote']

 

I'm confused why you think a libertarian government isn't democratic. I don't think anyone would be in favor of an imposed libertarian government - it isn't possible by definition.

 

So, conforming to my method of distribution? There's nothing to conform to. That's the whole point. Why should I have to conform to government supported monopolies, like water, electric and gas? Why should I have to give up 20 to 30 percent of my paycheck to support programs and people that I don't agree with nor believe in?

 

A free market is about choice, not conformity. I don't see where that idea is coming from.

 

Over and over again the free market has proven itself more effective and more responsive to people's needs.

 

Did you notice how fast Wal-mart mobilized to help with Katrina? That wasn't a government mandate. That was big business seizing an opportunity. Good PR and people get help at the same time - a win-win scenario. Certianly much better than the governor of NO.

 

Private schools run circles around public schools and do it with less money. And remember the Carb counting fad? It wasn't a week after I heard about it and every restaruant and fast food drive thru had Carbs posted next their meals.

 

They'll sell you whatever you want, quickly and efficiently. And with competition, it stays fair. They will always perform better than the government. But....

 

All that said, I still believe in anti-trust laws. I still believe in state-run police and fire. I still believe in the FDA. There is a limit, and pragmatism should override idealism. But, I think alot of times what people believe is pragmatic, really isn't. Tarrifs is such a thing, in my opinion. I agree with doG, it sounds like it's just patching holes.

 

And for the record, that's going to be the case with all government ideologies. Not even libertarianism is perfect, but it's close!

I scored as a hard core Libertarian in the very top corner of the graph. I agree with all of the test statements.

Wow. You're the real McCoy. I only "disagreed" with the involuntary military thing.

But when you really get into the platform ideology, you don't have any reservations with it?

I got Centerist (40%' date=' 30%).

 

The problem with libertarianism is that it equates the word 'good' with 'free-trade', i.e. practioners assume that something must be good if it is an outcome of free-trade. I disagree with this. [/quote']

 

By free-trade are you referring to international trading mainly, or the free market?

 

I ask because I've heard it explained, and I don't necessarily agree with this, that if countries are tangled up economically, it decreases the likelihood of war to resolve conflicts.

 

However, I do like the idea of becoming a tax shelter for other countries in order to bring business into the states. The opposite of what's happening now.

 

I also disagree that the best thing for people is to give them what they want.

 

It always reminds me of the naturalist fallacy.

 

I've never seen that in the description of libertarianism. I think the point is that we don't infer what's the best thing for people - rather taking responsibility for yourself and your actions. But I can see where the self indulgence = naturalist fallacy. The thing is, that's subjective and people should learn that on their own rather than the government deciding for them.

The quiz says I'm slightly left of centrist, but I've never felt much like a liberal. In fact, many of my foreign policy opninions are downright conservative. Is there a place for me out there?

Yeah, I have two conservative buddies here at work that got labeled left of centrist as well. I think it's the personal freedom issues that do that. If you answer the personal section all "Agree" and the economic section all "disagree" then you get a straight up liberal. The oppostie and you get a straight up conservative.

You probably are mostly conservative, but a little more open to personal freedoms??

I've been a self described Libertarian for years, since my views seem to line up with that particular ideology more than the others. But there are some fundamental issues I have with it and I wondered if others are the same.

And, just for fun, I advise anyone to take this quickie quiz. Everyone I know that's tried this found they were more libertarian than they thought.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

The problems I see about libertarianism, so far, is this idea of a privatized police force. I don't even see why I would have to formulate an argument to explain why that one sounds bad.

Also, I'm not cool with the complete abolition of welfare, because I think we should always support war veterans, the disabled and the elderly - but that's it. Charity can help those of us who fall down and need some help getting back up - not carrying us around like welfare does. Although, I did answer "agree" on that question in the quiz.

What do you all think?

I, for one, have ammended my position on christianity since the start of this thread. Excellent response by Dak. I don't know why I hadn't considered those terror attacks by the IRA and such. Although, I do believe alot of that had to do with British domination in the region. Of course, the Arab region can claim the same.

But, I think Bettina's point overrides this because the advancement of weaponry, particularly nuclear, makes this kind of extremism more dangerous than any examples of it before.

You could make a case that Christianity and Islam are both guilty of racist or violent intent, albeit limited and sparse relevant to the total amount of content available by each religion's documentation. But, the extremism that resulted from this has not been threatening enough to wipe out so many people, so easily and with so little effort as is possible today.

I still believe that Islam has more of a blatant racist tone than Christianity, but I'm also beginning to think that's like saying Stalin was worse than Hitler. Neither have anything to brag about.

At this point it's too dangerous to all of humanity and its future, to allow this kind of religion to go unchecked when it is the law of the land rather than a freedom of worship under a secular government. The maturity of Islam needs to be on a fast track and I, admittedly, have no idea how to implement that.

my point was that the risk of pregnancy remains the same between the teenage and adult years, as long as the same contraceptive measures are in place. When contraceptives are available and there is a solid educational backing for their use, then there is no reason to think that teenagers having sex is irresponsible in and of itself.

I agree. I've always questioned the wisdom in holding teenagers back about sex in the first place. They have such a natural urge to do it with all of that hormonal activity, it seems abstinence is doomed to fail. And since that teaches basically nothing and at its best, just postpones their sexual discovery, I really don't see the sense in it. And I'm not so sure adults aren't even more casual about sex than teens, with more sexual partners - but definitely better educated about it.

I've also been kicking around the idea of condensing schooling, so that kids are graduating from high school at 14. We challenge our children so little, in terms of scholastics, so keeping them busy and forcing the 12 year curriculum into 8 years doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Then, when teens are exploring their sexuality and the reproductive hormones begin to take over, they're at least done with the fundamentals of education. At that point, teen pregnancy jeopardizes their college future, not their high school future.

This may not stay true. Many of those that are niether Arab or Jew are starting to say' date=' "A Semite is a Semite, is a Semite.", with the implication being that if we turned the whole middle east into a slag heap, we would thereby 'solve' the problem.

aguy2[/quote']

 

Would be great if it worked...

I hate to drag this more off topic' date=' but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What kind of socialist regulation of behavior is at work here? For that matter, what do you mean in general? How are more socialized nations (that is, democratic, industrialized ones, like Sweden) more socially judgemental, and in what ways are behavior regulated because of that. (Maybe this needs a new topic...)[/quote']

 

Yeah, I don't want to poison this thread either. And I think I misinterpreted the intent in the first place. There's really no talk of laws and legality going on. I misunderstood.

I apologize if I misunderstood' date=' but I don't think I have. I've hit those same quotes when I googled. I also googled different interpretation of the same verse.

 

Let's say I state ones that are contrary to yours. Who is correct? even if you stated the source, which one is better?

 

The only problem I had was that it was assumed from the beginning that one source of questionable authenticity gathered from the internet was the set axiom for the whole discussion. I came in saying that it wasn't true, not that my sources were correct, but the axiom was false, it wasn't widely excepted that it was the true translation (whether or not it is).

 

It's like asking a group of people do you agree with "statement A"? and 5 people say no, yet they get ignored.

 

So to me I don't see it as a done deal. How that relates to the OP is that whether or not censorship is necessary, and about realism. I felt that it wasn't realism if one ignores that there is another side to it. At the same time I don't think anyone was being racist either.

 

Hopefully that makes more sense. hopefully.[/quote']

 

I didn't believe my source was the set axiom for the whole discussion. I guess I didn't question the source since I've used a variety of google results in these discussions. They've all been pretty much the same. I didn't realize this was such an issue. Although, I have noticed many posters use that site - http://www.hti.umich.edu/.

 

When you say you googled a different interpretation, do you mean a different translation? I would like to see that. Why didn't you include that in your reply here?

 

I have not presented Islam as being racist as "truth", I have presented it as being racist per my "belief", based on evidence, some of which I have provided. I started out on the other side of it, so I think I've given it a fair shake.

 

The "truth" I was eluding to earlier in this thread has to do with the freedom to pursue it - even if it offends the followers of Islam to do so. I also agree, I don't think it's racist to do that.

Oh I completely agree' date=' I am just saying that the good thing is being accompanied by a 'bad thing' -- just like your example, there are examples of non-free rules (whatchamacall it the terrorism-law thing where the government can listen to everyone.. is another example).

 

In any case, it's the same in Israel and England, it wasn't my point as much as trying to think if maybe the fact that both england and israel are semi-socialistic have something to do with the fact there are little to no teen pregnancy..

 

I'm trying to figure out what it is that causes it.

It might be the size, of course, but I don't even think Israel has the similar percentage of American pregnant teens..

Interresting.

 

~moo[/quote']

 

I think it's this taboo mentallity here in the states that causes alot of the problems. We have pop culture glorifying sexuality while the legislative side won't allow it to be discussed as openly in educational settings, and parents are scared to death of it, so the end result is an imbalance in the message...IMHO.

 

And I can't help but to put part of the blame on society's influence by christianity as well, since it has quite an unhealthy relationship with sex. I really think this is what sets the tone of it being "dirty" and forbidden here, being the dominate religion. So, yeah, there isn't alot of open discussion about it compared to other more socially progressive societies.

 

 

I say it's a non-sequitor because, as far as I can see, socialism has nothing to say one way or the other about anything we've been talking about.

 

Text book socialism, no. But practical socialism, most certainly. Most of the more socialist countries tend to be more socially judgemental, yet liberal. It's odd, to me. It seems like socialism comes from the vein of regulating behavior while still seemingly encouraging tolerance. It's basically the government legislating behavior. I like the latter whereas I despise the former. That's what I see my country doing more and more everyday.

 

And that has everything to do with this issue. This drug should be available because of our rights to accessibility - not regulated to promote certain public behavior.

Honestly, I think I'll just go. This is not what I signed on for. I fled other forums because of all the immaturity present in the posts. An intelligent mind was difficult to find. I came here because I thought I could escape the silly childish crap that goes along with most forums.

Instead, some of your most popular posters have turned out to be intelligent but at a price. It seems smart people think they have a right to be rude to folks who have differing opinions or maybe it's just insecurity issues. I don't see the sense in getting all worked up in a debate just because somebody doesn't agree with you.

Lastly, Dak, I understand your point. But that "text" I was referring to was a dictionary worthy example of hypocrisy. So I don't think it's fair to say it was an unsupported assertion on my part. I can only provide the support so much...eventually someone has to read it.

I completely agree with Mokele. And I'm probably guilty of using the wrong tone. I will try to keep that in mind in future posts. You can't pursuade someone by insulting them. And even if I have, what I believe, a good reason to condemn a religion, I should at least be respectful enough to use tact to get my point across. Otherwise, they're just going to lash out and never absorb the substance.

The point is that no-one has made a baby in a dish before, or anywhere outside of a womb. So honestly, it's pretty reasonable of me to doubt you when you say that you can.

See, that's what I would expect. A point. And that's a good one. I was under the impression that's what fertility clinics are doing everyday. Of course, you probably mean the entire growth schedule. I know we can't do that today, but we will be able to in the future. We will be able to artificially recreate all of the functions of the womb.

That was a reply to a suggestion from someone else that it took a womb to make a baby, implantation...etc. So, I was trying to make the point that all of these processes can be artificially done, but fertilization will still be required. I know, it's weak, but that was my point.

And when I said I could grow a baby in a dish, I think it was more than obvious I didn't mean myself personally. Weird that you would comment on something so meaningless.