You're not a Libertarian if…

[jj]

No, I haven't been "corrected", I have been exposed to your personal opinion. That's not "correction", and we both know that.

You wish us all to accept your definitions BEFORE we enter a discussion, when your definitions are (is it carefully, I don't think so) arranged so as to presume your position.

That is neither a reasonable nor an equitable position on your part.

(edited for major typokinesis)

I will note, based on Cain's writing, that I may in fact have been misinformed about Rand's contributions to the foundation of the Libertarian party.

If so, then in fact there has never been any explicit or implicit requirement of the ethics of selfishness in the party.

I will, however, continue to argue that ethical selfishness, or something so similar as to be very hard to distinguish in practice, is necessary if Libertarianism is to have a snowball's chance in Dis of ever working.

 

[Earthborn]

In fact, I submit that it is the Big Government attitude that is selfish, since it is based on people demanding money that isn't theirs

The opposite can be said to be selfish too: people who want to keep all that money to themselves and not share it with anyone can also be called selfish. It is just a matter of how you look at it.

The problem with this sort of thing is that all human behaviour can be explained as selfish or altruisistic. In fact 'enlightened selfishness' results in pretty much the same behaviour as 'enlightened altruism'. An 'enlightened selfish' person may behave in ways that seem altruistic, but s/he only does it because s/he expects something for themselves in return. An 'enlightened altruisistic' person could behave in ways that seem selfish, but this person may only care for him/herself in order to be better able to care for others.

From a behaviouristic viewpoint, simply ignoring any 'intentions' and just looking at actual behaviour, both are completely interchangeable. So perhaps it is not even useful to make such a distinction.

The 'intentions' have a similarity: they are both 'enlightened', which in this case simply means that it works. If it doesn't work, that is if the selfish person doesn't get what he wants, and the altruistic person fails to help others, it is simply defined as not enlightened. What is apperently important is how effective the behaviour itself is, not the intention behind it.

I believe that any philosophy that is purely based on intentions, and even dares to explain all human behaviour as either selfish or altruistic is simply ignoring the fact that all behaviour is both at the same time, and there is no real difference between the two.

that others live their lives the way they want to.

This too can be explained in altruisistic terms. When people enjoy their lives and they see others in what they consider a worse situation, they want them to be as happy as they are by giving them a life similar to theirs.

So is it a bad thing or a good thing to want to describe how others are supposed to live their lives? It doesn't matter, because it wouldn't work anyway.

In neither case did any of the rebuttals stand up to scrutiny.

You claimed that asbestos producing companies stopped using the stuff in the sixties when it was discovered that it was dangerous. I showed you that its dangers were obvious to the ancient greeks. You can't be proven more wrong than that.

And all of my examples supporting my claim went ignored.

Perhaps because they weren't that convincing, because most people can easily find examples where free market companies did indeed pollute their own land.

There are reasons, other than just being good, to not put dangerous materials in your building or pollute your property.

Those reasons, whether they mean 'good for yourself' or 'good for everyone else', can simply be summarized with being 'good'.

But not all people are 'good'. Some people aren't 'good for themselves' or 'good for everyone else'. They make mistakes, they blunder... and sometimes they need someone to tell them what to do to avoid doing that.

No, it isn't, because the government is made up by the very same people they distrust. Yet, they think that somehow the government will magically act for good and be able to do good things that other people won't. That is a clear and necessary ramification of the argument. But their argument depends on it.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Whereas I've given numerous counterexamples how the free market is much better at encouraging good behavior than the government.

So, how does the free market do it? Can't any of its principles be used by the government, without flat-out privatizing things?

Once again, I must point out to you that "small" does not refer to the complexity of the government system, but to how much it intrudes into our lives.

So Harry Browne's arguments about which government programs are useless and can be scrapped, and the government can save money by simplifying things, are worthless now? All that matters is how much it 'intrudes into our lives', whatever that means.

I have yet to find one single example.

Look across the borders of your own little country.

Yet, such evidence is never acquired. The state just takes the power.

In a more or less functioning constitutional democracy, this isn't true. Such evidence must be presented to a parliament, where there are people who weigh such evidence against other things to consider. Mind you, there isn't a country in the world where this works smoothly all the time, but to claim that such evidence is never acquired is an exaggeration.

And I've compared it to the track record of free market solutions. There's just no contest.

I think many people will argue that those free market solutions simply cannot be compared to what the FDA is supposed to do. I also don't think you have convinced anyone that the FDA has a bad track record.

Allowing something means you're not going to stop it. Condoning means you approve of it. They're entirely different things.

So you are saying that my dictionary is wrong? Whatever...

Or you can do nothing; doing nothing doesn't mean you condone the actions.

True, but if you see how people are destroying themselves in some way, it may not be the most compassionate thing to do nothing. If you do nothing, it is rather meaningless whether you approve or disapprove of something.

 

[shanek]

False. While you've claimed to "show" that time and time again, you haven't shown anything to my satisfaction.

That means absolutely nothing. What matters as to what libertarianism is is what Libertarians SAY it is. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU SAY IT IS! It's OUR philosophy; WE'LL define it, thank you very much.

You making this claim is a strawman; YOU want libertarianism to be this way so that you can just get out of the debate by calling names. But it just isn't.

There is no irony in my statement, and you're avoiding the sixtifour, which is my point that libertarianism REQUIRES the practice of enlightened selfishness if it's to work,

No, it doesn't; you have NEVER shown this (despite repeated requests to do so) and I have refuted it many, many times.

Yeah, I agree, she ditched the party.

She didn't "ditch" the party—SHE WAS NEVER IN THE PARTY!!!

I just said half of that. I've simply pointed out the history,

No, you haven't. The history of Libertarianism goes back to Jefferson and Locke and Adam Smith and others of that era, long before Rand was even born. It was called "classical liberalism," until the term "liberal" ended up being coopted by the Socialists. So a new term for the concept had to be created.

and now you're upset with me again.

Because you're being your usual abusive self. You don't discuss; you only tear down those you don't agree with and call them names.

If you're claiming that she wasn't there at the beginning,

She wasn't. She never was.

or if you're claiming that enlightened self-interest is not entirely necessary in order for Libertarianism to work at all,

It isn't.

though, we don't agree, because then you're wrong.

Ah. "You're wrong." Such a brilliant argument. And you know this, how? Psychic powers? Why do you claim to know more about a concept than those who created and argue for it?

Ok, you can argue that one with Cain.

Don't want to. Cain's an even more abusive troll than you are.

No, I haven't been "corrected", I have been exposed to your personal opinion. That's not "correction", and we both know that.

Bull$#!7. You are making a claim about what Libertarians believe. I, as a Libertarian, am telling you that we DON'T believe that. We aren't arguing about the color of the sky here; you are making a claim about the opinions of Libertarians, and all I need to do to rebut that is to state my opinion as a Libertarian and show that it is contrary to your strawman.

And it is. So stop your whining.

You wish us all to accept your definitions

Yes, I wish to define what my own position is. So shoot me.

 

[shanek]

The opposite can be said to be selfish too: people who want to keep all that money to themselves and not share it with anyone can also be called selfish. It is just a matter of how you look at it.

No, it's not. You are setting up another false dichotomy: People either want the government to take everyone's money and use it for "good," or they want to keep it all and not share it.

I don't think the government has any legitimate claim to one penny of our money other than what we need to give it to secure and protect our rights. Your false dichotomy therefore shoehorns me into the other category: people who want to keep it all and not share it. Yet, every year I participate in the Relay for Life, the MS Walk, and the CROP Walk. I have collected cans of food for local food banks, performed in benefit concerts, and done many other things that have taken up either my money or my time to do good to others. And as the stats I've posted here from Giving USA about a bajillion times show, I'm hardly the only one.

For crying out loud, how can anyone look at the VOLUNTARY donations that came about after the 9/11 attacks for the families of the victims and for the restoration efforts claim that people are selfish and don't want to share?

Yes, there are a few selfish people, but on the whole people are generous and give of themselves to what they see as being a good cause. But even the selfish have rights, and you have no right to rob someone at gunpoint even if you do donate all the money to charity. The ends DO NOT justify the means.

I believe that any philosophy that is purely based on intentions, and even dares to explain all human behaviour as either selfish or altruistic is simply ignoring the fact that all behaviour is both at the same time, and there is no real difference between the two.

Lovely argument. What it has to do with libertarianism escapes me.

Intentions and motivations really don't enter into it. It's actions that we say must be examined. If an action is an initiation of force, I don't care what the intention is, then it is unjustified. As I said above, a robber who donates his gains to charity is still a robber.

On the other hand, Libertarians are very much against prosecuting "hate crimes" and other crimes based solely on motivation and intention...for pretty much the same reason. If someone committed murder, then he's a murderer; it doesn't matter if he's a black guy killing a black guy or a white guy killing a black guy. It's still murder.

So is it a bad thing or a good thing to want to describe how others are supposed to live their lives?

"Describe"? We have freedom of speech here; you can "describe" all you want. What you can't do is FORCE people to life their lives the way you think they should.

You claimed that asbestos producing companies stopped using the stuff in the sixties when it was discovered that it was dangerous. I showed you that its dangers were obvious to the ancient greeks. You can't be proven more wrong than that.

That was hardly the whole of the issue. We were hardly using asbestos the same way the ancient Greeks did, and it still to this day has not been shown that solid asbestos sealed inside firewalls and exterior walls posed any risk at all.

Perhaps because they weren't that convincing, because most people can easily find examples where free market companies did indeed pollute their own land.

I rebutted every single one of them. None of them were what they claimed to be.

Those reasons, whether they mean 'good for yourself' or 'good for everyone else', can simply be summarized with being 'good'.

No, it could simply be "cheaper" or "more efficient." Nothing at all to do with a moral judgement.

They make mistakes, they blunder... and sometimes they need someone to tell them what to do to avoid doing that.

Again, "telling" is fine, freedom of speech and all that. But force is only justified in defense or retribution to actual harm caused to others.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

What I'm saying is, once you consider that the government will be filled with the same flawed people they're saying we need the government to protect us from, their entire argument falls apart.

So, how does the free market do it? Can't any of its principles be used by the government, without flat-out privatizing things?

No, for many reasons, but two in particular: 1) Government, in all its forms, is force. The free market is not force. Since government is force, its use is justified only when the use of force is justified. 2) The free market thrives on competition, and there is no competition with government.

So Harry Browne's arguments about which government programs are useless and can be scrapped, and the government can save money by simplifying things, are worthless now?

How on earth did you get that from what I wrote?

Look across the borders of your own little country.

I have.

In a more or less functioning constitutional democracy, this isn't true.

Oh? I'd love to see you provide evidence of that.

Such evidence must be presented to a parliament, where there are people who weigh such evidence against other things to consider.

I've watched C-SPAN, which covers both the US Congres and the UK Parliament. I have to say I have never seen anything approaching any such thing.

I think many people will argue that those free market solutions simply cannot be compared to what the FDA is supposed to do.

Except that they are comparable, and the evidence shows that the FDA is causing more harm than it prevents.

I also don't think you have convinced anyone that the FDA has a bad track record.

Actually, I have. Several people.

True, but if you see how people are destroying themselves in some way, it may not be the most compassionate thing to do nothing.

Yes, but that's compassion. We were talking about not condoning actions. Again, two completely separate things.

If you do nothing, it is rather meaningless whether you approve or disapprove of something.

Really? So I have to act towards every single person in the world who does things I don't approve of, or I'm condoning their actions? Even though I'm just one person with an extremely limited amount of time and resources?

I think I'm really starting to understand your mindset here...

 

[billydkid]

Wait

I'm actually not sure about that; Rand didn't come up with Libertarianism, it existed before her. She came up with a weird pseudo-cult called Objectivism, which had a "moral" philosophy. It merely included libertarianism as part of its dogma. (It also included atheism, which is not part of the LP program either.)

The LP, however, doesn't have the "morality" part as a piece of its equation. The theory being, I believe, that if private property rules, things like "morality" and religion are left up to the individual.

Of course, I think the LP and Rand are both full of $%^#, so what do I know.

Libertarianism is NOT just about private property. It is about liberty as envisioned by the founders of the US. (Yes, the founders held slaves and kept women from voting and all of that - they had the principles right, they just hadn't come to grips with the notion that those principles apply to everyone.) It is about the notion that it is a bad thing to give some people authority over the lives of other people - precisely because, among other reasons, people can not be trusted to exercise that authority in an appropriate way. It is about the principle of self ownership. It is about the idea that no one else is more qualified to make fundamental decisions about your life than you are. It is, fundamentally, about the notion that you should be able to conduct your life in precisely whatever manner you see fit so long as you are not interfering with someone elses right to do the same.

The notion of private property is basic to a free society. Whenever I see anyone complain about private property I always think of that John Lennon song "Imagine". I think about that line "Imagine no possessions". Well, John Lennon had a ◊◊◊◊ load of possession that the vast majority of us could never have in 10 life times. I don't think John Lennon or anyone else who rails about private property would fair very well at all in a world where there were none. Someone here said something about libertarians being "selfish". That just demonstrates to me the fundamental misunderstanding people have about what libertarianism is. The truth, the most generous thing you can do for others is to set them free.

The libertarians want you to be free to live your life in the way that you choose to live it. They don't want to tell you what read or think or who to be or what to believe. They don't want to take what you have. They don't want to tell you who you can associate with or what objects you can own or force you to keep you lawn mowed. They don't want to ban lawn darts or force you to wear seat belts or life preservers. They think you are competent to make your own decisions about those things yourself. All they want in return is the same from you.

Now, this notion that the poor will simply starve and freeze in a libertarian society without the nanny state looking out for them is just silly. People give millions and millions of dollars a year to charities. I personally believe that government enforced redistribution of income leads to resentment and an inclination not to want to get involved and not to want help in people who are personally very generous. There is also the aspect of accepting personal responsibility for ones own existance. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the "welfare state" creates a dependence that perpetuates itself. Maybe, if you don't have an income and can't support yourself, just maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to have five kids until you can.

And the libertarians have been very vocal in their opposition to "corporate welfare" and pork barrel crap designed to enrich already rich constituent interests. Libertarians don't want people getting rich at the public trough. They don't want your tax dollars going to make Dick Chenney's cronies even richer. They don't want the CEO's of arms companies getting rich off of your tax dollars because they have friends in Washington. And they don't want the sons and daughters of working people being sent of to fight and die for oil company profits or whatever halfassed reason the sons and daughter of the poor have been sent too many times to die for the interests of fat, rich white guys with no lips.

But they do believe that men and women have a right to keep for themselves and for their families what they have struggled to build and make out of their lives. Life is not fair. It never will be. there will always be those who are swifter and smarter and luckier. Does that mean that we should all be hamstrung by misguided attempts to make everything come out even? Maybe we should all be given handicaps like in that Kurt Vonnegut story. What the libertarians want is a level playing field. What both the left and the right want is to have a different starting line for different players. Sorry, gotta go, can't check for typos.

 

[Luke T.]

The difference between condone and allow is quite big. I will answer by providing a hypothetical example. If your friend comes over and asks you if he can smoke in your house and you say yes, that means you are allowing him to smoke in your house. However, that does not mean you condone the action of smoking, especially in your house.

You might be a Libertarian if...

If someone asks you if you mind if they smoke and you ask them to be more specific, then you might be a Libertarian.

 

[Earthborn]

You are setting up another false dichotomy

No, I'm not. I'm presenting a different way of looking at the fact, and later I refute that view by showing that it cannot be distinguished from the assumption of selfishness. All I am arguing is that we should it isn't productive to call behaviours 'selfish' or 'altruisistic', since anything can be explained in both ways, so any two opposite behaviours can also be explained in the same way.

Your false dichotomy therefore shoehorns me into the other category: people who want to keep it all and not share it. Yet, every year I participate in the Relay for Life, the MS Walk, and the CROP Walk. I have collected cans of food for local food banks, performed in benefit concerts, and done many other things that have taken up either my money or my time to do good to others. And as the stats I've posted here from Giving USA about a bajillion times show, I'm hardly the only one.

Since I have not claimed that you are 'selfish', this isn't relevant at all to the discussion. But nice to hear that you are doing those things anyway!

For crying out loud, how can anyone look at the VOLUNTARY donations that came about after the 9/11 attacks for the families of the victims and for the restoration efforts claim that people are selfish and don't want to share?

I wouldn't dare.

Lovely argument. What it has to do with libertarianism escapes me.

It has to do with your reaction to jj's claim that libertarianism necessitates the assumption of 'enlightened selfishness'. You say it doesn't, I agree with you, by showing that there is no real difference between enlightened selfishness and enlightened altruism and making a distinction between the two is not in anyway meaningful. Do you disagree?

Intentions and motivations really don't enter into it. It's actions that we say must be examined. If an action is an initiation of force, I don't care what the intention is, then it is unjustified. As I said above, a robber who donates his gains to charity is still a robber.

On the other hand, Libertarians are very much against prosecuting "hate crimes" and other crimes based solely on motivation and intention...for pretty much the same reason. If someone committed murder, then he's a murderer; it doesn't matter if he's a black guy killing a black guy or a white guy killing a black guy. It's still murder.

We agree then.

What you can't do is FORCE people to life their lives the way you think they should.

However, in some cases people who have destructive lifestyles cannot change their life on their own. In such a situation using force to change it for them is not necessarily 'selfish' as it can be an honest attempt to help someone.

This means that in such situations it is not meaningful to label forcing to make someone live differently as selfish, and one should only consider how effective and how necessary such force is. With addicts it is necessary, but unfortunately not often very effective. That should be the only reason not to use force in such a case.

it still to this day has not been shown that solid asbestos sealed inside firewalls and exterior walls posed any risk at all.

If it remains sealed there is no problem at all. That does not mean it always will. Also most of the problems were suffered by people manufacturing asbestos products: that remained true from the Ancient Greeks right up to close to the 21st century.

I rebutted every single one of them. None of them were what they claimed to be.

Right... How many people did you convince of that?

No, it could simply be "cheaper" or "more efficient."

That woul'd fall under 'good for yourself'.

Nothing at all to do with a moral judgement.

You may have noticed that I put 'good' between quotes. I mean 'good' in a practical sense, not necessarily a moral one.

But force is only justified in defense or retribution to actual harm caused to others.

Yes, that's what you believe. You believe there are only three kinds of force, intiation of force, defensive force and retributive force. Problem is that this is a very limited idea, and I can think of at least two different forms of force: restorative force, meant to set things right that went wrong, and curative force, meant to prevent things from going wrong in the future.

What I'm saying is, once you consider that the government will be filled with the same flawed people they're saying we need the government to protect us from, their entire argument falls apart.

I don't think it does.

But suppose you are right, then the same thing can be said about the free market. Let's suppose free market companies are filled with the same flawed people, then obviously these people can give their workers ridiculously low payments and demand them to work in ridiculously bad circumstances. You have explained many times why it wouldn't work like that: workers would choose a different employer.

And voters would choose a different politician. The mechanism is a bit different, but the principle is much the same.

How on earth did you get that from what I wrote?

You said it yourself: it is not about the complexity of the government system. So a government can be as complex as it wants, and you would have no problem with it as long is it doesn't interfere too much with your life?

From what you have presented of Harry Browne's arguments, is that he is very much concerned about the actual complexity of the government system.

I've watched C-SPAN, which covers both the US Congres and the UK Parliament. I have to say I have never seen anything approaching any such thing.

Go here, click Netherlands, and then '2e kamer'. Well, it's not a 24 hour broadcast of course. But it is a parliament, and it is something I believe that approaches such a thing.

There is no doubt it still has a long way to go, but people do discuss evidence in the form of reports, do present arguments from all sides, etc...

I don't think it is that much different to what happens in US Congress or UK Parliament, but perhaps the fact that it isn't a 2 party system makes some difference.

Except that they are comparable, and the evidence shows that the FDA is causing more harm than it prevents.

I know you believe that. I have not seen you argue it convincingly.

Actually, I have. Several people.

Could those people please identify themselves?

Yes, but that's compassion. We were talking about not condoning actions. Again, two completely separate things.

Of course they are completely seperate things. It just shows that legalization and deregulation isn't the only alternative to 'The War on Drugs.'

So I have to act towards every single person in the world who does things I don't approve of, or I'm condoning their actions?

No of course not. I'm not saying that, am I? What I'm saying is that if you don't do anything to stop those actions, it makes no difference whether you condone them or not.

I think I'm really starting to understand your mindset here...

Since you fail to understand such a simple sentence, I rather doubt that.

 

[Cain]

After a brief discussion on the history of (capitalist) libertarianism, Jeff Walker writes (on page 87) in _The Ayn Rand Cult_:

Rand inisisted that until libertarians in general adopted her metaphysics, epistemology, and rational egoism as that dictum's necessary and sole underlying philosophy, engagement in politics under a libertarian banner would be premature and deceitful -- deceitful given libertarianism's pretense of acting upon principle when in fact its main principle has no philosophic roots. From its formation in 1972, Rand repudiated and condemned the Libertarian Party (LP) for not explicitly grounding its non-initiation of force principle in Objectivism.

I always thought the Libertarian Party was founded in '71.

 

[Earthborn]

It is about liberty as envisioned by the founders of the US.

So you know what the founders of the US envisioned? Are you a mind reader? Do you believe they all envisioned the same thing? And is the vision of some people hundreds of years ago still relevant today, or should we look for justifications for political systems in present day instead of with the ancients?

Yes, the founders held slaves and kept women from voting and all of that - they had the principles right, they just hadn't come to grips with the notion that those principles apply to everyone.

Or maybe the liberty they envisioned was radically different from what you envision it should be.

It is about the notion that it is a bad thing to give some people authority over the lives of other people - precisely because, among other reasons, people can not be trusted to exercise that authority in an appropriate way.

I don't think this is necessarily true. It depends on what kind of system these people operate in whether they can be trusted or not.

It is about the principle of self ownership.

I have challenged that principle in this thread, but to this day no one even dared to adress the points I made.

It is about the idea that no one else is more qualified to make fundamental decisions about your life than you are.

It should be obvious that for many people, children, mentally handicapped people, psychiatric patients, etc it is indeed true that others are more qualified to make fundamental decisions about their lives then themselves.

It is also true that not all people are equally qualified to make specific decisions about themselves. Some people cannot handle their money but can care for their health, while for others it may be the other way around. A person could try to make all decisions him/herself, or let others have some control over their lives in the areas s/he's not good at, while at the same time having some control over other's lives in areas s/he is good at.

It is, fundamentally, about the notion that you should be able to conduct your life in precisely whatever manner you see fit so long as you are not interfering with someone elses right to do the same.

Sounds nice, but the problem is that whatever you do, you are going to interfere with other's lives, because you are not living alone. It is simply not possible to 'live your life in the manner you see fit so long as you are not interfering with someone elses rights', instead there need to be laws and ways of arbitration that define just how far you are allowed to interfere with other's rights.

They think you are competent to make your own decisions about those things yourself.

Then they think wrong. Many people wouldn't wear seatbelts if it wasn't mandatory, and many of them don't even when they are. Since people are unable to grasp small but real risks, and often have a false sense that they can control the risk, they fail take necessary precautions that save thousands of lives.

People give millions and millions of dollars a year to charities.

And governments spend thousands of millions on social security systems. You'll have to show that people would be willing to spend similar amounts of money voluntarily.

Maybe, if you don't have an income and can't support yourself, just maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to have five kids until you can.

Maybe, if someone doesn't have an income and can't support him/herself and has five kids, it would be a good idea to give that person an income so the kids don't suffer. It should also be noted that for poor people who live in a country where there isn't a healthcare system that provides birthcontrol to the poor, those poor people won't have it so easy controlling the number of children they get as others.

Life is not fair. It never will be.

I think that is a defeatist attitude. I think it can be a lot fairer than it is now.

Does that mean that we should all be hamstrung by misguided attempts to make everything come out even?

This comes dangerously close to the arguments of the eugenics movement. What is so unpleasant about the idea that you have some duties towards society as well as some entitlements?

What both the left and the right want is to have a different starting line for different players.

If by that you mean that we should make life a little easier for people who are already having the greatest difficulties, well I can't see what is so wrong with that.

 

[shanek]

All I am arguing is that we should it isn't productive to call behaviours 'selfish' or 'altruisistic',

An odd argument, since I never said that we should.

Since I have not claimed that you are 'selfish', this isn't relevant at all to the discussion.

But this very discussion spawned from that very accusation by jj, so you'll forgive me if I kept things in that context.

It has to do with your reaction to jj's claim that libertarianism necessitates the assumption of 'enlightened selfishness'. You say it doesn't, I agree with you, by showing that there is no real difference between enlightened selfishness and enlightened altruism and making a distinction between the two is not in anyway meaningful. Do you disagree?

Okay, I agree with that.

We agree then.

However, in some cases people who have destructive lifestyles cannot change their life on their own. In such a situation using force to change it for them is not necessarily 'selfish' as it can be an honest attempt to help someone.

True, but how can such an honest attempt come from people wielding power, especially if they have never even met the person? That has only been a recipe for distruction, as the War on Drugs proves. Intervention by friends and family members, on the other hand, and outreach by organizations targeted to those people, can be very effective.

Also most of the problems were suffered by people manufacturing asbestos products:

Correct, but the actions against asbestos were hardly limited to that environment.

Right... How many people did you convince of that?

I don't have a count, but I got a lot of PMs on it.

That woul'd fall under 'good for yourself'. You may have noticed that I put 'good' between quotes. I mean 'good' in a practical sense, not necessarily a moral one.

Then you are using the word "good" in a context other than what this discussion is using, since doing evil things is often good for the person doing them.

Yes, that's what you believe. You believe there are only three kinds of force, intiation of force, defensive force and retributive force. Problem is that this is a very limited idea, and I can think of at least two different forms of force: restorative force, meant to set things right that went wrong,

I would call that a part of retributive force.

and curative force, meant to prevent things from going wrong in the future.

I would call that a part of defensive force.

But suppose you are right, then the same thing can be said about the free market. Let's suppose free market companies are filled with the same flawed people, then obviously these people can give their workers ridiculously low payments and demand them to work in ridiculously bad circumstances.

Again, you're ignoring the effect of competition, which keeps payments and circumstances up. Companies are going to want to attract the best and most efficient workers for that particular job. So they're going to try and offer better wages and job conditions than their competition. No such effect exists with government.

[bAnd voters would choose a different politician.[/b]

But that isn't the same thing. To choose a different politician, you have to depose of the old one and then everyone is stuck with him no matter what they voted for. It's still a monopoly. There's still no competition.

The mechanism is a bit different, but the principle is much the same.

Hardly; the principle is diametrically opposed to the principle of competition. My decision to drink Pepsi has no affect on your decision to drink Coke.

You said it yourself: it is not about the complexity of the government system. So a government can be as complex as it wants, and you would have no problem with it as long is it doesn't interfere too much with your life?

As long as that complexity is the most efficient means of achieving that goal, yes.

From what you have presented of Harry Browne's arguments, is that he is very much concerned about the actual complexity of the government system.

Sure, because that complexity right now is what enables the government to interfere in our lives, and it's grossly inefficient. But as you pointed out, checks and balances are an example of something desirable but that adds complexity, and Harry and I would both agree with that.

Go here, click Netherlands, and then '2e kamer'. Well, it's not a 24 hour broadcast of course. But it is a parliament, and it is something I believe that approaches such a thing.

Any specific examples?

There is no doubt it still has a long way to go, but people do discuss evidence in the form of reports, do present arguments from all sides, etc...

Yeah, well, Creationists do that. It's the content of the reports and the slides that makes the difference.

I know you believe that. I have not seen you argue it convincingly.

It's simple math, really. There's no way the FDA has saved more than the 200,000 lives it has taken. The numbers show that. What level of proof do you require?

Could those people please identify themselves?

If they want to, that's fine; but as they were PMs, I'm not going to "out" them. They were understandably worried about speaking up and receiving the same kind of abuse that I have on this forum.

Of course they are completely seperate things. It just shows that legalization and deregulation isn't the only alternative to 'The War on Drugs.'

What alternative would not involve either legalization or deregulation?

No of course not. I'm not saying that, am I?

Yes, you are. You said that if I don't act, it doesn't make any difference whether I'm condoning the act or not. What I said is the ramification of what you said.