What is wrong with Libertarianism?

I_AM_that_I_AM,

Why would they bother with labeling their products?
Who would make them?
And what would they do to enforce the labeling policy?
PR is nice, but those with money make better PR than the consumers dieing of the products.

Is that all of your objections? First, any private organization that wants to make money by inspecting and insuring products may do so if they wish. Many companies go to outside vendors for quality assurance, and they post said results on their products. If a company puts out a potentially deadly product without warning their consumers, they can easily be sued. Case in point, it is not profitable to have millions of lawsuits. It is in their interest to warn against possible dangers. Oddly enough, many factory recalls of products recall before the government even requires them to! Why would you suppose that is? hmmm..

Eating won't immediatly lead to your death. Suicide will.

You are not making much sense. Suicide does not lead to death -- suicide is not even a verb. People commit suicide, they don't say, "He suicided hemself." That is, Suicide does not lead to death, it is a state of death. You asserted that people are depressed when they commit suicide, which immplied that being depressed is the entity that leads to your death. Now, we both know that isn't the case; many people who are depressed do not kill themselves! Let's follow your absurd statement again:

Suicide is outlawed because the vast majority of people who would commit it are depressed

We can use the same reasoning for eating; just replace one word:
The intake of prozac is outlawed because the vast majority of people who would commit it are depressed

Now, do you understand why the "because" part of your statement is absurd? It allows us to have a basis to outlaw a lot of things a vast majority of people do while depressed. If you want to give a better argument, then by all means -- have at it.

And how do you move with out money?
WHy would they bother employing you when they could just coeirce you into agreeing that you owed them for even employing your homeless A__
And then putting you into endless Debt slavery.

I see hitchhikers walking all the time on I35W North. They don't appear to have much money, but I guess they are moving. Are you saying that those individuals do not exist? What are you talking about with respect to this debt slavery? First, anyone can declare bankruptcy, and while it may leave a scar on your credit, it will at least take care of you in the short term. Moreover, no company can force an individual to work for them. Even contracts can be broken (with some penalty).

If this tatement weren't so fulll of ignorance it would be laughable...

I am in awe of your ability to rebut my argument that skillfully. Where is that [/sarcasm] flag? *looks*

Could you explain why amoral buisness leaders would somehow gain a soul?

This is an unfair question. I do not think it is true that all business leaders are amoral, and that they did not have a soul in the first place. Again, you look at Enron and think it occurs everywhere (which is a fallacy, but that is besides the point). If you compare what we know is given to what we know is stolen, it is easily pointed out the charity explicitly triumphs over greed.




[

Yes, many do donate mere billions to charities. Unfortunately health care plans cost TRILLIONS. Perhaps it is you who should look around you....

Let's break out some facts.
California
184,428,062,613 given by organizations
152,271,817,698 given by charities
32,040,687,450 given by foundations
12,173,004,000 given by households
=380,913,571,761
New York
198,659,985,081 given by organizations
157,774,490,481 given by charities
40,799,072,613 given by foundations
9,141,540,000 given by households
=406,375,088,175
Pennsylvania
82,022,898,799 given by organizations
72,864,005,851 given by charities
9,069,204,797 given by foundations
3,795,244,000 given by households
=167,751,353,447

For just three states, we see donations of just under a trillion dollars: 955,040,013,383

In 1997, nation wide, households themselves gave 97,136,000,000!

National Center for Charitable Statistics: nccsdataweb.urban.org...

Originally posted by radardog

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM But allowing to them to do so would cause more people to do so than already do. This would cause more people to get into accidents that they wouldn't have if they were sober.

This is simple speculation. Perhaps I am incorrect, but I don't think you really know that your assertion if true.

Right, because I'm sure that if we had an explosion of the number of people who started to use drugs that all of them would avoid driving. After all no one drives while drunk or high now, so why would they in the future?

This is a slippery slope; just because something becomes legal does not mean everyone will suddenly do the action. Moreover, no one is suggesting that we should make DWI or DUI legal; your latter part of the post is moot.

Yes, I worry about what I can't control, especially if I can prevent it from happening! And I wouldn'tl worry aobut a home invader as in a L society I/mywife/mykids could just blow out his brains.

I do not understand. Are you attempting to refute me, or agreeing with me?

Ah, I see, so average hardworking people don't matter anyway and should just be forgotten as they don't deserve an education anyway,right?

Do you think it would be fair if I forced you to invest in an average property when you could invest in an outstanding one? Case in point, if YOU want to support an average individual, then by all means, go do it. Suggesting that everyone must support the average individual is another matter.

Originally posted by radardog Implicitly, you seem to want to tell people who they should consider a good investment, and while some suggestions are liked, being told what to do is another matter. People sell themselves in the work world, and like it or not, students must sell themselves to the universities.

No, what I want is for people to be able to get into some universities as long as they meet certainbasic educational requirements, unlike with private universities, where you would have to meet whatever criteria they wanted.

Oddly enough, to those private universities, those ARE the certain basic educational requirements. If you do not like that, in a libertarian society, you would be free to start your own private university, with your own requirements. Therein, you will be deciding what to invest in.

No, it was implied, by the person I was responding to, that we would have gone into WW2 to stop the Holocaust(IN an L society) from happening, even though we wouldn't have known it was happening if we hadn't gone in! I was pointing out why that logic didn't work.
Please pay attention to other posters if your going to respond to posts in this thread, Not everyone is always talking to you.(no offense)

My fault, I thought your entire post was directed towards me.

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

Originally posted by radardog Now niether of those things bother me too much as it would be what people chose to do. What bothers me is that either nazi's or communists would have dome out in control fo eurasia and then come over to the US and we would have had to fight on our own soil. The casualty rate would have been a lot higher. Alot more pople would have gotten hurt than did by us joining the fight earleir, something we couldn't do under a L gov't.

You know, people make a living by writings what-if history stories. While they are interesting books, they are still placed in the fiction section. Not to be rude, but all of this is speculation.

"Not to be rude, but it is a fact not speculation."

Okay, show us where in history where the U.S. homeland was invaded by the NAZIs, or communist? *looks through a history text*

Are you sure you were stating fact? :-)

--Radardog

It seems to me that Libertarians are thinking with facts, and the others, well, think emotionally like "But don't you think that an average kid DESERVES .,..." or "What will we do about people who can't afford healthcare." Or "But gay people are gross." This isn't direct quoting, so that means I am not quoting the non-libertarians exactly, just trying to show their thoughts (as from some liberals, conservatives, and other people like that I know)
Now, when other people answered, they gave facts like "almost a trillion dollars were given to charity in three states." Now, I think that the non-libertarians are not actually thinking about what would be best for the country in the long term. (and short term in a lot of cases.) Instead of thinking, they are just being intolerant of the choices of other peopl financially and personal choices because they consider those things wrong. Not everybody must agree with you on your moral values like "you should give this hobo some money" or "gay people are wrong"
Instead, if you can learn to accept other people as different and not whine to the government about it, the US would be a much finer place to live in.

Originally posted by radardog
First, any private organization that wants to make money by inspecting and insuring products may do so if they wish. Many companies go to outside vendors for quality assurance, and they post said results on their products. If a company puts out a potentially deadly product without warning their consumers, they can easily be sued. Case in point, it is not profitable to have millions of lawsuits. It is in their interest to warn against possible dangers. Oddly enough, many factory recalls of products recall before the government even requires them to! Why would you suppose that is? hmmm..

Go see Fight Club.NOW!

Originally posted by radardog

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Eating won't immediatly lead to your death. Suicide will.

You are not making much sense. Suicide does not lead to death -- suicide is not even a verb. People commit suicide, they don't say, "He suicided hemself." That is, Suicide does not lead to death, it is a state of death. You asserted that people are depressed when they commit suicide, which immplied that being depressed is the entity that leads to your death. Now, we both know that isn't the case; many people who are depressed do not kill themselves!

The first part seems to be semantics."Committing Suicide will lead to your immediate death." There, happy now?
And I did not imply that depression kills people, but that people who commit suicide are depressed. I assumed that you had the brains to understand what I was saying. I guess you proved me wrong. Happy?

Originally posted by radardog Let's follow your absurd statement again:
"Suicide is outlawed because the vast majority of people who would commit it are depressed "

We can use the same reasoning for eating; just replace one word:
The intake of prozac is outlawed because the vast majority of people who would commit it are depressed

Are you even remotely sane? Your analogy fails as taking prosec causes depressed persons(in general) to avoid becoming suicidal. I was assuming that you would be smart enough to realize that depressed persons are not in their right mind. I now know better and will use smaller words so as to not confuse you.

Originally posted by radardog What are you talking about with respect to this debt slavery?

Sorry, I was responding to something some one else(DAnD9-I think) posted, go back and look if you want to see....

Originally posted by radardog First, anyone can declare bankruptcy, and while it may leave a scar on your credit...

Yes, now they can, but the L Party doesn't believe in credit.

Originally posted by radardog Moreover, no company can force an individual to work for them. Even contracts can be broken (with some penalty).

Well, by that reasoning no one could be forced to do anything, but in reality that breaks down.

Originally posted by radardog
Let's break out some facts.

For just three states, we see donations of just under a trillion dollars: 955,040,013,383

In 1997, nation wide, households themselves gave 97,136,000,000!

National Center for Charitable Statistics: nccsdataweb.urban.org...

And how is that going to pay for education? Or health care? Or mental institutes?

Originally posted by radardog This is a slippery slope; just because something becomes legal does not mean everyone will suddenly do the action. Moreover, no one is suggesting that we should make DWI or DUI legal; your latter part of the post is moot.

1)It's not a "slippery slope", as I am not implying that by making this legal that it will open the doors to making legal other things.
2)I never said that we would be making DUI's legal so stop putting words in my mouth.
3)What I said was that if we make drug use legal, then the number of people using it would go up. I never said "everyone would start doing it".
Explain to me why the number of people using drugs would go down if drug use were legalised?

Originally posted by radardog

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AMAh, I see, so average hardworking people don't matter anyway and should just be forgotten as they don't deserve an education anyway,right?

Do you think it would be fair if I forced you to invest in an average property when you could invest in an outstanding one? Case in point, if YOU want to support an average individual, then by all means, go do it. Suggesting that everyone must support the average individual is another matter.

So, as I said, average hardworking people don't matter anyway and should just be forgotten as they don't deserve an education anyway. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by radardogOddly enough, to those private universities, those ARE the certain basic educational requirements.

HUH?

Originally posted by radardog

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

Originally posted by radardog

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM Now neither of those things bother me too much as it would be what people chose to do. What bothers me is that either nazi's or communists would have dome out in control fo eurasia and then come over to the US and we would have had to fight on our own soil. The casualty rate would have been a lot higher. Alot more pople would have gotten hurt than did by us joining the fight earleir, something we couldn't do under a L gov't.

You know, people make a living by writings what-if history stories. While they are interesting books, they are still placed in the fiction section. Not to be rude, but all of this is speculation.

"Not to be rude, but it is a fact not speculation.

Okay, show us where in history where the U.S. homeland was invaded by the NAZIs, or communist? *looks through a history text*

Are you sure you were stating fact? :-)

*sighs*
Yes, as I was pointing out a historical inevitablity if we hadn't gotten involved. You should know that you wouldn't find it in history books as we got involved(not having a L Gov't) thus preventing the scenorio from taking place. My point was that it would have happened if we had an L gov't. Not that it did happen, which you might know if you bothered to read the post.

i dont see anything wrong with it at all . i wish usa would pick up on this but i dont see anything calm with americans . we are not ready for treating anyone equal yet .

i guess there has to be a balance . not all countries can be one way for a reason and mainly cause some wont have it etc.

so many things to consider .

Look, the point is, is that people are going to pay for their own possessions, services (to include healthcare), and lifestyle.

Most people see this and get upset because it's already hard enough with the government taking so much to use unwisely (and that's being nice).

If you think the Federal Government should pay for all these things, then fine, but you should take a trip past the tourist areas of Washington, and cruise into Virginia.

See how these glorious Federal Agencies work. They are nothing short of terrible.

I equate Universal Healthcare with a merger between the DMV and a hospital.

Fun.

Let's make replies without the nastiness please.

Go see Fight Club.NOW!

Ah, yes. Argument from movie -- that must be a argument style.

"Suicide is outlawed because the vast majority of people who would commit it are depressed "

And I did not imply that depression kills people, but that people who commit suicide are depressed. I assumed that you had the brains to understand what I was saying. I guess you proved me wrong. Happy?

I know you did not imply that depressed kills people. What you did say is that Suicide is outlawed because a vast majority of people who commit it are depressed. Again, let us focus on your reasoning. "beacause the vast majority of people who commit it are depressed."

Now ask yourself: What other actions do a vast majority of people do when they are depressed, and why are they not outlawed? Your argument falls flat on its face. However, if you want to admit a brainless individual proved your wrong, with all irony, please admit it.

FACT: A vast majority of people diagnosed with depression take preventive medicine for it.

CONCLUSION: Therefore preventive medicine should be outlawed.

Really, it is okay with me if you want to change your argument. Calling me names will not make it any better.

Yes, now they can, but the L Party doesn't believe in credit.

There is nothing against the libertarian philosophy that disallows credit. Private lending institutions can and will form.

Well, by that reasoning no one could be forced to do anything, but in reality that breaks down.

That's nice. Perhaps you can back your statement up now. I've gone well out of my way to back mine up.

And how is that going to pay for education? Or health care? Or mental institutes?

A vast majority of education, and healthcare can be privatized. That is, people pay for those things out of their own pocket. For those who can not pay for those things (an actual minority), they can rely on the charity of others, which (as I have shown) is there and by a large amount. Some schools will probably be cheaper than others (hell, look at the range of prices for private universities), and wherever there is a market, I am sure someone will take advantage of it.

1)It's not a "slippery slope", as I am not implying that by making this legal that it will open the doors to making legal other things.

That is not what I was pointing out. The slippery slope is here: "What I said was that if we make drug use legal, then the number of people using it would go up. You do not know that, and historically, the opposite is true. During prohibition, alcohol consumption increased as well as the related crime.

So, as I said, average hardworking people don't matter anyway and should just be forgotten as they don't deserve an education anyway. Thanks for clearing that up.

They are probably not interesting to the intelligent investor. Of course, they always could be supported by their friends, family, or a charity (scroll up, we all know the money is there).

Originally posted by radardogOddly enough, to those private universities, those ARE the certain basic educational requirements.

HUH?

It is not hard to grasp; the minimum requirements to enter a university are defacto the minimum educational requirements of that establishment.

*sighs*
Yes, as I was pointing out a historical inevitablity if we hadn't gotten involved. You should know that you wouldn't find it in history books as we got involved(not having a L Gov't) thus preventing the scenorio from taking place. My point was that it would have happened if we had an L gov't. Not that it did happen, which you might know if you bothered to read the post.

Wait! Wait! Since you are all knowing, can you tell me who would have won the 2004 election if 9/11 didn't occur? Do you really expect me to take you seriously? You can not even present a historical reference for like events occuring! Not even a shread of evidence! Your flight of fancy is amusing, but that is all it is.

Waiting for a real reply,
Radardog

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

Yes, now they can, but the L Party doesn't believe in credit.

Could you please show me where you got this info?

This is just the tip of the iceburg, you should really go to the LP web site and find out about us. Most of your "facts" have little or nothing to do with the LP. Not to be nasty but you are making yourself look foolish quoting "facts" about the LP that even the casual poster knows is BS. Either dont know very much about us or most of your "facts" are from sources other than our Web site. Our platform is wildly distorted by the Media and the big two

Try this site here

www.lp.org...

At least then you be informed about our platform



[edit on 1-12-2004 by Amuk]

Amuk, you are very right about what the two parties say about us. Republicans and Democrats say "WTF you commie!" or "Anarchist!" or "You know, if there werent any welfare, how would we be able to give non working people our money?"
They really have no idea what I am for in politics. Too bad we don't control the media like the big two.

Libertarians are also perceived by many as psuedo-closet-anarchist. With the lack of a platform with a set beleifs other than the mainstanding "we're for smaller government", the LP has no basis for the party other than that one simple slogan. Hell, that platform is similar to one Republicans use. At least Republicans have a moral basis to their claims, the Democracts think they have one, but the LP seems to be desperatly lacking any.

In short term, what is a Libertarian?

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

Yes, now they can, but the L Party doesn't believe in credit.

Could you please show me where you got this info?

This is just the tip of the iceburg, you should really go to the LP web site and find out about us. Most of your "facts" have little or nothing to do with the LP. Not to be nasty but you are making yourself look foolish quoting "facts" about the LP that even the casual poster knows is BS. Either dont know very much about us or most of your "facts" are from sources other than our Web site. Our platform is wildly distorted by the Media and the big two

Try this site here

www.lp.org...

At least then you be informed about our platform

Uh, thanks?
Trying to remember where I heard that....

Originally posted by Frosty
Libertarians are also perceived by many as psuedo-closet-anarchist. With the lack of a platform with a set beleifs other than the mainstanding "we're for smaller government", the LP has no basis for the party other than that one simple slogan.

Again this remark shows a complete lack of knowledge of the Libertarian party platform, as a matter of fact our platform is what seperates us from the other two.
Try the link I provided.

We have a entire set of beliefs and the main difference between us and the republicans is that we really do mean smaller Government its not just a slogan we use at election time. We also believe in personal freedom, do you know EITHER of the big two that belive in that?

If you are going to make claims aginst us at least go to our web site so that the claims you make will have SOME basis in reality

Originally posted by radardog
Now ask yourself: What other actions do a vast majority of people do when they are depressed, and why are they not outlawed?

Because they don't kill people.

Originally posted by radardog
FACT: A vast majority of people diagnosed with depression take preventive medicine for it.

CONCLUSION: Therefore preventive medicine should be outlawed.

No, your ignoring what I've said, preventive medicine doesn't kill them, committing suicide does. You can stop taking medicine, but you can't stop having committed suicide. You are trying to twist what I've said and make it into a some weird strawman. You keep saying that if we outlaw something harmful to keep people who are not in their right mind fro mdoing it, then we have to out law anything that people who are not in their right mind do. I have not said this and am not saying this. So, please stop acting like I am.

Originally posted by radardog

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Yes, now they can, but the L Party doesn't believe in credit.

There is nothing against the libertarian philosophy that disallows credit. Private lending institutions can and will form.

My apologies here, I misremembered something, that's my bad.

Originally posted by radardogA vast majority of education, and healthcare can be privatized. That is, people pay for those things out of their own pocket. For those who can not pay for those things (an actual minority), they can rely on the charity of others, which (as I have shown) is there and by a large amount. Some schools will probably be cheaper than others (hell, look at the range of prices for private universities), and wherever there is a market, I am sure someone will take advantage of it.

You have shown that there is a lot of charity out there, you have not shown that it would be enough to cover the disappearance of public universities.

Originally posted by radardogThat is not what I was pointing out. The slippery slope is here: "What I said was that if we make drug use legal, then the number of people using it would go up. You do not know that, and historically, the opposite is true. During prohibition, alcohol consumption increased as well as the related crime.

That's not a slippery slope arguement though. Also, prohibiton was the repression of a very common drug. Not the legalising of one. And contrary to popular thought, the number of people who drank didn't go up or down.
people just became more vehement about drinking. And afterward became more complacent about it. I see no reason why pot smoking wouldn't go up if it were legal, can you tell me why it wouldn't?

Originally posted by radardog

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
So, as I said, average hardworking people don't matter anyway and should just be forgotten as they don't deserve an education anyway. Thanks for clearing that up.

They are probably not interesting to the intelligent investor. Of course, they always could be supported by their friends, family, or a charity (scroll up, we all know the money is there).

How much of that money is going to people who need money for college?
And how much more is going to be needed when you get rid of public universities?

Originally posted by radardog

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

Originally posted by radardogOddly enough, to those private universities, those ARE the certain basic educational requirements.

HUH?

It is not hard to grasp; the minimum requirements to enter a university are defacto the minimum educational requirements of that establishment.

OK, yes, i already knew that. I was pointing out that the public universities had to accept people that met those required standards. Private universities don't.

Originally posted by radardog
Wait! Wait! Since you are all knowing, can you tell me who would have won the 2004 election if 9/11 didn't occur? Do you really expect me to take you seriously? You can not even present a historical reference for like events occuring! Not even a shread of evidence! Your flight of fancy is amusing, but that is all it is.

I was using this "flight of fancy" to make a point to another poster, one which you obviously don't get. I was trying to be curtious and explain it to you to, but as you have no interset in getting that point, I won't keep bothering.

Originally posted by radardogWaiting for a real reply

Right because, as we all know, I'm just a figment of your imagination.

Just out of curiosity why do you think suicide being illegal will stop someone from doing it? How many people think "I would kill myself, but they will arrest me if I do?"

Not ONE person in history has ever been arrested for killing themselves

What I have gleaned from reading these interchanges (besides being glad that Radardog and I are on the same side here, becaue I'd hate to try to debate him) is that the people on this forum seem to fall into two categories:

The people who believe that they (or their government) should tell everyone else how to run their lives, spend their money, and make their choices; and

The people who don't.

Libertarians don't. "Liberals" and "conservatives" do. Each of these morally bankrupt pseudo-philosophies pretend to be the party of freedom ...

...and they both lie.

"Liberals" want to take away your right to choose your school and whether or not to procure a handgun.

"Conservatives" want to take away your right to medicate yourself, marry whomever you please, buy a flag and burn it, etc.

Both belive in huge government monopolies, and back the government taking money away from the people who earn it and giving it away to whomever they admire -- non-workers in the case of "liberals" and inefficient corporations in the case of "conservatives".

It seems to me (and I cannot be sure; I am an engineer, not a psychologist) that "Liberals" and "Conservatives" both have this need to control other people.

Libertarians would rather control themselves, thank you very much.

Ten things wrong with Libertariansism.

1. It looks upon human greed as a virtue
The belief that all human actions are motivated out of self interest is a
matter for the philosophers and should not be the driving philosophy
behind a sytem of goverment.

2. Unrealistic views regarding corporate benevolence
Despite all the historical evidence to the contrary Libertarians believe that
corporations and private enterprise are responsible enough to guarantee
our safety without oversight.

3. Unrealistic views regarding taxation
Somehow we will be able to afford a competitive military a robust foreign
intelligence service a capable police force and a severely limited but still
expensive federal government all while lowering taxes repealing the
income tax and giving a "dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to
to private charity"

4. Lack of central control could prove disastrous during national emergencies
What happens if say New York is invaded by Canada and the small elite
volunteer army proves inadequate to reclaim New York from Canada's
tyranny? What happens if the rest of the country says that they never
liked New York any way and refuses to send additional support.

5. Views on Secession are potentially devastating to national unity.
"We recognize the right to political secession by political entities, private
groups, or individuals." This alone should be setting off alarm bells what
would be preventing every joe shmoe upest with the status quo from
seceding from the county and forming the "Peoples Republic of Shmoe"

6. Potentially devastating lack of national unity
The priorities of the East are not those neccesarilly those of the West nor
are those of the South those of the North. Without a common band holding
them together what exactly is there to keep them together?

7. Iresponsible views on government secrecy
Uneccessary government secrecy is a bad thing but under the libertarian
system who exactly would oversee whether or not something is worth
being classified. Who would determine what would be unnecesssary?
Wouldnt this require yet another government agencies oversight
putting even more of a drain on the already limited Libertarian budget?

8. Unrealistic environmental policies
The Libertarian Party webpage says that the among the largest pollution
violators are the department of defence yet the department of defence is
one of the few government groups the LP considers worthy of
continuation. They also some how believe that a logging company would
be more concerned with preserving a forest then cuttin it down to make a
buck.

9. Unrealistic views on private charity
Somehow the same people who griped about supporting welfare through
taxes are going to willing pay near the same amount of money to private
charitable organizations.

10. Unrealistic views on Privatization and government
Libertarians somehow believe that government is the source of all evil in
world and if they could just get rid of it everything would be fine yet they
fail to realize that exchanging a publically funded organization for a
privately funded one doesent get rid of government
it just changes who is in charge. In short Private industry would become
the government under the Libertarian doctrine. Explain to me the
differnce between a society in which government controls most of the
industry and a society in which industry controls most of the
government

Originally posted by Amuk
Just out of curiosity why do you think suicide being illegal will stop someone from doing it? How many people think "I would kill myself, but they will arrest me if I do?"

Not ONE person in history has ever been arrested for killing themselves

That's a very good question:
And yet many who have tried it have been aided in seeing that they can still lead productive lives. By saying "eh, go ahead and kill yourself, it's your body and you aren't hurting any one else"(which seem to be the L parties attitude) you are doing a couple of things:

1) encouraging people to kill themselves for insurance purposes

2)Ignoring the limpact that their deaths would have on the others around them.

Killing your self hurts those who care about you.


[edit on 2-12-2004 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

I_AM_that_I_AM,

Will you state precisely what your argument is for suicide to be illegal?

Is it:
1. The act of committing suicide will necessarily kill you?
2. The act of committing suicide hurts others?
3. The act of committing suicide generally occurs when people are depressed?
4. The act of committing suicide allows people to gather money from life insurance.

With respect to number 1, the act of living will necessarily lead to your death. Using that reasoning, all life should be illegal.

With respect to number 2, in some families, having their child tell them that they are homosexual hurts the family. Using that reasoning, homosexuality should be illegal.

With respect to number 3, the intake preventive medicine generally occurs when people are depressed. Using that reasoning, preventive medicines should be illegal.

With respect to number 4, life insurance usually does not include coverage of suicide.

Please clarify your argument; you have been all over the road.

And contrary to popular thought, the number of people who drank didn't go up or down. ... I see no reason why pot smoking wouldn't go up if it were legal, can you tell me why it wouldn't?

"Annual per capita consumption had been declining since 1910, reached an all-time low during the depression of 1921, and then began to increase in 1922. Consumption would probably have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in 1933.

Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 23-26, 72.

I have no idea if substance abuse would increase or decrease without drug laws. If you have some hard data to support your belief that it would increase, then show it. Let us suppose for a moment it does; drug abuse increases whenever the laws are repealed. What is the implication? Does that mean all of those people who start to smoke pot will suddenly drive? No. Does that mean all of those people who start to abuse drugs will violate another's rights? No.

The fundamental principle in all of this is that drug use violates no one's rights. People have the freedom to pierce themselves (a potentially deadly thing) if they wish, as well as the freedom to go snow skiing without a jacket. In other words, people do and should have the freedom to inflict whatever they want to on their body so long as it does not violate another's rights.

And how much more is going to be needed when you get rid of public universities?

Taxes and tuition pay for our public universities now. If we stop paying taxes for that institution, then bingo! We suddenly have more funds to pay for out children's education. And that is not the best part! We have the ability to determine exactly the amount and to which school our tax dollars would have gone to. With the current system, you and I are paying public institutions that we may well never use (or our children).

--Radardog

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
By saying "eh, go ahead and kill yourself, it's your body and you aren't hurting any one else"(which seem to be the L parties attitude) you are doing a couple of things:

1) encouraging people to kill themselves for insurance purposes

2)Ignoring the limpact that their deaths would have on the others around them.

To begin with we don't encourage people to kill themselves, I would try to talk anyone into not doing it but the bottom line is that it is THEIR life, to enjoy, waste, change, improve, end, etc; by there own will.

Has suicide being illegal stopped ANYONE from killing them selves?

After all its kinda hard to punish someone for suicide isn't it?

boogyman,

Great post! Very thoughtful!

1. It looks upon human greed as a virtue
The belief that all human actions are motivated out of self interest is a
matter for the philosophers and should not be the driving philosophy
behind a sytem of goverment.

I wouldn't say it is a virtue (in a moral sense), but rather a quality inherently in us. Systems of governments are philosophies, so I do not see why philosophers should touch them. Plato, for example, argued for the republic with the human soul as its analogy.

2. Unrealistic views regarding corporate benevolence, Despite all the historical evidence to the contrary Libertarians believe that corporations and private enterprise are responsible enough to guarantee our safety without oversight.

I think that corporate entities need to be consciously or inherently benevolent, but rather a totally free market system would require them to lean in that direction. In the libertarian world, any entity that violates another's rights is subject to the law -- including corporations. Insofar as humans fear the law to not murder, so will corporations.

3. Unrealistic views regarding taxation
Somehow we will be able to afford a competitive military a robust foreign
intelligence service a capable police force and a severely limited but still
expensive federal government all while lowering taxes repealing the
income tax and giving a "dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to
to private charity"

Libertarians are generally isolationists. Generally, a competitive military and an advanced foreign intelligence is not needed for isolationist countries. The U.S. before WWI, for example, did not have much of a military yet had secure borders. Let's call police officers what they are: Servants of the people; contrary to the slogan, in reality they serve to protect. Services should cost money. For the anarcho capitalists out there, this sets up the argument that police forces could be thought of as a subscription to a service that a consumer can buy.

#7 could be responded to by the same reasoning.

4. Lack of central control could prove disastrous during national emergencies. What happens if say New York is invaded by Canada and the small elite volunteer army proves inadequate to reclaim New York from Canada's tyranny? What happens if the rest of the country says that they never liked New York any way and refuses to send additional support.

In contemporary history, conquered people that do not want to be conquered do not stay that way long. India, African Colonies, Phillipines, etc. Benevolent forces have also been known to come to the aid of invaded peoples.

5. Views on Secession are potentially devastating to national unity.
"We recognize the right to political secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals." This alone should be setting off alarm bells what would be preventing every joe shmoe upest with the status quo from
seceding from the county and forming the "Peoples Republic of Shmoe"

That is right. According to this philosophy, an unjust ruler can be overthrown by its subjects. At the same time, at what point should a group rebel?

6. Potentially devastating lack of national unity
The priorities of the East are not those neccesarilly those of the West nor are those of the South those of the North. Without a common band holding them together what exactly is there to keep them together?

Economic resources. The power of money have and will continue to bring people together. In the end, economics tend to be what hold countries together or apart: The thirteen colonies disagreed with the economic policies of Britain, which directly influenced the governments they eventually set up. Britain was both a divider and a uniter with economic policies.

8. Unrealistic environmental policies
The Libertarian Party webpage says that the among the largest pollution violators are the department of defence yet the department of defence is one of the few government groups the LP considers worthy of
continuation. They also some how believe that a logging company would be more concerned with preserving a forest then cuttin it down to make a buck.

The environment tend to be one of the sharpest critiques of libertarianism. It is an irony that the LP party wants to continue the DoD, but at the same time they want to reform it. A logging company does not have access to every bit of land that has a tree. That is, the land they have rights to and own are relatively finite. With this in mind, private sellers can limit logging companies, and at the same time, companies have a good incintive to repopulate land that they could eventually come back to.

Looking at the economy, as land with trees becomes scarce, the price to cut them down will become large. It is within their best interest to make sure the supply of trees is relatively large.

9. Unrealistic views on private charity
Somehow the same people who griped about supporting welfare through taxes are going to willing pay near the same amount of money to private charitable organizations.

I covered this in a previous post; Counting the charities listed on the tax returns in just three states, there was just under 1 trillion dollars given to charity. There is a lot of money out there, and people will be able to give more if they are paying less in taxes.

10. Unrealistic views on Privatization and government
Libertarians somehow believe that government is the source of all evil in world and if they could just get rid of it everything would be fine yet they
fail to realize that exchanging a publically funded organization for a
privately funded one doesent get rid of government
it just changes who is in charge. In short Private industry would become the government under the Libertarian doctrine. Explain to me the
differnce between a society in which government controls most of the
industry and a society in which industry controls most of the
government

The LP party wants to keep a weak U.S. government. The anarcho capitalists, on the other hand, do not want a government. Private companies can not force policies on to other companies, and that is what is the most different between the two: the U.S. government can force a policy onto all individuals and entities, while in anarcho-capitalist land, no such entity could do that.