-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
A Conversation about Libertarianism
- Thread starter Nova_C
- Start date
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
"How would a Libertarian approach deal with the product, though? The same problem that food would encounter without an FDA would affect drugs: bad products. When it comes to things like food and drugs, a body to make sure that companies aren't poisoning customers is a big deal."
I do not particularly trust the FDA. I have seen discrimination against some products for no apparent reason (especially if they are fairly natural and won't make tons of money for big drug companies) while other profitable products sail through, and later prove dangerous. My understanding is that many higher ups in government agencies such as the FDA later go on to high positions in the very industry they regulate, thus giving both unfair advantages to that company, as well as motive to be careful who they tick off while working for the government.
I would prefer to put my trust in a business such as Consumer Reports (forget what their official name is). They don't accept ads, but use my subscription to impartially test various products and give me the results. I am sure that many businesses would spring up to give their "Seal of Good Housekeeping" approval to various product categories if enough people would support them.
I understand that there is also some sort of consumer group that tests and reports on vitamins and drugs, and another underwriting lab that tests electronics.
I don't know much about these groups, but I would sure find out more once the gov butts out and private groups step in.
I am mostly for the federal gov to abide by the Constitution. They are supposed to have very limited powers, mostly dealing with foreign involvement and issues between the states. But they have stretched and contorted those few powers to be pretty much whatever they want it to mean.
I am not nearly as against the various states regulating things as I am the feds doing it (although states, counties and cities have been over regulating, too). The 50 states SHOULD experiment with different ideas. The most successful ideas and states will attract the brightest people, and the most investment. And it is a whole lot easier to move out of a state I don't like than it is to find a whole different country!
I do not particularly trust the FDA. I have seen discrimination against some products for no apparent reason (especially if they are fairly natural and won't make tons of money for big drug companies) while other profitable products sail through, and later prove dangerous. My understanding is that many higher ups in government agencies such as the FDA later go on to high positions in the very industry they regulate, thus giving both unfair advantages to that company, as well as motive to be careful who they tick off while working for the government.
I would prefer to put my trust in a business such as Consumer Reports (forget what their official name is). They don't accept ads, but use my subscription to impartially test various products and give me the results. I am sure that many businesses would spring up to give their "Seal of Good Housekeeping" approval to various product categories if enough people would support them.
I understand that there is also some sort of consumer group that tests and reports on vitamins and drugs, and another underwriting lab that tests electronics.
I don't know much about these groups, but I would sure find out more once the gov butts out and private groups step in.
I am mostly for the federal gov to abide by the Constitution. They are supposed to have very limited powers, mostly dealing with foreign involvement and issues between the states. But they have stretched and contorted those few powers to be pretty much whatever they want it to mean.
I am not nearly as against the various states regulating things as I am the feds doing it (although states, counties and cities have been over regulating, too). The 50 states SHOULD experiment with different ideas. The most successful ideas and states will attract the brightest people, and the most investment. And it is a whole lot easier to move out of a state I don't like than it is to find a whole different country!
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
I also am for protecting minors differently than adults. While I don't think it is my business what adults do in their own home regarding drugs, alcohol, sex, etc, I don't extend the same rights to potentially destroy oneself to those unable to see the consequences of those decisions yet.
But even then, there is a quandary. I don't want to see kids do permanent harm to themselves because of their youth. Yet the very laws that seek to protect them can label a child FOR LIFE as a sexual predator just because they "sexted" nude photos of THEMSELVES to another kid, or even because they had sexual contact with another kid their own age. Or the law can destroy their lives because they used an illegal drug. How is that protecting them?
A parent can't legally buy a glass of wine at a restaurant for their teen, yet kids have no problems obtaining liquor for drunken, unsupervised, parties.
I would love to see loving, responsible parents make their own decisions of what is in the best interest of their kids, whether in education, getting tattoos, drinking alcohol, or anything else. But because not all parents are loving and caring, I know that is not always possible. So I don't know what the answer is. But ruining a kid's life for a stupid mistake is not the answer.
But even then, there is a quandary. I don't want to see kids do permanent harm to themselves because of their youth. Yet the very laws that seek to protect them can label a child FOR LIFE as a sexual predator just because they "sexted" nude photos of THEMSELVES to another kid, or even because they had sexual contact with another kid their own age. Or the law can destroy their lives because they used an illegal drug. How is that protecting them?
A parent can't legally buy a glass of wine at a restaurant for their teen, yet kids have no problems obtaining liquor for drunken, unsupervised, parties.
I would love to see loving, responsible parents make their own decisions of what is in the best interest of their kids, whether in education, getting tattoos, drinking alcohol, or anything else. But because not all parents are loving and caring, I know that is not always possible. So I don't know what the answer is. But ruining a kid's life for a stupid mistake is not the answer.
Nova_C
New member
Absolutely, and I'm with you on that.
My intention with this thread wasn't necessarily to compare systems, though I know that was inevitable. I'm hoping to discuss actual Libertarian solutions to the problems that we have now, or would arise by reducing government involvement.
Regarding the way we've been handling children, essentially, children are not people because they are not granted many of the rights we take for granted. Bodily autonomy, property, and freedom of association are rights that kids do not have. It's an interesting quandary, because kids are also universally dumb.
In a Libertarian system, how would you like emergency services to be handled?
My intention with this thread wasn't necessarily to compare systems, though I know that was inevitable. I'm hoping to discuss actual Libertarian solutions to the problems that we have now, or would arise by reducing government involvement.
Regarding the way we've been handling children, essentially, children are not people because they are not granted many of the rights we take for granted. Bodily autonomy, property, and freedom of association are rights that kids do not have. It's an interesting quandary, because kids are also universally dumb.
In a Libertarian system, how would you like emergency services to be handled?
Karoni
Cornaholic
Prostitution is hardly consensual sex. No woman in her right mind wants to be a prostitute and have sex with total strangers for a few bucks. Prostitutes are trapped in that lifestyle, either because they are wounded or because they are poor or because they are drug addicts. I would hardly lump this in with someone who wants to smoke some pot or bet on a horse race.
tsst
Deuce is watching!
Chip
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
Wow is that ever a generalization! I can introduce you to some sex workers on Twitter that would sure disagree. Here's one's blog: http://www.feminisnt.com/ <-Almost certainly NSFW
I'll be the first to say that no one grows up wanting to be a street walker, but some people like being sex workers. I wouldn't, but I don't prohibit others from doing what I don't like. And even when prostitutes are "trapped" in the life, I don't believe in locking them in a cage for it.
Karoni
Cornaholic
Sigh. The reason I don't usually get into these discussions is because almost everyone is better than me at making their point seem reasonable, whether it is or not. I don't agree with your statement, above, but the last sentence really caught my eye. I never thought about that before. I don't believe prostitution should be legal because I believe that (yes, in general), it victimizes those who work in the industry. But I didn't think about the fact that if it were legal, the prostitutes themselves would not be thrown in jail. That's a good point. I wouldn't mind the pimps being thrown in jail, though.
Outcast
ATPSS
I think that we all can agree with this one.
SnakeAround
Formerly Blutengel
Over here forced prostitution is punished and researched so it can be eradicated hopefully one day. Trade in humans is still forbidden by law. Yet anyone who wants to earn their money with it, can count on the social system and police when being hurt or threatened. to me that is the ideal situation, because there will always be a demand for it, and when it is illegal, there will be more problem than when it is legal and it is easier to keep an eye on. I know there are quite some female students whom prefer earning a lot of bucks with a few hours of work as a call girl above being a waitress or bar tender. They have more time left to study and make more money and there are decent call girl companies who transport them door to door and keep an eye on them.
SnakeAround
Formerly Blutengel
Question: is is being a Libertarian the same as being Liberal? I got confused because my boyfriend asked me....
Nova_C
New member
No. Liberal usually refers to being socially and fiscally liberal. Things like public health care, social safety net, government regulation of industry is generally considered to be Liberal. It is a catch all term for left-of-center politics.
Libertarian is about no government intervention. A pure Libertarian is a step shy of an anarchist because they believe government should be minimally involved in people's lives and services that are provided by government now would be better provided by private industry and regulated only by market forces.
Of course, there is a massive sliding scale, so someone that describes themselves as Libertarian or Liberal is likely not so easily described by these definitions.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
"Of course, there is a massive sliding scale, so someone that describes themselves as Libertarian or Liberal is likely not so easily described by these definitions."
EXACTLY! Most Libertarians do not advocate anything close to anarchy. Most want a strong enough government to do what the private sector can't do as well or better than government, but no more than the minimum needed to "do the job". I think most Libertarians are pragmatic, and want the best outcome with the least cost in freedom and taxes. But of course, thoughts of exactly what amount of government is needed will vary from person to person, just as with liberals and conservatives. I don't claim to know exactly which things government will have to continue to do. I just know that it is a lot less than it is doing now. So let's start on a reducing diet for government, and pick the low hanging fruit to get rid of first. We'll tackle the tougher decisions after we get rid of victimless crimes and anything else that fills our jails needlessly. There are lots of areas to get government out of before we decide who will build future roads.
"Prostitution is hardly consensual sex. No woman in her right mind wants to be a prostitute and have sex with total strangers for a few bucks. Prostitutes are trapped in that lifestyle, either because they are wounded or because they are poor or because they are drug addicts."
That may be often (but not always) true. But saving you from yourself is the same argument used by those who would outlaw gambling and drugs - and alcohol, during Prohibition. No sane person would choose to spend their rent money gambling, or to be totally addicted to drugs or alcohol. And those people are often pushed into the lifestyle because they were poor or too young to know better. So shouldn't we protect these "weak" adults that are too poor / young/ stupid, or whatever, from themselves? In other words, we will throw them in jail to protect them, I guess. It didn't work with Prohibition, and it doesn't work now. It just drives the activity underground, with even fewer protections for the weak being preyed upon by the strong.
BUT - if we spent a lot less money on the drug war, and keeping prostitutes and addicts in jail, maybe we would have more money for treatment and education.
"Over here forced prostitution is punished and researched so it can be eradicated hopefully one day. Trade in humans is still forbidden by law. Yet anyone who wants to earn their money with it, can count on the social system and police when being hurt or threatened. to me that is the ideal situation, because there will always be a demand for it, and when it is illegal, there will be more problem than when it is legal and it is easier to keep an eye on."
EXACTLY! Whether it is Prohibition or illegal pythons, making it illegal does not stop the activity, it only drives it underground. And why should I believe that some elite bureaucrat can decide what is best for me better than I can decide for myself, anyway?
EXACTLY! Most Libertarians do not advocate anything close to anarchy. Most want a strong enough government to do what the private sector can't do as well or better than government, but no more than the minimum needed to "do the job". I think most Libertarians are pragmatic, and want the best outcome with the least cost in freedom and taxes. But of course, thoughts of exactly what amount of government is needed will vary from person to person, just as with liberals and conservatives. I don't claim to know exactly which things government will have to continue to do. I just know that it is a lot less than it is doing now. So let's start on a reducing diet for government, and pick the low hanging fruit to get rid of first. We'll tackle the tougher decisions after we get rid of victimless crimes and anything else that fills our jails needlessly. There are lots of areas to get government out of before we decide who will build future roads.
"Prostitution is hardly consensual sex. No woman in her right mind wants to be a prostitute and have sex with total strangers for a few bucks. Prostitutes are trapped in that lifestyle, either because they are wounded or because they are poor or because they are drug addicts."
That may be often (but not always) true. But saving you from yourself is the same argument used by those who would outlaw gambling and drugs - and alcohol, during Prohibition. No sane person would choose to spend their rent money gambling, or to be totally addicted to drugs or alcohol. And those people are often pushed into the lifestyle because they were poor or too young to know better. So shouldn't we protect these "weak" adults that are too poor / young/ stupid, or whatever, from themselves? In other words, we will throw them in jail to protect them, I guess. It didn't work with Prohibition, and it doesn't work now. It just drives the activity underground, with even fewer protections for the weak being preyed upon by the strong.
BUT - if we spent a lot less money on the drug war, and keeping prostitutes and addicts in jail, maybe we would have more money for treatment and education.
"Over here forced prostitution is punished and researched so it can be eradicated hopefully one day. Trade in humans is still forbidden by law. Yet anyone who wants to earn their money with it, can count on the social system and police when being hurt or threatened. to me that is the ideal situation, because there will always be a demand for it, and when it is illegal, there will be more problem than when it is legal and it is easier to keep an eye on."
EXACTLY! Whether it is Prohibition or illegal pythons, making it illegal does not stop the activity, it only drives it underground. And why should I believe that some elite bureaucrat can decide what is best for me better than I can decide for myself, anyway?
Don't have to worry about forced prostitution of here. There's so many harlots' giving it away it's a wonder prostitutes don't starve to death.
Chip
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson will not get to participate in the debate, but he will be live tweeting his thoughts and answers on Twitter. Should be interesting, he's got a way with words: https://twitter.com/govgaryjohnson
Michael823
New member
I think people sometimes forget that making something illegal doesn't necessarily mean that it's for the better protection of the people.
Example (and this is just an example, not an actual story).. But if I was in the privacy of my own home smoking a joint, that was rolled from marijuana grown by myself, of which was never consumed outside of my property or distributed to anyone else but myself for personal use, I don't see how I could possibly be harming someone else (besides possibly myself).
However, if a police officer was to catch me doing so, I would be sent to jail, marked as a drug abuser/grower/dealer, my record would forever be tarnished, and my family would unquestionably suffer and pay for it, as well as everyone else who would have to foot the resources necessary to punish me.
Now, it's my responsibility to think about those consequences, and make the smart enough decision not to jeopardize my family in that way. But it wouldn't be for any other reason than to 'obey the law'.
BTW, not condoning the use of drugs, or saying that I do use drugs (I don't)... I just don't see the scientific reasoning for certain laws, especially laws aimed at regulating personal choice. They seem to be more designed to make us villains and free prison workers, not to protect us. I actually disagree with the idea that prisons will fix anyone, let alone people with petty offenses. They may be effective at keeping dangerous people off of the streets (for which they ARE important). But they're equally effective in taking in someone with a minor checkered past, turning them into a person with a record (and subsequent limited opportunity) as well as giving them access to other criminals/criminal activity, and releasing them back to the streets to re-commit, or to commit even worse crimes because they now have even less to lose.
Example (and this is just an example, not an actual story).. But if I was in the privacy of my own home smoking a joint, that was rolled from marijuana grown by myself, of which was never consumed outside of my property or distributed to anyone else but myself for personal use, I don't see how I could possibly be harming someone else (besides possibly myself).
However, if a police officer was to catch me doing so, I would be sent to jail, marked as a drug abuser/grower/dealer, my record would forever be tarnished, and my family would unquestionably suffer and pay for it, as well as everyone else who would have to foot the resources necessary to punish me.
Now, it's my responsibility to think about those consequences, and make the smart enough decision not to jeopardize my family in that way. But it wouldn't be for any other reason than to 'obey the law'.
BTW, not condoning the use of drugs, or saying that I do use drugs (I don't)... I just don't see the scientific reasoning for certain laws, especially laws aimed at regulating personal choice. They seem to be more designed to make us villains and free prison workers, not to protect us. I actually disagree with the idea that prisons will fix anyone, let alone people with petty offenses. They may be effective at keeping dangerous people off of the streets (for which they ARE important). But they're equally effective in taking in someone with a minor checkered past, turning them into a person with a record (and subsequent limited opportunity) as well as giving them access to other criminals/criminal activity, and releasing them back to the streets to re-commit, or to commit even worse crimes because they now have even less to lose.
Michael823
New member
* to add, quick story.
I had an older man (maybe 60) come into the store the other week. He had a lot of difficulty walking around, but he did just fine as long as he had something to lean on. anyways. I was talking with this man for a long while about fishing, life, etc.. as I tried to help him learn a little about the different flies we have. And in the conversation, he had mentioned what had caused his difficulties in walking. Apparently he was misdiagnosed for three years with several different disorders/diseases, all the while Lyme disease was settling into (and ruining) his body. This man described, how for the better part of two years he was unable to even get out of bed. And how the pain and discomfort he suffered from made it impossible to live life, even while being doped up on prescription drugs.
Long story short.. this man said how he never smoked 'pot' (as he called it), until one of his friends recovering from cancer treatment had recommended it, and even swore by it. So figuring that he couldn't be any worse off than he was, he actually gave it a try. And sure enough, ever since he's started to use it (medicinally, although still illegally) he's been able to actually get out of bed, move around, and live a life of limited pain. His mobility still needs work, but everything else about this man seemed in good shape.
Now, again, I'm not trying to turn this into a pro-marijuana thread (I swear, lol). But how could any Joe Shmoe over 21 be able to go buy a fifth of Vodka and get as messy as they choose, yet this man (who clearly has lived a long, productive life) is unable to (legally) use a substance that allows him freedoms in his life that he just hadn't had while 'lawfully' watching his life fade out with each bottle of pills.
I wouldn't consider my self a libertarian. But I am completely with the common sense approach to dealing with crime. If it's something that doesn't harm anyone else, there's no need wasting resources to control it.
I had an older man (maybe 60) come into the store the other week. He had a lot of difficulty walking around, but he did just fine as long as he had something to lean on. anyways. I was talking with this man for a long while about fishing, life, etc.. as I tried to help him learn a little about the different flies we have. And in the conversation, he had mentioned what had caused his difficulties in walking. Apparently he was misdiagnosed for three years with several different disorders/diseases, all the while Lyme disease was settling into (and ruining) his body. This man described, how for the better part of two years he was unable to even get out of bed. And how the pain and discomfort he suffered from made it impossible to live life, even while being doped up on prescription drugs.
Long story short.. this man said how he never smoked 'pot' (as he called it), until one of his friends recovering from cancer treatment had recommended it, and even swore by it. So figuring that he couldn't be any worse off than he was, he actually gave it a try. And sure enough, ever since he's started to use it (medicinally, although still illegally) he's been able to actually get out of bed, move around, and live a life of limited pain. His mobility still needs work, but everything else about this man seemed in good shape.
Now, again, I'm not trying to turn this into a pro-marijuana thread (I swear, lol). But how could any Joe Shmoe over 21 be able to go buy a fifth of Vodka and get as messy as they choose, yet this man (who clearly has lived a long, productive life) is unable to (legally) use a substance that allows him freedoms in his life that he just hadn't had while 'lawfully' watching his life fade out with each bottle of pills.
I wouldn't consider my self a libertarian. But I am completely with the common sense approach to dealing with crime. If it's something that doesn't harm anyone else, there's no need wasting resources to control it.