Democracy can be a bad thing

This sounds like a needless semantic debate to me. Personally, I define liberty as having absolute dominion over one's own person and property. You can use another word, but let's not get wrapped up in that. The issue for me, really, is justice: that everyone has a just claim of absolute dominion over his own person and property and no one has any just claim to the person and property of others.

 

Property rights may, indeed, be critical. But they run contrary to individual freedom, in a way -- though I'll grant that they may also be necessary to individual freedom, in another way.

(I'm using the word freedom now instead of liberty. I like it more for root irony.)

I don't know how I feel about geoism. I find the logic compelling, but I'd want to see some experimentation first before we actually made it law.

 

I don't think I can see that as justice in an absolute sense. What someone claims as their property is not necessarily their property, and in some cases I would say that a human being's right to life may trump someone's right to control their property.

 

It's their property if they acquire it through first occupation and use. Property ownership can be considered an extension of one's right to ones body, as the fruit of one's labor.

 

The type of democracy which is being discussed here is like they had in ancient Athens. In Athens the power of the citizen assemby was absolute or very close. I don't think such a democracy exists in the modern world. It wouldn't be a practical form of government for any sizeable territory anyway.

When we say democracy today we really mean a government which is chosen by the citizens where everyone or almost everyone who is an adult and a citizen can vote. This is actually a Republic (I believe a Constitutional Monarchy qualifies as well).

Such a system is almost always better than a Dictatorship (Syria)/Absolute Monarchy (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)/closely controlled Oligarchy (China).

There could be rare exceptions (former Yugoslavia comes to mind) where due to bitter divisions amoung the people involved a Dictator (like Tito) might be better than the governments which the people chose because that lead to Civil War.

A really capable Absolute Monarch who ruled for the people's benefit instead of his own could be another possible exception (don't know of any around today) but a country has to be really lucky to get this.

 

Simply put your liberty ends when another's starts. And IF AND ONLY IF you overstep your bounds onto someone else's liberty should the government step in.... but only to protect the other person's liberty. So see it isn't about you hurting him, its about his liberty being effected. If everyone respected their own liberties and didn't overstep their liberty, then there would be no problems in america essentially. Of course that would never happen, but we could actually have a much better control of the population if we did have a more libertarian society. 99% of people just want to be able to do their own thing and be left the heck alone. But America is slowly making that impossible! And I think that is really our biggest problem. Even inflation and popping housing bubbles can be traced back to the government overstepping bounds.

 

Of course it does.

I would say that the state should try to minimize harm, not arbitrarily restrict freedom based on the perception of potential harm.

If you are alone in the world, there is no one for you to harm, and therefore, there would be no restrictions on your liberty. But when there are multiple people together, the only fair thing to do is to prevent people from harming one another. And the best way to make sure that harm doesn't happen, is to agree together what constitutes harm, and then to organize to prevent it from occurring. That is, to make laws preventing harm. Therefore, the law exists to prevent harm, and encourages maximum liberty in a society of peers.

Yes, liberty is always a give-and-take. Mostly though, we are giving people the freedom to do what they want to. And in return, they must demonstrate that they can handle the responsibility. There is no other way to do it.

 

Would you say harm cannot be self inflicted? or inflicted on non-people like animals? Why would the government create laws based on that? Do you think they are overstepping their boundaries?

I'll play devil's advocate here but I think we can all agree avoidable, non intended death is bad or harmful. If we want a law that prevents this realistic harm that is much more common then murder why don't we bring back prohibition and add cigarettes and anti-health foods to the list of banned products. They are only harmful and provide such little liberty especially when there are so many better alternatives available. Think of how many lives would be saved and how many children would grow up in a more fruitful environment if only half as many of these products made it through.

Now the strange thing is I don't consume many of these products and it's not because of any law I'm just disinterested in them. This is because of two things education from third parties and my personal experiences these give me a vast amount of choices and positions to explore but also make me aware to the consequences of such choices. While this horizon will be ever expanding and maturing it can help lead me to conclusions on more complicated matters such as aggression, death, or love. I then can act on my conclusions and deal with the consequences which almost never relate to law but instead impact my community and myself.

The best prevention of harm is thought and the government isn't even close to the crux of that. Besides law more often than naught leads to much more harm than good and even in a representative democracy the majority of people still have very little say in the development of laws short of specific referendums.

 

Ok, I did not clearly say the government should prevent "harm to others," but that's what I meant. If you want to harm yourself, that is none of my business, and none of the government's either.

From the day we are born, we are each in the process of dying. So if I want to kill myself a little bit faster enjoying my booze, fatty foods, and copious amounts of marijuana, that's my choice.

How does that quote go?

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW-- What a Ride!"

 

You don't other systems don't have orders of magnitude more of the abuses in question?

Ever read about Lenin's and Stalin's suppression of the kulaks?

 

You're contradicting yourself. By wanting a government you are already saying it's okay to infringe on other peoples liberties. You're saying that a small group of people called the government should protect people's liberties by having the right to violate those liberties at will.

Do you see how that sounds? That's why statist libertarians sound so absurd. If you want to use the initiation of violence in one instance then it must be okay in ALL instances.

It's never okay to initiate violence against others.

It isn't okay for you, me, the mafia, or the government!

 

Please don't be so romantic as I said i don't advocate for any of that. I was simply trying to point out an expansive law could be used to prevent harm and im positive all the items i suggested banning can have extreme repercussions on children. I don't advocate for that though, i advocate for for-thought to actions not preventative laws. Besides you'd have hundreds of other options to kill yourself, your "journey" would only be slightly altered.

 

When did I say the government should infringe on liberties? Or use violence? If you infringe on another's liberties you should be arrested and put through the legal process. There is no way you can disagree with that statement unless you are an anarchist.

 

The government can only exist through violence.

Without the initiation of violence against peaceful people, where would the government get its funds? Are you saying that the government doesn't use violence to support itself and is entirely voluntary?

There are only two choices, coercive or voluntary. You can't get raped a little bit. It's either consensual or forced.

 

People are okay with taxation when the country is doing well and the levels are respectable. When a government is run well most people do not mind at all paying taxes. Besides you aren't forced to pay taxes... you are more than welcome to just leave. A true American republic the way it is created in the constitution would not violate anybody's liberties. Anarchy is definitely not a choice. People are too evil. Imagine if you removed almost all consequence and responsibility... things would get terrible.

 

This is a strawman fallacy that completely diverted the attention from my original point.

I said that the government initiated violence against peaceful people and that's why you were contradicting yourself.

You then asserted that the government doesn't use violence.

I then showed you how the government does use violence and instead of addressing that, you just said that most people don't mind paying taxes (ad numerum fallacy) and that I can leave (strawman which has nothing to do with the initiation of violence).

You're making a fallacious strawman argument.

Let's get back to my premise. The government initiates violence against peaceful people, therefore you are contradicting yourself when you say you want to use the government to protect people's liberties.

 

This still has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Do you understand how the idea of the government initiating violence against people to protect people from the initiation of violence is contradictory?

Also, Danboy

Your point about people being too evil is also contradictory. If people are too evil then that means the government is made up of evil people voted in by evil people. You would actually be advocating putting power into the hands of people that are evil.

See how your premise falls apart under the slightest scrutiny?

 

This post completely misses the point. How is it logical to defend people from the initiation of violence by initiating violence against them? It isn't an argument about absolute freedom (whatever that means), it is a logically inconsistent viewpoint that you're arguing for.

It's like saying that raping a woman constantly protects her from being raped by anyone else, therefore its a valid defense. It's absurd.

 

You're acting like government is this magical entity not causing harm. How do you think the government can get money to prevent the lower criminals from stealing the wallets? They have to steal in the first place. That's the negative outcome. Nothing is gained. Stealing is implemented to prevent stealing.

 

Sigh. You are completely misquoting and misrepresenting what I am saying. Does the government initiate acts of violence currently? Absolutely. If they correctly followed the constitution would they? No. Its ignorant to think a cop or a soldier will never be violent, but only in the interest of preserving rights. A mass murderer gets caught. She the cop hit him if necessary to subdue him? ABSOLUTELY. This man has given up his rights by infringing on so many others. Thus the sense of varied punishment. We vary our punishments based on the severity of the obtrusion into another's liberty. Where exactly do you disagree with me? Are you saying that absolutely any form of government is automatically going to be violent? That's just not even intelligent. In an intelligent society we have a leadership structure, and as a good citizen we should be more than happy to pay a fair amount in taxes. Otherwise you are not a good citizen. It is idiotic to assume any form of taxation is theft and evil. I really do not know what your point is unless it is to say all forms are governments are evil which just makes you an anarchist and far worse than liberals or socialists or even the worst libertarian. Can you make clear what your argument is exactly?