Libertarianism

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's their fault if they aren't rich enough to afford food, now isn't it?

Whaddya mean no food? They got babies!!!

"The solution is contained within the problem."

Okay, now what shall we talk about?

[Drewish]

Environmentalism. Wouldn't releasing a super virus and letting natural selection sort it out be a great way to save the environment without heavy handed government regulation?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Environmentalism. Wouldn't releasing a super virus and letting natural selection sort it out be a great way to save the environment without heavy handed government regulation?

Ah yes, a willingness to decide other people's fate for them. Why not just outlaw medicine?

[Drewish]

The inability of somebody to tell when I'm clearly presenting a self parody demonstrates to me how ignorant of libertarianism they are. Holy crap, I literally face palmed.

[Seth]

It's their fault if they aren't rich enough to afford food, now isn't it?

No, it's only their "fault" if they initiate force and fraud by getting the government to do their dirty work in stealing from others what they want or need, rather than asking nicely for people to help them out in their time of need and otherwise taking responsibility for their own actions and the consequences that flow therefrom without imposing those consequences on others against their will.

[Seth]

Environmentalism. Wouldn't releasing a super virus and letting natural selection sort it out be a great way to save the environment without heavy handed government regulation?

Well, releasing a "super virus" wouldn't exactly be "natural selection" now would it? Inevitably such a virus would carry the biases and preferences of its creators. The KKK's version would only target blacks and Jews. The Eco-nut version would target anybody who doesn't eat granola and tofu. The Muslim version would target anyone not of Arabic ancestry, and so on and so forth.

[Seth]

Environmentalism. Wouldn't releasing a super virus and letting natural selection sort it out be a great way to save the environment without heavy handed government regulation?

Ah yes, a willingness to decide other people's fate for them. Why not just outlaw medicine?

Far better to just let people procure whatever medicine they want and can afford, or can beg from some altruistic, charitable organization, at their own expense and risk.

By the way, did you hear that the French government is now on the hook for tens of millions of dollars to REMOVE some 30,000 faulty breast-implants from French women? That's because the implants were a non-covered cosmetic procedure, but because the manufacturer defrauded the women by using inferior industrial-quality silicone rather than the required medical-grade stuff, the implants have been deemed (by the government) to be a "health risk" and therefore removal and (presumably) replacement is now a medical necessity and the government is now on the hook financially.

What a bunch of fuckwits...They deserve to go bankrupt.

[amok]

Seth wrote:
Now let's look at the other example: This example is much more complex because it involves societal standards of behavior and "statutory rape" laws.

Libertarianism would not have such laws in the first place. Sex with a consenting partner is a personal liberty, so if the sex is consensual, there is no initiation of force or fraud, so there is no triggering of a right to self-defense or compensation for wrongdoing. This of course brings up the issue of "age of consent."

But "age of consent" laws are merely reflections of majority sentiment in a particular community, and as such, they are most often infringements on the personal rights of individuals. Regardless of age, every individual has a right to personal autonomy and decision making. The conundrum occurs when we discuss children who are incapable of making rational decisions about their behavior. In such cases, the logical protector of the rights of a child incompetent to make such decisions is of course the parents.

Should a person engage in non-consensual sex with an incompetent child, then that's an initiation of force, which may be replied to by those harmed or their agents or representatives. But if the sex is consensual, there is no initiation of force, so there is no claim. There might be fraud, however, if the male told the female that she could not become pregnant by him, or would not contract a disease from him (or she does anyway because he concealed that material fact), and she did.

But again we come to the core question of who determines "incompetence" to make decisions about sexual activity.

So, we must ask if society, as a whole, SHOULD make such decisions, or even if society as a whole is competent to make that decision for all children in all cases, under all circumstances, by majority fiat? Or should the decision be left to the child, the parents or someone else?

But wouldn't that be a disaster for those children who are victimized by their parents or guardians? I can see things going very wrong for a percentage of child victims if there's not some overall societal prohibition against sexual contact with children, rather than leaving it up to individual parents/guardians.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:
Now let's look at the other example: This example is much more complex because it involves societal standards of behavior and "statutory rape" laws.

Libertarianism would not have such laws in the first place. Sex with a consenting partner is a personal liberty, so if the sex is consensual, there is no initiation of force or fraud, so there is no triggering of a right to self-defense or compensation for wrongdoing. This of course brings up the issue of "age of consent."

But "age of consent" laws are merely reflections of majority sentiment in a particular community, and as such, they are most often infringements on the personal rights of individuals. Regardless of age, every individual has a right to personal autonomy and decision making. The conundrum occurs when we discuss children who are incapable of making rational decisions about their behavior. In such cases, the logical protector of the rights of a child incompetent to make such decisions is of course the parents.

Should a person engage in non-consensual sex with an incompetent child, then that's an initiation of force, which may be replied to by those harmed or their agents or representatives. But if the sex is consensual, there is no initiation of force, so there is no claim. There might be fraud, however, if the male told the female that she could not become pregnant by him, or would not contract a disease from him (or she does anyway because he concealed that material fact), and she did.

But again we come to the core question of who determines "incompetence" to make decisions about sexual activity.

So, we must ask if society, as a whole, SHOULD make such decisions, or even if society as a whole is competent to make that decision for all children in all cases, under all circumstances, by majority fiat? Or should the decision be left to the child, the parents or someone else?

But wouldn't that be a disaster for those children who are victimized by their parents or guardians? I can see things going very wrong for a percentage of child victims if there's not some overall societal prohibition against sexual contact with children, rather than leaving it up to individual parents/guardians.

A parent is no more entitled to initiate force or fraud (in the non-disciplinary sense of course) against the dignity and rights of a child to personal autonomy than anyone else is.

However, this brings up the issue of incest. In general, the proscription on incest is based in a genetic argument that allowing close interbreeding among family members enhances the chances of producing harmful recessive traits, as seen in the royalty of Europe. So, there is some legitimate argument to be made that allowing procreation among close family members where there is a risk of creating defective babies is a bad thing. On the other hand, with modern genetic testing, precisely the opposite effect can be achieved by close breeding, just as it is with livestock and pets. Humans are just the same in that respect, and in many cases it would be beneficial and would advance the intelligence and vigor of the species for parents to breed with children or siblings to breed with one another. Genetic screening could easily point out where such interbreeding would likely be beneficial, and the more detailed our understanding of the human genome becomes, the more desirable it will become to breed humans for specific beneficial traits and to reduce or eliminate bad genes in the same way.

However, the other aspect of the argument against incest is the moral "ick factor" over the notion of incest. But that argument is based in the societal notion that society has a moral right to control individual behavior based on how "icky" the society in general believes the behavior is.

Libertarianism, however, does not subscribe to the notion that the "ickyness" or in other words the degree of discomfort or distaste for personal behavior that others hold towards the behavior of the individual that is short of the actual initiation of force or fraud is not a legitimate justification for infringing on the sovereign rights of the individual.

Therefore, so long as the sexual activity between parents and their progeny, or between siblings, is entirely voluntary and consensual, and not harmful so that it would constitute an initiation of force or fraud, it's not up to anyone else to interfere in those private relationships. This is because sexual activity is not in and of itself physically or mentally harmful if it's consensual and between sexually mature adults. It certainly CAN be harmful and both force and fraud CAN (and often are) used to abuse progeny or siblings, but at the same time it is just as possible for a consensual sexual relationship between parent and progeny or between siblings to be non-harmful, loving, supporting and otherwise pleasurable and harmless.

Libertarianism doesn't ban behavior for everyone because it MIGHT be harmful to someone somewhere sometime, it places the burden of NOT harming ANYONE on each individual and at all times, and holds them accountable and responsible for their actions that do harm others.

[Warren Dew]

Why assume it's consensual?

Because the issue of whether the person had reached the age of majority was at issue in Woodbutcher's example. If it were nonconsensual, it wouldn't matter whether the age of majority had been reached.

[Coito ergo sum]

Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that thinks it's okay if you want to smoke weed OR a cigarette? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that's okay with abortions and gun ownership? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that thinks affirmative action is wrong because they think affirmative action is racist, and not because they themselves are racist? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that will let me order a burger rare, or have fatty, horrible-for-me, tasty-tasty food if I want it? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that doesn't give a damn whether gay people are born gay or not because it doesn't matter and adults should be free to live their own lives and be granted equal rights regardless? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that's for peace, free trade, and diplomacy being foreign policy, and being against violating civil liberties in the name of security, not just on the campaign trail. Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that attempts to apply its values consistently, rather than choosing its policy stances in shrewd political fashion in a naked attempt to gain or retain power?

Those are the parts of libertarian philosophy I like. I'm Jeffersonian at heart.

Many of those that we see opposing libertarianism in general like to pretend that they know the "real" agenda, and that what libertarians want is really authoritarianism and slavery of the weak.

[Seth]

Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that thinks it's okay if you want to smoke weed OR a cigarette? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that's okay with abortions and gun ownership? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that thinks affirmative action is wrong because they think affirmative action is racist, and not because they themselves are racist? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that will let me order a burger rare, or have fatty, horrible-for-me, tasty-tasty food if I want it? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that doesn't give a damn whether gay people are born gay or not because it doesn't matter and adults should be free to live their own lives and be granted equal rights regardless? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that's for peace, free trade, and diplomacy being foreign policy, and being against violating civil liberties in the name of security, not just on the campaign trail. Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that attempts to apply its values consistently, rather than choosing its policy stances in shrewd political fashion in a naked attempt to gain or retain power?

Those are the parts of libertarian philosophy I like. I'm Jeffersonian at heart.

Many of those that we see opposing libertarianism in general like to pretend that they know the "real" agenda, and that what libertarians want is really authoritarianism and slavery of the weak.

And they are, of course, utterly, ignorantly and most often mendaciously wrong in that assertion, but are usually unwilling to even discuss Libertarianism civilly because they are so afraid of the truth. 914 over at Ratskep, is one of the worst of the worst when it comes to being deliberately and mendaciously ignorant of Libertarianism, not to mention trollishly insulting and unwilling to discuss it like an adult. There are others over there as well, but they are mostly little more than ignoramus sycophants who parrot the common lies about Libertarianism as a method to shut down any discussion of the philosophy at all. They are so weak-minded and unintelligent that they know they cannot hope to compete fairly in a rational debate regarding Libertarianism, so they hurl insults and derail discussions so that it's a waste of time to even try, which is how the Mods like it.

And when I persisted in cutting through their bullshit, the mods over there condemned me of "trolling" without a trial merely because a bunch of fuckwads and morons couldn't stand to have their socialist dogma and their loudmouthed idiocy deconstructed around their ears, and then they permabanned me.

It's kind of nice to actually be having a halfway civil discussion about Libertarianism.

[Hermit]

No prizes for guessing which forum member would win this game. Although there are several other contenders, they all are also-rans.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Hermit]

So fits, doesn't it?

And don't expect any apologies from them. They'll just huffily assert: "And that's just how things are / ought to be!" before resuming their rants about the undeserving poor, and such.