[Blue_Nose]

Psudo wrote:

there remains a motivation for a society of living beings to use the law to protect itself from social trends advocating death.

You've yet to demonstrate this, or I missed it.

You need to show that
a) there's a significant number of people that will kill themselves without being otherwise restrained from doing so
b) a law will actually be effective in restraining someone who legitimately wants to kill themselves

For me to take notions of "social trends advocating death" seriously.

[Psudo]

I admit I cannot prove the existence of social trends advocating death. I can give (and have given) you the logic by which I think it is happening. By this, it could happen. I could point to higher suicide rates in relatively libertarian Nordic countries as compared to the relatively conservative USA (Finland's suicide rate is about double the US rate, for example). I could probably find some reports about rising occurrences of self-destructive behavior. I could point out increasing rates of depression, cutting, abortion, euthanasia advocacy, animal abuse, and anything else I wanted to claim demonstrated a growing cultural interest in death and self-destruction. It would be evidence, but it would be inconclusive. I doubt any of that would convince you either.

I don't think there is a scientifically rigorous means of proving a that acceptance of a given political philosophy causes a given social trend. If a university study did claim such things, it would be discredited as political propaganda. I don't think solid proof one way or the other is possible here.

But the facts fit the theory and the logic does not contradict itself. I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it. It remains a possibility. I judge it to be the most likely possibility I've heard.

Given that people who agree with me and people that agree with you must live under the same laws, it does not make sense to declare your view to be the system under which we operate while mine is ignored while either is possible. Zipperfish cannot use the reasoning that (I'm paraphrasing here:) "Any law prohibiting people from engaging in behavior that does not harm others is unjust." to decide law when it is a disputed point rather than a universally accepted given. If this Prince of Pot is to be pardoned or exonerated from punishment under the law, some other argument must be used to justify the pardon.

This is what I've said from the start. I haven't yet heard anything that disputes it.

[Blue_Nose]

Psudo wrote:

But the facts fit the theory and the logic does not contradict itself. I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it. It remains a possibility. I judge it to be the most likely possibility I've heard.

Well, I disagree, for the simple fact that (as I already mentioned) survivial is the most primal "social trend" that exists - that any trend promoting death will not last long enough to spread is self-evident.

I believe that's a more soundly based proposition than speculating on people's reaction to a law supposedly preventing them from taking their life.

The main problem I see with viewing intentional self harm as a "social trend" as you do (akin to wearing black eyeliner or listening to Marilyn Manson), is that trying to push it away through legislation undermines any real effort to determine the root of the problem. Keep in mind that some of the highest rates of suicide are among the elderly, which I doubt are concerned with social trends in making such decisions.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

Apparently, psychology is a major aspect of the libertarian ideal of "unless it harms others, it's rightly legal". Blue_Nose says people that willingly hurt themselves are inherently insane. Zipperfish says psychological trauma counts as harm when determining who is harmed by an action.

My point lies is the important distinction between risk and harm: is the choice to die (harm) protected by the social libertarian ideology, or only the judgment of how best to live (risk)? If an intelligent person chooses to be anorexic, they are willing to die early in order to live a way they consider "better" (in this case, "thinner"). Is that choice to die protected a libertarian personal choice or is it Blue_Nose's definition of insanity? If they are also very public, like a fashion model, is it psychologically harmful to those that witness it or is it protected freedom of expression (thus deemed harmful only to the self)?

Well, that's an interesting philosophical discourse, but to bring things back to relaity, my original musings were realted to the topic thread--that being that pot shouldn't be illegal because it doesn't harm others. Smoking pot is not the same as taking a razor to your wrists, or committing public hari-kari. It does harm you, but not very much for the vast majority of people and it has been demonstrated to be an individual risk, not a social one.

The choice to die is pretty much already protected in Canada, I think. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure it's not illegal in Canada to kill yourself, or to try to kill yourself. Really, apart from some Orwellian society, it's hard to imagine any government apparatus that could stop you from killing yourself, if you are so inclined.

Quote:

Either libertarianism requires this clarification (which has not yet been presented, though Zipperfish seems to think I should know it intuitively), or it is exactly the extreme ideology I have presented, which gives permission to people no only to risk their health (which is inevitable) but to choose to unnecessarily damage their health as a legally protected right. The school of thought that protects the "right" to intentionally destroy yourself (even if no one else is harmed) is not one anyone seems willing to defend. (Blue_Nose calls it insane, and Zipperfish calls it an "absolute position" and treats it like a distorted characterization of his own view.)

There was a free climber of some repute that people used to send me videos of. He would climb 400' sheer cliffs in minutes with no belay. I heard he fell to his death. No one was surprised. Apparently it was all but preordained that he would slip one day. Would I protect his right to climb? Sure. And in that case, it would be difficult to argue that you weren't defending someone from destroying himself. Would I defend the right of someone to willingly and intentionally end his or her life? I suppose I would. I could imagine a scenario when I might like the suicide option--I think I'd rather ride out of town on Brompton cocktails rather than die an agonizing slow death from inoperable stomach cancer.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

This is what I've said from the start. I haven't yet heard anything that disputes it.

Then you haven't been listening.

[EmperorLiam]

Psudo:

YOU THINK FINLAND IS MORE LIBERTARIAN THAN THE USA?

First, I argue there isn't MUCH difference to begin with, but what differences there are, make Finland much less libertarian leaning than the good ol USA.

http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html
http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/images/blackmap.JPG

I can publish those 'mohammed cartoons' in the USA and not worry. Canada and Finland on the other hand have laws against free speech, Finland actively censors its state media, that Finland and Canada both have state TV completely exposes that they are NOT very libertarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cari ... rected.PNG

Finlands' major political parties have been either socialists or communists, they have never had a popular libertarian party.

Blue laws are not pissing Libertarians off much, it is the income tax mainly. Any country that has a higher income tax than the USA is less libertarian, Finlands taxes are higher, case closed.



I could argue your side of this suicide debate better than you Psudo:

Suicide is a choice.
More liberty, means more choices.
Ergo, more liberty means more suicide.

See, was that so hard? It is completely true, cannot be argued against, and gets the point across quick. You should hire me to argue for you.


Regarding factors influencing suicide rates:

1. Being male is the most significant factor (in success anyhow, not attempts)
2. Weather affects suicide rates.
3. Catholics kill themselves 1/3 as much as Protestants.
4. In general, more educated people commit suicide than less educated.
5. Jews are more educated but they commit suicide less than Catholics.
6. Unmarried kill themselves more than the married.
7. More siblings = less likely to commit suicide.
8. Suicide rates drop during wars.
9. Higher gun ownership means more successful suicide attempts.


Kinda doubt that 'too much liberty' is a significant factor regarding suicide.



Zipperfish: "I'm pretty sure it's not illegal in Canada to kill yourself, or to try to kill yourself. "

Attempted suicide was dropped from the criminal code in 1972. Unfortunately, Health Canada made it mandatory that you be placed in protective custody (aka arrested), and police routinely charge people for attempted suicide using other laws, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest etc. I know this as a FACT, my friend attempted suicide, they tried to ship him to Ontario (from AB). Police officers then made up a bunch of charges (literally WEEKS after the attempt), my friend was forced into court, (no money for a lawyer) and the judge sent him into Re-hab. Despite the fact my friend didn't do any drugs, besides the Tylenol he tried to end his life with anyhow.


My understanding from my lawyer that I spoke with about his years ago, is that the majority of Canada's police force are conservative Christians, that believe they must 'help' these people. Counseling, and probation are the sentences handed down/plea bargained for, and they have no problem lying in court to 'help' people that attempted suicide. They obviously feel they are doing what is right, but my friend and I disagree.

Suicide is not treated like it is legal in Canada by the government, so I do not consider it so.

[Psudo]

EmperorLiam wrote:

YOU THINK FINLAND IS MORE LIBERTARIAN THAN THE USA?

First, I argue there isn't MUCH difference to begin with, but what differences there are, make Finland much less libertarian leaning than the good ol USA.

http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html

I was going by a memory of a claim read online. Clearly I was wrong. The claim was made by a vaguely libertarian Finnish person (perhaps out of a kind of patriotic bias) before the Muslim cartoons issue came around. Assuming I'm remembering it right.

Anyway, thanks for the link, it's exactly what I was looking for.

[Quantum_Wizard]

EmperorLiam, I'm not disputing your main point about Finland, but I'd like correct a few points.

EmperorLiam wrote:

I can publish those 'mohammed cartoons' in the USA and not worry. Canada and Finland on the other hand have laws against free speech

What laws are you referring to? There are probably some laws that limit free speech, but I'm not aware of anyone being prevented from publishing the 'Mohammed cartoons', although I don't think they've been published in any newspaper. There was one group which published them on the Internet and the Ministry of the Interior advised a criminal investigation. However, the result of the investigation was that there was no crime committed.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Finlands' major political parties have been either socialists or communists

This is misleading since one could think that you meant that all of them have been, which isn't true (eg. National Coalition certainly hasn't).

EmperorLiam wrote:

they have never had a popular libertarian party.

What about the party called Liberals? Granted they don't currently have any seats in the parliament, but same goes for the Libertarian party in the US.


Finally in the link you gave in the column INDIV FREEDOM AVG Finland scores 99.95 whereas US scores 99.13.

I should still say that I've also been under the impression that Finland is somewhat less libertarian than the US, but I can't really say for sure since I've never been in US.

[EmperorLiam]

Well, like I said Quantum_Wizard, there isn't much difference. I'm pretty sensitive about free-speech, especially since its really about silencing critics of Islam nowadays.

The law Finland passed that I referred to is the 'Racial and Religious Tolerance Act'. I've been led to believe Finland is enforcing the law, specifically against anti-Islam libertarians, a title I'd say definitely applies to me.


Some equate libertarianism with liberalism, but liberalism has just as many differences with libertarianism as it has in common, so although Finland is certainly very liberal country, citizens and gov., and they sometimes champion economic liberty (the main diff between liberalism and libertarianism), overall the government is just too big to consider it even remotely libertarian.

There is no country in the world that is libertarian currently, USA at the time of founding, is the closest to a libertarian nation. Since all the nations that support liberty turned into despicable socialist welfare states, libertarians don't have anywhere that jives with their political views.

[Psudo]

EmperorLiam wrote:

I'm pretty sensitive about free-speech

What's your take on campaign finance reform?

EmperorLiam wrote:

USA at the time of founding, is the closest to a libertarian nation.

What period of US history specifically do you mean? I'm looking for an answer in the format "1776 until Reconstruction", though I don't know that those are your intended boundries.

[JJ]

Quote:

There is no country in the world that is libertarian currently, USA at the time of founding, is the closest to a libertarian nation. Since all the nations that support liberty turned into despicable socialist welfare states, libertarians don't have anywhere that jives with their political views.

An odd thing to say, as I would assume that slavery and disenfranchisement of over half the population are not core libertarian ideals. And if they're indeed not, then why are the civil rights of blacks and women (and other minorities for that matter) somehow less essential to "what constitutes a libertarian state" than monetary policies or whatever? I could just as easily argue that modern day socialist Sweden is more libertarian than the post-revolutionary USA assuming civil rights are the only things that matter (the reverse of your stance that apparently economic rights are all that matter).

But this is the core of why libertarian is such a useless philosophy. Rather like communism, it is based on the ideal of a Utopian model of society that has never, and will never, exist due to being founded on ignorant assumptions about human nature and human organization.

[EmperorLiam]

Psudo:
The only campaign finance reform I'm for, is abandoning all the laws in regard to it. I think the mandatory disclosure, and contribution limits are unnecessary, I'm even ok with vote buying.

Roosevelt would never have been elected had he not accepted large donations from corporations... he went on to say that they should be outlawed... then he started the New Deal's which makes any libertarians blood sublimate.

At founding, with the fewest laws and few taxes; that would be the most libertarian the USA was. The values of the time were completely different... which is the only reason I'd overlook slavery in regards to 'how libertarian' they were. I guess I'm favoring the economic policies over the social liberty, but I feel government has always had more power over economic liberty... and that regardless of what libertarians want, social values continue to liberalize on their own, specifically in places with more economic liberty. I'm not talking about the State level nor the average citizens views, just the actual laws which the Federal gov. was based on.

I'd consider the most libertarian era for the USA, began in 1788, the year the constitution was ratified (or after the bill of rights). And ended in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln decided the Federal gov. had the right to enslave the south.

So 1788 to 1860.

I think if the founding fathers had pressed harder to end slavery with the constitution/bill of rights, America would have been way better off. I'd also argue that it would have also have meant less money/power in Muslim hands (the ones who sold America slaves), had America actually purchased a lot of slaves... which compared to others they didn't.

What do you think of my answer Psudo, re-reading it I sound like I'm going all wish-washy. =P

[EDIT]

JJ:
Wow, I'm sorta psychic, your post wasn't there when I started writing the above JJ!

"disenfranchisement of over half the population"
Well, technically democracy has nothing to do with libertarianism...

"it is based on the ideal of a Utopian model of society"
No, it is the exact opposite. Humans are not considered 'good' in libertarianism, Utopian ideals are un-realistic because they ignore human nature. Humans are greedy selfish beings, and since we desire a 'good' society, we need a system that accommodates our unchangeable evolutionary traits.

Capitalism has proven greed is 'good', capitalism produces more wealth when people have more economic liberty. Besides communists, no ones really arguing this main tenet of libertarianism, just to what DEGREE of economic liberty is desired (how much regulation).

As for social liberty, its mainly religious conservatives that disagree with libertarians, and I'm never in a mood to argue politics when its really religion we should be debating.

"Libertarianism's ideals, although often varied in detail, typically center around policies in favor of allowing extensive personal liberties, rejection of communism and socialism in favor of individual ownership and control, personal responsibility and charity rather than welfare statism, and also theorize either limiting or entirely eliminating the power and scope of government with the purpose of maximizing individual liberty."


When you call libertarianism 'utopian', I wonder if you mean anarchists... small government is a world of difference from no-government. What is absurd about libertarianism specifically JJ? Keep in mind that I'm no objectivist, Ayn Rand was delusional, and she is not associated with libertarianism... mainly because she is into rigid laissez-faire capitalism and is borderline anarchist, she ignores 'negative liberty', the freedom from others freedoms, something libertarians do value. Also, I don't believe she was into democracy even, at least not as a political system. So her society is downright Utopian, as in not gonna happen, at least not with humans with our current genetic stock.

[Murray_Smith]

EmperorLiam wrote:

Psudo:
The only campaign finance reform I'm for, is abandoning all the laws in regard to it. I think the mandatory disclosure, and contribution limits are unnecessary, I'm even ok with vote buying.

Allowing votes to be bought effectively destroys democracy.

Quote:

Roosevelt would never have been elected had he not accepted large donations from corporations... he went on to say that they should be outlawed... then he started the New Deal's which makes any libertarians blood sublimate.

The correct term is actually "boil." The usage of "sublimate" implies that libertarian blood is initially solid. Just FYI.

Quote:

I'd consider the most libertarian era for the USA, began in 1788, the year the constitution was ratified (or after the bill of rights). And ended in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln decided the Federal gov. had the right to enslave the south.

The reason the Union "enslaved" the South was because the South did not have a right to secede from the Union in the first place. Had the Union not acted the way it did, the US may very well have dissolved before the end of the 19th century.

Quote:

I think if the founding fathers had pressed harder to end slavery with the constitution/bill of rights, America would have been way better off.

Every state had to ratify the Constitution before it could go into effect, including the ones with large numbers of slave owners. Speaking objectively, these slave owners had paid good money for their slaves, and it would have directly infringed on one of their economic liberties to give up their slaves. Does a man not have a right to what he has bought?

Quote:

"disenfranchisement of over half the population"
Well, technically democracy has nothing to do with libertarianism...

It does if libertarian values include basic human rights. Without democracy, it is easy to destroy social liberties.

Quote:

"it is based on the ideal of a Utopian model of society"
No, it is the exact opposite. Humans are not considered 'good' in libertarianism, Utopian ideals are un-realistic because they ignore human nature. Humans are greedy selfish beings, and since we desire a 'good' society, we need a system that accommodates our unchangeable evolutionary traits.

There is only one unchangeable evolutionary trait: Survive long enough to reproduce, by any means necessary. The rest are ephemeral. By your logic, the only law necessary is, "Don't get killed."

Quote:

Capitalism has proven greed is 'good', capitalism produces more wealth when people have more economic liberty. Besides communists, no ones really arguing this main tenet of libertarianism, just to what DEGREE of economic liberty is desired (how much regulation).

What libertarianism fails to address is that some people are greedier than others. If pure libertarianism is enforced, what is to stop the most ruthless people from monopolizing businesses, buying out the government, and forcing the people to buy from only their own companies?

Quote:

"Libertarianism's ideals, although often varied in detail, typically center around policies in favor of allowing extensive personal liberties, rejection of communism and socialism in favor of individual ownership and control, personal responsibility and charity rather than welfare statism, and also theorize either limiting or entirely eliminating the power and scope of government with the purpose of maximizing individual liberty."

Eliminating a government's power is the same thing as eliminating the government itself. At that point, libertarianism is nearly identical to anarchism.

Quote:

When you call libertarianism 'utopian', I wonder if you mean anarchists... small government is a world of difference from no-government. What is absurd about libertarianism specifically JJ? Keep in mind that I'm no objectivist, Ayn Rand was delusional, and she is not associated with libertarianism... mainly because she is into rigid laissez-faire capitalism and is borderline anarchist, she ignores 'negative liberty', the freedom from others freedoms, something libertarians do value. Also, I don't believe she was into democracy even, at least not as a political system. So her society is downright Utopian, as in not gonna happen, at least not with humans with our current genetic stock.

Is laissez-faire capitalism not what libertarianism advocates as well? Additionally, you don't appear to value democracy much yourself.

[CanadianJeff]

"Allowing votes to be bought effectively destroys democracy. "

I hate to be the depressing one but this already occurs all the time in the form of promising favors to individuals at election time. Local clubs, organizations and such in many communites have Candiates come in and give a speach of support for that group and promises to support them in the future.

It's also not uncommon for a candidate to "buy out" an oponent to get that person to withdraw and pledge support to them. This often happens in using connections to ensure the withdrawn candidate a job by pulling strings and that sort of thing.

There's a book I'm reading right now that delves very much into this topic among others called "Street Corner Society" By William foote Whyte. It's a bit of a sociological read but it's interesting to see how the racketeers, social clubs, gangs etc all come together into one more elaborate mesh in a small Italian community in the 1930's.

[EmperorLiam]

Murray_Smith: "Allowing votes to be bought effectively destroys democracy."

1. People sell their vote already.
2. The courts do nothing about it.
3. Theres more voter fraud going on than you can shake a stick at, lets worry about that before we shit our pants over something you can't stop to begin with.
4. Secret ballot, they have no guarantee you voted for em.


"The correct term..."

Your right, there are no solids in blood at all, and it is illegal to be creative with old cliche sayings.


"It does if libertarian values include basic human rights. Without democracy, it is easy to destroy social liberties."

Critics of libertarianism, have no problem associating it with Pinochet's dictatorship, don't waste my time trying to pretend libertarianism is tied to democracy, it is not at all. Democracy is the WHO governs, libertarianism is the METHOD. It's close minded to believe democracy is required; personally I'm into direct democracy.


"the South did not have a right to secede from the Union in the first place"

Then you should have no problem finding the law that says that they gave up that right. I'm not gonna hold my breath.


"it would have directly infringed on one of their economic liberties"

Yeah, and the founders never infringed anyones economic liberties by violently revolting against British rule, no tea thrown into the water ... its not like thousands of people were made refugees, pillaged, raped and murdered by American revolutionaries as they fled. Its not like slavery was ended in other countries by buying their freedom or government decree... so your right, the founders could never have ended slavery, and there certainly aren't historical records PROVING that they debated that very issue.


"what is to stop the most ruthless people from monopolizing businesses"

Yes, socialized welfare states have done a great job stopping monopolies...

"buying out the government"

How does one buy a democratic government without convincing the voters? You could buy politicians if they chose to be bought, but thats what we call representative democracy, and at the end of the day, is a separate issue from libertarianism.

"forcing the people to buy from only their own companies?"

So economic liberty causes everyone to lose their economic liberty, yes that makes sense. That explains why capitalism failed mankind, and communism reigns supreme.


"There is only one unchangeable evolutionary trait"

? You can't change your genes, I double dare you. Maybe one day, in the mean time, come back to reality.


"What libertarianism fails to address is that some people are greedier than others."

No, other way around. Why libertarianism succeeds economically, is because some people are greedier than others. We call it capitalism, have you heard of it?


"Eliminating a government's power is the same thing as eliminating the government itself. At that point, libertarianism is nearly identical to anarchism. "

So the inverse is preferred, lets expand government power... its not like that would cause everyone to become reliant on the government for everything, and governments never abuse power.

'Power purifies, absolute power purifies absolutely,' as they say.


"Is laissez-faire capitalism not what libertarianism advocates as well? Additionally, you don't appear to value democracy much yourself."

No, you don't seem to know much about libertarianism. WTF gave you the impression I don't value democracy? I just stated unarguable FACTS, deal with it princess.

Thank you for wasting my time, you won't ever get the pleasure again. On the upside, you get the last word in.