What are your political values?

I don't want to know if you define yourself as "liberal" or "conservative" or "Democrat" or "Republican". I want to know what, specifically, you care about. Liberal and conservative are going to mean wildly different things to different people, particularly in different countries.

So what do you value? What issues are hot buttons for you? What stances would your ideal politician take?

I'm putting this in the Crucible because it's about politics and could lead to some debate, but I am not putting it here because I want to see a fight. Hearing what political beliefs everyone has is a lot more interesting than the same old shrieking.

I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, more or less.

In Canada I'm pretty well in the Centre, in the US I guess I'd be a Raving Socialist Bent on Destroying the American Way.

Well, I guess if I had to summarize (and I think most liberals would agree) it's that we are capable of working together to make the world a better place for everyone. Social problems can be fixed or at least improved by our collective actions. From looking back at the past we can see that it was difficult and sometimes painful, but it made the world a better place to, for instance, forcibly integrate public schools in Little Rock.

I care that workers aren't abused but that business is still free to thrive.

I believe in unfettered freedom of the press, limited regulation and limited social assistance.

People should be encouraged to work as hard as they can and be rewarded for their efforts.

Still, no one should go hungry or be cold.

That said, figgure out how to pay for your own school. Free rides encourage freeloading.

We should stay out of other countries affairs unless people are suffering, at which point we should be gracious and helpful and not stick around too long.

I think that elected officials that betray the public trust should be treated like the scum they are.

I think it is perfectly okay to be rich. If you earn it, keep it. It's yours congrats.

I think that if you're poor you should be given every chance to succeed, but not given enough that being poor becomes tollerable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

I care that workers aren't abused but that business is still free to thrive.

I believe in unfettered freedom of the press, limited regulation and limited social assistance.

People should be encouraged to work as hard as they can and be rewarded for their efforts.

Still, no one should go hungry or be cold.

That said, figgure out how to pay for your own school. Free rides encourage freeloading.

We should stay out of other countries affairs unless people are suffering, at which point we should be gracious and helpful and not stick around too long.

I think that elected officials that betray the public trust should be treated like the scum they are.

I think it is perfectly okay to be rich. If you earn it, keep it. It's yours congrats.

I think that if you're poor you should be given every chance to succeed, but not given enough that being poor becomes tollerable.

---

Dear me. Are you a Secret Canuck?

I am a first-generation German who feels incredible guilt over how hard my parents worked.

They are rich now, BTW.

I used to consider myself fairly liberal, until I was at a political gathering in my hometown and the subject of smoking came up. As one after another of these people who claimed they were all for freedom and protecting individual rights started talking about how smoking should be outlawed, I realized that I didn't share as many values with them as I thought I did.

Civil liberties are my first and primary concern. Bar smoking from state and federal owned buildings if you must, but individual business owners should have the right to decide whether or not they'll allow it. Legalize marijuana, with the same taxes as cigarettes to gather revenue. Decriminalize the personal use of most other drugs, because the government shouldn't be protecting people from themselves.

Decriminalize prostitution, because it shouldn't be anyone else's business what you're doing in your bedroom. The same goes for homebirth. Who's sticking their hands on your body and why is your business. Not anybody else's.

I think that federally recognized domestic partnerships should be available to all--same sex partners, opposite sex, sisters who are raising their children together, etc--so that people who choose to join their lives together, regardless of what they're doing in the bedroom, can enjoy those benefits. "Marriage" as a spiritual, romantic, or sexual union is not the place of the government at all, and to say it is and then only bestow those rights upon certain people is repulsive.

There shouldn't be laws regarding seatbelts or helmets on motorcycles for adults because, again, I don't think it's the government's place to be protecting the individual from himself. If people want to risk their lives, let them. If these adults can be trusted with the vote, then they can be trusted with their own lives.

All races, nationalities, genders, sexes, orientations, religious faiths, etc should be respected and treated equally in the eyes of the law.

I think I'm fairly middle of the road when it comes to fiscal concerns, though.

I basically agree with Oliveloaf. :)

I'm very much in favor of as little government as possible involved in private affairs. I think that it's better to pass laws at the lowest possible level of government, in order to maximize the power of the people to live the way they want to live.

I also agree with Zuul that I considered myself a liberal for a long time, and became somewhat disillusioned as to what liberalism actually stands for (the smoking thing was one area that tipped it off to me, as well). I don't believe in paternalism or nanny-state-ism, and to a certain degree social engineering, and the liberals tend to be in favor of all of that, which really bothers me.

I tend to consider myself now more of a conservative, both fiscally and in terms of how government should work, but I'm socially liberal in that I don't really care what anyone else does as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I also agree with Zuul that I considered myself a liberal for a long time, and became somewhat disillusioned as to what liberalism actually stands for (the smoking thing was one area that tipped it off to me, as well). I don't believe in paternalism or nanny-state-ism, and to a certain degree social engineering, and the liberals tend to be in favor of all of that, which really bothers me.

---

Yeah, this describes it fairly well. Personal liberty should be as broad as it can possibly be up until the point that it infringes on the rights of others. I find the thought of using the government to babysit us deeply disturbing.

I'm cool with just about all that except for the seatbelt and helmet issue: just clean up after one accident where adults weren't wearing seatbelts or helmets. Just tell one kid his dad is dead because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. Watch one family fall apart because the head injured adult needs expensive extensive care for the rest of his life. This isn't protecting people from themselves, it's saving tax dollars if nothing else.

As for smoking, I have no problem with people smoking if they want: but I do not want that smoke near me. Why should I have to breathe poison because it's "your right" to smoke? Put on a little helmet and space suit and keep it all for yourself. Like many former smokers (2 packs a day, often more) I am quite enthusiastic on this issue. :)

I would classify myself as a social democrat, although there is no social democratic party in the Republic of Ireland. I vote Socialist, but they're a marginal party and I mainly vote for them because I have immense respect for the individual politicians involved.

I'm anti-death penalty.

I believe that military action should be the last resort, although my country is neutral and only ever takes part in UN peacekeeping missions, so it's a bit moot.

I believe in the welfare state, albeit monitored (that is, I don't like people taking the fucking piss).

I believe that what happens between two or more consenting adults is nobody's business but their own.

I believe in freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom to worship where it doesn't impinge too much on other rights.

I believe primary and secondary education should be "free" to any and every student, with regard to third level I'm not too sure.

I believe environmental issues should be of paramount importance to my own and other governments.

I think political and corporate corruption should carry life sentence penalties.

I believe that migrants should be allowed come here, and remain if they can find work, ie in somewhat lax borders.

I think any Irish student should be able to get their full education through the medium of the Irish language.

I support the idea of allowing children/teens to attend the Gaeltacht (ie an Irish summer camp) for "free".

I support a liberalisation/decriminalisation, perhaps even a full legalisation of most recreational drugs.

I am all over the place. My priorities.

Education: Keep working to at making education a priority, where local townships fail I am in favor of state takeovers. It was our public school system that did much to make this country great once upon a time but I feel like we have been coasting as much of the world caught up and some of it passed us. It is a very worthwhile area to spend public money. I am also very much in favor of college grants for military service, peace core service, youth core service (that I would like to see more of) and the type of nursing programs that are fairly common where hospitals pay for the education of RNs in exchange for a certain required time that they work at said hospital.

I am a conservationist.

I am for lots of research and seed money into green renewable energy. I am against money for oil exploration. I am strongly against drilling in ANWR. The amount of oil this would actually produce is not worth the destruction to the region. Additionally I actually liked when gas prices approached $4.00 per gallon despite how much it hurt me with my long commute. It did more to encourage the sale of efficient cars than any government program.

I do believe Global Climate Change is being affected by the activities of mankind. I believe we can afford to counter this and gain many benefits by doing so. The benefits begin with reduced oil consumption being replaced by renewable technologies. It also means less money going to the Middle East that then appears to funnel to terrorism. Here is the big one; it means a sharp reduction in air pollution, which means less health problems, especially childhood asthma.

I believe stopping anthropogenic climate change will require a many part solution. There is no silver bullet.
1) Increase fuel efficiency and decrease emissions of motor vehicles. Cars, trucks and ships.
2) Use more nuclear power and investigate the feasibility of breeder reactors.
3) Wind Power, build a lot more wind power
4) Solar: Build a lot more solar and continue to strive for cheaper solar
5) Make greater use of geothermal for heating and cooling
6) Build houses smarter and more efficient incorporating solar and geothermal, proper facing and bet insulation values and more protective trees.
7) Clean up coal and close down the oldest worst plants.
8) Require more efficiency in appliances. The big appliance makes a big difference but outlaw the little ones that draw many watts when not even in use. In 20 years this will make a huge difference.
9) Phase out incandescent lighting for LED and fluorescent.
10) Look for more tidal generation of power.
11) Increase the efficiency of the power distribution system. There are some successful low ohm projects already up and running that hold a lot of hope. We use a lot of power just transmitting power across standard copper lines.
12) Etc.

Protect endangered animals but don’t worry about food animals. They are food animals. Also pets are pets and to hell with more radical PETA fools. Milk and fur are not murder.

Level off human population. Get birth control out there.

The business of America still needs to be business but the businesses that make growth and keep jobs in America are small businesses. Change tax codes and government business welfare to help the smaller businesses and not the internationals.

Taxes, the system is fairly well balanced, just simplify it and close more loop holes.

Gay Marriage, YES, everywhere.

Abortion, legalize but discourage it while strongly encouraging both abstinence and birth control. Also seriously consider doing away with third trimester abortions except for medical emergencies. The mother’s life trumps that of the unborn.

Health Care: Yes, universal and phase out the insurance industry. Make birth control and related surgeries free.

Increase funding for fusion research.

Get us out of Iraq as fast as possible and Afghanistan too. But keep up the military. Keep make our forces better. Land, Sea and Air.

Keep reducing the welfare rolls. Where people are able bodied, put them to work. The various work programs were good ideas.

I am fine with the smoking bans in most public places. Smoking does affect others. Do what you want in privacy.

Legalize drugs and tax the heck out of them. Start with Pot and just keep going. It is also an excellent cash crop. Don’t allow corporate farms this potential cash cow. Now we do 3 goods for society and reduce the prison population and the unrest in Mexico.

I disagree on seatbelts and helmets. Operating a motor vehicle is not a right but a privilege. Look at statistics for accidents in these cases and it is worth it.

Prostitution should be legalized and legislated for health and cleanliness. It should be off the streets though and pimps that use drugs or violence on those practicing the profession should be executed not jailed.

Repeat rapist = death. Home protection: allow it, if the criminal is in your home, use of deadly force is allowed.

Lawsuits. Business needs more protection and the stupid less. It has swung way to far to the lawyers in this country. The awards are too big and the lawyers take too much of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

That said, figgure out how to pay for your own school. Free rides encourage freeloading.

---

I cannot understand this one at all. Are you saying the public school system should be shut down?

Basically, every political position I have goes back to the principle of non-aggression; i.e. that people have certain natural rights and that they should be able to do anything they want as long as they don't violate the rights of others. Therefore, I am against any form of government interference in or regulation of the individual beyond the retaliatory force of the police, courts, and law enforcement. Frankly, the most infuriating part of socialism is the essential statement at its core: "You are too stupid to make decisions on your own, so we're going to come in and make them for you."

I'm opposed to the War on Drugs because adults should be free to make their own choices about what to put in their own bodies, good or bad.

Like Zuul, I don't believe in any safety regulations meant to protect the individual from himself.

I support a woman's right to an abortion because a fetus has no right to use a woman's body, her most basic property, if she does not desire it to do so. Therefore, she is entitled to use the minimum reasonable amount of force to remove it; i.e. no feticide when it is viable outside the womb. (I used to support abortion only before the start of brain activity, but I simply can't answer this argument.)

I'm opposed to copyright and patents because they represent the use of force to prevent others from using their own time and resources to create something, simply because someone else created it first. Copyright infringement is not, in any way, "theft" because it does not deprive the "victim" of anything he already owns; e.g. stealing a CD from the local record store permanently deprives them of that CD, while downloading something that is sold in the iTunes store deprives them of nothing but your possible future payment, which they are not entitled to. Notably, though, I do support trademarks, but as a consumer right: they prevent fraud.

I'm morally opposed to coercive taxation in any form, but in the short term, I support a lowered tax rate, either in the form or a flat income tax or (more preferably) the FairTax, a proposal for a national sales tax.

I believe that all people should be treated equally under the law, but I am against anti-discrimination laws. Private people and corporations should be able to use their property the way they like, even if that means that they discriminate against certain classes of people. However, the free market itself encourages non-discrimination because to discriminate on stupid things like race, by definition, means cutting into one's opportunities.

I believe in completely open, but secure, borders. Anyone who wants to live in the U.S. should be able to enter after a simple background check. The benefits from such a huge supply of cheap labor would be unimaginable, not to mention the gains made by the immigrants themselves. The middle-class American would be able to live like a king (just like many expatriates to poorer countries already do).

The government should not attempt to control gun ownership. The ability to protect oneself is the most basic guardian against tyranny.

I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and simply protect "civil union" contracts for anyone who wants to join himself legally to another person. This includes not just gays and lesbians, but also polygamists and possibly even roommates, if they so desire.

I've got no problem with unions, but neither should they be specially protected by the government. The legitimate power of unions comes from collective bargaining; i.e. making it economically impossible to fire all the union members if they go on strike, not by making it illegal to simply fire all the union members. On that subject, I'm also against anti-trust laws: all the owners in an industry getting together should not be treated any differently from all the workers getting together; that is, neither should be busted up by the government.

I'm also against welfare in all forms. No one should ever get a handout of someone else's money from the government, unless his rights were violated. At all. Ever.

The idea that we have a free market in healthcare at the moment is a cruel joke. I support real deregulation of the medical industry, and most of all elimination of the cruelest paradox of all: the fact that you must have a job to get insurance, by eliminating the tax structures that work in favor of this link. After that, open up competition between insurance companies across state lines, eliminate restrictions on deductibles, and the whole menagerie of regulations that prevent insurance companies and hospitals from conducting business. The ideal healthcare market would be one where insurance is really insurance; i.e. you would pay for most routine checkups and such yourself, while big, unexpected accidents and injuries would be covered by insurance if you happened to need it. This would actually be possible (unlike the current situation) without all the red tape that drives up healthcare costs. For one thing, there is little scaling of healthcare quality in the U.S.; you either get the best there is or jack. In emerging markets like India (which are totally different in many ways, being much poorer countries), there is a wide range of options, so that millionaires down to dirt farmers have something that fits their means.

I'm also against the practice of fractional-reserve banking; i.e. banks lending out far more than they actually have in reserve to back it up. This is not only dreadfully harmful to society in that it is the root cause of the boom/bust cycle (because by doing this, banks inflate the currency with artificial wealth and cause investors to make investments that aren't backed up by the market in reality) but it also is criminal fraud, given that this means banks are permanently in a state of bankruptcy, unable to pay off their debts. While people who hold this position are often disparagingly called "goldbugs" because they believe that all loans must instead by backed by gold 100%, there's no reason why the commodity in question must be gold. Any form of specie is sufficient.

Finally, and this is probably worthy of its own thread, but there are several reforms I would like for the U.S. justice system. Most importantly, I would erase the distinction between civil and criminal law; the idea that a "crime" can be committed only against the state is an outdated medieval notion. I would treat every case like a civil case, with a "public prosecutor's office" in the place of a(n) (assistant) district attorney for those plaintiffs who cannot afford a lawyer. The point of all this is to ensure that victims of crimes are always compensated monetarily, instead of merely locking the defendant up. To that end, I would also change the way payment of damages works by having the government pay the full amount of the judgement immediately to the plaintiff, if he is successful (because the fact that a crime occurred in the first place is a failure of the police), and then have the government force the convict to repay that amount or work it off as the majority of his punishment. While there would still be some sort of retaliatory punishment, I believe that our current system of locking people up for an arbitrary number of years is bizarre and largely ineffective at its goal of "rehabilitation".

I am a Social Democrat -- not a Socialist, not green and not a US Democrat. That means that by American standards I would count as a strong advocate of the welfare state.

I am a federalist which is the distinct minority among Social Democrats.

I am pro-EU (and pro-€, pro Schengen Agreement, pro Treaty of Lisbon, pro Eurocorps...)

I am a strong believer in parliamentary democracy and proportional representation. That implies a relatively strong role of (multiple) political parties and those are different from parties as they are understood in the US.
Another implication is that I believe in a relatively high degree of representative democracy. I don't believe in electing too many offices directly. Ideally you have one and only one election per level.

Keep your Head of State separate from your Head of Government and give the former a largely ceremonial role.

I am in favor of slightly more permissive laws on guns and other weapons but relative to the German status quo so that doesn't mean much by US standards.

Keep strong public broadcasters and allow them to evolve into online content providers.

My understanding of the separation between church and state is at odds with the understanding that seems most common in the US. Religious justifications in politics are a huge red flag. On the other hand I have no problem with state recognition of religious organizations, religious education in public schools or church taxes. Actually I am strongly in favor of public recognition of Islamic organizations and everything that entails.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Legalize drugs and tax the heck out of them. Start with Pot and just keep going. It is also an excellent cash crop. Don’t allow corporate farms this potential cash cow. Now we do 3 goods for society and reduce the prison population and the unrest in Mexico.

---

What exactly do you mean by the phrase in bold? By the way, I don't think, even in the short term, that drugs, including tobacco and alcohol should be taxed higher than anything else. If there must be a sales tax, let it be equal on all goods.

Also, a few things other people touched on that I missed:

Definitely make prostitution legal. The government doesn't regulate it when it's free, and it shouldn't regulate it when you pay for it. Of course, preventing abuse counts for prostitutes just as much as anyone else.

Completely privatize the school system. Vouchers in the short term, as a political necessity, working towards total non-interference.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Make birth control and related surgeries free.

---

Oh, this is something I'd thought of but forgot to say, so thanks for reminding me, Jim. I absolutely agree. Birth control and related surgeries should be free and easily available. It should be nearly as easy to have protected sex as it is to have unprotected sex. Keep abortion legal, but create a world where it is hardly ever necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

I'm cool with just about all that except for the seatbelt and helmet issue: just clean up after one accident where adults weren't wearing seatbelts or helmets. Just tell one kid his dad is dead because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. Watch one family fall apart because the head injured adult needs expensive extensive care for the rest of his life. This isn't protecting people from themselves, it's saving tax dollars if nothing else.

---

My view on it is basically that if someone wants to risk his or her life, it's not the state's job to protect them from that stupidity. In Wisconsin, if you have a motorcycle license you can ride without a helmet. I don't think people should, because I think it's an idiotic thing to risk your life like that, but I'm uncomfortable with the government stepping in and protecting the individual from his own idiocy like that.

On the other hand, if I'm driving and get into what should have been a mild accident with some idiot who's driving without a seatbelt or without a helmet and that person dies, that's horrific. I'd have to live with that for the rest of my life, not to mention the insurance companies would be pretty pissed off about there being far more deaths and serious injuries than there would have been otherwise. So I suppose protecting people from their own idiocy in this case is also protecting everyone else.

Okay, vison. I revise my viewpoint and agree with you. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

I'm cool with just about all that except for the seatbelt and helmet issue: just clean up after one accident where adults weren't wearing seatbelts or helmets. Just tell one kid his dad is dead because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. Watch one family fall apart because the head injured adult needs expensive extensive care for the rest of his life. This isn't protecting people from themselves, it's saving tax dollars if nothing else.

---

I disagree. This is how getting the government involved in one sector of society, healthcare for example, leads to creeping expansion into other areas. Once your healthcare is the responsibility of everyone, every unhealthy action you take creates a greater cost for the people who have to pay for the consequences of it, and they have a vested interest in preventing you from doing it. The argument that "it's saving tax dollars if nothing else" works just as well for smoking, drinking, drug use, obesity, etc., as it does for not wearing helmets or seatbelts. Once the consequences of your actions are the responsibility of society, it's only a matter of time before it takes steps to minimize its costs by restricting the actions themselves—by restricting your freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

I disagree. This is how getting the government involved in one sector of society, healthcare for example, leads to creeping expansion into other areas. Once your healthcare is the responsibility of everyone, every unhealthy action you take creates a greater cost for the people who have to pay for the consequences of it, and they have a vested interest in preventing you from doing it. The argument that "it's saving tax dollars if nothing else" works just as well for smoking, drinking, drug use, obesity, etc., as it does for not wearing helmets or seatbelts. Once the consequences of your actions are the responsibility of society, it's only a matter of time before it takes steps to minimize its costs by restricting the actions themselves—by restricting your freedom.

---

But it doesn't necessarily have to be healthcare that's eating up money when someone goes and gets into an accident without a helmet. Disability isn't healthcare. And if nothing else, it does exaggerate the consequences for anyone else involved in an accident with someone taking such a risk. If I get in a minor accident with someone who wasn't wearing a helmet and he dies, I now have to deal with someone's death when otherwise it might have only been some bruises. If I am sued for an accident, instead of paying for his bike and some x-rays, I might be paying for the care of someone in a persistent vegetative state for the next twenty years.

The more I think about it, the more I think vison is correct that it's not just one person suffering the consequences of that decision.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

But it doesn't necessarily have to be healthcare that's eating up money when someone goes and gets into an accident without a helmet. Disability isn't healthcare. And if nothing else, it does exaggerate the consequences for anyone else involved in an accident with someone taking such a risk. If I get in a minor accident with someone who wasn't wearing a helmet and he dies, I now have to deal with someone's death when otherwise it might have only been some bruises. If I am sued for an accident, instead of paying for his bike and some x-rays, I might be paying for the care of someone in a persistent vegetative state for the next twenty years.

The more I think about it, the more I think vison is correct that it's not just one person suffering the consequences of that decision.

---

Well, then, perhaps the fact that he wasn't protecting himself should be considered in the suit. You obviously shouldn't have to pay out as much in damages, even if it was your fault, if the guy wasn't taking any sort of precautions. But I think the problem with what you're saying is that you want people to be responsible for their own actions, but still be taken care of if their actions screw them up. The whole point of not having laws requiring you to wear a helmet/wear a seatbelt/use a condom/do whatever is that you don't get disability if you choose not to take precautions and thereby mess yourself up.

By the way, the closest person to me here sounds like Oliveloaf. You don't happen to support the FDP (Free Democratic Party), do you? If Guido Westerwelle were running for POTUS, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

Also, I didn't mention the death penalty. I don't think it's used nearly enough. Locking people up in prison for life, or, really, for more than a decade or two, is idiotic. If they're that much of a danger to society, they should simply be shot. Of course, that means being more careful about not convicting innocent people, but eliminating welfare would provide plenty of money to fund public defenders.

I was much struck by Vox Imperatoris' view on copyright and patent rights. And I strongly disagree. Property rights are the bedrock of a civilized society and intellectual property is as 'sacred' as land or posessions.

Zuul, you will find that I am right so often that you can't really go wrong by agreeing with me. :)

Perhaps a person who wishes to drive seatbeltless or helmetless should have to pay substantially more for the right to drive at all, and for insurance. At any rate, I believe "your rights" end exactly where they interfere with mine - and as a taxpayer I am not happy to pay for the stupidity of others - when that behavior is in public or in public 'utilities'. I am pretty sure the day is rapidly approaching when those of us who are fat or who smoke, etc., will be penalized in some way by health insurance providers and by the medical system.

Still, I am quite content with the seatbelt and helmet laws in BC. One sight of human brains on asphalt convinced me about helmets for both motorcycles and bicycles; one accident scene of a decapitated corpse with that corpse's children standing nearby would make a nanny-stater out of the most ardent libertarian.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

. . .

Also, I didn't mention the death penalty. I don't think it's used nearly enough. Locking people up in prison for life, or, really, for more than a decade or two, is idiotic. If they're that much of a danger to society, they should simply be shot. Of course, that means being more careful about not convicting innocent people, but eliminating welfare would provide plenty of money to fund public defenders.

---

"More careful"? So, how would you define "more careful"? 85% certainty? 99%? Somewhere in between?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

I was much struck by Vox Imperatoris' view on copyright and patent rights. And I strongly disagree. Property rights are the bedrock of a civilized society and intellectual property is as 'sacred' as land or posessions.

---

Of course property rights are the bedrock of society. The power to take away your property is the power to deprive you of sustenance and to kill you. But intellectual "property", or monopoly, is another thing altogether. They are not analogous. Real property is derived from mixing labor with resources owned or found by yourself; intellectual monopoly is using the government to control what other people do with their own time and resources. The hallmark of any violation of your rights is that it leaves you worse off than you were before, but to "violate" your copyright or patent does not affect you, other than to take away potential future profits that don't belong to you.

Quote:

---

Perhaps a person who wishes to drive seatbeltless or helmetless should have to pay substantially more for the right to drive at all, and for insurance. At any rate, I believe "your rights" end exactly where they interfere with mine - and as a taxpayer I am not happy to pay for the stupidity of others - when that behavior is in public or in public 'utilities'. I am pretty sure the day is rapidly approaching when those of us who are fat or who smoke, etc., will be penalized in some way by health insurance providers and by the medical system.

---

You shouldn't have to pay for the stupidity of others. If they take risks and fail, let the burden be on them. The fact that they're taking those risks in public makes no difference: their not wearing a helmet poses no additional danger to you. Plus, the free market can take steps to limit such things; for example, insurance companies might decide not to cover anyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt, and private roads might not allow it. Other people's injuries to themselves don't affect you unless the government has socialized the risk.

Quote:

---

Still, I am quite content with the seatbelt and helmet laws in BC. One sight of human brains on asphalt convinced me about helmets for both motorcycles and bicycles; one accident scene of a decapitated corpse with that corpse's children standing nearby would make a nanny-stater out of the most ardent libertarian.

---

I hate this sort of argument. When people make decisions, sometimes they make bad ones and suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are graphic. However, the violence isn't going to "scare straight" anyone who really believes in freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

"More careful"? So, how would you define "more careful"? 85% certainty? 99%? Somewhere in between?

---

As careful as possible, using the adversarial system. The idea that capital punishment is somehow vastly more horrible than locking people in prison for their remaining natural lives makes no sense to me. Either way, it's taking a finite amount of years away from that person's free life. To let a person slip through the cracks either way is a terrible, shameful thing. Luckily, modern procedures like DNA testing are making it less and less likely to happen.

ETA: One more thing, and I can't believe I forgot to mention this: the American winner-take-all first-past-the-post electoral system is the single thing that most prevents change from occurring in American politics. I support using a Condorcet system to elect the president (on a state-by-state basis, keeping the electoral college), and I also support changing the House of Representatives to a proportionally-elected body, where the vote percentages in each individual state determine how many representatives each party gets, while returning selection of Senators to the state legislatures, as their function is to represent the states, not the populace at large. While this would mean opening the system up to radical leftists, as well, I believe that's necessary to get rid of the stifling two-party system. The main problem with the current system is that both Republicans and Democrats are reluctant to vote out corrupt and incompetant members of their own party or to waste (a true term in the current system) their votes on third parties, as this only means that the other side, with whom they disagree more, will win.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

As careful as possible, using the adversarial system. The idea that capital punishment is somehow vastly more horrible than locking people in prison for their remaining natural lives makes no sense to me. Either way, it's taking a finite amount of years away from that person's free life. To let a person slip through the cracks either way is a terrible, shameful thing. Luckily, modern procedures like DNA testing are making it less and less likely to happen.

---

Careful as possible is not good enough. Dead is dead, cannot be brought back to life. And anyway, I regard it as barbaric.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Of course property rights are the bedrock of society. The power to take away your property is the power to deprive you of sustenance and to kill you. But intellectual "property", or monopoly, is another thing altogether. They are not analogous. Real property is derived from mixing labor with resources owned or found by yourself; intellectual monopoly is using the government to control what other people do with their own time and resources. The hallmark of any violation of your rights is that it leaves you worse off than you were before, but to "violate" your copyright or patent does not affect you, other than to take away potential future profits that don't belong to you.

---

I think this is an absurd argument. Property is property, whether it be an apartment building or a novel. If I invent a new process, I am entitled to own it and the income from it. How about if I take your apartment building from you - and the future profits that - by your argument - don't belong to you?

Quote:

---

I hate this sort of argument. When people make decisions, sometimes they make bad ones and suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are graphic. However, the violence isn't going to "scare straight" anyone who really believes in freedom.

---

Not my favourite kind of argument either. But I'm a pragmatist. Besides, there are many other issues that are of far more importance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

Careful as possible is not good enough. Dead is dead, cannot be brought back to life. And anyway, I regard it as barbaric.

---

And the years stolen by prison, with all the abuses that involves, can? "Sorry you got raped, beaten, and stabbed for forty years, but you're free now!" Also, anti-death penalty advocates always use this term, "barbaric", but it means nothing. Barbarians were indeed known for capital punishment; they were also known for wearing pants. The mere fact that locking people in nice clean buildings away from a single soul is high-tech and sterile doesn't mean it's any more moral or effective than chopping off hands or heads. If cutting a man's hand off for stealing or beating him with a cane makes him not do it again, while putting him in prison for five years gets him in with all the prison gangs, is the former wrong simply because it's "icky"?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

I think this is an absurd argument. Property is property, whether it be an apartment building or a novel. If I invent a new process, I am entitled to own it and the income from it. How about if I take your apartment building from you - and the future profits that - by your argument - don't belong to you?

---

If you take my apartment building from me, you are taking what belongs to me now. I no longer have it. I can no longer use it. I no longer have any shelter, and if you also took my money and stuff, I might die. It's correct that the future profits don't yet belong to me, but the important part is what you're taking from me now. If I record a CD and you steal it (say I have no backups), I no longer have it and can no longer profit from it. On the other hand, if I record a CD and you use your own time and resources (blank CD and computer) to copy it, or if you "cover" it (i.e. use your own voice and instruments), guess what? I still have my CD, don't I? I can listen to it. I can give it to someone else. I can do whatever I want with it. Regardless of whether you agree, I think the fact that one of them is an actual, physical thing is an important difference between property and intellectual "property".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

I cannot understand this one at all. Are you saying the public school system should be shut down?

---

Sorry, no.

I mean, specifically, free college. There are loads of ultra libs that think college should be gov funded.

It's in everyone's best interest that HS be as free and accessible as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

By the way, the closest person to me here sounds like Oliveloaf. You don't happen to support the FDP (Free Democratic Party), do you? If Guido Westerwelle were running for POTUS, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

Also, I didn't mention the death penalty. I don't think it's used nearly enough. Locking people up in prison for life, or, really, for more than a decade or two, is idiotic. If they're that much of a danger to society, they should simply be shot. Of course, that means being more careful about not convicting innocent people, but eliminating welfare would provide plenty of money to fund public defenders.

---

Call me a bleeding-heart libertarian.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

Sorry, no.

I mean, specifically, free college. There are loads of ultra libs that think college should be gov funded.

It's in everyone's best interest that HS be as free and accessible as possible.

---

See, I think this is a mostly artificial distinction based purely on the fact that we already do it this way. If the government has an interest in making citizens educated, why not make them as educated as possible (hypothetically)?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

I used to consider myself fairly liberal, until I was at a political gathering in my hometown and the subject of smoking came up. As one after another of these people who claimed they were all for freedom and protecting individual rights started talking about how smoking should be outlawed, I realized that I didn't share as many values with them as I thought I did.

---

It's a strange political outlier: smoking often seems to bring out the inner Taliban in otherwise hyper-tolerant people, yet turn abortion clinic bombers into fierce champions of individual rights.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

It's in everyone's best interest that HS be as free and accessible as possible.

---

What changes happen that mean that college should cost money?

I believe in the rights of the individual.

There should be no such thing as a victimless crime. If I get my kicks from taking drugs, or peeling my eyeballs or whatever, that is my choice and my problem.

Basic services, such as public transportation, health, education, should be made available, and should be high quality, low cost for the user. This, as well as protecting the freedoms of all individuals, should be the government's primary goal.

The legal system shouldn't be about who is to "blame" for a crime. If someone commits cold blooded murder, it should not matter whether that person is hearing voices or anything like that, it is still in society's best interest for this individual to be isolated. Another point - repeat offenders are a serious problem. Rehabilitation needs to be a priority, but only second to public safety.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

It's a strange political outlier: smoking often seems to bring out the inner Taliban in otherwise hyper-tolerant people, yet turn abortion clinic bombers into fierce champions of individual rights.

---

Yes, it's pretty bizarre. Not to mention alcohol with some people, such as the UK government advisor who got fired for saying truthfully that marijuana and ecstasy are not really dangerous, but who is a real neo-Prohibitionist. It's bizarre in the first place that we picked one of the most addictive drugs out there (tobacco) and one of the most dangerous drugs (alcohol) to not ban, while we got all the harmless ones (plus cocaine and heroin, of course).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

The legal system shouldn't be about who is to "blame" for a crime. If someone commits cold blooded murder, it should not matter whether that person is hearing voices or anything like that, it is still in society's best interest for this individual to be isolated. Another point - repeat offenders are a serious problem. Rehabilitation needs to be a priority, but only second to public safety.

---

Yeah, I don't think the mentally insane should be exempt from capital punishment if they are incurable (and they committed a serious enough crime), though they should be segregated from the prison population for the prisoners' own good.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

There should be no such thing as a victimless crime. If I get my kicks from taking drugs, or peeling my eyeballs or whatever, that is my choice and my problem.

Basic services, such as public transportation, health, education, should be made available, and should be high quality, low cost for the user. This, as well as protecting the freedoms of all individuals, should be the government's primary goal.

---

You say that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies (I agree), but you also say that healthcare should be provided by the government. What if someone overdoes on heroin or amputates his own leg because it gets him off or something and then demands free medical care because he can't afford the costs? Clearly, it was his own choice, but it's no longer his own problem. It's the problem of the people on whom the burden of the costs falls.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

And the years stolen by prison, with all the abuses that involves, can? "Sorry you got raped, beaten, and stabbed for forty years, but you're free now!" Also, anti-death penalty advocates always use this term, "barbaric", but it means nothing. Barbarians were indeed known for capital punishment; they were also known for wearing pants. The mere fact that locking people in nice clean buildings away from a single soul is high-tech and sterile doesn't mean it's any more moral or effective than chopping off hands or heads. If cutting a man's hand off for stealing or beating him with a cane makes him not do it again, while putting him in prison for five years gets him in with all the prison gangs, is the former wrong simply because it's "icky"?

---

I didn't say "icky". I said barbaric. I am not claiming any particular morality or effectiveness for imprisonment - I think imprisonment is largely a waste of time and money.

Quote:

---

If you take my apartment building from me, you are taking what belongs to me now. I no longer have it. I can no longer use it. I no longer have any shelter, and if you also took my money and stuff, I might die. It's correct that the future profits don't yet belong to me, but the important part is what you're taking from me now. If I record a CD and you steal it (say I have no backups), I no longer have it and can no longer profit from it. On the other hand, if I record a CD and you use your own time and resources (blank CD and computer) to copy it, or if you "cover" it (i.e. use your own voice and instruments), guess what? I still have my CD, don't I? I can listen to it. I can give it to someone else. I can do whatever I want with it. Regardless of whether you agree, I think the fact that one of them is an actual, physical thing is an important difference between property and intellectual "property".

---

If I make a cd of my music or publish a novel and you copy either without paying me - you steal my work from me, it is theft as surely as any other kind of theft is. I think the best thing that could happen to you would be for you to create something - write a book, for example - and have your work stolen. It is just possible you will, as they say, sing a different tune.

The protection offered by copyright and patent is as important as the protection of title registry on land and the bill of sale for goods.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

I didn't say "icky". I said barbaric. I am not claiming any particular morality or effectiveness for imprisonment - I think imprisonment is largely a waste of time and money.

---

Explain why the fact that something being "barbaric" alone makes it beyond the pale. For that matter, what exactly separates "barbaric" from "civilized"? The amount of blood involved? Pain? How new it is? In my opinion, the term is mainly used as a form of ethnocentrism: if they do it, it's barbaric; if we do it, it's not.

Quote:

---

If I make a cd of my music or publish a novel and you copy either without paying me - you steal my work from me, it is theft as surely as any other kind of theft is. I think the best thing that could happen to you would be for you to create something - write a book, for example - and have your work stolen. It is just possible you will, as they say, sing a different tune.

---

Infringing copyright is not stealing. Not legally (it's called...guess what? Copyright infringement.) or morally. How am I "stealing" something from you when you still have it? If I were to write a book, I would make it available on the internet, like many people of all political stripes already do. Regardless of whether I did so, if my book was in any way popular, someone would copy it and put it online anyway.

That leads to my next point: besides the fact that copyrights and patents are unjustifiable, it's a moot point because enforcement is no longer possible. Technology has brought about the end of this government intrusion on free speech and press. I can, right now, download almost any book, song, or movie ever made (of any popularity), and no one can stop me. The "pirates" have taken legal hit after legal hit, but the amount of filesharing still goes up. The government simply can't bring force to bear on all of them. You say you're a pragmatist. Where is the pragmatic solution to that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

Sorry, no.

I mean, specifically, free college. There are loads of ultra libs that think college should be gov funded.

It's in everyone's best interest that HS be as free and accessible as possible.

---

OK, I love the idea of making it possible to go to college but do not believe in it being free. I like service to community, student loans, GI Bill and plenty of other methods for motivated people to get a higher education. But I fully support Public Schools and even think we need to increase vocation training opportunities as alternatives to stand HS and College prep curriculum. I love the various vo-tech ideas of teaching job skills for part of the day.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

OK, I love the idea of making it possible to go to college but do not believe in it being free. I like service to community, student loans, GI Bill and plenty of other methods for motivated people to get a higher education. But I fully support Public Schools and even think we need to increase vocation training opportunities as alternatives to stand HS and College prep curriculum. I love the various vo-tech ideas of teaching job skills for part of the day.

---

Hypothetically, why not have student loans available for high schoolers/their families instead of making it free? Say community service or a tour in the military would be considered payment in kind. Because they're under 18?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Hypothetically, why not have student loans available for high schoolers/their families instead of making it free? Say community service or a tour in the military would be considered payment in kind. Because they're under 18?

---

Because the only reason the poor get a high school education at all is because it's free. If it wasn't free, they wouldn't send their children to school. End of subject. Someone under eighteen can't make those sorts of huge financial decisions, after all, so you're effectively letting their parents--who are simply trying to survive and already in a very disadvantaged position--ruin their lives.

I'm going to back off of The Libertarian Show here and try to focus on responding in another direction. No offense, Vox, but it polarizes things in such an extreme way that we're not really getting the more subtle differences in opinion explored.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Hypothetically, why not have student loans available for high schoolers/their families instead of making it free? Say community service or a tour in the military would be considered payment in kind. Because they're under 18?

---

I'm not following you. I do not think it should be free.

Loans are suppose to and should be repaid. But I like the idea of various public services, including things like your debt will be paid off by working for the sponsoring Hospital for 4-5 years or the sponsoring school or etc.

Or are you suggesting HS should not be free? That would be doing a disservice to the Nation as a whole in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Because the only reason the poor get a high school education at all is because it's free. If it wasn't free, they wouldn't send their children to school. End of subject. Someone under eighteen can't make those sorts of huge financial decisions, after all, so you're effectively letting their parents--who are simply trying to survive and already in a very disadvantaged position--ruin their lives.

---

Poor people often go to college. Usually community college, at least at first, unless they have exceptional ability, in which case private universities will pay all their costs for them. Poor people aren't stupid; they can make financial decisions, even for their own children (how horrible a thought it is to have parents deciding kids' futures instead of the state!).

But sure, I'll stop responding to people for a while (as long as they do the same, of course).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "What Exit?

Loans are suppose to and should be repaid. But I like the idea of various public services, including things like your debt will be paid off by working for the sponsoring Hospital for 4-5 years or the sponsoring school or etc.

Or are you suggesting HS should not be free? That would be doing a disservice to the Nation as a whole in my opinion.

---

Yes, I was asking you hypothetically why HS should be not be free, with the option to pay for it by such methods as the kinds you like. But let's leave it alone for now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

But sure, I'll stop responding to people for a while (as long as they do the same, of course).

---

No, no, you go right ahead and keep responding. I'm just going to bow out of butting heads with you and try to draw out some discussion in other directions. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

You say that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies (I agree), but you also say that healthcare should be provided by the government. What if someone overdoes on heroin or amputates his own leg because it gets him off or something and then demands free medical care because he can't afford the costs? Clearly, it was his own choice, but it's no longer his own problem. It's the problem of the people on whom the burden of the costs falls.

---

This would be the sort of issue that different political parties could disagree on. Under one system, all health issues are treated for free. Under another system, the self-inflicted hospitalisations would be repayable under a loan. Let the people decide what they want. If circumstances change (for example, de-amputations suddenly can be done for zero cost) then the system can change to accommodate it.

Flexibility and change should be integral to the government. It is to the rest of society,a nd when the Powers That Be are slow to adapt, it leaves us with archaic rules that don't work. Voters are one method of ensuring continual change.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

This would be the sort of issue that different political parties could disagree on. Under one system, all health issues are treated for free. Under another system, the self-inflicted hospitalisations would be repayable under a loan. Let the people decide what they want. If circumstances change (for example, de-amputations suddenly can be done for zero cost) then the system can change to accommodate it.

Flexibility and change should be integral to the government. It is to the rest of society,a nd when the Powers That Be are slow to adapt, it leaves us with archaic rules that don't work. Voters are one method of ensuring continual change.

---

The government should not be eternally flexible and ever-changing. You don't share the same system, of course, but the thing I admire most about the U.S. Constitution is how well it hamstrings the government from acting in haste (if it were actually followed strictly anymore). The whole point of rule of law is that you can expect basically the same treatment today from the government as tomorrow, not have your entire industry re-arranged at the flip of a few percentage points. The problem with "letting the people do what they want" is that it's a tyranny of the majority. You're screwing the people who don't want X, who may be a very sizable minority, because slightly more people do want X. I'm not comparing universal heathcare to slavery, of course, but the same sort of argument was used to justify very bad things like slavery; e.g. "The North votes against slavery, so no slaves there. The South votes for it, so they should be free to keep them. The people have decided." So clearly, there must be some line the people aren't allowed to cross, even if they want to and are in the majority. We just disagree on what it is.

My line in the sand is that no one should ever be aggressed against except in retaliation for aggressing on someone else. Would you care to state what your line is?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Explain why the fact that something being "barbaric" alone makes it beyond the pale. For that matter, what exactly separates "barbaric" from "civilized"? The amount of blood involved? Pain? How new it is? In my opinion, the term is mainly used as a form of ethnocentrism: if they do it, it's barbaric; if we do it, it's not.

---

I think the death penalty is barbaric and do not want to live in a nation where it is used. Thankfully, I do not. Canada does not use the death penalty. I do not wish to be drawn into an argument over semantics. Ordinary understanding ought to enable you to understand what I mean by the use of the word 'barbaric'.

Quote:

---

Infringing copyright is not stealing. Not legally (it's called...guess what? Copyright infringement.) or morally. How am I "stealing" something from you when you still have it? If I were to write a book, I would make it available on the internet, like many people of all political stripes already do. Regardless of whether I did so, if my book was in any way popular, someone would copy it and put it online anyway.

---

Semantics again. And the possibility that someone would steal it anyway doesn't change the fact that it IS theft. You can say 'copyright infringement' till the cows come home but the law allows the aggrieved copyright owner to take you to court and collect damages.

Quote:

---

That leads to my next point: besides the fact that copyrights and patents are unjustifiable, it's a moot point because enforcement is no longer possible. Technology has brought about the end of this government intrusion on free speech and press. I can, right now, download almost any book, song, or movie ever made (of any popularity), and no one can stop me. The "pirates" have taken legal hit after legal hit, but the amount of filesharing still goes up. The government simply can't bring force to bear on all of them. You say you're a pragmatist. Where is the pragmatic solution to that?

---

If it becomes technologically possible to commit murder in such a way as to make enforcing the law difficult, shall we give up prosecuting it? The fact that you can commit a crime with impunity does not make it right to do so.

Obviously there are going to have to be changes to these systems, but I hope there will never be an abandonment of a creator's rights to profit from her creation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

To that end, I would also change the way payment of damages works by having the government pay the full amount of the judgement immediately to the plaintiff, if he is successful (because the fact that a crime occurred in the first place is a failure of the police), and then have the government force the convict to repay that amount or work it off as the majority of his punishment. While there would still be some sort of retaliatory punishment, I believe that our current system of locking people up for an arbitrary number of years is bizarre and largely ineffective at its goal of "rehabilitation".

---

I snipped *so* much that I wouldn't even want to begin to discuss as I think time lived on your own in the real world will cure a lot of it, but the bolded part above has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a long time.

When a crime occurs it is the failure of the police? Are you serious? How on *earth* can the police be everywhere all at once and know what a person will do before they do it so they can prevent it? Have we watched Minority Report a few too many times?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

I think the death penalty is barbaric and do not want to live in a nation where it is used. Thankfully, I do not. Canada does not use the death penalty. I do not wish to be drawn into an argument over semantics. Ordinary understanding ought to enable you to understand what I mean by the use of the word 'barbaric'.

---

No, I really don't know what you mean. It's like you're saying the death penalty is "awful". Why is it awful? "It's awful, man! You know what I mean! It's awful!" Obviously, I know the definition of "awful", but it's not exactly helpful in determining why you think it is awful, is it? You can call it "semantics" or whatever you like, but I would rather understand where exactly you're coming from.

Quote:

---

If it becomes technologically possible to commit murder in such a way as to make enforcing the law difficult, shall we give up prosecuting it? The fact that you can commit a crime with impunity does not make it right to do so. Obviously there are going to have to be changes to these systems, but I hope there will never be an abandonment of a creator's rights to profit from her creation.

---

Dream on, Dreamer. (I downloaded that song.) :P

Seriously, though, of course the simple fact that it can be done doesn't make it right; that's the whole point of the moral justification. Now, if murder somehow became unpunishable, that would definitely be a problem, but luckily, we live in the real world, where murder has to involve some form of interaction with the victim, so we can be fairly confident that there will always be some way to trace the killer. Infringing copyright does not require any interaction with the "victim" because it does not take anything away from him. Also, I'm not saying that a creator won't have the right to profit from his creation. He can charge whatever he likes. In addition, he's free to make anyone who buys it sign a contract stating that he won't publish it himself. He's simply not free to enforce that agreement on third parties who never signed it. He has the right to profit from his creation, not the entitlement to use force against others to stop them from profiting from it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

I snipped *so* much that I wouldn't even want to begin to discuss as I think time lived on your own in the real world will cure a lot of it, but the bolded part above has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a long time.

When a crime occurs it is the failure of the police? Are you serious? How on *earth* can the police be everywhere all at once and know what a person will do before they do it so they can prevent it? Have we watched Minority Report a few too many times?

---

The police's job is to prevent crime first and to deal with the consequences of crime second. Obviously, this is impossible to do in all (even most) cases, like you point out, but the responsibility is still theirs. All I'm saying is that when the peace is broken, the keepers of the peace should fix the situation first and then punish the one who broke it. Do you really think this is wrong? I think at least that every remunerative penny spent would be better-spent than every welfare dollar.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

Obviously there are going to have to be changes to these systems, but I hope there will never be an abandonment of a creator's rights to profit from her creation.

---

I agree with you and would like to add another thought.

Drug companies spend MILLIONS of dollars to research cures and/or medications to assist patients with alleviating symptoms of diseases and disorders. To compensate them for the money invested to better all of our lives, the US FDA provides them a certain number of years where they are the only company that can make the drug. That's why it can take years for a drug to go from a brand name only to a generic.

Yes it makes it expensive for people to afford the brand name, but without that period of time many companies wouldn't continue researching new products to help with other diseases.

I guess this would fall under Vox's copyright-type of void where other companies making the drug would drive the price down which would benefit customers on the short term, but hurt us in the long run when it comes to future meds. Drug companies wouldn't have any incentive to continue to research if their hard work would just be stolen and the "recipe" for the new drug would be given to any drug maker to take.

I agree with ideas from many different political sects. I used to consider myself more of a libertarian than anything, but as I've experienced more of life I've found that those ideas look great on paper but don't work as well when dealing with actual real life. I can say that I'd like a world of peace and prosperity where everyone lives free and helps one another, but putting that into practice is an entirely different animal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

The police's job is to prevent crime first and to deal with the consequences of crime second. Obviously, this is impossible to do in all (even most) cases, like you point out, but the responsibility is still theirs. All I'm saying is that when the peace is broken, the keepers of the peace should fix the situation first and then punish the one who broke it. Do you really think this is wrong? I think at least that every remunerative penny spent would be better-spent than every welfare dollar.

---

I think you live in a dream world if you think that the police can prevent crime so much that you believe that if a crime happens it is their fault that it did.

I know a woman who was brutally raped and tortured by a man who worked at the video store where she rented movies. This man had no criminal history at all. He looked up her address and went to her house. He beat, tortured, and raped her for a few hours. How can you say this is the fault of the police because he did this? How shall they "fix" this situation in your opinion? How do you give a woman back her feeling of safety in her home? How do you take away her nightmares and problems with intimacy from that day forward?

Of course the person who did it should be (and sort of was) punished, but how can you fix it? You cannot.

I'll be interested to see how you believe the police could have prevented this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

I think you live in a dream world if you think that the police can prevent crime so much that you believe that if a crime happens it is their fault that it did.

I know a woman who was brutally raped and tortured by a man who worked at the video store where she rented movies. This man had no criminal history at all. He looked up her address and went to her house. He beat, tortured, and raped her for a few hours. How can you say this is the fault of the police because he did this? How shall they "fix" this situation in your opinion? How do you give a woman back her feeling of safety in her home? How do you take away her nightmares and problems with intimacy from that day forward?

Of course the person who did it should be (and sort of was) punished, but how can you fix it? You cannot.

I'll be interested to see how you believe the police could have prevented this.

---

I don't believe the police could have prevented it. I said that. Nevertheless, it's their responsibility to pay her damages for her suffering first, and then try to extract them out of the man, rather than making her have to initiate a separate civil suit against him to recover a paltry amount of money. Obviously, you can never "turn back the clock" on a crime once it's been committed, but you can compensate victims rather than just locking up their attackers.

ETA: If your job is to keep the peace, it's your responsibility if the peace is not kept, even if there was nothing you could reasonably have done.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

I guess this would fall under Vox's copyright-type of void where other companies making the drug would drive the price down which would benefit customers on the short term, but hurt us in the long run when it comes to future meds. Drug companies wouldn't have any incentive to continue to research if their hard work would just be stolen and the "recipe" for the new drug would be given to any drug maker to take.

---

This is a reasonable and common objection, but you underestimate the advantage that companies get by being the first on the market with a new product, even if it's not protected. Anyway, I think this thread is drifting far too much towards copyrights and patents, so here is what I believe on the subject, if anyone cares: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/genera...ainstfinal.htm Chapter 9 considers the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

I don't believe the police could have prevented it. I said that. Nevertheless, it's their responsibility to pay her damages for her suffering first, and then try to extract them out of the man, rather than making her have to initiate a separate civil suit against him to recover a paltry amount of money. Obviously, you can never "turn back the clock" on a crime once it's been committed, but you can compensate victims rather than just locking up their attackers.

ETA: If your job is to keep the peace, it's your responsibility if the peace is not kept, even if there was nothing you could reasonably have done.

---

Ok so now you're saying that the police can't prevent crime? I just want to make sure we're keeping it all straight because earlier you said:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

(because the fact that a crime occurred in the first place is a failure of the police)

---

which is a direct contradiction to what you're now saying.

So now we have the police not preventing crime or being responsible for it happening, but paying if the peace is not kept even if there is nothing they could have done.

Also, is this the police department that will be paying with the tax money that you don't want collected? Will there be additional tax money taken for the crimes that are being paid for? The compensation?

Also: since we are going to make the police pay for not being able to prevent crime, are we going to have everyone else paying for mishaps on the job?

Will doctors be responsible if patients develop diabetes even if the patients refuse to get bloodwork or diet? What about architects? In the instance of 9/11 the architect of the Twin Towers built it with the idea of it sustaining a hit from the largest plane in use at its time. Planes got larger and started hauling more jet fuel in the decades after. They could not imagine those things happening and architects are in charge of keeping buildings safe. Should they pay to compensate for lives lost that day?

What about firemen? Sometimes in large cities like New York traffic is so terrible that the rescue crews will have trouble getting to the location in time to save the structure. Since it is a fire house's job to put out fires, are they responsible even though there was nothing they could have reasonably done? Or are we going to put that on the police for not handling the traffic issues? Or maybe it's the city's fault for not taking care of traffic? The city engineers? The state of New York?

I'm honestly not just trying to give you a hard time, but the blame game can get pretty messy because there's usually a lot of blame to go around.

Criminals, especially perpetrators of physical violence, are usually not people who can afford to compensate anyone for their crimes which is going to put the job on the shoulders of the tax payers. Is that what you want?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

Ok so now you're saying that the police can't prevent crime? I just want to make sure we're keeping it all straight because earlier you said:

---

Yeah, he was actually extremely clear in that he did not believe the police were capable (or should be expected to) prevent every crime; he was talking about judgments in a new style of criminal law based on our existing civil law, not about a fantasy about how the cops could prevent all crimes from happening.

It wasn't actually all that hard to understand what he meant, I'm not sure why you chose to take that one bit out of context and get all angry about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

The government should not be eternally flexible and ever-changing. You don't share the same system, of course, but the thing I admire most about the U.S. Constitution is how well it hamstrings the government from acting in haste (if it were actually followed strictly anymore). The whole point of rule of law is that you can expect basically the same treatment today from the government as tomorrow, not have your entire industry re-arranged at the flip of a few percentage points. The problem with "letting the people do what they want" is that it's a tyranny of the majority. You're screwing the people who don't want X, who may be a very sizable minority, because slightly more people do want X. I'm not comparing universal heathcare to slavery, of course, but the same sort of argument was used to justify very bad things like slavery; e.g. "The North votes against slavery, so no slaves there. The South votes for it, so they should be free to keep them. The people have decided." So clearly, there must be some line the people aren't allowed to cross, even if they want to and are in the majority. We just disagree on what it is.

---

Details should always be flexible. It was bad wording on my part, but I agree that there are certain core values which should remain locked in. Voting away freedom of association just because the current mobs wants it would be bad. But the less essential details should be flexible.

Quote:

---

My line in the sand is that no one should ever be aggressed against except in retaliation for aggressing on someone else. Would you care to state what your line is?

---

I don't have a line. I find that if I ever decide that something is my moral cutoff point, it can change in as little as months, certainly over many years. Or, I define the line to be so vague that is has no meaning. Sorry for the wishywashy answer, but I find that in the human realm, there are no certainties, and no absolutes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

Also, is this the police department that will be paying with the tax money that you don't want collected? Will there be additional tax money taken for the crimes that are being paid for? The compensation?

---

After paying the compensation, the police would then make the criminal pay it off. Any amount not covered by that would, of course, have to come from the general treasury, which, in a free society, could only be funded by voluntary contributions. Of course, the idea of donations funding the government sounds absolutely ludicrous in today's society, and indeed it would be impossible to fund a government the size of ours without the use of force. But with a minimalistic government, it is not so outlandish. A tiny percentage given by a good number of citizens would be enough, if the government were small enough. Plus, people who could afford it could be made to pay for the services of the police and courts, just as people who can afford lawyers now don't get them for free. Certainly, no one gives voluntarily to the government now, since people aren't likely to donate to the man who robs them, they have been consistently shown to be willing to give large amounts to charity (and to give more when they have more income not consumed by taxation). Not to mention that there have been societies in the past that worked on the principle of voluntary taxation; in fact, the idea that taxation should be voluntary (albeit at the community level) was one of the ideas that drove the American colonists to push for independence.

Quote:

---

Also: since we are going to make the police pay for not being able to prevent crime, are we going to have everyone else paying for mishaps on the job?

---

No, of course not. The police, courts, and military are special because they are government monopolies and obligated to serve everyone. A doctor is free not to take an irresponsible person's business, while the police are forced to take everyone.

Quote:

---

Criminals, especially perpetrators of physical violence, are usually not people who can afford to compensate anyone for their crimes which is going to put the job on the shoulders of the tax payers. Is that what you want?

---

Of course not every penny could be repaid this way, but liens on non-violent offenders and chain-gang type labor for dangerous ones could pay for a sizable percentage of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

Yeah, he was actually extremely clear in that he did not believe the police were capable (or should be expected to) prevent every crime; he was talking about judgments in a new style of criminal law based on our existing civil law, not about a fantasy about how the cops could prevent all crimes from happening.

It wasn't actually all that hard to understand what he meant, I'm not sure why you chose to take that one bit out of context and get all angry about it.

---

Aww, it's Exy! As much as you'd like to believe that I'm angry about this, I'm afraid you're wrong. That's okay, you'll get over that. It's a discussion. Not everyone gets gushing mad and says things that makes them get banned in a discussion. That's all this is. Let's keep that in perspective, k?

What he meant and what he said were two different things. I'm not about to guess what he means, I have to go by what he says. He said that a crime being committed was a failure of the police department. If one believes that a crime taking place is a failure of the police that gives us the impression that the police should be able to prevent the crime. How else could they fail unless they could change it?

Now he says that even if there is nothing they can reasonably do they should have to compensate the victim. Okay. How? You and I both know that Vox has railed against taxes on many occasions. He even went so far as to invent in his mind this puppies and kitties island where everyone could live without taxes and police. I believe you were in chat when he discussed that but I can't be sure that you... remember it. We asked him what would happen if one of his happy puppy/kitty people decided to amass an arsenal of weapons and he said that the other islanders would simply ask Mr Demolition Man to leave and they'd just do it.

Fantasy land stuff. Wanting a great society is a fantastic thing, but I prefer ideas that could possibly happen in the world we live in. Not the world we wish we lived in, but the one we actually live in.

I've seen you doubt his libertarian ideas plenty of times so please do not decide you want to play the other side of the fence because you're salty with me. Let's at least discuss issues honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

I've seen you doubt his libertarian ideas plenty of times so please do not decide you want to play the other side of the fence because you're salty with me. Let's at least discuss issues honestly.

---

:roll:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

We asked him what would happen if one of his happy puppy/kitty people decided to amass an arsenal of weapons and he said that the other islanders would simply ask Mr Demolition Man to leave and they'd just do it.

---

No, I did not say that. I said that they would force him to do it; i.e. kill him or lock him up if he didn't leave. I said the sheer number of weapons he has doesn't matter if he has no one else to use them and the other people in the community are sufficiently armed. Somehow, everyone got from that that the power of love or something would compel him to leave. Besides, I did not invent this concept; basically the idea is to have a condominium/casino complex in international waters. To make money. Not to live in a socialist commune where everyone cooperates just 'cause.

ETA: I don't think it's a stretch to say that because the duty of the police is to protect, there is a failure when someone is not protected, even if there was nothing they could do. Maybe "failure" is too strong a word for you? There is a "problem they need to address" if someone is not protected. Is that better?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

After paying the compensation, the police would then make the criminal pay it off. Any amount not covered by that would, of course, have to come from the general treasury, which, in a free society, could only be funded by voluntary contributions. Of course, the idea of donations funding the government sounds absolutely ludicrous in today's society, and indeed it would be impossible to fund a government the size of ours without the use of force. But with a minimalistic government, it is not so outlandish. A tiny percentage given by a good number of citizens would be enough, if the government were small enough. Plus, people who could afford it could be made to pay for the services of the police and courts, just as people who can afford lawyers now don't get them for free. Certainly, no one gives voluntarily to the government now, since people aren't likely to donate to the man who robs them, they have been consistently shown to be willing to give large amounts to charity (and to give more when they have more income not consumed by taxation). Not to mention that there have been societies in the past that worked on the principle of voluntary taxation; in fact, the idea that taxation should be voluntary (albeit at the community level) was one of the ideas that drove the American colonists to push for independence.

---

That's a nice idea, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. I'm afraid I can't entertain the idea of volunteer contributions when it comes to running our society, even one that is paired down. I think you'd find that you might not be able to pair it down nearly as much as you might imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

No, of course not. The police, courts, and military are special because they are government monopolies and obligated to serve everyone. A doctor is free not to take an irresponsible person's business, while the police are forced to take everyone.

---

The fire department is a government monopoly. What about the example I gave you?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Of course not every penny could be repaid this way, but liens on non-violent offenders and chain-gang type labor for dangerous ones could pay for a sizable percentage of it.

---

Not just not every penny, most every penny. I have no moral problem with the idea of chain gangs, but how many are we going to have and that will take jobs away from other people. The judicial system in Arizona (the pink wearing prisoners who lived in tents? a fascinating study in the judicial system) uses chain gangs and one of their biggest issues is that it really did take away jobs available (decent paying jobs) because the work that was performed was public service type work. I think that state can be looked to for some new ways of dealing with crime and criminals, but I'm not sure compensating everyone for every crime is a smart or even possible venture.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

:roll:

---

Or don't discuss it honestly. Either way, you're not breaking my heart Exy.

Bottom's up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

That's a nice idea, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. I'm afraid I can't entertain the idea of volunteer contributions when it comes to running our society, even one that is paired down. I think you'd find that you might not be able to pair it down nearly as much as you might imagine.

---

Pare. Perhaps not, though. It is conceivable. But there are solutions to that problem, though I think we've got a long way to go before we need to think about them, hmm?

Quote:

---

The fire department is a government monopoly. What about the example I gave you?

---

The fire department is currently a government monopoly, but so is healthcare in many countries (and you mentioned doctors). I think neither should be one, so it doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Not just not every penny, most every penny. I have no moral problem with the idea of chain gangs, but how many are we going to have and that will take jobs away from other people. The judicial system in Arizona (the pink wearing prisoners who lived in tents? a fascinating study in the judicial system) uses chain gangs and one of their biggest issues is that it really did take away jobs available (decent paying jobs) because the work that was performed was public service type work. I think that state can be looked to for some new ways of dealing with crime and criminals, but I'm not sure compensating everyone for every crime is a smart or even possible venture.

---

The problem is having a minimum wage while allowing the criminals to work under it. How are you supposed to out-compete them legally? But the work shouldn't be limited to just public sector stuff; anyone who wants them should be able to get them by open bidding; e.g. construction, mining, and other low-skilled jobs conducted away from consumers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Pare. Perhaps not, though. It is conceivable. But there are solutions to that problem, though I think we've got a long way to go before we need to think about them, hmm?

---

Before someone asks, though, here they are, in order of preference:
1. Abandon the government as a monopoly altogether and go to a system of anarcho-capitalism as proposed by Murray Rothbard.
2. Abandon rights-based libertarianism and go to utilitarian libertarianism, which is the belief in a small government because it serves the greater good, not because it is inherently moral.
3. Accept that, despite all apparent evidence to the contrary, central planning works better than the free market and switch to an authoritarian corporate state, where industry, government, and the worker are all integrated.

However, I believe choices 2 and 3 would not be reflected by the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Pare. Perhaps not, though. It is conceivable. But there are solutions to that problem, though I think we've got a long way to go before we need to think about them, hmm?



The fire department is currently a government monopoly, but so is healthcare in many countries (and you mentioned doctors). I think neither should be one, so it doesn't matter.



The problem is having a minimum wage while allowing the criminals to work under it. How are you supposed to out-compete them legally? But the work shouldn't be limited to just public sector stuff; anyone who wants them should be able to get them by open bidding; e.g. construction, mining, and other low-skilled jobs conducted away from consumers.

---

Well I think we'll have to just stop here and agree to disagree because I can't see where we're getting anywhere even discussing "possibilities" in this. You don't want to answer about fire departments or doctors because you don't think they should be part of the government. That's fair. I simply don't think you're going to be able to fund a government on voluntary contributions. I wish it was something possible, but I can't see it.

People with money rarely want to part with it especially if it goes to helping people who don't have money. I feel cynical as hell just saying it, but in what I've seen it's the truth. Theories aren't always viable.

Oh well, agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

Oh well, agree to disagree.

---

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Thanks.

---

Just because I think it's interesting reading, here is the guy in Arizona I was talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

There were a lot of shows like 20/20 and Dateline doing stories about it when it first hit the news and the prisoners were on waiting lists to be in his "Tent City" which used the chain gangs.

He had a lot of ideas about revamping the prison systems.

Just something to look at......

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

Just because I think it's interesting reading, here is the guy in Arizona I was talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

There were a lot of shows like 20/20 and Dateline doing stories about it when it first hit the news and the prisoners were on waiting lists to be in his "Tent City" which used the chain gangs.

He had a lot of ideas about revamping the prison systems.

Just something to look at......

---

Of course, many of the people in his prison shouldn't be there in the first place, being illegal immigrants and/or drug offenders.... And he has done many things that serve no useful purpose besides inflicting unnecessary and/or unjustified suffering. Still, the idea of putting prisoners to useful work isn't bad; it's better than having them sit in cells, brood, and form gangs with each other. Plus, the Constitution specifically allows it.

Vox I have a video you might like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb8qG76L9jE

ANYWAY

I once took a test on OK Cupid. It called me a 'strong democrat', and informed me I am very socially permissive and kinda economically permissive. BUT that wasn't the question so let's move on. My Big Issues:

Queer things: I promised myself that I'd never be a single issue voter. But with things being the way they have lately, I've now promised myself I will never vote for a candidate who does not support the rights of the LGBTQIetc community.

Healthcare: I don't think we have a right to call ourselves a first-world country given the state of our health care system. It is appalling and unacceptable to me that people in this country die due to a lack of coverage. No American should have to chose between feeding their kids or having a mammogram, or choose between buying their medicine and keeping their heat on. Every other first-world country has some kind of nationalized health system in place. These vary in cost and quality, but they have something. We, on the other hand, have 45 million people without insurance.

Oh, despite that lack of coverage we also have the most expensive health care of any industrialized nation. If nothing else, we're not getting enough bang for our buck.

That social permissiveness stuff: As long as what you're doing doesn't 'tread on me', I'm okay (who you marry, what you smoke at home, what you do in your bedroom with as many consensual adults as you please). I believe we as a nation are justified in legislating things that do/could potentially cause great harm or burden (driving drunk, seatbelts/helmets, smoking in public areas).

There's more but it's late/early and my brain's melty. I'll be back, thread. I'll be back.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

Queer things: I promised myself that I'd never be a single issue voter. But with things being the way they have lately, I've now promised myself I will never vote for a candidate who does not support the rights of the LGBTQIetc community.

---

I know what you mean about not wanting to be a single-issue voter but I don't think this is something to be embarrassed about, personally. The issue has gotten so polarized in recent years that frankly I look down on queer people who vote Republican. There are a lot of important issues in politics but if we as queers won't put our own issues first, who do we think will do it for us?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

Vox I have a video you might like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb8qG76L9jE

---

Sorry, I made a good-faith effort to watch that, but I couldn't take the voices.

Quote:

---

I once took a test on OK Cupid. It called me a 'strong democrat', and informed me I am very socially permissive and kinda economically permissive.

---

I like that OkCupid Politics Test. I just took it again and got this: http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e3...liticsTest.jpg That's pretty much me on the nose.

Quote:

---

Healthcare: I don't think we have a right to call ourselves a first-world country given the state of our health care system. It is appalling and unacceptable to me that people in this country die due to a lack of coverage. No American should have to chose between feeding their kids or having a mammogram, or choose between buying their medicine and keeping their heat on. Every other first-world country has some kind of nationalized health system in place. These vary in cost and quality, but they have something. We, on the other hand, have 45 million people without insurance.

---

You might be interested in this video. (Turnabout's fair play! :D)

In my ideal Pepperland, I would pay a healthy amount of taxes, as would everybody else. In return for this, the government would take care of the following things: infrastructure, education, defense, criminal justice, and healthcare. I don't want to worry about my children growing up stupid, and I don't want to be shot randomly on the street. If I am shot randomly on the street, I want to be sure that I can go to any hospital in my community with the expectation of prompt, cheap/free, top-notch care. Nobody should have to declare bankruptcy due to hospital bills.

I think that the way people view education in this country is so fucking wrong-headed it makes me want to scream. Right now, teachers are often the targets for misdirected rage because Little Timmy doesn't read good. The fact of the matter is that teachers are often left to their own devices without support from their own administrators or the community. There's also the fact that tests do not and can not act as accurate yardsticks for a class's progress, and teachers cannot force students to learn against their will. On the SDMB, I once saw a proposal that teachers should be paid based on how well their students perform--more C's in a semester means less money. I cannot imagine anything more horrifying or counter productive. No matter how good you are, there's a point where a teacher runs out of power. I know, I know, we all believe teachers should be miracle workers, and if they just invest all of their free time in their students, they'll pull off the impossible and break through to a troubled student with the triumphant sounds of 80s rock playing in the background. But it doesn't happen that way. Creating school vouchers so that "parents have the choice" is not the answer, and banging the drum of teacher accountability is not the answer, either. Both of my jobs bring me in contact with teachers and aspiring teachers on a daily basis, and their needs, complaints, frustrations, and reality is simply not being addressed by lawmakers on a local or national level. Schools need to be well-funded and teachers need to stop being the focal points of impossible expectations and misguided anger. Also, every student who graduates high school would be eligible for 2 years worth of additional education separate from any other scholarships or grants they might qualify for. Students would be encouraged to explore possibilities besides university (which is simply not a good solution for everybody).

In Pepperland, abortions would be legal for all without age restrictions. They would be safe and widely available (and nobody would have to be subjected to "counseling" which is really just guilt mongering and brow beating). Along with abortions, everybody would have access to birth control, accurate and informative sex ed (none of the abstinence-only bullshit), and young men and women would be encouraged to be pro-active about their sexual health starting at puberty. Everybody over the age of 13 would have the right to and expectation of privacy and physical autonomy.

Gay marriage would be recognized in every jurisdiction (and gay adoption would be legal as well). The government would not be allowed to interfere in any relationship between two able-minded and consensual adults.

Marijuana would be legal and LSD would no longer be classified as a Schedule A drug. Prostitution would be decriminalized (but not legalized. Never will I ever support the buying and selling of human beings, even if it is consensual. I have no problem with decriminalizing it, but I do not want any government of mine to be comfortable with categorizing any segment of the population as something to be bought and sold. It dehumanizes everybody).

Any tax-exempt organizations would be forbidden from participating in politics (for example, the LDS church can either be tax-exempt or they can donate millions of dollars to fund and support anti-gay legislation, but not both).

In Pepperland, the death penalty would be completely abolished with no exceptions (yes, even if the person in question brutually murdered my own husband who I love deeply. Hell, even if the person in question brutally murders me).

Immigration would be encouraged, and immigrants would be treated like human beings with basic rights, rather than abused and scapegoated over every stupid thing (to that end, road signs and the like would routinely be posted in more than one languge). I would not be opposed to open borders.

In Pepperland, the separation between church and state would mean something, and it would actually be illegal to favor or promote one religion over any other religion in school and laws (should be illegal now but people get away with ignoring the spirit of the law while following the letter). The right to privacy would be an absolute, as is the right of the press, right to free speech, and right to assemble (though one could argue that it's an infringement on tax-exempt organizations freedom of speech to bar them from the political arena, well, no system is perfect).

There might be more, but I'm tired and I can't think of anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

Marijuana would be legal and LSD would no longer be classified as a Schedule A drug.

---

Why would you not legalize LSD completely?

Okay, pep, you're my political twin. :lol:

This part especially I want to repeat:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

Prostitution would be decriminalized (but not legalized. Never will I ever support the buying and selling of human beings, even if it is consensual. I have no problem with decriminalizing it, but I do not want any government of mine to be comfortable with categorizing any segment of the population as something to be bought and sold. It dehumanizes everybody).

---

Yes, yes, yes. Decriminalizing is not the same as legalizing. Legalizing doesn't give you rights: it takes them away. If people choose to barter with sex or give it in exchange for money, that doesn't change who they are. It doesn't mean that they should be restricted to brothels for three weeks out of the month, that where they can go should be covered by the law, or anything else. It simply isn't a place the law should go at all. Make 'em pay taxes, but leave them the fuck alone.

I was confused at first and thought I'd wandered into some libertarian board. Then I realized it was one person.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway. This is going to be terribly UScentric because I am a stupid American.

I'm pretty disgusted with the Dems and have been for a long time, mainly because they're spineless wimps and give lipservice to LGBT people but rarely actually follow through on it. So, I consider myself more of a tribal-socialist or something. I dunno how to put it. I'm really not some great political mind or anything.

My view is basically this: Da Gobamint is not some monolithic, distant monstrosity OUT TO GET YOU. If you live in a democracy or republic or whatever the hell you poli-sci dorks (and I mean that with love) call it, Da Gobamint is the people. Now, the problem is when those people are working in a huge, ridiculous structure that removes it from its roots to the point that instead of serving a majority of people, it's just serving 51% of the folks who bothered to vote, while something like 80% of the other people (the opposition and those who didn't vote) are left out in the cold.

The government needs to be taken down to a much, much, much smaller level--like give more power at the city, county, state level--but then, that government, AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PEOPLE, should do everything it can to serve it's people. BECAUSE IT IS THEM. Like pepper said, it should cover infrastructure, education, defense, criminal justice, and healthcare. You pay taxes not because Da Gobamint is holding you hostage, but because THIS IS YOUR COMMUNITY AND YOU WANT TO BE PART OF IT. You want to help Bob that poor old homeless drunk, and while you as an individual might not be well-equipped for it, your city, or your county, or your state might be better prepared, and you AS A PART of that city, or county, or state show your support for this by paying taxes.

Hate all your neighbors and dislike how they're handling things and want to watch those bums die in the streets while you giggle and drink your champagne filled with diamonds? Okay, so move to a city, county, or state where everybody (the hateful buggers) agrees with you.

Let the federal government handle big things like foreign affairs and the military, but let the people handle everything else on a much, much, much smaller scale.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

Prostitution would be decriminalized (but not legalized. Never will I ever support the buying and selling of human beings, even if it is consensual. I have no problem with decriminalizing it, but I do not want any government of mine to be comfortable with categorizing any segment of the population as something to be bought and sold. It dehumanizes everybody).

---

This sounds nice, but I simply can't agree with it. Legalization and regulation of prostitution would allow for limitations on what customers can do, would allow for prostitutes to make at least minimum wage, and be covered by health insurance (and routines check ups would benefit the customers as well as the prostitute), as well as bringing to light the abuse by current "free lance" pimps. I fail to see how this "dehumanizes everyone". Seems to me that it humanizes a prostitute by giving him/her equal protection. Certainly under that scenario they are absolutely not handing over total ownership of their bodies to their customers, they are only providing a service.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

Queer things: I promised myself that I'd never be a single issue voter. But with things being the way they have lately, I've now promised myself I will never vote for a candidate who does not support the rights of the LGBTQIetc community.

---

I'm right there with you. I have become essentially a single issue voter with regard to GLBT issues. It's not really something I'm entirely happy about, though. Case in point, this year Deval Patrick is up for re-election as governor of Massachusetts. I'm not happy with him, and I'm even less happy with the stranglehold that Democrats have on MA politics. That said, he's said he supports trans-inclusive anti-discrimination policies, and will sign any such legislation that crosses his desk. I can't, in good conscience, vote for any of his opponents if they can't say the same.

I have strongly identified with libertarian ideals, but have become increasingly less convinced that they're feasible in the real world.

I'm pro-legalization of marijuana. For most other drugs, while I'm all for letting others harm themselves as they see fit, in theory, I'm not all that invested in going to bat to legalize them. And I feel that, for example, drugs like PCP where the users are as equally likely to become aggressive and harm others as they are themselves, should remained banned.

I'm against the death penalty very strongly for two reasons. One, currently we are not doing all we can to insure that the guilty are the ones being excuted (not to mention that the system has biases, and certain groups are more often executed than others), and two I simply don't believe that any person or body of persons (ie, the government) should have the right to take another person's life. I understand that some people argue that life imprisonment is as bad as a death sentence, but I will just have to agree to disagree with them.

Hm. I want to live in Pepperland with Nrblex as Prime Minister.

Vox, your ideas range - in my humble opinion - from Ayn Randiness to BatMania, veering into a very nasty dystopia where we would all live under the All-seeing Eye of Authority. :) The job of the police is not to prevent crime. At least not up here in Canuckistan. The police exist to enforce some laws - for instance traffic laws where they have the manpower to do it - and to deal with the aftermath of crime, as in investigating the event and possibly arresting the criminal. They may also be required to maintain or restore "order" in the event of a mob or riot. It is also their unhappy task to clean baby brains off asphalt and to retrieve body parts from ditches and shrubberies after highway wrecks.

In order for the police to "prevent crime" our society would have to go even farther down the road we are already on, of tv cameras on every street corner, file-sharing about every citizen between every level of authority. I do not see this as a good thing.

It is true that I am a pragmatist. We have arrived at a fairly reasonable sort of society that suits me fairly well. It needs adjustment now and again, a little boot along the Road of Progress. There are a few places in the world that may be ripe for your sort of system. Somalia springs to mind.

As for the death penalty: I think it is barbaric. Apparently playing little semantic games is important to you, so I will add: I think it is wrong, immoral and degrading to the fabric of the society that metes it out. It is not a deterrent to crime, but is a vile and uncivilized combination of vengeance and lip-smacking, drooling delight in human misery.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

This sounds nice, but I simply can't agree with it. Legalization and regulation of prostitution would allow for limitations on what customers can do, would allow for prostitutes to make at least minimum wage, and be covered by health insurance (and routines check ups would benefit the customers as well as the prostitute), as well as bringing to light the abuse by current "free lance" pimps. I fail to see how this "dehumanizes everyone". Seems to me that it humanizes a prostitute by giving him/her equal protection. Certainly under that scenario they are absolutely not handing over total ownership of their bodies to their customers, they are only providing a service.

---

The way that legalization is handled in many places is that it takes away a sex worker's free agency and generally ties her to a brothel in a particular part of town. I follow the blogs of a lot of sex workers and they do just fine handling their own health and where they work. Yes, there are poor streetwalkers who are in really, really bad situations out there, but to say that's all sex workers and all of them need to be treated like that's where they're starting is ignoring the strippers who want to give a little something else, the professional dominants who are in a position of power with their clients, the college students who make a little on the side, the guy who sleeps with his landlady instead of paying rent, etc. The majority of people getting money for sexual favors aren't walking the streets.

Decriminalizing it without surrounding it with a bunch of bureaucratic BS gives people freedom. Freedom to say they only want to do it on the weekends and they want to do it on their own, instead of being stuck in a brothel under the watch of somebody else.

Well, it being that way in certain places doesn't mean it has to be that way. I would prefer prostitution to be considered as just another job. And I do understand that's a tall order in the US, where people are still rather hung up about sex. Nothing you've said there convinces me anyone's being "dehumanized", let alone "us all"

And if it was just another job, then likely people wouldn't be prevented from doing it on the side. I can be a landscaper, or I can mow your lawn for $10 under the table.

Although I don't think many children dream of being what is now called a "sex trade worker" when they grow up, I agree that what consenting adults do with each other is mostly not my concern. Providing the consent in question is freely given, why should I care? It is likely that there would not be any more prostitution than there is now, and it is even possible that the violence and degradation that we see now would be significantly less.

The problem is, as Taumpy points out, that in our society (I include Canada, even though our ideas are somewhat different) "sex" is not a comfortable topic for most people, and sexual behaviors are largely not discussed openly. It is unlikely, unlikely in the extreme, that any prostitute will be regarded as "just another worker" in our society any time soon, regardless of the law.

We are taught that sex is "an expression of love" and are uncomfortable with "sex as a commodity", even though it obviously is to many people at many times in many places. I remember talking about this years ago with a friend who said something like, "Well, a guy's been up in a logging camp in the bush all winter and he hits the city and he wants a woman, why shouldn't he be able to just go to a brothel and buy one?" No reason that I can think of. But my riposte at the time - and it's still troubling to me - is, "What about the married man who has ordinary day-to-day sex with his wife and then goes out and buys sex? Maybe even with a teenager or a boy?" It is not the prostitution ITSELF that bothers me, it is the betrayal of the marriage and all that entails. Even if the wife never finds out. That does bother me, and it bothers me a lot.

I don't quite know what it says about the men in these cases. I guess that's the topic of another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Well, it being that way in certain places doesn't mean it has to be that way. I would prefer prostitution to be considered as just another job. And I do understand that's a tall order in the US, where people are still rather hung up about sex. Nothing you've said there convinces me anyone's being "dehumanized", let alone "us all"

And if it was just another job, then likely people wouldn't be prevented from doing it on the side. I can be a landscaper, or I can mow your lawn for $10 under the table.

---

My problem with legalizing prostitution has nothing to do with being "hung up" about sex. However, it's not just another job. In my eyes, the government setting up a bunch of rules about who you can buy and sell, when you can buy and sell them, and where you can buy and sell them is absolutely disgusting. For one thing, a number of prostitutes don't want to be there. Not very many people grow up thinking "I want to sell my body to be used by some stranger several times a night." I don't want the government to throw those people in jail, because I don't believe they've done anything to deserve it. At the same time, I don't want a series of laws to be codified that essentially defines a person as a commodity. And you can't tell me that countless women (and men) wouldn't be exploited in a system where it's legal to sell somebody to another person for sex. You think anybody would care if America's sex workers are glorified sex slaves? You think middle America will vote to more tax money for the enforcement of rules that are ostensibly put into place to protect the people who have now become objects?

I don't like the thought of a segment of the population literally being turned into objects to be used, to be regulated, to be taxed. Leave people alone, don't spend resources to arrest people who are engaging in a consensual contract, but at the same time, don't make it possible to turn any percentage of the population into a legal, government-recognized sexual object. To me, it's tantamount to slavery. You don't have to agree with me. It's not like we're all moving to Pepperland, but that's why I could never support legalization.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

...It's not like we're all moving to Pepperland...

---

We're not?

*sadly puts away suitcase*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

In order for the police to "prevent crime" our society would have to go even farther down the road we are already on, of tv cameras on every street corner, file-sharing about every citizen between every level of authority. I do not see this as a good thing.

---

Look, what I said was that is the responsibility of the police to keep the peace, both by serving as a force of prevention and as a "fixer" when things do go wrong. You and Sleeps somehow morphed this into "Orwellian state where there is no privacy at all and everyone is spied on." I DO NOT want those things. If you don't think the job of the police is, at least in part, to prevent crime, why do we have beat cops, and police escorts and guards at controversial events? Why do we have a witness protection program? Why do we lock dangerous people up? After all, their job is just to deal with the aftermath of crime, right? The entire idea behind punishing people for crimes is to prevent it in the future (as well as to compensate the victims), both by locking the people up who commit them and by providing a deterrent against it. For example, I could track you down and kill you, but I won't because the police would catch me and punish me severely. I don't know what kind of world you live in where the police and courts don't try to prevent crime, but they do in this one.

Can the police prevent every crime? No, of course not; it's impossible. An angry husband might not care about what his punishment will be if he kills his wife for cheating on him, for example. But why do you think we have laws and law enforcement in the first place, if not to discourage people from breaking them?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nrblex

The government needs to be taken down to a much, much, much smaller level--like give more power at the city, county, state level--but then, that government, AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PEOPLE, should do everything it can to serve it's people. BECAUSE IT IS THEM. Like pepper said, it should cover infrastructure, education, defense, criminal justice, and healthcare. You pay taxes not because Da Gobamint is holding you hostage, but because THIS IS YOUR COMMUNITY AND YOU WANT TO BE PART OF IT. You want to help Bob that poor old homeless drunk, and while you as an individual might not be well-equipped for it, your city, or your county, or your state might be better prepared, and you AS A PART of that city, or county, or state show your support for this by paying taxes.

---

If you love you community and "YOU WANT TO BE A PART OF IT", you know what you can do? You can pay taxes without having a gun held to your head. You can pitch in without the whip holder standing behind you. If you have to be threatened with years of jail time to support your community, you're not really supporting it of your own free will, are you?

It's true that in a democracy, the government is the people. But it is only some of the people, and the majority isn't justified in shackling the minority any more than the other way around.

Quote:

---

Hate all your neighbors and dislike how they're handling things and want to watch those bums die in the streets while you giggle and drink your champagne filled with diamonds? Okay, so move to a city, county, or state where everybody (the hateful buggers) agrees with you.

---

And the medieval serfs who were such giant assholes that they didn't want to support their rightful lords could just move to a democracy, right? Oh wait, there weren't any at that time, were there? And the fact that there were no democracies 500 years ago (and none of the "great men" of the day supported it) is proof that it's a crazy fringe idea, right? This is the classic "love it or leave it" argument. Don't like the way blacks are treated in America? Go back to Africa. Don't like the way Italians are treated? Go back to Italy. Don't like the way women are treated? Go back to Amazonia, I guess. Actually, I'd rather be able to do what I want without hurting anyone else without having men with guns show up on my door and telling me I can either go to prison or be cast out from my homeland.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

What changes happen that mean that college should cost money?

---

In my opinion High Schools are fairly generic with fairly small variety of courses. It is still basic education to get by in life and to wet young peoples interest in a career and learning. College is such a diverse experience that it is far more expensive to run and many people do not need college to be successful.

Heck, I am one of them. I do not even have enough credits for an associates. If I had the GI bill instead of VEEP and also if Engineering did not die for a while with the end of the Cold War, I would have persevered for my BS in Electrical Engineering but instead I jumped into Programming and did great.

I want to live in Pepperland!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

In my opinion High Schools are fairly generic with fairly small variety of courses. It is still basic education to get by in life and to wet young peoples interest in a career and learning. College is such a diverse experience that it is far more expensive to run and many people do not need college to be successful.

---

See, in my opinion, one problem we have is that we expect that elementary school must be like THIS, high school like THIS, college like THAT, handed down like a mandate from John Dewey On High. I don't think all, even most, people are cut out for the exact same kind of elementary, middle, and high school education. Of course, there is some variation, with AP courses for the smart ones and remedial courses for the ones who can't cope, but there needs to be more. Personally, I love learning, and I excel in school, but some people don't. This doesn't make them Bad People Who Need Fixing, they're just not cut out for the same educational curriculum as I am. They don't do well in school because they don't care what a gerund is or who won the Spanish-American War (even though I personally think history is a great thing to know), and they're not going to remember it if you do make them learn it. They might be better-suited with vocational training or actually getting a job and learning practical workplace skills because that might be a more valuable thing for them to spend their youth on. And they and their parents should be permitted to make those value choices on their own, not be forced to take whatever the Minister of Education's statistics say is the optimum pedagogical path.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Katriona

I want to live in Pepperland!

---

Healthcare and porn for all!

Really, I think she did a fantastic job of outlining what she believes and why she believes it. Kudos, pep.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bill of Rights

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

---

End the IRS. I realize that the government needs taxes to do its business. I think the Fair Tax would be a much better system which would keep the government out of my bank account.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bill of Rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

What ever happened to the tenth amendment. Federally mandated speed limits, seat belt laws, drinking age and now health insurance. I don't have a problem with any of these things just the Federal Governments forcing it on every State. Let each State decide how it wants to do things. What works in one states other states will follow or the People will decide with their feet.

I believe in smaller government at every level. More personal responsibility and more private sector solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Why would you not legalize LSD completely?

---

I think it's ridiculous to say that LSD is the same as cocaine or heroin, but at the same time, I have no great investment in legalizing all drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Healthcare and porn for all!

Really, I think she did a fantastic job of outlining what she believes and why she believes it. Kudos, pep.

---

Thanks. :) Not too bad for something I wrote up at 3 in the morning!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glazer

End the IRS. I realize that the government needs taxes to do its business. I think the Fair Tax would be a much better system which would keep the government out of my bank account.

---

Yes! Another FairTax supporter!

Quote:

---

What ever happened to the tenth amendment. Federally mandated speed limits, seat belt laws, drinking age and now health insurance. I don't have a problem with any of these things just the Federal Governments forcing it on every State. Let each State decide how it wants to do things. What works in one states other states will follow or the People will decide with their feet.

I believe in smaller government at every level. More personal responsibility and more private sector solutions.

---

And not just the Tenth Amendment, the Ninth and the Fourteenth Amendments, too. Obviously, I don't think everything I proposed is covered by the U.S. Constitution, but I think that if the Ninth Amendment were used in conjunction with the "privileges and immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, many of the rights of U.S. citizens could be protected, the right to bear arms and to put whatever you want in your own body being the most obvious. You might be interested in reading this article, which talks about the McDonald v. Chicago case coming up soon for the Supreme Court, which might (I daresay is likely to) both end handgun bans and revolutionize individual rights by bringing real power back to the "privileges and immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by overturning the horrendous Slaughterhouse precedent. It's really one of the most exciting opportunities to come down the pipeline in a long time.

ETA:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

I think it's ridiculous to say that LSD is the same as cocaine or heroin, but at the same time, I have no great investment in legalizing all drugs.

---

So because it's not your problem, you're okay with putting people in prison for making, dealing, and using it? Just trying to be clear.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

So because it's not your problem, you're okay with putting people in prison for making, dealing, and using it? Just trying to be clear.

---

If LSD is reclassified it could be knocked down to a misdemeanor. Quite frankly, I don't agree that all drugs should be legalized/decriminalized. Heroin and cocaine used to be widely available and legal for all, and it caused major social problems. Marijuana was criminalized due to the great efforts of the tobacco industry, among other things, but I believe there are very good reasons to keep other drugs illegal. Now, I don't think the current War on Drugs is the answer to any problem, and I don't support the current approach to the "drug problem" in the US. I would like to see treatment and rehabilitation emphasized over punishment. But just because I'd want the emphasis to shift doesn't mean I think the drugs should be legal.

Living in the apparent Meth Capital of the World, I'm inclined to agree with Pepper.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

I didn't say "icky". I said barbaric. I am not claiming any particular morality or effectiveness for imprisonment - I think imprisonment is largely a waste of time and money.





If I make a cd of my music or publish a novel and you copy either without paying me - you steal my work from me, it is theft as surely as any other kind of theft is. I think the best thing that could happen to you would be for you to create something - write a book, for example - and have your work stolen. It is just possible you will, as they say, sing a different tune.

The protection offered by copyright and patent is as important as the protection of title registry on land and the bill of sale for goods.

---

I completely agree with vison on this point. If the "good" I produce is an electronic good, then that's as much my livelihood as if I was manufacturing cars. If I can't have a copyright over my own intellectual property that I created, and therefore can't be guaranteed a living from it...even if it's a good that is desired by the market...then what is my incentive to produce it? Historically, when a musician has made music and some record company sold the CD, some money went to the recording company (to cover the cost of manufacturing the actual durable good, which was the CD), and some money went to the musician (for creating the music, without which the CD itself would be worthless). Now that we can transfer music from person to person without selling an actual durable good, why is it fair to tell the musician that the music is suddenly not worth anything, either? This makes no logical sense to me at all.

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was "what are your political values?", not "what are your political values so Vox can be personally offended that they don't match his." The thing about values is that what's important to you is not important to me. What seems "perfectly logical" to a libertarian is going to seem abhorrent to someone with more socialist leanings like myself. Does that make one of us wrong, or bad? No, it means we value different things. I value the collective and the welfare of my fellow man over the things that you value.

This isn't what I opened this thread for and it's not what the OP described. If you really want a "libertarian takes on all comers" thread, then go start one.

(Yes, yes, I said it: LOVE THIS THREAD OR LEAVE IT SUCKAS)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

If you love you community and "YOU WANT TO BE A PART OF IT", you know what you can do? You can pay taxes without having a gun held to your head. You can pitch in without the whip holder standing behind you. If you have to be threatened with years of jail time to support your community, you're not really supporting it of your own free will, are you?

---

This is a bizarre way to look at things and not how I see taxes, so I'm not responding to it. This is standard libertarian rhetoric that gets you people worked up into a frenzy, but to anyone who doesn't feel like a hostage of the state by paying taxes it's just weird.

Quote:

---

It's true that in a democracy, the government is the people. But it is only some of the people, and the majority isn't justified in shackling the minority any more than the other way around.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

And the medieval serfs who were such giant assholes that they didn't want to support their rightful lords could just move to a democracy, right? Oh wait, there weren't any at that time, were there? And the fact that there were no democracies 500 years ago (and none of the "great men" of the day supported it) is proof that it's a crazy fringe idea, right? This is the classic "love it or leave it" argument. Don't like the way blacks are treated in America? Go back to Africa. Don't like the way Italians are treated? Go back to Italy. Don't like the way women are treated? Go back to Amazonia, I guess. Actually, I'd rather be able to do what I want without hurting anyone else without having men with guns show up on my door and telling me I can either go to prison or be cast out from my homeland.

---

What? This is nonsense in response to what I said. I'm saying that the government as it is now is far too big to serve the needs of all the people. The people in the Midwest are culturally different from those on the coasts. We have different needs. It's not right for us to be hammered down because the coastal states have more people and, thus, more voting power. I'm saying give more power at the state level, and from there down to the county and the city. Let smaller populations have a greater say over their own area. If in Hypothetical United States of Nrblex you find yourself living in Iowa and find that you disagree with the tax structure, you can either try to change things where you are or move to a state that better matches your viewpoints. But that is true NOW. If I am in Iowa and I think it sucks, nobody is making me stay here and tough it out because ohman it'd be a sign of weakness to move over to Illinois. That's stupid. People move across the country all the time. By putting power on a local level, that move can have a greater effect. Which is a good thing!

And that was a really, really minor point in my overall argument that I think we've put too much power in the federal government and need to handle things on a local level instead.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

If LSD is reclassified it could be knocked down to a misdemeanor. Quite frankly, I don't agree that all drugs should be legalized/decriminalized. Heroin and cocaine used to be widely available and legal for all, and it caused major social problems. Marijuana was criminalized due to the great efforts of the tobacco industry, among other things, but I believe there are very good reasons to keep other drugs illegal. Now, I don't think the current War on Drugs is the answer to any problem, and I don't support the current approach to the "drug problem" in the US. I would like to see treatment and rehabilitation emphasized over punishment. But just because I'd want the emphasis to shift doesn't mean I think the drugs should be legal.

---

Alcohol causes all sorts of social problems, too. That's why they banned it in the first place. I just don't think Prohibition works, whether you're talking about alcohol, cocaine, heroin, or marijuana. People shouldn't be protected from themselves. Besides, if you're trying to prohibit a drug, you've got to crack the hammer down hard on someone, otherwise you're not affecting anything at all. That is, if the punishment for making LSD is a small fine, the producers can just eat the costs and keep going. But even the harshest punishments just haven't been shown to work; whether you go after the producers or the consumers, burn the poppy fields or raid the crack houses, you can't stop drugs. All you do is encourage illegal underground cartels, who have to be armed and prepared to fight federal agents to defend their business.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nrblex

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was "what are your political values?", not "what are your political values so Vox can be personally offended that they don't match his." The thing about values is that what's important to you is not important to me. What seems "perfectly logical" to a libertarian is going to seem abhorrent to someone with more socialist leanings like myself. Does that make one of us wrong, or bad? No, it means we value different things. I value the collective and the welfare of my fellow man over the things that you value.

---

Yes, I happen to believe that some values are better than others, shockingly enough. But most of all, I believe in not letting some people's values dictate other people's actions. People act like under a libertarian state all charities, non-profits, and friendliness would be illegal, but that's ridiculous. You could live in a socialist commune if you wanted. What you couldn't do is force other people in the general vicinity to be part of your commune. My one real "political value" is that no one should be free to force his own political values on someone else.

Quote:

---

This is a bizarre way to look at things and not how I see taxes, so I'm not responding to it. This is standard libertarian rhetoric that gets you people worked up into a frenzy, but to anyone who doesn't feel like a hostage of the state by paying taxes it's just weird.

---

"I don't like your argument, so I will ignore it." Look, some slaves (though very few) didn't mind slavery. Some women loved living in a paternalistic society where they were confined to the home. Some people enjoyed life under Communism. That doesn't mean that these people weren't oppressed, nevertheless. It's like living in a velvet prison; you may be perfectly happy with everything that's provided to you in the prison, but at the end of the day, you're still in a prison.

Quote:

---

If I am in Iowa and I think it sucks, nobody is making me stay here and tough it out because ohman it'd be a sign of weakness to move over to Illinois. That's stupid. People move across the country all the time. By putting power on a local level, that move can have a greater effect. Which is a good thing!

---

This would be fine if everyone lived in an RV and could find a job anywhere and could take their friends and family with them, but guess what? They can't. There's a lot more to moving than just packing up your bags and jumping over to the next state. People actually have real attachments to the place they live, and they shouldn't be forced to move simply because they disagree with the local majority. Now, I agree with you that federalism is better than a unitary state because it's much easier for those who would restrict freedom to take over in the latter, but you're acting like local communities can do no wrong. They can do a heck of a lot of wrong, and often.

Moderator note: Alright, I don't appreciate the turn towards a more heated tone, but it is true that this thread wasn't started to discuss libertarianism alone. Let's move the discussion along.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I completely agree with vison on this point. If the "good" I produce is an electronic good, then that's as much my livelihood as if I was manufacturing cars. If I can't have a copyright over my own intellectual property that I created, and therefore can't be guaranteed a living from it...even if it's a good that is desired by the market...then what is my incentive to produce it? Historically, when a musician has made music and some record company sold the CD, some money went to the recording company (to cover the cost of manufacturing the actual durable good, which was the CD), and some money went to the musician (for creating the music, without which the CD itself would be worthless). Now that we can transfer music from person to person without selling an actual durable good, why is it fair to tell the musician that the music is suddenly not worth anything, either? This makes no logical sense to me at all.

---

The musician can sell his music over the internet for whatever price he wants. What can't be done is for Beethoven (hint: he didn't have copyright) and his descendants to keep everyone else from ever playing Symphony No. 5 simply because he wrote it first. "But copyrights expire!" you say? Sure, they do in theory, but when you've got companies like Disney lobbying to extend their copyrights, they're damned if they're ever going to let someone else start making Mickey Mouse cartoons.

I think that, in a world without copyrights, musicians, sure, would no longer be multi-billionaires in as many cases. But to say that the world would be without new music is insane hyperbole. Good musicians would be able to make money by performing live and from selling the first rights to publish their songs (people have, you know, thought about ways to make money without copyright). Think of most local bands. Think of symphony orchestras. Most of the stuff they perform is not copyrighted, but they still are economically viable. Musicians wouldn't be super-rich, most likely, but they'd get by like anyone else. The idea that people need the promise of millions of dollars in front of them to write songs is just silly. People aren't going to stop making good music.

ETA: Sure, Zuul.

I'm sorry if my tone was out of line. I didn't intend that.

I'll just say this to clarify what I had said before (and no more continuing any hijacks): While I do think there should be basic human rights that all governments respect, I don't think that necessitates having a single large government controlling all affairs and I dislike any one group's political ideas--no matter how charitable--to have too much control over too many people.

I agree with Nrblex to a certain extent: the US is too large to be governed effectively from one centre. It should be broken up into regions.

Let's give 'er a shot.

(I am serious, but I realize it will not happen in my lifetime.)

And, I will add that Vox is the first "libertarian" I have ever met who would discard ownership of copyright or patent. Property rights are the foundation of Libertarian belief. Or so I recall from my readings of Ayn Rand, back in the early Neolithic . . .

Governing the US in a decentralized way was how it was originally conceived. Certainly, giving more rights to the states and not passing all power off to the feds might help with some matters. If something doesn't work, it's much easier to get rid of it at the state level than if it's firmly entrenched at the federal level.

Moving back to the earlier discussion of paying for college...

In my experience, it really isn't as hard to pay for school as it's often portrayed, if you're willing to go to one of the smaller campuses of a state university or college. Without any financial support from my family at all, I managed to squeak by with grants while working on campus. Yes, I had to commute. Yes, I took the bus every day. Yes, I had to eat in an extremely frugal manner. But I didn't take out any loans and I didn't get financial assistance from my mother. It's possible and a lot more kids could do it than are doing it now.

I'm willing to concede that in some states it may be far too expensive to do that (my experience is limited to Nevada and Wisconsin), but I don't think it's so expensive or so hard that it needs to be made free. I don't think people value something that's free nearly as much, and it's hard enough as it is to get college students to realize they're adults and have to take things seriously (I'm thinking of my niece here, sigh). What we need is maybe a little more assistance and a lot more effort from the high schools to educate and prepare kids on how to get that assistance, so they understand they have a lot of options.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

And, I will add that Vox is the first "libertarian" I have ever met who would discard ownership of copyright or patent. Property rights are the foundation of Libertarian belief. Or so I recall from my readings of Ayn Rand, back in the early Neolithic . . .

---

Intellectual monopoly was a big part of Ayn Rand's beliefs, that's all. She didn't even consider herself a libertarian, for various reasons. But the great thing about Ayn Rand, as opposed to Jesus or Muhammad, is that she wasn't an infallible heavenly prophet. You can disagree with a few things she says and still accept the majority of it without being sent to the Bad Place. She was a great philosopher, but she made a few mistakes and was not the final arbiter of philosophical thought she sometimes thought she was (especially later in life, when she tried to split the community of Objectivism off from the rest of the world).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Intellectual monopoly was a big part of Ayn Rand's beliefs, that's all. She didn't even consider herself a libertarian, for various reasons. But the great thing about Ayn Rand, as opposed to Jesus or Muhammad, is that she wasn't an infallible heavenly prophet. You can disagree with a few things she says and still accept the majority of it without being sent to the Bad Place. She was a great philosopher, but she made a few mistakes and was not the final arbiter of philosophical thought she sometimes thought she was (especially later in life, when she tried to split the community of Objectivism off from the rest of the world).

---

Yes, I'm sure you think she was a great philosopher. I did too, when I was 14. Now I'm 65 and I don't think so any more.:D

Thomas Hardy had something to say about philosophers and the ends to which they come. I'll have to post it sometime or other.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

Yes, I'm sure you think she was a great philosopher. I did too, when I was 14. Now I'm 65 and I don't think so any more.:D

---

Yeah, and there's plenty of 65-year-olds who think she is a great philosopher and plenty of 17-year-olds who love Karl Marx. Your point is? The "You'll see it my way when you're older and wiser, young man," argument is as condescending and patronizing as it is fallacious. People change their opinions as they age all the time. Sometimes it's because they really are wiser, and sometimes it's because they become entitled old curmudgeons who think they know what's best for everyone else. Some people get more religious as they grow older; some people lose faith as they see their friends dying around them and all the suffering in the world. Some people mellow out as they age; some people grow stronger in their convictions. In no case does whether they're actually right or not have to do with their age.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Yeah, and there's plenty of 65-year-olds who think she is a great philosopher and plenty of 17-year-olds who love Karl Marx. Your point is? The "You'll see it my way when you're older and wiser, young man," argument is as condescending and patronizing as it is fallacious. People change their opinions as they age all the time. Sometimes it's because they really are wiser, and sometimes it's because they become entitled old curmudgeons who think they know what's best for everyone else. Some people get more religious as they grow older; some people lose faith as they see their friends dying around them and all the suffering in the world. Some people mellow out as they age; some people grow stronger in their convictions. In no case does whether they're actually right or not have to do with their age.

---

How long do you plan on making this discussion an argument?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

How long do you plan on making this discussion an argument?

---

For as long as people keep arguing with me or use my age to offhandedly dismiss what I say.

Vox, the only reason anyone brings your age into is simply because you don't have the real world experience to back up your politics. It's all good and well to discuss a hypothetical situation, but it's something else entirely to try to implement it in the real world. Having ideals and beliefs is alright, but believing that essential services(fire,police) could be sustained through voluntary donations is just a fantasy. These agencies are barely getting by on forced donations (taxes).

I am saying this in all honesty, back off the politics a little bit and try to see the world how it really is. Put down the books and take a stroll, maybe talk to some people you wouldn't normally talk to. Politics are a strange thing and everybody and their uncle thinks they have the great solution, yet no one has come up with a decent answer yet.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

For as long as people keep arguing with me or use my age to offhandedly dismiss what I say.

---

People discussing their own beliefs isn't necessarily arguing with you just because it goes against what you think.

Perhaps you're reading more into the comment about age than what vison meant. He/she has a right to state that their opinion has changed over time. They simply said that they thought one way when they were 14 and something different now.

Most people do change their minds about things as they get older. If they didn't I'd honestly wonder about their capacity to learn. Many ideologies sound great on paper but simply do not work in the real world.

I know I thought I knew exactly what the world needed when I was in high school. It's embarrassing to think about now how little I actually knew. Life is a bit different when you have to support yourself and make your own way in the world.

You can look at that as insult if you want, it's simply a fact of life. It doesn't mean that the opinion of a teenager is invalid, but I think most people (as in not all) would agree that experience does count for something.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TFR You SOB

Vox, the only reason anyone brings your age into is simply because you don't have the real world experience to back up your politics. It's all good and well to discuss a hypothetical situation, but it's something else entirely to try to implement it in the real world. Having ideals and beliefs is alright, but believing that essential services(fire,police) could be sustained through voluntary donations is just a fantasy. These agencies are barely getting by on forced donations (taxes).

---

Voluntary donations plus, as I said, charging people who can afford it. Of course, in your mind, if these agencies run by the government could just squeeze a little more money out of the taxpayers, they'd be fine, right? Unfortunately, the effectiveness of a government is not a linear function of how well-funded it is. The main criterion is whether it attempts to fight human nature at every turn or to provide a government that actually matches the needs of human beings.

Quote:

---

I am saying this in all honesty, back off the politics a little bit and try to see the world how it really is. Put down the books and take a stroll, maybe talk to some people you wouldn't normally talk to. Politics are a strange thing and everybody and their uncle thinks they have the great solution, yet no one has come up with a decent answer yet.

---

This is incredibly insulting. Do you think I'm not familiar with the real world? I know how the real world works. Libertarianism is a political philosophy specifically designed to accommodate people as they really are, rationally self-interested individuals who function best by looking out for themselves first (and specifically looking out for their long-term best interest, not worshiping their every whim), not some fantasy like socialism that states that altruism and selfless cooperation will be workable or bring on societal advancement. And political systems can, in fact, be compared in the real world. And time and again, the political systems that allow people the most liberty have been shown to be the most effective, while the authoritarian bureaucracies have brought nothing but misery and death.

So-called "pragmatists" who claim to do only what reality requires or what the people demand without regard to basic moral values have done more harm to the world than anything else. If politics are not grounded in firm principles (and if those principles are not themselves grounded in the reality of human nature), regimes based on them will eventually fail, or at least not live up to their true potential. Principle is the only thing that can save people when pragmatists decide their cost-benefit ratio justifies oppression.

But if you want me to talk about my personal life, I know incredibly rich people and that they are not all saints. I know poor people, a few of them in my own family (before you want to quibble over definitions, they live in trailer parks), and that they are not all devils. I've been to the ghetto and seen the conditions in housing projects. And I know people in the real world who are socialists and statists. My own uncle, for one. And I know exactly why he believes what he believes: because he made some very bad economic decisions of his own and thinks the government should be there to bail him out. So, while I may not have had quite so diverse a range of experiences as many people here, please don't talk to me like I live in a plastic bubble. If nothing else, it's incredibly rude.

Wow, you missed the point entirely. No, I don't think you have any idea how the real world works. Talk to me when you have been busting ass to pay your own way and have paid your own taxes for years. You talk about how you would make the people that have the means pay for services, come back when you see the cops respond in a second to a 911 call to the high income neighborhood but you can't get a squad car to your house.

I tried to say it nicely but let me break it down, You are a kid. I was there not too long ago myself and had my own political beliefs that I would defend to the bitter end, no matter what anybody else said. You know fuck all about how the world actually works. You may be a smart person when it comes to what was in a book, but person to person, and person to government you have a lot to learn. As bad as the current system may be, and as much as I disagree with it, it does beat most of the realistic alternatives. The feds are not out to get us, there is no monolithic organization trying to keep us down. It's the people that keep electing the politicians that keep anything happen within the government.

If the general populous actually wanted drastic change in the way things were run, they would be voting for all the 3rd party and fringe candidates. Nothing is really going to change until you change the minds of the people. Now until you can figure out a way to do that, you have to work within the system we have and stop going on about what might (but more than likely won't) happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

You say that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies (I agree), but you also say that healthcare should be provided by the government. What if someone overdoes on heroin or amputates his own leg because it gets him off or something and then demands free medical care because he can't afford the costs? Clearly, it was his own choice, but it's no longer his own problem. It's the problem of the people on whom the burden of the costs falls.

---

Well, this is just one of the downsides of taking on responsibility for governing the people, and making money off their blood, sweat and tears. Tough fucking titties. Not everybody is suited for a conventional 9to5 lifestyle.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Yeah, and there's plenty of 65-year-olds who think she is a great philosopher and plenty of 17-year-olds who love Karl Marx. Your point is? The "You'll see it my way when you're older and wiser, young man," argument is as condescending and patronizing as it is fallacious. People change their opinions as they age all the time. Sometimes it's because they really are wiser, and sometimes it's because they become entitled old curmudgeons who think they know what's best for everyone else. Some people get more religious as they grow older; some people lose faith as they see their friends dying around them and all the suffering in the world. Some people mellow out as they age; some people grow stronger in their convictions. In no case does whether they're actually right or not have to do with their age.

---

How true. And, I daresay it will happen to you, too.

Your ideas are interesting and I mean nothing disrespectful in saying they are more common in young men than old women. That happens to be the way things are.

I disagree with much of what you have to say, but by no means with all of it. I tend to the Libertarian end of things myself. But, the thing is, Vox Imperatoris, that I have had my beliefs modified by very hard experience. I may be an old curmudgeon with a huge sense of entitlement, but I don't think so. I have been beaten about the head and ears by life and have learned some very difficult lessons. I was one hell of a lot more hard-headed and certain when I was 14. Now I am more tolerant and easy-going, not so quick to see when people are "wrong". I try to see where people are "trying", if you follow me.

Given that a lot of people don't think about this sort of thing at all, I am impressed with how much you evidently DO think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeps w/Butterflies

I know I thought I knew exactly what the world needed when I was in high school. It's embarrassing to think about now how little I actually knew. Life is a bit different when you have to support yourself and make your own way in the world.

You can look at that as insult if you want, it's simply a fact of life. It doesn't mean that the opinion of a teenager is invalid, but I think most people (as in not all) would agree that experience does count for something.

---

So, so, so true. There are some things about political views that have been consistent throughout my life. I've always been against the death penalty, even when I was in high school, for example. But for everything that stayed the same, a hundred different things changed. Hell, I've been posting on the SDMB for 10 years now. I'm sure there's ample evidence of my own naiveté if anybody wanted to find it. That's neither good nor bad. It's just the process of learning and growing up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TFR You SOB

Wow, you missed the point entirely. No, I don't think you have any idea how the real world works. Talk to me when you have been busting ass to pay your own way and have paid your own taxes for years. You talk about how you would make the people that have the means pay for services, come back when you see the cops respond in a second to a 911 call to the high income neighborhood but you can't get a squad car to your house.

---

Quoted For Truth.

Quote:

---

The feds are not out to get us, there is no monolithic organization trying to keep us down. It's the people that keep electing the politicians that keep anything happen within the government.

---

I'm also quoting this for truth.

pepperlandgirl, well put.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

The musician can sell his music over the internet for whatever price he wants. What can't be done is for Beethoven (hint: he didn't have copyright) and his descendants to keep everyone else from ever playing Symphony No. 5 simply because he wrote it first. "But copyrights expire!" you say? Sure, they do in theory, but when you've got companies like Disney lobbying to extend their copyrights, they're damned if they're ever going to let someone else start making Mickey Mouse cartoons.

---

Yes, the musician can sell his music over the internet for whatever price the market will bear, or he can give it away, his choice. But it doesn't create a fair market place if the consumers have the option to get it for free instead of paying him for it, does it? And Beethoven is a bad analogy because the economic structures are very different now than there were in his day (hint: he had patrons). I'm not saying that copyrights should be held in perpetuity, but I think that the person who creates a good that is valued by the marketplace should have the right to profit from that creation.

Quote:

---

I think that, in a world without copyrights, musicians, sure, would no longer be multi-billionaires in as many cases. But to say that the world would be without new music is insane hyperbole. Good musicians would be able to make money by performing live and from selling the first rights to publish their songs (people have, you know, thought about ways to make money without copyright). Think of most local bands. Think of symphony orchestras. Most of the stuff they perform is not copyrighted, but they still are economically viable. Musicians wouldn't be super-rich, most likely, but they'd get by like anyone else. The idea that people need the promise of millions of dollars in front of them to write songs is just silly. People aren't going to stop making good music.

---

Well, I didn't say that no one will make good music, so I'm not the one with the insane hyperbole. What I said was that it will disincentivize, which it will. What that effect will be, I don't know. And your symphony orchestra example also doesn't work for me. Symphony orchestras perform music, they don't write it. They actually benefit from lack of copyright, because then they don't have to pay for the music they perform. The people hurt by lack of copyright are those who write new music.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

As for the death penalty: I think it is barbaric. Apparently playing little semantic games is important to you, so I will add: I think it is wrong, immoral and degrading to the fabric of the society that metes it out. It is not a deterrent to crime, but is a vile and uncivilized combination of vengeance and lip-smacking, drooling delight in human misery.

---

And it is ineffective.

When the death penalty was removed from the Canadian Criminal Code, the murder rate did not significantly change (it went down a tad), but the conviction rate for murders went way up, effectively putting away more murderers rather than letting them loose.

We're in a transition phase in Canada with regards to prostitution. Prostitution is legal here. Advertising for prostitution is not legal here. Running a whore house is not legal here. These have led to a couple of issues. The advertising one is rather silly -- prostitutes advertise as escorts rather than as prostitutes. The bawdy house one is more serious -- to keep legal, many prostitutes make out calls rather than working in their own secure environment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Muffin

We're in a transition phase in Canada with regards to prostitution. Prostitution is legal here. Advertising for prostitution is not legal here. Running a whore house is not legal here. These have led to a couple of issues. The advertising one is rather silly -- prostitutes advertise as escorts rather than as prostitutes. The bawdy house one is more serious -- to keep legal, many prostitutes make out calls rather than working in their own secure environment.

---

That is serious and unfortunate, since it's putting them in a more dangerous situation. What's the rationale behind barring brothels but allowing prostitution?

Intellectual property is about balance and the advance of civilization. Without intellectual property, we would not have research and development anywhere near to the degree that we now have. Modern communications, modern transportation, modern health care -- the world as we know it, simply would not exist.

The purpose of the protection of intellectual property is to provide benefits to society. Governments protect the interests of people and organizations that create intellectualy property, which acts as a strong incentive to create intellectual property.

The trick for a government is to offer enough intellecutal property protection to encourage R&D, while at the same time not overprotecting intellectual property to the degree that diminishes the benefits reaped by society. It comes down to governments finding a balance that advances civilization.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

That is serious and unfortunate, since it's putting them in a more dangerous situation. What's the rationale behind barring brothels but allowing prostitution?

---

As illustrated in this thread, people tend not to be against the goings on behind closed doors between consenting adults.

On the other hand, shop owners do not want street whores accosting customers at store entrances, and residents do not want parades of cars driven by johns rolling through their neighouhood while street whores offer their services. Thus the law against solicitation.

The law against bawdy houses addresses a more serious problem -- that of pimping (which also remains illegal). It is one thing for a person to be a prostitute of his or her own volition. It is quite another for a person to be dragged down into the trade, only to find himself or herself more or less trapped working for a brothel owner. Personally, I think the solution will eventually be found in regulation of brothels, rather than the present criminalization of brothels.

Can the modes force Vox to do a whole separate thread about the intellectual property thing, because I think it's actually a pretty interesting argument (mostly in that I'm curious about how someone could possibly take a principled stance against it.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

Can the modes force Vox to do a whole separate thread about the intellectual property thing, because I think it's actually a pretty interesting argument (mostly in that I'm curious about how someone could possibly take a principled stance against it.)

---

Well, I can't "force" him to start a thread, as that'd be rather difficult. But if the conversation is to continue it does need its own thread. It's just a bit beyond the scope of this one, though it's an interesting topic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Well, I can't "force" him to start a thread, as that'd be rather difficult. But if the conversation is to continue it does need its own thread. It's just a bit beyond the scope of this one, though it's an interesting topic.

---

You could hold him down and tickle him until he agrees to, or just split this one into two threads. Which ever you prefer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Muffin

As illustrated in this thread, people tend not to be against the goings on behind closed doors between consenting adults.

On the other hand, shop owners do not want street whores accosting customers at store entrances, and residents do not want parades of cars driven by johns rolling through their neighouhood while street whores offer their services. Thus the law against solicitation.

The law against bawdy houses addresses a more serious problem -- that of pimping (which also remains illegal). It is one thing for a person to be a prostitute of his or her own volition. It is quite another for a person to be dragged down into the trade, only to find himself or herself more or less trapped working for a brothel owner. Personally, I think the solution will eventually be found in regulation of brothels, rather than the present criminalization of brothels.

---

What if you ran a house like a beauty shop? The girls (or guys) don't work for you they just rent a room and pay for security.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glazer

What if you ran a house like a beauty shop? The girls (or guys) don't work for you they just rent a room and pay for security.

---

I had a client (a female in her 50s) who wanted to purchase a motel and bar in a small mining town to do just that, but unfortunately, section 210 of the Criminal Code of Canada stood in the way, so her business plan went kaput.