What are your political values?

[Zuul]

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.

[vison]

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.

[Exy]

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.

[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.

[vison]

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?

[Oliveloaf]

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

They are rich now, BTW.

[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.

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.

[Sarahfeena]

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.

[Zuul]

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.

[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.

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.

[The Original An Gadaí]

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.

[What Exit?]

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.

[What Exit?]

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?

[Vox Imperatoris]

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".

[Feirefiz]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

[Zuul]

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.

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

[Zuul]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[vison]

. . .

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?

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

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.

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

"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.

[vison]

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.

[vison]

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?

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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"?

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".

[Oliveloaf]

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.

[Oliveloaf]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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)?

[OneCentStamp]

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.

[Inner Stickler]

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?

[AllWalker]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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).

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

[vison]

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.

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

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?

[What Exit?]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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?

[Zuul]

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.

[What Exit?]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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).

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.

[Zuul]

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.

[AllWalker]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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?

[vison]

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'.

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.

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.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

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?

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

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.

(I downloaded that song.)

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.