What are your political values?

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

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.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

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:

(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?

[Exy]

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.

[AllWalker]

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.

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

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.

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.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

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.

[Exy]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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?

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

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.

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?

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.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

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

Bottom's up.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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?

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.

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.

[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.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Oh well, agree to disagree.

Thanks.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

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......

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

[RabbitMage]

Vox I have a video you might like:

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.

[Exy]

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?

[Vox Imperatoris]

Vox I have a video you might like:

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

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.

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! )

[pepperlandgirl]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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

Why would you not legalize LSD completely?

[Zuul]

Okay, pep, you're my political twin.

This part especially I want to repeat:

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.

[Nrblex]

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.

[Taumpy]

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.

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.

[vison]

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.

[Zuul]

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.

[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.

[vison]

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.

[pepperlandgirl]

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.

[Zuul]

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

We're not?

*sadly puts away suitcase*

[Vox Imperatoris]

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?

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.

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.

[What Exit?]

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.

[Katriona]

I want to live in Pepperland!

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

[Zuul]

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.

[Glazer]

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.

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.

[pepperlandgirl]

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.

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!

[Vox Imperatoris]

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!

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:

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.

[pepperlandgirl]

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.

[RabbitMage]

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

[Sarahfeena]

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.

[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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

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.

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.

[Zuul]

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.

[Vox Imperatoris]

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.

[Nrblex]

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.