[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

My right to paint vehicles outside. My right to use the best automotive paints (which are now legal in every state except CA). My right to run my 650hp mill without catalytic converters. My right to drive as fast as I want pending the conditions are safe. My right to have sex with my girlfriend in public. My right to walk around naked. My right to drink outside on the beach with friends at a bon fire. My right to tell cops to go fuck themselves without being harassed and fined for bullshit. My right to go offroading in undeveloped areas. My right to pee on a tree outside. And now pending: my right to carry firearms, one of the most basic constitutional rights.

Exactly. Libertarians always ignore externalities. The truth is that in modern day society their is almost no way to do things without affecting someone else. This is why government has to have laws limiting individuals.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

Exactly. Libertarians always ignore externalities. The truth is that in modern day society their is almost no way to do things without affecting someone else. This is why government has to have laws limiting individuals.

False. We just pay close attention to the externalities (a.k.a., unintended consequences) of government action much much closer than the rest who just seem to go along "well, it's the best we can do." Nonsense.

BTW, hardcore anarcho-capitalist libertarians, which I'm close to presently, are dead serious about law and order. Our ideal society would certainly have laws (but limited substantially to transgression against real property) and rules like which side of the street to drive on, etc., etc. The notion we're for a total free for all at all times and places is categorically wrong. It's either spewed as propaganda, or a profound misunderstanding of what we're on about. We're just against government as an agent of force to shape society and all the negative externalities they inflict on humanity.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

I disagree with this completely. We absolutely should have laws in place to protect children from their indigent parents. What about a Dad who drops his daughter off in Tijuana for the night to teach her a lesson? And she then gets raped. Really, the Dad didn't do anything actively harmful to her, the Mexican rapist did. You're suggesting there should be no legal recourse against his recklessness?

Uh, care to explain to me how these constitute protecting people from themselves? Sounds a lot like fairly clearly protecting one from another in some pretty clear cases doesn't it?

Actually, protecting in the first case, and punishing in the second. The latter is a bit easier to come down on the side against the negligent (and moronic) hypothetical father. Now for a real example, how about a parent who refuses medical treatment for their children based on religious convictions. How about recent cases of optiing out of vaccination? Not easy is it?

BTW, CPS is filled with absolute fuc*king horror stories of taking a child from a non-perfect home and putting them in homes where they get killed. Hot damn! I'd call that a negative consequence.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

My right to paint vehicles outside. My right to use the best automotive paints (which are now legal in every state except CA). My right to run my 650hp mill without catalytic converters. My right to drive as fast as I want pending the conditions are safe. My right to have sex with my girlfriend in public. My right to walk around naked. My right to drink outside on the beach with friends at a bon fire. My right to tell cops to go fuck themselves without being harassed and fined for bullshit. My right to go offroading in undeveloped areas. My right to pee on a tree outside. And now pending: my right to carry firearms, one of the most basic constitutional rights.

Oh yeah, my right to talk on a cell phone while the fat guy in traffic next to me is eating a chesseburger, and the whore next to him is putting on her eyeliner, and Ron next to her is watching a DVD in his Cobra.

I've talked with you enough, including your thoughts on the basis of a proper legal code, which I share in principle, and I have some news. You're what most would consider at least a moderate libertarian.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

Oh yeah, my right to talk on a cell phone while the fat guy in traffic next to me is eating a chesseburger, and the whore next to him is putting on her eyeliner, and Ron next to her is watching a DVD in his Cobra.

This made me LoL!!

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

. . . Can you please list some examples of how the government is screwing you out of your freedom on a daily basis?

I don't think Adam was joking quite as much as you think he was, but here's a relatively short list off the top of my head.

Starting from the minor detail that something like 40% of my working life is taken from me (total taxation) without my agreement, which I think is the same as involuntary servitude. This involuntary servitude pays in part the six figure salaries and guaranteed lifetime benefits of people like Barabara Boxer, whom I loathe, etc. etc. etc. Do I have a choice? Nope.

Continuing with that theme:

- Subject to conscription as the government deems necessary. Means the state has primary claim over the disposition of my life. Betcha some wars might have turned out differently if there wasn't a draft, say like Viet Nam. (Nationally) No we don't have a draft, but they reserve the "right".

- Subject to jury service. Not as serious as conscripted military service, but nonetheless is a gun to the head to work for the state . . . directly. Necessary? No. This was recently a giant PITA for my wife. What the fu*k do they care. Obey or else. (Nationally)

- I can drink myself to death, but if I get caught buying pot, I'm in trouble. (Punishments vary. CA may defy the Feds on this. Yeah!)

- The SCOTUS has ruled Police are not responsible for protecting me from criminals. But hey look, in CA I can't carry a concealed weapon to protect myself, especially in the most dangerous counties. (Worst in CA, but mostly national.)

- Unlike Europe, I can't buy fu*king cheese made with whole milk, because some booger eater needs to save the public from the scourge of whole milk. (Nationally)

- If I'm terminally ill and would like to take a treatment available in foreign countries, but not yet admitted by the FDA, they would prefer that I die. This has happened to more than one. What do they care. They're saving the public. Who cares about you. (Nationally)


- The PO has pissed me off a couple times with their poor service for our business. Do I have a choice for first class mail? No. Why? Because the government says so that's why. (Nationally)

- I can't install a Roots or Twin Screw blower on my LSx, because the manufacturers haven't paid appropriate homage. (CA)

- I'm told what currency I must use in business transactions. If I prefer another currency or commodities, etc., I'm not permitted. (Nationally)


These are things that have, do, or plausibly may effect ME directly and personally. A short list, off the top of my head.

- Let's say you're poor, but *own* some property passed to you in your family. You can't pay the property taxes. Howdy. Now you learn who really owns all property. The government (who actually doesn't care about people despite their rhetoric, especially when it comes to collecting revenues) will kick your ass right off your land because your peasant ass couldn't pay homage.

- Let's say you live in an area your government would like to develop (you know, to increase the tax base). Hello eminent domain! Even if you did *own* your land AND paid homage, they'd prefer to have your property. Time to move pumpkin.

If you want some additional insights on government, maybe you can go talk to the Sioux. Turns out that even when the SCOTUS rules in their favor, tough shit.

Getting mad now. Maybe I should stop.

[Damian]

I would like to add to your list, but that would take way too long.

[enkeivette]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

Uh, care to explain to me how these constitute protecting people from themselves? Sounds a lot like fairly clearly protecting one from another in some pretty clear cases doesn't it?

Actually, protecting in the first case, and punishing in the second. The latter is a bit easier to come down on the side against the negligent (and moronic) hypothetical father. Now for a real example, how about a parent who refuses medical treatment for their children based on religious convictions. How about recent cases of optiing out of vaccination? Not easy is it?

BTW, CPS is filled with absolute fuc*king horror stories of taking a child from a non-perfect home and putting them in homes where they get killed. Hot damn! I'd call that a negative consequence.

That was purely an example of the law protecting children, if it wasn't clear enough. Which was the first part of what you said.

As far as protecting people from themselves, I don't know if I agree with it, but the law does. If they decide you're suicidal or a looney toon in the hospital, and you refuse treatment, they have a right to tie you down and fix you and then charge you for it.

[enkeivette]

And I wasn't joking, did Sean think I was? I'm sort of lost at this point.

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

And I wasn't joking, did Sean think I was? I'm sort of lost at this point.

Yes, I thought you were. If you really think you should be able to do all those things you've listed I've lost some respect for you. Their are very good reasons why you can't do a lot of those.