NationStates Jolt Archive

Well...this news story seems to sum it up nicely

A weekend raid by law enforcement officers of the gay Pride Gym in Albuquerque, N.M., that left patrons "bullied, terrorized and humiliated" has prompted the ACLU and other groups to inquire into possible civil rights violations there.

New Mexico state police and the Albuquerque fire marshal's office entered and secured the men-only gym about 10 p.m. Saturday and arrested club manager Ron Cordova on suspicion of selling and dispensing alcohol without a liquor license, said New Mexico Department of Public Safety spokesman Peter Olson."There were about 35 of us there, and most were older men, some in their 70s, eating tacos and chatting," Ronald said. "Most of us were fully dressed, because it's a legitimate gym with a sauna, but not a bathhouse."

"Suddenly, a SWAT team carrying semi-automatic weapons, plastic shields and late gloves burst through the door and told us to get on the ground. They kept saying, 'We're not here for you,' but still they handcuffed us and kept us on the ground until they could run background checks on all of us. This took about an hour."

At least one elderly man suffered a panic attack and was taken away by paramedics, Ronald said. A few of the patrons were in the sauna when the raid occurred, and, when their towels fell, they were forced to lie on the floor naked, he said.

Ronald claimed that police officers led one man into a separate room and took pictures of him.

"The guy was wearing a leather harness and a jockstrap. A female officer with a digital camera took him into a room; we saw about 15 or 20 flashes coming from there and heard lots of laughter. They (the officers) were having a good old time. It was like the gay Abu Ghraib."

citation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/acluprobesnmgaygymraid

So, lets get this straight. The government taxes liquor and restricts who can sell it and under what circumstances. Then, in the interest of making sure everyone "stays within the law" they terrorize the patrons of a buisness which the suspect might have broken the law during a raid for which they are given a warrant. In the process, they humiliate, abuse, and search every single person in that buisness. They do it all in combat gear with automatic weapons because some people might respond negatively.

Every single step of the way this was caused by too much government authority. The ability to make consentual crimes illegal, the broad authority given to police to do whatever they want as long as they can make an argument that it was for their safety, the willingness of the judiciary to allow police to search private property on flimsy evidence, and I'm sure the fact that this was a gay establishment had nothing to do with it...

The only thing I can see wrong with this was some poor timing and the behaviour of some of the officers. Those officers should be disciplined. The reason they had the guns is that for some reason, the American government sees fit to allow its citizens the right to use leathal force to protect their businesses, thus the people there may have had guns.

It seems that I was right, case closed (I make this obsevation from the fact no one responded). Either that or they wernt interested.

I'm a Libertarian, but I can think of more clear cut abuses of govermnment authority. I'd rather be handcuffed for a little while than suffer the financial rape we go through every April. :headbang:

Well...this news story seems to sum it up nicely

So, lets get this straight. The government taxes liquor and restricts who can sell it and under what circumstances. Then, in the interest of making sure everyone "stays within the law" they terrorize the patrons of a buisness which the suspect might have broken the law during a raid for which they are given a warrant. In the process, they humiliate, abuse, and search every single person in that buisness. They do it all in combat gear with automatic weapons because some people might respond negatively.

Every single step of the way this was caused by too much government authority. The ability to make consentual crimes illegal, the broad authority given to police to do whatever they want as long as they can make an argument that it was for their safety, the willingness of the judiciary to allow police to search private property on flimsy evidence, and I'm sure the fact that this was a gay establishment had nothing to do with it...

I'm not sure what this has to do with Libertarianism... ?

And what would libertarians be able to do about this? Jack-fuckin-squat.

And what would libertarians be able to do about this? Jack-fuckin-squat.

Whine about the taxation on the gym?

I'm a supporter of iron fist government. Especially seeing as I desire world domination.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Libertarianism... ?


A libertarian government would focus on more important things than what a bunch of gay men are doing on the premises of a legitimate business.

A libertarian government would focus on more important things than what a bunch of gay men are doing on the premises of a legitimate business.

Lots of governments would do that... it is hardly peculiar to libertarianism. That's why I ask... how is THIS a libertarian issue?

Lots of governments would do that... it is hardly peculiar to libertarianism. That's why I ask... how is THIS a libertarian issue?

It's related to Libertarianism in regards to our general distaste for government. Others pretty much have their own agenda of all kinds of things the government should do. Libertarians tend to say, well, those things are all well and good but the government shouldn't be the one doing them.

Lots of governments would do that... it is hardly peculiar to libertarianism. That's why I ask... how is THIS a libertarian issue?

Nothing. This is why the OP is a libertarian.

Nothing. This is why the OP is a libertarian.

That doesn't make any sense.

This issue says nothing to libertarianism.. and that is WHY the poster is a libertarian?

That doesn't make any sense.

This issue says nothing to libertarianism.. and that is WHY the poster is a libertarian?

He is a libertarian because his beliefs are aligned with the fact that the place should have never been raided.

It's related to Libertarianism in regards to our general distaste for government. Others pretty much have their own agenda of all kinds of things the government should do. Libertarians tend to say, well, those things are all well and good but the government shouldn't be the one doing them.

That's not libertarianism, except by proxy. Call yourself a minarchist, or an anarchist... but the platform you claim doesn't represent 'libertarianism'.

He is a libertarian because his beliefs are aligned with the fact that the place should have never been raided.

And I agree that this establishment shouldn't have been raided... but I think libertarianism is the most horrendous political creation of our times... capitalism run amok, without even THAT much conscience.

Thus - it makes no sense to claim that being a libertarian is directly related to this issue, or the response.

Saying that the police shouldn't have raided the gym is hardly a libertarian issue. This could be picked up by any liberal (social sense of liberal, not the American "zomg teh liberals are dirty commies!!!eleventyone" definition) as an example of government crackdown on sale of a usually responsibly used substance simply because it conflicts with their morals. You guys don't have a monopoly on freedom, remember?

;)

That's not libertarianism, except by proxy. Call yourself a minarchist, or an anarchist... but the platform you claim doesn't represent 'libertarianism'.

Perhaps I could have worded it better. You're right, distaste for government doesn't really encapsulate Libertarianism but most Libertarians tend to have it. I'm certainly not an anarchist and like others in our little party, I still believe in the rule of law and the protection of contract and property rights. As for the example the original poster gave us...like I said, there are better examples.

The only thing I can see wrong with this was some poor timing and the behaviour of some of the officers. Those officers should be disciplined. The reason they had the guns is that for some reason, the American government sees fit to allow its citizens the right to use leathal force to protect their businesses, thus the people there may have had guns.

Yes, but police tend to carry pistols, SWAT tems tend to carry full auto weapons. What, exactly, prompted this escalation of force? Why did the police feel the need to respond to suspicion of selling alcohol without a liscense with full riot gear? More to the point, why were private patrons subject to search and arrest for simply being in a buisness that was being searched? This isn't a issue of the conduct of some officers, this is an issue with policy and with the way police are allowed to behave in general.

You do not need full riot gear to serve a warrant of this type, and I can see no justification for searching, much less detaining, any of the men who were not direct subjects of the warrant. This should have been another Stonewall Rebellion...

This, I think, counts as a libertarian issue because libertarians would prefer government not have the authority governing liquor distribution which gave law enforcement the excuse to raid the gym.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Libertarianism... ?

The way I see it this entire scene happened because the government has been allowed to get out of hand. Excessive regulation of alcohol provided the justification for the raid, unreasonable searches and detainments kept patrons at the location and violated their rights, and a general willingness of police to act like stormtroopers and abuse their authority without fear of oversight made the abuses worse. What this has to do with libertarianism is simple, I'm a libertarian because I see stories like these(which are suprisingly common) as the natural consequence of allowing the government to have too much authority in the name of preserving safety or law and order.

That's not libertarianism, except by proxy. Call yourself a minarchist, or an anarchist... but the platform you claim doesn't represent 'libertarianism'.


That really depends on your understanding of what it means to be libertarian. Minarchy is a means to an end, as a small government is generally too impotent to infringe upon the liberty of it's citizens. I believe that freedom is important, and one of the reasons I support the means that the libertarian party uses is because it is the quickest way to limit government authority and prevent violations like this.

Basically, I can tolerate taxation, but I simply cannot tollerate the violation of individual rights that happens in this society in the name of upholding the law. If preventing those abuses means getting rid of the laws, then I'm ok with that. The concept of a liquor liscense in general is soft-paternalism anyway.

That's not libertarianism, except by proxy. Call yourself a minarchist, or an anarchist... but the platform you claim doesn't represent 'libertarianism'.

Sorry, but what Sirrv said is the way us Libs tend to see things.

I'm a libertarian because I see stories like these(which are suprisingly common) as the natural consequence of allowing the government to have too much authority in the name of preserving safety or law and order.

Just to play devil's advocate...how much is 'too much' authority?

I think we libertarians have to say the government's only job is the protection of contract and property rights. No more seat belt type laws. No more laws on sexual orientations or positions. And no more on the free exchange of goods.

...at least, in principle, that is our ideal.

The way I see it this entire scene happened because the government has been allowed to get out of hand. Excessive regulation of alcohol provided the justification for the raid, unreasonable searches and detainments kept patrons at the location and violated their rights, and a general willingness of police to act like stormtroopers and abuse their authority without fear of oversight made the abuses worse. What this has to do with libertarianism is simple, I'm a libertarian because I see stories like these(which are suprisingly common) as the natural consequence of allowing the government to have too much authority in the name of preserving safety or law and order.

Whereas, you yourself are forced to use phrases like 'abuse of authority'. Is it the abuse you oppose, or the authority, at all?

For me - this issue is less cut and dried... I have a friend who was injured in a head-on collision with a DUI driver. He was three times over the legal limit, in the wrong land, doing 60 mph. But for the rapid arrival of medical help (helicopter), this friend would have been declared DOA. As it is - she now has no vehicle, spent three months in hospital, and is looking at nearly $100,000 in medical expenses.

The DUI driver has been arrested twenty-something times before, for DUI, and was also driving without a license. He was, however, released from confinement less than 24 hours later (he had one small abrasion, by the way), and has since been arrested AGAIN, in a new vehicle, for DUI and driving without a license or insurance.

The 'libertarian' answer would be to allow free access to alcohol. I think that is entirely the wrong choice.

That really depends on your understanding of what it means to be libertarian. Minarchy is a means to an end, as a small government is generally too impotent to infringe upon the liberty of it's citizens. I believe that freedom is important, and one of the reasons I support the means that the libertarian party uses is because it is the quickest way to limit government authority and prevent violations like this.

Basically, I can tolerate taxation, but I simply cannot tollerate the violation of individual rights that happens in this society in the name of upholding the law. If preventing those abuses means getting rid of the laws, then I'm ok with that. The concept of a liquor liscense in general is soft-paternalism anyway.

Whereas, I couldn't disagree more. Laws are essential, even if they ARE overprotective, because, without them, there is nothing to guarantee the individual any measure of liberty.

Do I believe that people should be 'free'? Yes... they should have as much freedom as is possible. But - they also need to be controlled... in as much as one must not come to harm because of another... when it could have been avoided.

Liquor-licensing is a means to an end... you want to cut down the incidence of dangerous driving, etc... so you limit the availability of the product to preset locations. It is not perfect... but the problem with this gym raid is less to do with liquor-licensing, and more to do with abuses of power.

Libertarianism is selfishness, which is why I oppose it. But, both 'sides' can agree that power should not be ABUSED.

Just to play devil's advocate...how much is 'too much' authority?

Thats a good question. I'd say that any investigation of a crime which does not result in demonstrable harm to another specific individual is "too much." I would also say that giving the government the authority to check out individuals who are simply present at a location to be searched is out of line. You can make the people leave for the duration of a search, but detaining/searching/verifying identities is out of line.

I would, however, disagree with the latter part of your post. I do not believe that the purpose of the government is only to protect freedom of contract and property. I think that those are important governmental tasks, but THE most important task for a government is safeguarding the liberty of it's citizens. Before doing anything a government should ask itself the question "on ballance, is this policy going to tend to increase or decrease the liberty of the people." If the answer is decrease, then they should go back to the drawing board.

This raid is a case of all the worst aspects of government entanglement. The police, on a tip, used unreasonable force to execute a search warrant to investigate a potential crime which would have had no victims. During the course of this search they violated the rights of 35 men they had no reason to believe were involved in the alleged crime. These men were detained, refused clothing, searched, and had their names run through a database to check for outstanding warrants. One was humilated, photographed, and used for the amusement of the officers. All in the course of investigating a charge of dispensing liquor without a liscense.

Lets say this wasn't a gym full of gay men, but McDonalds. Would you not have a real problem with a bunch of heavily armed police in riot gear pointing weapons at your children, handcuffing you on the floor, searching you, and running your name through a computer because the manager might have sold a beer to some guy two weeks ago?

Just to play devil's advocate...how much is 'too much' authority?

I think we libertarians have to say the government's only job is the protection of contract and property rights. No more seat belt type laws. No more laws on sexual orientations or positions. And no more on the free exchange of goods.

...at least, in principle, that is our ideal.

Why no more seatbelt laws? Seatbelts demonstrably save lives. Why should one person be able to endanger lives by bucking the system, when everyone benefits if a simple rule is followed?

A libertarian government would focus on more important things than what a bunch of gay men are doing on the premises of a legitimate business.

If they are doing something illigitmate on the premisise of a legitmate business, doesnt mean the government should ignore them

A libertarian government would focus on more important things than what a bunch of gay men are doing on the premises of a legitimate business.
Like picking their collective noses because from what I have seen of promised libertarian government, that's all the government would be doing.

Why no more seatbelt laws? Seatbelts demonstrably save lives. Why should one person be able to endanger lives by bucking the system, when everyone benefits if a simple rule is followed?

Because the only life they endanger by not using a seatbelt is their own. If we follow that principle of making it illegal for people to put themselves in harm's way, we should then outlaw smoking, high cholesterol foods, playing with knives...you name it.

As I always ask when these types of laws come up...WHERE ARE THE PARENTS? It is our parents that should be giving us this type of good advice while we are growing up, not the state.

Besides, how often do you actually see police enforcing the seat belt law? If they don't enforce it we have just wasted the government's time and taxpayers' money.

Like picking their collective noses because from what I have seen of promised libertarian government, that's all the government would be doing.
Actually, if they aren't needed and are spending their time picking their noses as you say, we wouldn't have hired them. Waste of tax dollars. Pretty simple.

I would also say that giving the government the authority to check out individuals who are simply present at a location to be searched is out of line. You can make the people leave for the duration of a search, but detaining/searching/verifying identities is out of line.

I dont see whats wrong with that. The fact that they are present at a crime scene means they could be involved or if not involved, potential witnesses. If they arnt involved, the investigation will discover that.


This raid is a case of all the worst aspects of government entanglement. The police, on a tip, used unreasonable force to execute a search warrant to investigate a potential crime which would have had no victims..

1. The reason they used that level of force is that the American government has the stupidity to allow its citizens the right to bear arms. If they didnt, then they wouldnt need to do that

2. While the crime has no victims, think of it like this. If the liscencing of the sale of alcohol was not enforced then it would mean that people could get alcohol from anywhere and everywhere. Which in turn makes it possible for illegally aquired alcohol to be sold without fear of reprisal.


During the course of this search they violated the rights of 35 men they had no reason to believe were involved in the alleged crime. These men were detained, refused clothing, searched, and had their names run through a database to check for outstanding warrants. One was humilated, photographed, and used for the amusement of the officers. All in the course of investigating a charge of dispensing liquor without a liscense.

The humiliation I agree is unacceptable. But the fact remains that if they were at the scene then it is possible they are linked to the crime. While the liscening law itself being breached has no victim, what it could lead to is illegally aquired alcohol being sold, the victim there being the company that created the product.


Lets say this wasn't a gym full of gay men, but McDonalds. Would you not have a real problem with a bunch of heavily armed police in riot gear pointing weapons at your children, handcuffing you on the floor, searching you, and running your name through a computer because the manager might have sold a beer to some guy two weeks ago?

Indeed I would, at the time. But I have more of a problem with the need for those weapons in the first place, which comes from the fact that the American government allows its people to bear arms.

Because the only life they endanger by not using a seatbelt is their own. If we follow that principle of making it illegal for people to put themselves in harm's way, we should then outlaw smoking, high cholesterol foods, playing with knives...you name it.

As I always ask when these types of laws come up...WHERE ARE THE PARENTS? It is our parents that should be giving us this type of good advice while we are growing up, not the state.

Besides, how often do you actually see police enforcing the seat belt law? If they don't enforce it we have just wasted the government's time and taxpayers' money.


Actually, I was riding with someone who got ticketed for not wearing a belt, about 6 weeks ago.

You use the sort of wishful thinking so common in this debate.... it is NOT only the unbelted person that risks harm.

Unbelted persons in backseats can cause a controlled incident to become an uncontrolled one. The driver slams the brakes, the incident is avoided... but the guy in the back seat smashes into the driver, and the collision continues... now with an injured driver.

Unbelted drivers often end up hurt even if a full incident is avoided... which can lead directly to a follow-on incident.

At the risk of being gross... when an SUV slams into the front end of a passenger car, and bounces unbelted people across the road, accidents happen involving other vehicles.

All of which can be easily avoided, by just making everyone pop their belt on. 5 seconds of work.

Actually, if they aren't needed and are spending their time picking their noses as you say, we wouldn't have hired them. Waste of tax dollars. Pretty simple.
Then a libertarian government is useless because it has no power.

Whereas, you yourself are forced to use phrases like 'abuse of authority'. Is it the abuse you oppose, or the authority, at all?

For me - this issue is less cut and dried... I have a friend who was injured in a head-on collision with a DUI driver. He was three times over the legal limit, in the wrong land, doing 60 mph. But for the rapid arrival of medical help (helicopter), this friend would have been declared DOA. As it is - she now has no vehicle, spent three months in hospital, and is looking at nearly $100,000 in medical expenses.

The DUI driver has been arrested twenty-something times before, for DUI, and was also driving without a license. He was, however, released from confinement less than 24 hours later (he had one small abrasion, by the way), and has since been arrested AGAIN, in a new vehicle, for DUI and driving without a license or insurance.

The 'libertarian' answer would be to allow free access to alcohol. I think that is entirely the wrong choice.

How would liquor liscensing have helped your friend? The driver you mentioned is clearly willing to violate the law(driving under the influence, driving without a liscense, multiple offenses) and I fail to see how preventing someone else from selling liquor without having paid a tax would change things. The driver in question could go to a liscensed bar, and unless we are going to have an elaborate system of identity verification he would be able to drink without a problem. Alternatively, he could go to any store that sells liquor and buy as much as he wanted to drink at home. Again, how would liscensing change thing unless you want to build an intrusive network of verification.

Your other alternative would be to severely restrict or band alcohol, but that doesn't work well either. The costs(in terms of both enforcement and new crime generated) of prohibition likely outweigh the benefits that would be gained, especially since the drunk driver you mentioned would be unlikely to obey the new laws.

Whereas, I couldn't disagree more. Laws are essential, even if they ARE overprotective, because, without them, there is nothing to guarantee the individual any measure of liberty.

Do I believe that people should be 'free'? Yes... they should have as much freedom as is possible. But - they also need to be controlled... in as much as one must not come to harm because of another... when it could have been avoided.

Liquor-licensing is a means to an end... you want to cut down the incidence of dangerous driving, etc... so you limit the availability of the product to preset locations. It is not perfect... but the problem with this gym raid is less to do with liquor-licensing, and more to do with abuses of power.

Libertarianism is selfishness, which is why I oppose it. But, both 'sides' can agree that power should not be ABUSED.

The problem is that some laws are more likely to be absued than others. Liquor liscensing might be a means to an end, but it is largely a pacifier. There is nothing to stop someone from getting drunk in a bar, nor is there anything to stop them from getting drunk in their home, or in a public park. The outlawing of consesual behavior is a serious problem in this country, and the extremes to which the government is willing to go in order to enforce those ends is a very serious problem.

You need to realize that a liquor liscense doesn't do very much. It generates revenue for a city, and it allows someone to sell alcohol, but it doesn't have a great deal of enforcement power. I'd be willing to be that the driver who injured your friend drank at a liscensed establishment, I'd guess that the same is true for most drunk drivers. The only thing that liquor liscenses are really successful at is increasing the difficulty for minors to obtain alcohol, and I'm not entirely convinced that the social benefit of keeping a 15 year old away from beer is worth the kinds of violations that happen when you have a vigorous enforcement of liscensing laws.

Authority has a tendancy to be abused. The lesser the crime, the worse the abuses get because we simply cannot trust police to operate by degrees. There are many jurisdictions where any drug warrant(even simple posession) is served no-knock with a full SWAT team, there are even some jurisdictions where every warrant period is served in such a way. Time and again the police have been given more authority and time and again they have proven that they cannot be trusted. Getting rid of the police is not an option, so that leaves us with either accepting these abuses or reducing the number of crimes the police are allowed to investigate to only the most severe.

Sure, it is somewhat selfish. I am simply not willing to trade my freedom or the security of my person for the potential of preventing a DUI. I'm not willing to give up my fundamental rights so that some guy maybe avoids being harmed by someone else who might abuse those same rights. I'd rather see 100 DUI deaths than have my door kicked in by guys with machine guns because they suspect I might have a forbidden substnce in my home. You've the old yarn about 100 guilty men going free, haven't you?

Why no more seatbelt laws? Seatbelts demonstrably save lives. Why should one person be able to endanger lives by bucking the system, when everyone benefits if a simple rule is followed?


You know, seatbelts are a good issue. I used to be opposed to seatbelt laws across the board. After having the chance to engage in a few spirited debates, however, I've come to the conclusion that requiring drivers to wear a seatbelt makes sense. An uncontrolled car, even at idle speed, is a big risk to the general population and the right of an individual to not be restrained doesn't really trump the right of people to not have a car drive through their front door. I've still yet to be convinced how requiring seatbelts for passengers makes sense, though.

The question is simple: whose lives are saved? If the lies saved are those of people who had no choice in the matter, then it might make sense(provided no other more serious rights are violated), if you are only saving the lives of someone who clearly doesn't care about their own well-being. Well, whats the point?

Apparently the Chuck Norris wannabe here thinks it went down like this because of a supposed lack of a proper license. If you think a bunch of police and the fucking fire marshals raided a gay gym in the Southwest in full riot gear because of a liquor license violation, it is no wonder that you believe so fully in the libertarian government policy.

I dont see whats wrong with that. The fact that they are present at a crime scene means they could be involved or if not involved, potential witnesses. If they arnt involved, the investigation will discover that.

So you're comfortable with the concept of the government treating everyone as guilty until they are proven innocent, as well as with the concept of the government compelling individuals to prove who they are and why they are not involved in a crime that has not yet been proven?



1. The reason they used that level of force is that the American government has the stupidity to allow its citizens the right to bear arms. If they didnt, then they wouldnt need to do that

Ahh yes, so the government is allowed to assume the most aggressive stance possible immediately because someone might be armed. Lets look at this logically, shall we? Selling liquor without a liscense is a misdemeanor in most places, it is a laughable offense. Anyone who is not an employee has absolutely nothing to fear. So, what is more likely to elicit a violent response, a few uniformed police coming in with a warrant and asking everyone to leave, or a SWAT team bursting in with guns and taking people to the ground?

2. While the crime has no victims, think of it like this. If the liscencing of the sale of alcohol was not enforced then it would mean that people could get alcohol from anywhere and everywhere. Which in turn makes it possible for illegally aquired alcohol to be sold without fear of reprisal.

The horror. Next they might be dancing.



The humiliation I agree is unacceptable. But the fact remains that if they were at the scene then it is possible they are linked to the crime. While the liscening law itself being breached has no victim, what it could lead to is illegally aquired alcohol being sold, the victim there being the company that created the product.

Thats not what this was about and you know it. This isn't a bunch of people hijacking freighters. It is the suspicion that someone might have been selling alcohol without a liscense. That means they bought it, likely paid tax on it, but didn't ask the government for permission first. Thats all.

How would liquor liscensing have helped your friend? The driver you mentioned is clearly willing to violate the law(driving under the influence, driving without a liscense, multiple offenses) and I fail to see how preventing someone else from selling liquor without having paid a tax would change things. The driver in question could go to a liscensed bar, and unless we are going to have an elaborate system of identity verification he would be able to drink without a problem. Alternatively, he could go to any store that sells liquor and buy as much as he wanted to drink at home. Again, how would liscensing change thing unless you want to build an intrusive network of verification.


Intrusive network? The guy had no license. A simple license check would suffice.

Your other alternative would be to severely restrict or band alcohol, but that doesn't work well either. The costs(in terms of both enforcement and new crime generated) of prohibition likely outweigh the benefits that would be gained, especially since the drunk driver you mentioned would be unlikely to obey the new laws.


We don't need prohibition, but we do need laws... and a lot more strict than they are.

As far as I'm concerned, getting behind the wheel of a car drunk, should be an automatic 'attempted murder' charge. Upgraded to (pre-meditated)murder, if someone gets killed.


The problem is that some laws are more likely to be absued than others. Liquor liscensing might be a means to an end, but it is largely a pacifier. There is nothing to stop someone from getting drunk in a bar, nor is there anything to stop them from getting drunk in their home, or in a public park. The outlawing of consesual behavior is a serious problem in this country, and the extremes to which the government is willing to go in order to enforce those ends is a very serious problem.


There are different types of consensual behaviour. If Billy Bob and Cletus want to explor their relationship after watching Brokeback Mountain, no one gets hurt.

If Billy Bob drinks a quart of vodka an gets behind the wehhel, lives are at risk.


You need to realize that a liquor liscense doesn't do very much. It generates revenue for a city, and it allows someone to sell alcohol, but it doesn't have a great deal of enforcement power.


It also focuses where alcohol is entering the system, and makes sure that that is known information.

I'd be willing to be that the driver who injured your friend drank at a liscensed establishment, I'd guess that the same is true for most drunk drivers. The only thing that liquor liscenses are really successful at is increasing the difficulty for minors to obtain alcohol, and I'm not entirely convinced that the social benefit of keeping a 15 year old away from beer is worth the kinds of violations that happen when you have a vigorous enforcement of liscensing laws.

Authority has a tendancy to be abused. The lesser the crime, the worse the abuses get because we simply cannot trust police to operate by degrees. There are many jurisdictions where any drug warrant(even simple posession) is served no-knock with a full SWAT team, there are even some jurisdictions where every warrant period is served in such a way. Time and again the police have been given more authority and time and again they have proven that they cannot be trusted. Getting rid of the police is not an option, so that leaves us with either accepting these abuses or reducing the number of crimes the police are allowed to investigate to only the most severe.


That isn't an argument I can accept... we'll just tacitly 'accept' any illegal activity we can't control.


Sure, it is somewhat selfish. I am simply not willing to trade my freedom or the security of my person for the potential of preventing a DUI. I'm not willing to give up my fundamental rights so that some guy maybe avoids being harmed by someone else who might abuse those same rights. I'd rather see 100 DUI deaths


That isn't 'somwhat selfish'.

than have my door kicked in by guys with machine guns because they suspect I might have a forbidden substnce in my home. You've the old yarn about 100 guilty men going free, haven't you?

Yes. It's fine to talk about statistics, until you are one.

Then a libertarian government is useless because it has no power.

It has the power to protect contract and property rights and to specialize in that one task. We are not anarchists.

[edit]lol, guess what issue I just received in my NationState.

"Drunk Driving On The Rise"

It has the power to protect contract and property rights and to specialize in that one task. We are not anarchists.
Doing that is contradictory to the beliefs of libertarianism.
Closet anarchists.

Doing that is contradictory to the beliefs of libertarianism.
Closet anarchists.

Some of them, perhaps. But not me.
I mean, lots of people accuse libertarians of being completely selfish capitalists. I'm not saying it's true, but if some of us were indeed that way, wouldn't we need a government to see that our property is kept secure from those who wish to steal it?

Some of them, perhaps. But not me.
I mean, lots of people accuse libertarians of being completely selfish capitalists. I'm not saying it's true, but if some of us were indeed that way, wouldn't we need a government to see that our property is kept secure from those who wish to steal it?
By private corporation.

Thats a good question. I'd say that any investigation of a crime which does not result in demonstrable harm to another specific individual is "too much." I would also say that giving the government the authority to check out individuals who are simply present at a location to be searched is out of line. You can make the people leave for the duration of a search, but detaining/searching/verifying identities is out of line.

I would, however, disagree with the latter part of your post. I do not believe that the purpose of the government is only to protect freedom of contract and property. I think that those are important governmental tasks, but THE most important task for a government is safeguarding the liberty of it's citizens. Before doing anything a government should ask itself the question "on ballance, is this policy going to tend to increase or decrease the liberty of the people." If the answer is decrease, then they should go back to the drawing board.

This raid is a case of all the worst aspects of government entanglement. The police, on a tip, used unreasonable force to execute a search warrant to investigate a potential crime which would have had no victims. During the course of this search they violated the rights of 35 men they had no reason to believe were involved in the alleged crime. These men were detained, refused clothing, searched, and had their names run through a database to check for outstanding warrants. One was humilated, photographed, and used for the amusement of the officers. All in the course of investigating a charge of dispensing liquor without a liscense.

Lets say this wasn't a gym full of gay men, but McDonalds. Would you not have a real problem with a bunch of heavily armed police in riot gear pointing weapons at your children, handcuffing you on the floor, searching you, and running your name through a computer because the manager might have sold a beer to some guy two weeks ago?


Okay, but I believe that the query was "Why of all political groups opposed to this use of power do you follow libertarianism?" To that, you still haven't clearly articulated an answer. There are several groups that would oppose it; I as a liberal strongly oppose such measures as a misuse of government force. Nonetheless, the presentation of the scenario does not in and of itself suggest that the best solution to this misuse is to well-nigh abolish the ability of the government to use coercive force at all; it's a logical leap that does not follow from the premises given.

I can say that what you just wrote above applies equally to liberalism and libertarianism; as a liberal, however, I am strongly in favor of some uses of government force to protect individual liberty and preserve an environment where freedom is a possibility. So in order to answer the question, you not only need to show an instance of government overreach (which you've done), but you also need to state why the government is 1) incapable of using force properly, thereby necessitating a libertarian response, and 2) how the case-by-case utilitarian method you've elaborated leads you to the proper libertarian conclusion, because offhand I'd say any utilitarian plan will lead to liberalism as well.

Come on, no one read what I wrote like 5 posts ago?

This was an appalling act and an abuse of power – there is no question of that.

Unfortunately this will result in nothing happening – no disciplining of the officers involved, at most a cursory ‘investigation’ and then the matter will be dropped.

After September 11th there were a couple of rather appalling incidents: when the local general aviation airport had its monthly meeting of the flight instructors that were based there they were raided by the local police (btw – there is not even the most tenuous link between that airport, anyone who worked at that airport, or any of the students to any terrorist group). The cops burst into the room with guns drawn, pointed them at people and screamed at everyone to lie down. They treated everyone like a terrorist – their reasoning was that the terrorist that flew planes into the world trade center were taught by flight instructors so all flight instructors are potential terrorists.

There have been several incidences of flight instructors being imprisoned and held without charges, simply because they have taught foreign students (not necessarily even muslims – if you had taught any foreign national you were immediately suspect and “taken in for questioning” which would result in imprisonment for weeks – one flight instructor in NY was in prison for something around 80 days before he got released, simply for being a flight instructor – and that only because his wife got his congressman to fight for him. That’s right – it even took a congressman a while to get a man held illegally released). Of course the general media ignores these incidents and brushes them aside with the comment that you have to be certain when fighting terrorism. Pilots however, tend to talk – so you can’t keep it all secret.

An old couple in a little Cessna barely cut the corner of one of the multitude of restricted airspaces that pop up around her all the time when they were on the way to a little airport with a café for some brunch. While eating brunch, federal agents burst in with submachine guns screaming and pointing guns in peoples faces.

A little plane that barely goes 90 miles an hour is headed out to a little airstrip in a town out in farmland, clips the corner of a new airspace restriction and continues on its destination, lands about an hour later, and this necessitates a full-scale invasion? It is obvious to anyone with 2 brain-cells what happened, but this kind of overkill response is typical of the government these days.




The reason why the incident at the gym needed a full swat team was because they wanted to intimidate and harass the people in it – a couple of police officers calmly walking in and politely saying hello would have been far better. I suppose that wouldn’t have been nearly as much fun for the officers involved and wouldn’t have intimidated them into shutting down. They wanted this gay gym closed – if they can’t do it legitimately, they will try to force them out.

By private corporation.

Sounds more like anarcho-capitalism than libertarianism to me. I'm going by the platform suggested by the American Libertarian Party. Can't speak for the others. My kind believes in a very specific function for government. Legislating morality and welfare aren't included in that function. It is quite simply, no lying, cheating or stealing.

Sounds more like anarcho-capitalism than libertarianism to me. I'm going by the platform suggested by the American Libertarian Party. Can't speak for the others. My kind believes in a very specific function for government. Legislating morality and welfare aren't included in that function. It is quite simply, no lying, cheating or stealing.
Bigger fantasy world than anarcho-capitalism, that is. Does it involve magical unicorns that shoot mayonnaise out of their horns?

Apparently the Chuck Norris wannabe here thinks it went down like this because of a supposed lack of a proper license. If you think a bunch of police and the fucking fire marshals raided a gay gym in the Southwest in full riot gear because of a liquor license violation, it is no wonder that you believe so fully in the libertarian government policy.


Chuck Norris wannabe? I don't own a cowboy hat and I'm not much of a fan of physical exertion. Plus, my tears don't even cure herpes, much less cancer ;)

Seriously, though, I have a bit of a problem with your reasoning. If the police weren't raiding for a liquor violation, what were they raiding for? I'm a pretty big fan of tranparency in government and if they can't get enough evidence to investigate the crime they think happened I have a real problem with them using a different reason in the hopes of coming up with something.

Still, it does seem that this was ONLY about a liquor violation:
One customer was arrested on an outstanding warrant during the raid, and five other customers were issued alcohol-related citations, Olson said, adding that state Special Investigation Division and local authorities have been cracking down on businesses selling alcohol illegally in an effort to cut down on drunken driving.

There is a trend in this country of using overwhelming force as a means of intimidation in order to reduce alcohol consumption. In Texas the Alcohol Beverage Comission had a policy until recently of raiding bars and throwing patrons in the drunk tank based on suspicion in the name of "reducing drunk driving"(http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/bharris/stories/wfaa060405_mo_intoxicationarrests.9139337.html).

Worse is the fact that these kinds of over-reacting raids are becoming increasingly common. Every week or so a news story pops up about police raiding the wrong home, kicking in doors, shooting tear gas, and roughing up residents. Unfounded "tips" have been used to raid bars unpopular to local authorites(you can see a security tape video here: http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026298.php). Well over a dozen people have been killed in the last decade as a result of botched police raids. Sal Culosi, a dentist who was suspected of gambling on major league sports with his friends was arrested by a SWAt team in the street, tackled to the ground, handcuffed, and then shot dead despite the fact that he was not resisting. The cop claimed his gun "just went off" and no charges were brought. A man named Corey May sits on death row right now because he shot an ununiformed cop who was raiding his home in the pre-dawn hours without a warrant and without announcing himself as a police officer.

I could cite literally dozens of stories of police using far more force than is necessary and screwing up in the process, and the vast majority of these cases can be attributed to two factors: an any-means-necessary approach to prohibition and a disturbing militarization of local police.

Intrusive network? The guy had no license. A simple license check would suffice.

But you do not need a liscense to buy alcohol, you simply need to prove that you are over 21. How can you keep alcohol out of the hands of people who have been convicted of DUI without a large datbase?



We don't need prohibition, but we do need laws... and a lot more strict than they are.

As far as I'm concerned, getting behind the wheel of a car drunk, should be an automatic 'attempted murder' charge. Upgraded to (pre-meditated)murder, if someone gets killed.[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]

I'm not entirely sure I disagree, but that has little to do with the subject at hand. A drunk driver has comitted a crime, that is obvious, but there is little relation to that crime and selling liquor without a liscense. Liquor liscensing does not take alcohol out of the hand of convicted drunk drivers, unless you are suggesting that people should have to get a liscense in order to PURCHASE alcohol.


[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]It also focuses where alcohol is entering the system, and makes sure that that is known information.

Only in the case of a bar, even then, the informtion is nearly useless. In a city like Chicago, you might have a dozen or so liscensed buisness on every block once you have figured in restaurants, bars, liquor stores, conveniance stores, and large grocers.


That isn't an argument I can accept... we'll just tacitly 'accept' any illegal activity we can't control.

What is the alternative? Either you can accept the loss of rights that comes from enforcement or you can accept a certain amount of activity which you disapprove of. There is no workable middle ground that I have seen. I wish there was, but I simply do not trust the authorities to stay honest. If you look at the constitution, neither did our founders.

Seriously, though, I have a bit of a problem with your reasoning. If the police weren't raiding for a liquor violation, what were they raiding for? I'm a pretty big fan of tranparency in government and if they can't get enough evidence to investigate the crime they think happened I have a real problem with them using a different reason in the hopes of coming up with something.
Woo boy, some one buy him a clue.
Sure, the liquor violation gave them the right to bust in there like stormtroopers, but if you think that's the only reason they went in there and you can't figure out why they were dressed up like they were busting up a gun-loving cult, you are too naive for me to fix.

But you do not need a liscense to buy alcohol,
Well you can't magic beer out of thin air - you have to get it from somewhere.

Bigger fantasy world than anarcho-capitalism, that is. Does it involve magical unicorns that shoot mayonnaise out of their horns?

If you want.

Libertarianism is selfishness, which is why I oppose it.

What do you have against selfishness?

What do you have against selfishness?

Plenty, but I like a society that makes selfish people work to achieve their ambitions. :D

Okay, but I believe that the query was "Why of all political groups opposed to this use of power do you follow libertarianism?" To that, you still haven't clearly articulated an answer.

Actually, that post was in response to the question "how much authority is too much?"

While I believe I've articulated and answer to why I am a libertarian, I'll do it one more time. I believe that individual liberty is the most vital aspect of the human condition. I believe that human beings should be allowed the freedom to do whatever they wish in their personal lives so long as their actions do not directly and demonstrably inhibit the liberty of others. I also have an inherant distrust of authority and I believe that the best way to safeguard the rights of individuals is to limit the power of government and confine it's violence to only the most serious of transgressions. I do not belive that a libertarian government will lead to a utopia, I simply believe that it is the best of a bad set of options given my worldview. Sure, its cynical, but the world is a shitty place.

There are several groups that would oppose it; I as a liberal strongly oppose such measures as a misuse of government force. Nonetheless, the presentation of the scenario does not in and of itself suggest that the best solution to this misuse is to well-nigh abolish the ability of the government to use coercive force at all; it's a logical leap that does not follow from the premises given.

You do not abolish the use of coervice force, you severely restrain it. You can look at human society a a series of jobs and government as a tool box. Right all we really have in the box is a hammer. That hammer is useful for a variety of tasks, but mainly for tasks which require bashing something into something else. Sure, you can try to use the hammer for something else, but it is always going to tend to bash things: thts what a hammer is good for and thats what it will always want to do. I feel that it is best to leave some jobs undone rather than done with the hammer. When we develop a screwdriver, we can use that, but until then I think its best we only use the hammer for when something needs bashing.

I can say that what you just wrote above applies equally to liberalism and libertarianism; as a liberal, however, I am strongly in favor of some uses of government force to protect individual liberty and preserve an environment where freedom is a possibility. So in order to answer the question, you not only need to show an instance of government overreach (which you've done), but you also need to state why the government is 1) incapable of using force properly, thereby necessitating a libertarian response, and 2) how the case-by-case utilitarian method you've elaborated leads you to the proper libertarian conclusion, because offhand I'd say any utilitarian plan will lead to liberalism as well.

If by liberal you mean the word in the European sense, I would have to say I tend to agree, but saying "I'm a classical liberal" is a bit too cumbersome for everyday speech. If by liberal you mean progressive, I would disagree. Progressive and conservative have dfferent values but they share the same methods, they still only have a hammer. They might choose to use the power of coercion to different ends, but they're still primarily interested in forcing people to do what they believe they should do. Also, both American liberalism and conservatisim have the same pitfall: populism. While both groups might not have a philosophical sympathy for populism, both are concerned enough with the aquisition of power that they are willing to use the coercive power of government in order to satisfy their base, even at the expense of freedom(just look at how liberals and conservative have gotten into bed with eachother over violent video games). A more libertarian approach dodges the pitfall of populism because it has a general unwillingness to use the coercive power of government to limit the freedoms of others.

As I have said, libertarianism is not a perfect system. Indeed, I believe that the economic theories of libertarianism(in the real world, if not on paper) need to be somewhat tempered somewhat by the progressive movement, but I still believe that issues of clear individual freedom should be sacrosacnt. We are not a nation based around what is best for society, we are a nation based around the protection of individual liberty. Those are the basic ground rules.

What do you have against selfishness?

It's destructive.

If we are ever going to get off this planet alive, we'll have to find some way to stop exploitng eac other... start thinking bigger.

We are not a nation based around what is best for society, we are a nation based around the protection of individual liberty. Those are the basic ground rules.

That's the first thing to change, then.

It's destructive.

If we are ever going to get off this planet alive, we'll have to find some way to stop exploitng eac other... start thinking bigger.

I hate selfishness as much as you do. We as people, parents, need to teach our kids values like generosity and goodwill towards others. I only disagree that the state is the right alternative to good parenting.

Sounds more like anarcho-capitalism than libertarianism to me. I'm going by the platform suggested by the American Libertarian Party. Can't speak for the others. My kind believes in a very specific function for government. Legislating morality and welfare aren't included in that function. It is quite simply, no lying, cheating or stealing.

The American Libertarian party is a circle jerk, especially afer Portland. I'm more of a small "l" libertarian. If anything I'm closer to the platform of the Democratic Freedom Caucus(think of them as progressive libertarians). While I can sympathize with the Libertarian party, the dream of minarchy simply isn't feasible. You need something of a safety net for a powerhouse economy to function and not all things can be privitized.

That's the first thing to change, then.

Good luck with that. Then again, we've already had this argument, I believe. I wasn't a fan of you tribalist approach then and I'm not now. No hard feelings, though, rational minds given the same evidence and all that.

It's destructive.

If we are ever going to get off this planet alive, we'll have to find some way to stop exploitng eac other... start thinking bigger.

You seem to be assuming that selfishness entails exploiting each other. On what grounds do you make that assumption?

You need something of a safety net for a powerhouse economy to function and not all things can be privitized.

You're right. A true libertarian state would take some getting used to to say the least. For example, in theory, pollution is a violation of your property rights (if it damages your house or your health). But technologically, at this point in time, it's not feasible to measure how much pollution a company puts out and the cost of the damage it does. The principle is there, but the technology, the practicality, are not.

People are selfish. That's not going to change.

You need to design society such that selfishness leads to positive outcomes, and that's a society where people don't rely on the government to save them, and are free to make their own decisions.

I hate selfishness as much as you do. We as people, parents, need to teach our kids values like generosity and goodwill towards others. I only disagree that the state is the right alternative to good parenting.

Good parenting is a start. However, it cannot be the end of the matter.

Good luck with that. Then again, we've already had this argument, I believe. I wasn't a fan of you tribalist approach then and I'm not now. No hard feelings, though, rational minds given the same evidence and all that.

Ah - I must have crossed swords with you under a different guise then, this name doesn't seem familiar.

I thought I had THAT debate with.... Sutured Psyche, or some such?

You seem to be assuming that selfishness entails exploiting each other. On what grounds do you make that assumption?

The fact that selfishness entails exploiting each other... or, at least, not NOT exploiting each other.

People are selfish. That's not going to change.

You need to design society such that selfishness leads to positive outcomes, and that's a society where people don't rely on the government to save them, and are free to make their own decisions.

Or, you need to design society such that selfishness is subverted - religion has managed it time after time, families operate on such a premise, 'tribes' often operate on such a premise.

Then, 'freedom to make decisions', or 'channeling selfishness to a positive outcome', become theoretical irrelevencies.

I hate selfishness as much as you do. We as people, parents, need to teach our kids values like generosity and goodwill towards others. I only disagree that the state is the right alternative to good parenting.

The state can make social changes that parents can't

For example, I would very much favour a GI tax on foods (IE the higher the GI the higher the tax) to slow the obesity epidemic and outlaw all broadcast and poster advertisements of any product aimed at an age group below 16.

Or, you need to design society such that selfishness is subverted - religion has managed it time after time, families operate on such a premise, 'tribes' often operate on such a premise.

What reason do you have to believe those are scalable?

Religions managed it on small, ignorant populations. Plus, widespread religious doctrine is largely incompatible with free speech.

Families work like that because we know our families. People I don't know die every day, but it's never going to bother me the way it would if it were a family member.

Tribes are typically based on self interest. Each member knows he relies on the rest of the group, and the group is small enough to prevent a free-rider problem.

What reason do you have to believe those are scalable?

Religions managed it on small, ignorant populations. Plus, widespread religious doctrine is largely incompatible with free speech.

Families work like that because we know our families. People I don't know die every day, but it's never going to bother me the way it would if it were a family member.

Tribes are typically based on self interest. Each member knows he relies on the rest of the group, and the group is small enough to prevent a free-rider problem.

So - you answer your own question - you use small groups... lots of them.

As for religion being anti-free speech... that would depend on the religion. What I', talking about, however, is the simple fact that it CAN be done. Think of religion as an 'example'.

Some people ask my *I'm* a libertarian ('little l' libertarian)
-basically, I like the philosophy of libertarianism but dislike the direction of the Libertarian Party

Ah - I must have crossed swords with you under a different guise then, this name doesn't seem familiar.

I thought I had THAT debate with.... Sutured Psyche, or some such?

Yep, that was me, I ended up changing my moniker because I was uncomfortable using the same name I use for some buisness dealings on a forum board.

Or, you need to design society such that selfishness is subverted - religion has managed it time after time, families operate on such a premise, 'tribes' often operate on such a premise.

Then, 'freedom to make decisions', or 'channeling selfishness to a positive outcome', become theoretical irrelevencies.

I'm not so sure any of those social structures have really subverted selfishness so much as enforced control(generally of a paternalistic stripe). Religion only manages to subvert selfishnes in a select few rabid believers(not everyone is born to be a monk), the rest of the populace isn't so much fixed as cowed into submission. The family and tribe models(really just extensions of one another) place a few figures at the top and force everyone to behave through fear of punishment or banishment from the group. In both cases the majority of the populace is not made god but intimidated.

I can understand the potential advantages of such a society, but I still disapprove of a concept. While this line of thought moves into the realm of the subjective, I believe that any society in which man is treated as an animal or a child is an abberation. I believe that man is a creature of free will and that the advancement of human civilization has been marked not by instances in which he was properly controled but by times in which the will and spirit of humanity was unrestrained. Societies which restrain selfishness also restrain endevor and creativity; a people which always does "the right thing" has little time for such seflish pursuits as free thought or general inquiry, especially if either of those things might lead to a reduction in the power or status of the group.

Yep, that was me, I ended up changing my moniker because I was uncomfortable using the same name I use for some buisness dealings on a forum board.

Ah. And... does Jesus Christ Look Like You? Or is this propoganda.

You need Serenity quotes in your sig. :)

I'm not so sure any of those social structures have really subverted selfishness so much as enforced control(generally of a paternalistic stripe). Religion only manages to subvert selfishnes in a select few rabid believers(not everyone is born to be a monk), the rest of the populace isn't so much fixed as cowed into submission. The family and tribe models(really just extensions of one another) place a few figures at the top and force everyone to behave through fear of punishment or banishment from the group. In both cases the majority of the populace is not made god but intimidated.

I can understand the potential advantages of such a society, but I still disapprove of a concept. While this line of thought moves into the realm of the subjective, I believe that any society in which man is treated as an animal or a child is an abberation. I believe that man is a creature of free will and that the advancement of human civilization has been marked not by instances in which he was properly controled but by times in which the will and spirit of humanity was unrestrained. Societies which restrain selfishness also restrain endevor and creativity; a people which always does "the right thing" has little time for such seflish pursuits as free thought or general inquiry, especially if either of those things might lead to a reduction in the power or status of the group.

A few points:

1) Religion works when it is a family. The tribe works when it is a family. As human animals, we KNOW - to a certain extent - how to work together as a family, and it is just a matter of redefining that paradigm to include more, or other, factors.

2) I disagree with your assessment of HOW tribes/families work. Sure - there can be an alpha male model... but it is far from the only option.. and that model tends to perpetuate only because of the very low 'refresh rate', and a general shortage of supplies - which makes selfishness attractive.

3) The model I suggest doesn't even pretend to treat people as animals or children. It DOES require that every person be treated as EQUAL... something that many societies have paid loud lipservice to, but failed to fulfill.

4) You believe man is a free willed creature - and so do I.. but the greatest moments in human history have been moments when the society achieved synergy... when the elements became MORE than the parts... the golden age of Rome, the Monument Age of Egypt. A common vision is a wonderful thing. But - you talk of human spirit as though it must be unsympathetic to society. Granted we are perverse creatures, but there is no ral reason why we shouldn't build a society where we fostered a shared vision... in which our visionaries worked with, not against, the society.

It is a false dilemma to imply that there can be no free thought and general inquiry in a tribal or collective culture... doubly so, in a technological age.

The fact that selfishness entails exploiting each other... or, at least, not NOT exploiting each other.
All you are saying is that if someone acts selfishly then there is some chance of them exploiting someone. This means nothing.

If not selfishness what are we to act on?

It is a false dilemma to imply that there can be no free thought and general inquiry in a tribal or collective culture... doubly so, in a technological age.

It is also impractical to extend the idea of a tribe or family to a national or global scale. So while tribal or collective culture do not hamper free thought or inquiry, it is not possible to extend those ideas on a bigger level, except by the willing interaction of smaller tribes.

The reason tribes work is not because everyone in a tribe loves everyone else in the tribe, but rather because of the selfishness of the indiviguals. In a tribal situation, cooperation with the whole will yield benefits that provide immediate and tangible benefits to the indivigual. Once you expand the structure too far the benefits are less and less evident, so that selfish impulse that held the tribe together is no longer satisfied and people begin to act out of the system.

The idea of libertarianism is to create a state in which the government can satisfy the indivigual's selfishness. If government is minimised to protection of propery, safety from invasion, and the most basic public works, then there will be less cost to be in a society of that kind. If there is less cost then people are more likely to be satisfied by the role performed by government. This kind of government will also allow for tribal association on a local level whenever it seems advantageous, because as you said the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. Tribalism is made possible by the lack of restraint on selfishness, because fundamentally a tribe is a selfish organization.

I suppose the greatest variable in this situation is the way exploitation is defined. If you feel that paying people in proportion to the difficulty, skill and necessity that is a part of their work then a libertarian state will involve a great deal of exploitation, but I am inclined to say that that is a just way of operating. If you see that as exploitation then please attemt to explain why you feel that way.

i would like to step back a little bit if nobody minds. im not to certain on the american definition of libertarianism, but as far as i understand it, it is about limiting the influence of federal and state governments and legislation on the everyday life of an individual. ridding the legislation of "nanny-state" type laws that curtail and influence peoples behaviour (the laws on seatbelts have been stated as one of these, however, they do have demonstratable benefits to peoples safety beyond that of the single individual. Other examples in the united kingdom might include the labelling on foods (a bag of peanuts that states "warning, may contain nuts", and the labelling of tobacco products).

now, personally, i feel that the approach stated above (the "libertarian" viewpoint) is fundamentally correct, there are WAY top many laws. to use a topical example:

muder is illegal, causing injury to another is illegal.

drinking alcohol is not illegal.

drink-driving (DUI) is a crime, why? the reason stated is always that it leads to injuries and deaths. however, if murder is already illegal, the cause is immaterial, the DUI law is similar to making ownership of a knife illegal. now, whilst i agree that banning DUI helps to minimise the cases of death by dangerous driving, it is a redundant law. People break the law because they believe they wont be caught, thus DUI will continue regardless of this law. increase the severity of punishment for the actual crime committed (murder/ causing injury) rather than introduce a new law to cloud the legal system.

i believe this is the essential point of libertarianism. add in the desire to remove laws that control an individuals personal life (sexual position laws for instance, although rare, they do still exist ), and i tend to agree. most legal systems in the western world have centuries of "legacy" code that they have to battle with in the pursuit of justice, the transparency of a minimal legislation judicial system would also make it much more accessable and understandable to the "average" individual, which is a good thing for everybody except lawyers.

hell, i know that in England their are laws that are centuries old that it is still technically possible to be arrested for, and that are essentially ignored, why not clean up the system?

Darkside

please note i do not condone drink driving in anyway shape or form, it is merely being used for illustrative purposes

A few points:

1) Religion works when it is a family. The tribe works when it is a family. As human animals, we KNOW - to a certain extent - how to work together as a family, and it is just a matter of redefining that paradigm to include more, or other, factors.

The problem I see with that argument is that we now live in one of the best times human history has seen ad we do so after many years of slowly moving away from the constructs of religion and tribalism. Both religion and tribalism demand a certain exclusivity, and that leads to conflict or war. Beyond that, all of the constructs you have mentioned that subvert selfishness really only serve to stave it off for a short while. The family might strive not to be selfish in it's internal dealings, but feeding your own child will always be higher on your list than feeding someone else's. The entire concept of a tribe is based around creating an extended family that is able to work as a single unit in order to get more. And religion, well, the core of every western religion is a combination of fear and eschatological greed.

2) I disagree with your assessment of HOW tribes/families work. Sure - there can be an alpha male model... but it is far from the only option.. and that model tends to perpetuate only because of the very low 'refresh rate', and a general shortage of supplies - which makes selfishness attractive.

A fair point. Still, tribalism seems to be very much like communism: a good idea on paper but impossible to ever get off the ground because of human nature. The alpha male is not the only option, but someone will always end up in control. Any structure which allows individuals to have significant power over one another will eventually lead to abuses of that power, and both tribes and families have a great degree of built in coercive power which expands as the group becomes smaller.

3) The model I suggest doesn't even pretend to treat people as animals or children. It DOES require that every person be treated as EQUAL... something that many societies have paid loud lipservice to, but failed to fulfill.

Every model of society yet attempted by man which puts the needs of the group over the needs of the individual has, in practice, treated individuals as subjects, children, or cogs. I would love for society to find a way around that tendancy, but people are lazy, greedy, stupid creatures and a socialist society simply does not have the resources to fix that. You have the lowest common denominator stressing the society from the bottom, and the top 5% or 10% bucking for position. Both groups are motivated by greed. A society which attempts to stamp out greed always ends up either failing or slipping into totalitarianism. The most successful socities(and, in my opinion, the most free societies) are the ones that manage to find a way to channel the nautral greed and selfishness of human beings into more productive pursuits.

Greed is what dragged man out of the trees, it is what made us master fire, sow fields, raise livestock, create a written language, and on and on. Some great minds have sought wealth, others power, others the recognition and esteem of their peers, but every step forward has been the result of some kind of desire. For every man who builds a better mousetrap because he hates mice there are 10 inventors building better mousetraps because there is a market; I'm not so sure that a tribalist society would manage to do better, especially if it sought to subvert the one thing that causes mankind to move forward.

4) You believe man is a free willed creature - and so do I.. but the greatest moments in human history have been moments when the society achieved synergy... when the elements became MORE than the parts... the golden age of Rome, the Monument Age of Egypt. A common vision is a wonderful thing. But - you talk of human spirit as though it must be unsympathetic to society. Granted we are perverse creatures, but there is no ral reason why we shouldn't build a society where we fostered a shared vision... in which our visionaries worked with, not against, the society.

I disagree entirely. The golden age of Rome was an age not of synergy, but of greed and conquest. We are talking about a society that brought light to the world by the sword in the name of trade and glory, a society which kept slaves, a society which was uninterested in egalitarianism or equality. While Rome made great contrbutions, these were contributions of greed. Egypt is an even worse example. The monuments of Egypt are not the product of a shared vision, but the product of a tyranical society run by the only death cult in history to have been more obsessed with eschatology than Christianity. The monuments of Egypt were built by slaves in order to preserve their masters and a favored few. The pyramids are not an example of a great moment in human history but of a dark time when superstition lead to the enslavement of humanity for the vanity of a chosen few.

Visioaries have always been individual, not groups, and they have generally worked against the grain of society. The coming of the age of reason was marked by individuals who refused to submit to the rules or beliefs of society. Society becomes static, by it's very nature it seeks to impose order on a chaotic world, great minds upset that order. Think of the names which ring through history as halmarks of science and industry: Newton, Guttenberg, DaVinci, Einstein, Darwin, Edison, Ford, Smith. Think of the names that are remembered when we think of those who fought for social reform: Luther, King, Ghandi. Think of the events that shaped society: the 99 thesis, the French and American revolutions, the American civil war, civil rights marches, the Stonewall Rebellion, Ghandi's march to the ocean. These are not examples of synergy, these are examples of innovation fighting against the status quo. Change is never peaceful, it is always in someway violent.

It is a false dilemma to imply that there can be no free thought and general inquiry in a tribal or collective culture... doubly so, in a technological age.

I'm simply arguing that free thought and innovation is more rare, and more dangerous. Collectivist cultures are all about te status quo, you need that kind of reliability and coehsion to make them work. Even then, if the goal of the society is to subvert selfishness, then you have real problems.

i would like to step back a little bit if nobody minds. im not to certain on the american definition of libertarianism,

Allow me to clear it up a bit. Conservative in America is roughly the same as conservative in Europe: it tends to be a traditional mindset, interested in the status quo and unfriendly towards progressive ideas or policies. Libertarian in America is essentially what those in Europe would call "liberal" or "classical liberal." There is a focus on individual freedom, and a laissez faire economic policy. Liberal in America is what would be better known in Europe as "social democrat:" generally populist, progressive on social issues, interested in government welfare programs, etc.

Why no more seatbelt laws? Seatbelts demonstrably save lives. Why should one person be able to endanger lives by bucking the system, when everyone benefits if a simple rule is followed?
Simple: it's not your life.

And your quasi-utilitarian justification of the trampling of rights is quite amusing.

Simple: it's not your life.

And your quasi-utilitarian justification of the trampling of rights is quite amusing.

I guess you didn't actually read my posts on the subject. Thus, let me respond to your arguments with the respect they deserve...

Okay... next?

The state can make social changes that parents can't

For example, I would very much favour a GI tax on foods (IE the higher the GI the higher the tax) to slow the obesity epidemic and outlaw all broadcast and poster advertisements of any product aimed at an age group below 16.

The state is subject to the influence of lobby groups. If you're going to rely on the state to bring about your own desired agenda of social changes, you'd better hope the lobby groups with power support your agenda. That's the problem with using the state. Who says it's going to follow your agenda and not some more influential group's? Better to leave it up to the individuals. If a mom doesn't want her kids to be obese, the next time the kid asks for those bags of potato chips...she can say no. Since when did your own personal health become the government's responsibility? It's part of a greater general trend of no one taking responsibility for their own actions. By blaming obesity and other problems on advertising and an apparent inability to say no, we are admitting our own stupidity and weakness to the government and giving them the authority to dictate, often at the request of special interests, how we should live.

Some people's ideas like yours might actually end up well...if your unified idea was implemented exactly as you intended. But with governments, ideas tend to get twisted and thrown together into a patchwork with other people's ideas, creating an absolute mess of legislation. Example: you get a much bigger tax discount for buying a giant gas-guzzling Hummer H2 than you do for buying a fuel-efficient hybrid. :confused:

Well...this news story seems to sum it up nicely



So, lets get this straight. The government taxes liquor and restricts who can sell it and under what circumstances. Then, in the interest of making sure everyone "stays within the law" they terrorize the patrons of a buisness which the suspect might have broken the law during a raid for which they are given a warrant. In the process, they humiliate, abuse, and search every single person in that buisness. They do it all in combat gear with automatic weapons because some people might respond negatively.

Every single step of the way this was caused by too much government authority. The ability to make consentual crimes illegal, the broad authority given to police to do whatever they want as long as they can make an argument that it was for their safety, the willingness of the judiciary to allow police to search private property on flimsy evidence, and I'm sure the fact that this was a gay establishment had nothing to do with it...
LOL
LIke, OMG, I was s0 totally brutalized, I almost wet myself.

Oh did you, you naughty boy. Are you a dirty boy? Yes, you are...;)

Christ, a bunch gays claim the cops were meaner to them than they are to anyone else suspected of a crime and everyone goes ape-shit. When I was a teenager I was treated unfairly by cops. I got over it. I'm in the military, and I STILL deal with bull. Maybe the answer is to have a thick skin. Hate to seem insensitive, but grow up. Now, I know my jest was in poor taste, but still, I would rather the cops be safe than one of them get shot because some jackass was flashing his gay badge of protection and then pulled a gun out and shot two cops while trying to escape. It happens. Just as much as our rights gets stepped on a bit by police. Unfortunately, they can't tell us apart from the bad guys.


By the way, I DIDN'T ask you why you were libertarian, but this post comes off as more of a cry for attention than an answer to some shady "people" who asked you about your political beliefs.

If you want to rant, just say so.

Christ, a bunch gays claim the cops were meaner to them than they are to anyone else suspected of a crime and everyone goes ape-shit. When I was a teenager I was treated unfairly by cops. I got over it. I'm in the military, and I STILL deal with bull. Maybe the answer is to have a thick skin. Hate to seem insensitive, but grow up.

I'm guessing that you've no idea how thick the skin of most homosexuals has to be to even get through the day. Still, thats irrelevant. The problem isn't that the police treated these people worse than anyone else suspected of a crime(though that does aggravate the situation) the problem is that, to a large degree, the police treated these people in exactly the same brutal way as they treat everyone else. Citizens shouldn't be subjected to a highly militarized police force and cops who like the idea of playing cowboy should be dumped from the force. If you want to play rough, the Army and the Marines always have a need for an extra hand, if you want to uphold the law("protect and serve" as the motto of my local cops goes) then you need to behave yourself.

You mentioned earlier that you had been mistreated by the police as a teen. I'm guessing that there are pleanty of people here who have had a similar experiance. I can think of a few groups of people for whom the mistreatment doesn't stop just because you make it to your twenties. You say you got over it, but did you ever stop to think that maybe you shouldn't have had to? Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the solution isn't for you to learn how to bend over but how to stand up? Police are not a special class, they are public servants, and if they cannot behave themselves they should be fired.

You're in the military, let me ask you a question. If you fuck up or abuse your authority, what happens? If you disobey a direct order or violate potocol, does your CO pat you on the back or do you catch shit? Are you held to a higher standard of conduct than a civilian contractor?


Now, I know my jest was in poor taste, but still, I would rather the cops be safe than one of them get shot because some jackass was flashing his gay badge of protection and then pulled a gun out and shot two cops while trying to escape. It happens. Just as much as our rights gets stepped on a bit by police. Unfortunately, they can't tell us apart from the bad guys.

Yeah, well, welcome to the line of duty, heres you vest. I'd rather 10 cops get shot to death than have one civilian's civil rights violated because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. If that means the police have to be a little less safe, well, thats the cost of living in a free society. Police get decent pay and a comprehensive benefits package in most major cities, and getting shot is part of the risk of the job. If the increased danger means that police departments can find fewer officers, I don't necessarily find that to be a bad thing, then maybe thin resources will force them to focus on finding violent criminals rather than generating parking ticket revenue.

The attitude you are putting forward is one of the major factors leading to the increase in police aggression in this country. Police are being increasingly trained as paramilitary, rather than as civil servants. Conflict resolution is being pushed aside in favor of the "assume-everyone-is-rambo" mentality. As a result innocent civilians and non-violent offenders are dying, civil rights are being trampled, and the police are becoming more likely to face violent resistance as they are being viewed less as the good guys and more as the agents of oppression. Police tactics are causing the police to lose the hearts and minds of the population. What comes after that is ugly.

So - you answer your own question - you use small groups... lots of them.

As for religion being anti-free speech... that would depend on the religion. What I', talking about, however, is the simple fact that it CAN be done. Think of religion as an 'example'.

Not so much that religion is anti-free speech, but that the existence of free speech makes universal acceptance of religious doctrine highly unlikely.

Wait wait wait wait wait
Selling liquor without a liscense and fire violations now prompts the SWAT TEAM?! Since when?! Dont they have more important things to do?!