NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

Discuss.
No, first you define what you mean by "morals".

Having "a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person" is in itself a moral position to take. Libertarians will make a big deal about justifying it and especially opposing rules that clash with it.

It thus seems like libertarians do have a moral code and a system of ethics that tells them what they can and can't do. So what are these morals you mean?

Define "questionable moral basis."

Wiccans, and some other pagan groups, define morals fairly flexibly. The Rede being "If it harm none, do as you will." This is a statement of moral value.

Since you indicate that Libertarians want to pretty much legalize everything that does no harm, you've indicated a moral value - i.e. to do no harm. How does this segue into Libertarians having no morals? Don't you really mean that their morals don't fit into the generally accepted norm of what is moral?

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

As has already been said, that philosophy is in itself a moral possision. Secondly, one of the fundimental morals of a democracy is that one can disagree with a behavior and still accept other's legal right to practice it.

Morality is entirely subjective. It forms its basis in your cultural background, your experiences, your religious conviction or lack thereof. I am quite sure that libertarians, while they might want to legalise behaviours that do no harm, wouldn't necessarily engage in every behaviour that they want to see legalised or even think it is right. But they perhaps recognise that their personal feelings aside, if it doesn't hurt anyone else, why place your own values on to another person?

Morality is entirely subjective. It forms its basis in your cultural background, your experiences, your religious conviction or lack thereof. I am quite sure that libertarians, while they might want to legalise behaviours that do no harm, wouldn't necessarily engage in every behaviour that they want to see legalised or even think it is right. But they perhaps recognise that their personal feelings aside, if it doesn't hurt anyone else, why place your own values on to another person?

Not entirely subjective. Certainly what we believe to be morals may be influenced by our experiences and personality, but just because we think something's ok doesn't mean it is. Some things are wrong whoever does them.

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Libertarians have one Moral - "Freedom". There are many philosophical implications of that, such as "How can you tell whether an action restricts freedom?" and "How can you comparatively evaluate different freedoms when conflict between them arises?", which suggest that such an approach is incomplete as a moral framework, but that's not the same as saying they have "no morals".

Not entirely subjective. Certainly what we believe to be morals may be influenced by our experiences and personality, but just because we think something's ok doesn't mean it is. Some things are wrong whoever does them.

But are they if that person thinks that they are right to do so? How many people does it take to regard an action as wrong to make it universally so? Who gets to decide?

Some things are wrong whoever does them.
But are they wrong to everyone whoever does them? Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor a-la Robin Hood probably seems entirely right both to him and to those that receive that gift, but profoundly wrong to the rich whose posessions have been stolen.

But are they wrong to everyone whoever does them? Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor a-la Robin Hood probably seems entirely right both to him and to those that receive that gift, but profoundly wrong to the rich whose posessions have been stolen.

Exactly. Similarly, some think say, abortion is morally wrong, and some think that the interference in a woman's bodily integrity is wrong? Which is it?

But are they wrong to everyone whoever does them? Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor a-la Robin Hood probably seems entirely right both to him and to those that receive that gift, but profoundly wrong to the rich whose posessions have been stolen.

Ok, this is going in circles.

I never denied that an action might seem wrong to one person and right to another. However, weather someone believes an action to be right does not determine weather it is in fact so.

Ok, this is going in circles.

I never denied that an action might seem wrong to one person and right to another. However, weather someone believes an action to be right does not determine weather it is in fact so.

Who gets to decide what is right and wrong?

Who gets to decide what is right and wrong?

That's what democracy is about. We all get to argue about what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes we'll be right, and sometimes wrong, but we all get to voice an opinion on the matter.

However, for democracy to function; indeed, for society to function, the rule of law must be upheld. Therefor, certain standards have to be applied to everyone in society, even thought those people might sometimes disagree with them. Its a tricky little balancing act called "government".;)

That's what democracy is about. We all get to argue about what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes we'll be right, and sometimes wrong, but we all get to voice an opinion on the matter.

However, for democracy to function; indeed, for society to function, the rule of law must be upheld. Therefor, certain standards have to be applied to everyone in society, even thought those people might sometimes disagree with them. Its a tricky little balancing act called "government".;)

So the majority gets to decide what's right for me? The majority can decide that they don't like the books I read, or the language I use, or the things I do in my bedroom? Even if they hurt noone else?

Politicians catering to special interest groups?

Why should these people decide what is best for me? Of course laws are needed, but that doesn't mean laws are morally right. Laws can be morally wrong you know. Governments can be morally wrong.

Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis.

Yes, though some libertarians might further argue that acts that don't harm others are by virtue of that fact morally unproblematic. (Also, the Harm Principle broadly is accepted by plenty of non-libertarians. The political principle libertarians in particular advocate is "non-initiation of force", which they apply to include property.)

When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it

Not necessarily. This isn't even true in today's society (take the case of, say, sexual promiscuity), and certainly needn't be true in a libertarian society where the whole point is that the rights of the individual trump other ends (including morally important ones.)

- i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

Especially with your "i.e.", I think you may be equivocating.

Legally "alright" is not the same as morally "alright." Neither is the same as socially alright.

But are they if that person thinks that they are right to do so?

If someone loudly insists that the Earth is flat, does it follow that he or she is right to do so?

How many people does it take to regard an action as wrong to make it universally so?

None. It is, or it is not.

If someone loudly insists that the Earth is flat, does it follow that he or she is right to do so?

Facts have nothing to do with morality. But point taken. I was hasty with my wording there.

None. It is, or it is not.

Who decides wrongness though? Is it up to the individual? Up to society? Some special wrongness formula? If an action is hurting noone, and it is not wrong to the person doing it, how can someone else say it is morally wrong?

To me the OP is arguing exactly the same point as the religious people with their "Atheists are immoral because they don't believe in God/Allah/Yahweh/Miscellaneous." tripe.

That's what democracy is about. We all get to argue about what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes we'll be right, and sometimes wrong, but we all get to voice an opinion on the matter.

However, for democracy to function; indeed, for society to function, the rule of law must be upheld. Therefor, certain standards have to be applied to everyone in society, even thought those people might sometimes disagree with them. Its a tricky little balancing act called "government".;)
That's not "morals", though. That's "Law". Law is a synthesis of moral opinion, not a representation of universal morality.

It may well be a common feature of a system of morality that "the law is to be obeyed", but that's just another feature of a system of morality - not a universal truth in and of itself. Sometimes, breaking the law can be considered the right thing to do.

That's not "morals", though. That's "Law". Law is a synthesis of moral opinion, not a representation of universal morality.

It may well be a common feature of a system of morality that "the law is to be obeyed", but that's just another feature of a system of morality - not a universal truth in and of itself. Sometimes, breaking the law can be considered the right thing to do.

That was the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

So the majority gets to decide what's right for me? The majority can decide that they don't like the books I read, or the language I use, or the things I do in my bedroom? Even if they hurt noone else?

Politicians catering to special interest groups?

Why should these people decide what is best for me? Of course laws are needed, but that doesn't mean laws are morally right. Laws can be morally wrong you know. Governments can be morally wrong.

Its not a perfect system. Its the best we can do in a society where most people have widely differing views on what is right. But all this seems irrelevant to the question of weather their is such a thing as a universal right or wrong. Obvioulsy people disagree about what is right or wrong. That is not an in and of itself an answer to the question of what actually is right or wrong.

Who decides wrongness though? Is it up to the individual? Up to society? Some special wrongness formula?
I actually think wrongness isn't a decision. If you think of reality as a single thing, then what is wrong is clearly "what is harmful to the universal entity". In other words, that which causes harm to that of which we're a part. This entity might be considered yourself (if you're a solipsist), it might be God (if you're a creationist), it might simply be the physical realm (if you're an existentialist) or some other metaphysical overall ideal (if you're an idealist), but in all cases, what you're pointing to is the Greater Good, and to do wrong is to act against the interests of that Greater Good.

The question to me isn't "How do we decide what is wrong", but rather "How do we know whether something is wrong". And that's where relativism comes into play, because ultimately, how do we know who knows best, or even that anyone knows anything at all, when our experience appears to be fundamentally limited? Moral systems are all approximations to this interest. Relative to the entity they exist to represent, they all have some degree of proximity to truth, but knowing that proximity absolutely is beyond our capability.

ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."
This already exists--for many religious groups the commandment "thou shalt not kill" renders warfare or capital punishment morally repugnant, yet both are part of our democratic society. It sounds like you are asking if "morality", if the concepts of right vs wrong, are intrinsic in an act or are subjective to both the actor and the observer. To this question I would have to say that morals are purely subjective constructs based on societal desires to minimize harm to an individual AND to the community.

To me the OP is arguing exactly the same point as the religious people with their "Atheists are immoral because they don't believe in God/Allah/Yahweh/Miscellaneous." tripe.

Not exactly; Atheists can still have a moral basis; they can still be strongly opposed to drugs, and so on. What I was thinking is that if you believe that everything that doesn't harm someone is acceptable enough to be allowed, then do you have a moral basis? I believe that polygamous relationships are wrong (moral base), and therefore, I believe that polygamous relationships should remain illegal.

Facts have nothing to do with morality.

That's your assumption. Not mine.

Who decides wrongness though?

Who decides whether or not the Earth is flat?

Some special wrongness formula?

Such things can provide us with standards for wrongness, yes--just as rules of mathematics or of scientific procedure can help us reach truth in other contexts.

If an action is hurting noone, and it is not wrong to the person doing it, how can someone else say it is morally wrong?

Because the "wrongness" of an act is internal, not external. If a person pursues a manner of behavior on bases that are self-delusional, for instance, such behavior might still be said to be wrong even if it does not harm others. (It does not follow that anyone else has the right to interfere.)

I believe that polygamous relationships are wrong (moral base), and therefore, I believe that polygamous relationships should remain illegal.

Two problems.

First, you assume that no moral theory worthy of the name could argue that actions that don't harm others are by virtue of that fact morally acceptable. I don't see any basis for that assumption.

Second, you persist in an unsupported equation of the law with morality. You have not explained why the state has the right to coercively intervene in a particular behavior simply because that behavior is morally wrong.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

Every one has morals, or moral standards. Because some of ours don't match up in no way invalidates this.

Not entirely subjective. Certainly what we believe to be morals may be influenced by our experiences and personality, but just because we think something's ok doesn't mean it is. Some things are wrong whoever does them.

Such as?

Ok, this is going in circles.

I never denied that an action might seem wrong to one person and right to another. However, weather someone believes an action to be right does not determine weather it is in fact so.

No that is completely wrong. Morality is a human invention.

The lionesse killing the antelope has no moral value, there is no intrisnicly moral or immoral act in nature. So morality is totaly about what we humans say is good or bad.

Who gets to decide what is right and wrong?

You do, for yourself.

If someone loudly insists that the Earth is flat, does it follow that he or she is right to do so?

Which of course has nowt to do with morality.



None. It is, or it is not.

Can you show how that is so?

I try not to think about this sort of subject - the only person who can decide what is right and wrong is you. And no one else. I live by my own set of personal morals, as do you.

I actually think wrongness isn't a decision. If you think of reality as a single thing, then what is wrong is clearly "what is harmful to the universal entity". In other words, that which causes harm to that of which we're a part. This entity might be considered yourself (if you're a solipsist), it might be God (if you're a creationist), it might simply be the physical realm (if you're an existentialist) or some other metaphysical overall ideal (if you're an idealist), but in all cases, what you're pointing to is the Greater Good, and to do wrong is to act against the interests of that Greater Good.

This of course assumes that we can know what to do for the greater good.

Some may argue that killing of humaity is the best thing we can do for this 'universal entity' and they have a point.

Which is moraly better?

That we force people to bear only one child to help with all the problems that an overcrowded Earth gives us?

Or.

That we give people the freedom to breed as they will?

I try not to think about this sort of subject - the only person who can decide what is right and wrong is you. And no one else. I live by my own set of personal morals, as do you.

Exactly!

I apologize in advance for the length of this.

If man is not fit to rule himself is he fit to rule someone else. George Washington said very clearly that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. " When this is taken into account even if you are doing something for someone elses good, is it right to hold a gun to someones head and force them to brush their teeth? As ridiculous as that sounds it is the result of such laws. Law is reinforced by kidnapping, theft, threat, and even murder. Thats not what we call it when the state does it, but that is what it is. If someone is already hurting themselves, that is their choice. I mean, are we going to make Jerry Springfield illegal, or Bill O'Reilly (same thing), and if so on punishment of what? The other thing is that right now, I could get "good green" easier than I could get booze, I am of legal drinking age, and I've never touched any of the illegal drugs... the countries that have drugs legalized, actually end up having less of a problem with them. As for when it comes to prostitution, frankly, in most cases, it is more direct, and honest than much of modern dating. Forcing anyone to do something, that they have not signed a contract to do, is wrong by libertarian standards, so forced prostitution would never be legal, nor abuse.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

Correct.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis.

If it doesn't cause harm to another (sic), then it doesn't have a questionable moral basis.


In our morals, not your Catholic and Protestant ones.

This of course assumes that we can know what to do for the greater good...
Can I quote the second paragraph of that post straight back at you?
The question to me isn't "How do we decide what is wrong", but rather "How do we know whether something is wrong". And that's where relativism comes into play, because ultimately, how do we know who knows best, or even that anyone knows anything at all, when our experience appears to be fundamentally limited? Moral systems are all approximations to this interest. Relative to the entity they exist to represent, they all have some degree of proximity to truth, but knowing that proximity absolutely is beyond our capability.

The lionesse killing the antelope has no moral value, there is no intrisnicly moral or immoral act in nature.
I'm not so sure about that. The lioness killing the antelope has no moral value, but the lion pride hunting every antelope in sight to the point of extinction and starving under the resultant lack of food does provide some sort of karma-esque recompense. There may be no morality in a single action, but natural law imposes morality of a sort upon agencies acting under it.

Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person

...that clearly demonstrates a moral belief in not causing harm to other persons.

Ergo, your conclusion is proven wrong by your own premise.

I laugh at you.

This thread is absurd.

This thread is absurd.

Just like most of them then. :p

True, true...

True, true...

Welcome to the world of absurdity.

I'm not so sure about that. The lioness killing the antelope has no moral value, but the lion pride hunting every antelope in sight to the point of extinction and starving under the resultant lack of food does provide some sort of karma-esque recompense. There may be no morality in a single action, but natural law imposes morality of a sort upon agencies acting under it.

No I disagree, there is no question of morality in this example only cause and effect. The lion cannot desicern wether or not his priodes over hunting will be good or bad for his pride, but can be subject to the effects of such overhunting.

Mankind can look at the situation and declare it an immoral act, but are the lion and his pride really engaging in morality?

I say no.

Can I quote the second paragraph of that post straight back at you?

Fair doo's then.

Natural law doesn't impose morality, it imposes consequences. An animal that breeds and hunts until it exceeds the carrying capacity of it's ecosystem will face starvation and death until it's population drops back to a level that the system can support again. This process is no more "moral" than a bathroom scale. As humans, we attribute "moral" qualities to these events to reinforce our own social/religious/philosophical constructs and to try to reduce our feelings of helplessness when faced with the harsh merciless reality of nature.
However, if a tribe of humans, possessed of the capacity to understand the consequences of over-hunting and over-breeding, hunts and breeds itself to the point of ecological collapse we can assess a moral value to the actions of that tribe. If we decide that allowing people to starve to death is "immoral", then the tribe's actions would be immoral--but the natural environmental response to the overpopulation bears no more of an inherent moral judgment for the humans than it does for any other animal.

Peepelonia:Which is moraly better?

That we force people to bear only one child to help with all the problems that an overcrowded Earth gives us?

Or.

That we give people the freedom to breed as they will?

You left out the extreme third option: That we determine what our population's "balance point" is, and kill off the excess people to relieve the pressure on the Earth's ecosystem?

If morality is based on "universal good" then this would be the "most moral" choice, would it not?

Natural law doesn't impose morality, it imposes consequences. An animal that breeds and hunts until it exceeds the carrying capacity of it's ecosystem will face starvation and death until it's population drops back to a level that the system can support again. This process is no more "moral" than a bathroom scale. As humans, we attribute "moral" qualities to these events to reinforce our own social/religious/philosophical constructs and to try to reduce our feelings of helplessness when faced with the harsh merciless reality of nature.
However, if a tribe of humans, possessed of the capacity to understand the consequences of over-hunting and over-breeding, hunts and breeds itself to the point of ecological collapse we can assess a moral value to the actions of that tribe. If we decide that allowing people to starve to death is "immoral", then the tribe's actions would be immoral--but the natural environmental response to the overpopulation bears no more of an inherent moral judgment for the humans than it does for any other animal.

Peepelonia:

You left out the extreme third option: That we determine what our population's "balance point" is, and kill off the excess people to relieve the pressure on the Earth's ecosystem?

If morality is based on "universal good" then this would be the "most moral" choice, would it not?

Yes exactly the point I was trying to make.

As to the 'third choice' yes I agree some would certianly say that this the moral choice. That is not my morality but I can sure understand how it will be some peoples.

the basis of libertarian morality is that it is wrong to initiate force against another person or another person's property. This is not to be considered an unusual basis, since it is very similar to the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" which is highly regarded as the most wise advice given. A proverb with this sentiment is found in nearly every culture, and while difficult to follow, it is the highest standard known for right interactions. It is also similar to the old "Live and let live" saying.

Isn't accusing libertarians of having no morals similar to the judgementalism of which people here accuse accuse Christians? "I disagree with you, ergo you're evil"? Clearly to OP is an operessive fundamentalist. :p

I keep reading the thread title as Do Librarians have morals?

No I disagree, there is no question of morality in this example only cause and effect. The lion cannot desicern wether or not his priodes over hunting will be good or bad for his pride, but can be subject to the effects of such overhunting.

Mankind can look at the situation and declare it an immoral act, but are the lion and his pride really engaging in morality?
That's not really what I'm talking about. Whether or not the lions are themselves consciously choosing to do what is in the wider interest, that their actions are not in the wider interest is something that comes back to bite them. If, as I'm suggesting, what is right is defined as "that which is in the interest of the universal entity" and what is wrong is "that which goes against the interests of the universal entity" then that the lions have created a situation whereby the world they would otherwise happily occupy rejects them causes us to immediately say "They were wrong to do so". Not because it was a mistake from their point of view, but because the consequences of that mistake are only destructive in the wider picture.

You're right - this is about consequences. The thing is that consequences, and consequences alone, allow observers to deem whether or not an action is right or wrong (as per the above definitions). Consequently (lawl), natural law (and, indeed, physical law) plays a huge role in morality (assuming for a minute we're talking about Morality as the means of arbitration between Right and Wrong, rather than systems that arbitrate between right and wrong).

That's not really what I'm talking about. Whether or not the lions are themselves consciously choosing to do what is in the wider interest, that their actions are not in the wider interest is something that comes back to bite them. If, as I'm suggesting, what is right is defined as "that which is in the interest of the universal entity" and what is wrong is "that which goes against the interests of the universal entity" then that the lions have created a situation whereby the world they would otherwise happily occupy rejects them causes us to immediately say "They were wrong to do so". Not because it was a mistake from their point of view, but because the consequences of that mistake are only destructive in the wider picture.

You're right - this is about consequences. The thing is that consequences, and consequences alone, allow observers to deem whether or not an action is right or wrong (as per the above definitions). Consequently (lawl), natural law (and, indeed, physical law) plays a huge role in morality (assuming for a minute we're talking about Morality as the means of arbitration between Right and Wrong, rather than systems that arbitrate between right and wrong).


Okay yeah I ge that. The think is though, that we cannot know what is the best course of action for the 'universal entity'.

The lions condeming themselves to death because of over hunting, may indeed make themselves and their pray animal extinct, but whos to say wether this cause harm or helps the universe?


Only we can say what we 'think' is moral or not, and so what we deem is moral must be so, in the present according to what facts we have.

What needs to be clarified is that Libertarians aren't about "legalizing" anything. Libertarianism is about the idea that the Government should be making a call on issues like that at all.

Using the term "to legalize" implies taking an activity and MAKING it legal in a way that implies Government's permission. A Libertarian does not acknowledge the authority of Government to either grant or deny permission to do anything that doesn't directly harm another person.

Therefore, morality doesn't figure.

For example, I like to think I'm a very moral person. I'm a practicing Mormon and I follow some pretty strict moral guidelines.

And yet I do not want to see things like homosexual living or pre-marital sex made illegal (As they have been in the past.). Why? Because as far as I'm concerned, Government has no business legislating morality and thus for me to vote that way would be doing exactly what so many Libertarians sneer at: using Government power to impose my beliefs on others.

This is why I've often confronted a certain other self-proclaimed Libertarian on this forum. I've seen him advocate for all sort of Government action from heavier restrictions on sex offenders "Because they're just scum" to limits on religious practice "to reduce prosletyzing". No self-respecting Libertarian should advocate the use of Government power to advance his personal opinions.

...mer-marital sex made illegal...

Is that like sleeping with the fishes?

Is that like sleeping with the fishes?

Yes, exactly.

Remember, with scales if you rub it the wrong way it hurts like hell.

Legal and moral are not necessarily either mutually inclusive nor exclusive.

Truth is universal, as is logic. Although our interactions with all this will vary.

Just because it may be LEGAL for me to smoke or drink, I choose not to. And it is not necessarily a moral issue for me, but a logical and health decision. You could bring morals into it, but why bother?
There are very good reasons to NOT smoke or drink. And it is a personal choice. If I think I am right, it is better to educate people to my point of view, not take some moral "high ground" and alienate them.
And if people choose to do something, that is done responsibly and not hurting someone else, or not threatening to, then I have no moral ground to stand on to stop them.

Example: use of alcohol. Using it at home....no problem.
Using it, then driving..big problems. That should be both a legal issue, and a moral one, because there is at least implicit threat of harm to others.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person

A strawman definition.

even things that have a questionable moral basis.

Not supported by any evidence or definition.

When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

A strawman definition plus an unevidenced assertion equal zero.

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

You'll have to offer up an agreed upon definition of either "libertarianism" or "Libertarianism" in place of your strawman, as well as present evidence for your unfounded assertion re morality.

Atheists can still have a moral basis; they can still be strongly opposed to drugs, and so on.



What I was thinking is that if you believe that everything that doesn't harm someone is acceptable enough to be allowed, then do you have a moral basis?

Depends. In my case, I consider my Buddhism to be a very strong moral non-theistic base that is highly compatable with libertarian beliefs, but I increasingly find to be at odds with Libertarian beliefs.

I believe that polygamous relationships are wrong (moral base), and therefore, I believe that polygamous relationships should remain illegal.

Reason?

This thread is absurd.

Indeed.

the basis of libertarian morality is that it is wrong to initiate force against another person or another person's property. This is not to be considered an unusual basis, since it is very similar to the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" which is highly regarded as the most wise advice given. A proverb with this sentiment is found in nearly every culture, and while difficult to follow, it is the highest standard known for right interactions. It is also similar to the old "Live and let live" saying.

Isn't accusing libertarians of having no morals similar to the judgementalism of which people here accuse accuse Christians? "I disagree with you, ergo you're evil"? Clearly to OP is an operessive fundamentalist. :p

Indeed. In fact, it's pretty much aa personal fundamental in both my politics and religio-philosophy.

Law=violent force.

To paraphrase a certain thinker: If Aunt Mary smokes some weed and gets caught, she'll be arrested. If she runs, the cops are authorised to use deadly force. If she's conviceted and sent up the river, she'll be confined literally at gunpoint. If she tries to walk away, the prison gaurds will shoot here/

The system only works by threat of violence.

Government=an extension of myself.

I see no rational reason to violently prohibit non-violent, albiet stupid, behaviour.

If Aunt Mary wants to smoke some pot and mary two guyys and another woman, where is the threat to society that requires me to put her to death?

That's the fundamental question in my mind.

I keep reading the thread title as Do Librarians have morals?

The propgation of collected knowledge would be a fundamental moral for librarians, no?

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

Nonsense, I know a Libertarian who is very moral and religious, he just does not think his morality should forced upon others.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The default state is that something is legal. It takes government action to make it illegal. Thus, remaining in that default state - ie. leaving it legal - does not send any sort of message. It doesn't mean that the action is condoned, accepted, or even acknowledged in any way.

It is making something illegal that sends a message - and that message is that something is so very unacceptable that we must keep it from happening.

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

Choosing not to push one's personal moral viewpoints on others does not mean that one does not have them.

And, as others have pointed out, the basis of "not harming others" is a moral basis in and of itself.


Exactly. Similarly, some think say, abortion is morally wrong, and some think that the interference in a woman's bodily integrity is wrong? Which is it?

Why not both? Those two things are not diametrically opposed. One can believe that abortion is morally wrong while also thinking it is wrong to keep another from having one.

To paraphrase a certain thinker: If Aunt Mary smokes some weed and gets caught, she'll be arrested. If she runs, the cops are authorised to use deadly force.

In the US, at least, that's not true at all.

I'm a libertarian, I say legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution. Many people take the position all 3 are immoral. I, personally, wouldn't engage in any of those activities, not because they are immoral, but I have no desire to do so.

Am I immoral because I think people should have a choice in the matter? I don't think so.

I keep reading the thread title as Do Librarians have morals?

They most certainly don't. I was once at a hotel where a number of librarians attending a nearby convention had decided to stay. The hotel was utterly wrecked by said folks' drunken debauchery. When I tried to confront them, they threw the book at me. It was a hardback, and I was knocked unconscious. True story.

Going by the wiccans, the libertarians have good morals. Going by the stricter abrahamic denominations, authoritarians have good morals. It all depends on what source you use.

I'm a Libertarian. I have morals. I realize that not everyone agrees with my morals. I'd like it if the government allowed more than one set of morals to rule supreme.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

It isn't so much about 'morals'. Libertarianism is intrinsically evil. So - Libertarians must either be immoral or amoral to stomach the things they claim to believe in.

It isn't so much about 'morals'. Libertarianism is intrinsically evil. So - Libertarians must either be immoral or amoral to stomach the things they claim to believe in.
Sarcasm?

Sarcasm?

Nope.

Nope.

*sigh* Tell me then, how is Libertarianism evil?

I think it would be more accurate to say that Libertarians have one Moral - "Freedom". There are many philosophical implications of that, such as "How can you tell whether an action restricts freedom?" and "How can you comparatively evaluate different freedoms when conflict between them arises?", which suggest that such an approach is incomplete as a moral framework, but that's not the same as saying they have "no morals".

^^^
This

It isn't so much about 'morals'. Libertarianism is intrinsically evil. So - Libertarians must either be immoral or amoral to stomach the things they claim to believe in.

I'm guessing you don't actually mean libertarianism, but rather what the Americans have bastardized as 'libertarian' today, right? Remember, a lot of leftists call themselves 'left libertarian'.

*sigh* Tell me then, how is Libertarianism evil?

It is an inherently evil ideology. Reduced regulation, un-fair trade, isolationism.

Theoretically, libertarians SHOULD be socially progressive, which would be their only saving grace - but many of them pursue the same homophobic, sexist, racist agendas as the rest of America's rightwing spectrum. Even if they were socially progressive, it's not worth the trade off for the form of fiscal and institutional rape that they proclaim.

I'm guessing you don't actually mean libertarianism, but rather what the Americans have bastardized as 'libertarian' today, right? Remember, a lot of leftists call themselves 'left libertarian'.

If you mean 'libertarian' as being socially progressive, and don't associate the Rand-ian pseudo-anarchy, and the peculiar form of conscienceless laissez-faire, then sure.

It is an inherently evil ideology. Reduced regulation, un-fair trade, isolationism.


Most libertarians agree with comparative advantage theory rather than absolute advantage theory, which actively seeks to make trade fairer. Reduced regulation is not an 'inherent' evil in itself, they just believe the market regulates better than the state does, that doesn't mean they want products and services to be faulty. Whether the market can regulate itself is a separate issue, something that doesn't work is not the same as something 'evil'. Isolationism doesn't really have much to do with libertarianism, despite what Ron Paul says.

Most libertarians agree with comparative advantage theory rather than absolute advantage theory, which actively seeks to make trade fairer. Reduced regulation is not an 'inherent' evil in itself, they just believe the market regulates better than the state does, that doesn't mean they want products and services to be faulty. Whether the market can regulate itself is a separate issue, something that doesn't work is not the same as something 'evil'. Isolationism doesn't really have much to do with libertarianism, despite what Ron Paul says.

Well, a couple of things...

1) non-interventionism is isolationism. It doesn't matter if you call it 'strategic independence', or just talk about 'remaining free of treaties' and 'uninvolved in conflict', it's still isolationism.

2) Reduced regulation on industry is inherently evil because it places the value of the human resource BELOW the value of other resources and/or product. Reduced regulation on trade is evil because predatory business practise is every bit as harmful as acts of violence or other harm, but is excused because it is 'free trade'. Excusing harm is an inherent evil.

3) The whole laissez-faire platform is inherently evil because it relies on, and intrinsically allows, exploitation. It is intrinsically harmful. It is further harmed by the fact that it relies on fundamental assumptions that are simply not true - like the premise that the market will regulate itself, or the assumption that such trade is advnatageous.

4) Even if I could forgive the other multitude of sins, the fetishistic worship of property, and the opposition to social care programs would make libertarianism intolerable.

I have a few reasons for being against libertarianism (not saying it has no morals):

Panics of 1893 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893) and 1907 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Panic_of_1907), both of which were a failure of regulation. The former being worse than the Great Depression.

The idea that government is evil/doesn't work. Europe begs to differ.

The idea that monopolies don't happen. They can quire easily, especally in industries where the necessary capital to create a startup is quite high (auto manufacturing being an excellent example). Also when monopolies occur, everyone is fucked

Well, a couple of things...

1) non-interventionism is isolationism. It doesn't matter if you call it 'strategic independence', or just talk about 'remaining free of treaties' and 'uninvolved in conflict', it's still isolationism.


Yes, but I don't even think this has much to do with libertarianism, it's a socio-economic model, there's no such thing as 'libertarian foreign policy'.


2) Reduced regulation on industry is inherently evil because it places the value of the human resource BELOW the value of other resources and/or product.

I don't know why you feel the need to use value judgement words like 'evil', it makes what's otherwise a good argument seem a little irrational. But explain further what you mean by this sentence, since I don't really understand what you're saying.


Reduced regulation on trade is evil because predatory business practise is every bit as harmful as acts of violence or other harm, but is excused because it is 'free trade'. Excusing harm is an inherent evil.


Define predatory business practices, many types of predatory business practises' are still generally opposed by libertarians, remember they don't want absolute complete deregulation, just as much as justifiably possible. And they also might argue that real free trade will reduce such practices. Again, it's not like they actually want these kind of practises to happen (well most of them).


3) The whole laissez-faire platform is inherently evil because it relies on

Libertarians do not necessarily support laissez-faire economics, but I'll let that one slip.


like the premise that the market will regulate itself, or the assumption that such trade is advnatageous.


Again, if they're wrong about the fact that the market regulates itself, that just makes them wrong, not evil.


4) Even if I could forgive the other multitude of sins, the fetishistic worship of property, and the opposition to social care programs would make libertarianism intolerable.

If you speak very broadly, some libertarians would actually support social care programs. But then this is looking less at libertarianism as an economic model, and more at libertarianism as a philosophy, where you follow its natural conclusions, but then I guess you're probably not talking about those kind of people.

Yes, but I don't even think this has much to do with libertarianism, it's a socio-economic model, there's no such thing as 'libertarian foreign policy'.


Perhaps - but then, you can use the same answer to say that anything I've listed here is not libertarianism as you know it.

If so - we're discussing a different 'kind' of libertarianism. I'm basically discussing the claimed ideology of the (American) Libertarian Party, since that is the usage of 'libertarian' I encounter most commonly.

I'm trying not to let it be coloured by the fact that msot of the 'libertarians' I know are people for whom the Republican party is about right on social issues, maybe a little too permissive... but who buy into the concept of deregulation.

On the point you made, though - the derivation of isolationism seems quite natural, given the lack of control over foreign trade.


I don't know why you feel the need to use value judgement words like 'evil', it makes what's otherwise a good argument seem a little irrational. But explain further what you mean by this sentence, since I don't really understand what you're saying.


I use the term 'evil' because I believe that devaluing people is evil. I don't think it's just hurting people that is evil, I think hurting people is the SYMPTOM, and that the disease is in the value set.

Thus, the libertarian value set, that facilitates such harm, is 'evil'.

In talking about industry, regulation is the difference between factories... and sweatshops. Regulation is what was missing from textiles mills of the past where children crawled between machines and occassionally had their hair ripped out, or their fingers pulled off. Regulation is what maintains safe work environments, maintains the health of employees... assures them rights. To subsume all those things to increase productivity, is to make the value of the worker lower than the value of the raw material (which is treated according to the needs of the process) and far below the value of the goods or services.


Define predatory business practices, many types of predatory business practises' are still generally opposed by libertarians, remember they don't want absolute complete deregulation, just as much as justifiably possible. And they also might argue that real free trade will reduce such practices. Again, it's not like they actually want these kind of practises to happen (well most of them).


No, they SAY they don't want those things to happen, but words are cheap. If you and I stand at the top of a staricase, and I repeatedly bump you, it doesn't hold much water for me to SAY I didn't want you to fall. Allowing the situation to arise - even CREATING the scenario, makes me culpable.


Libertarians do not necessarily support laissez-faire economics, but I'll let that one slip.


How not? If you remove regulation, you tend towards laissez-faire. The more regulation you remove...


Again, if they're wrong about the fact that the market regulates itself, that just makes them wrong, not evil.


No - creating the situation makes them evil. Even if markets COULD regulate themselves (which most markets, for one reason or another, simply can't), it is the transition that can be especially harmful. As we're seeing right now - if the bailout isn't attempted/successful, then the period of adjustment before the market restored itself to balance could be prodigiously bad.


If you speak very broadly, some libertarians would actually support social care programs. But then this is looking less at libertarianism as an economic model, and more at libertarianism as a philosophy, where you follow its natural conclusions, but then I guess you're probably not talking about those kind of people.

I think I said I was talking about the ideology. I'm not sure who would support social care policies AND libertarian economics.

yes libertarians have morals.

not as libertarians necessarily (at least not one's that i agree with ) but as normal humans they have morals in their private lives that have nothing to do with their political philosophies.

Perhaps - but then, you can use the same answer to say that anything I've listed here is not libertarianism as you know it.


True, but thats the problem with politics, we're basically running out of words to use, so all the political identifiers like 'conservative' and 'liberal' etc.. are becoming so broad its difficult to debate what you actually mean.


If so - we're discussing a different 'kind' of libertarianism. I'm basically discussing the claimed ideology of the (American) Libertarian Party, since that is the usage of 'libertarian' I encounter most commonly.

I'm trying not to let it be coloured by the fact that msot of the 'libertarians' I know are people for whom the Republican party is about right on social issues, maybe a little too permissive... but who buy into the concept of deregulation.


OK, well I don't particularly want to defend these sorts of people.


On the point you made, though - the derivation of isolationism seems quite natural, given the lack of control over foreign trade.


Their opposition to protectionism is justified in my opinion, since protectionism is the largest factor hampering growth in the third world.


I use the term 'evil' because I believe that devaluing people is evil. I don't think it's just hurting people that is evil, I think hurting people is the SYMPTOM, and that the disease is in the value set.


In what sense does it devalue people? That's what I'm asking here.


In talking about industry, regulation is the difference between factories... and sweatshops. Regulation is what was missing from textiles mills of the past where children crawled between machines and occassionally had their hair ripped out, or their fingers pulled off. Regulation is what maintains safe work environments, maintains the health of employees... assures them rights.

But again, this is really only an attack on extreme (and I mean extreme) libertarians. Most of them don't think business's are above social laws, and child abuse and worker abuse, as well as discrimination etc... are things that most libertarians would want to ban.


To subsume all those things to increase productivity, is to make the value of the worker lower than the value of the raw material (which is treated according to the needs of the process) and far below the value of the goods or services.


I don't think they try to look at it in that perspective. These extreme libertarians base their ideas on what they believe to be firmly moral grounds, and that freedom must be maximised, thus they believe they don't have a right to intervene in how people run their businesses.

I think the issue here is your conflating two types of libertarians. There are ones who think the government shouldn't intervene as a matter of moral principle, these people don't really care about productivity, so they're not placing the value of people above or below the productivity of businesses. These sorts of people may possibly support the extreme deregulation you're talking about.

The second type are people who support a broadly libertarian approach to economics, simply because they feel it's better for the economy. However, these types of people are very unlikely to support the extreme child abuse causing deregulation that you're talking about, so they're not likely for instance to place the importance of business productivity over the welfare of children in a workplace. Only when you conflate the two types do you get people who devalue human beings, but that type of person is incredibly rare.


No, they SAY they don't want those things to happen, but words are cheap. If you and I stand at the top of a staricase, and I repeatedly bump you, it doesn't hold much water for me to SAY I didn't want you to fall. Allowing the situation to arise - even CREATING the scenario, makes me culpable.


This is a silly analogy, if someone wants people to be healthy and happy, but fail, that doesn't make them evil, just ineffective. It's as simple as that.


How not? If you remove regulation, you tend towards laissez-faire. The more regulation you remove...


But laissez-faire is an extreme case, most libertarians don't go that far.


No - creating the situation makes them evil. Even if markets COULD regulate themselves (which most markets, for one reason or another, simply can't), it is the transition that can be especially harmful. As we're seeing right now - if the bailout isn't attempted/successful, then the period of adjustment before the market restored itself to balance could be prodigiously bad.


Sure, but even people like Ron Paul acknowledge that regulation is needed in some places, including the federal reserve. Strong libertarians tend to think that situation was created by government intervention in the wrong places anyway, and that unless the government breaks the mold of bailing out banks every time we hit a bust, we'll be stuck in boom and bust forever, so they are at least trying (generally) to achieve a greater good, although I do admit their ideas are stupid.


I think I said I was talking about the ideology. I'm not sure who would support social care policies AND libertarian economics.

Well, libertarianism as a philosophy is all about maximising freedom. So you could argue that one can not be free, if you're burdened by bad health and oppression in your job etc...

True, but thats the problem with politics, we're basically running out of words to use, so all the political identifiers like 'conservative' and 'liberal' etc.. are becoming so broad its difficult to debate what you actually mean.

OK, well I don't particularly want to defend these sorts of people.

Their opposition to protectionism is justified in my opinion, since protectionism is the largest factor hampering growth in the third world.

In what sense does it devalue people? That's what I'm asking here.

But again, this is really only an attack on extreme (and I mean extreme) libertarians. Most of them don't think business's are above social laws, and child abuse and worker abuse, as well as discrimination etc... are things that most libertarians would want to ban.

I don't think they try to look at it in that perspective. These extreme libertarians base their ideas on what they believe to be firmly moral grounds, and that freedom must be maximised, thus they believe they don't have a right to intervene in how people run their businesses.

I think the issue here is your conflating two types of libertarians. There are ones who think the government shouldn't intervene as a matter of moral principle, these people don't really care about productivity, so they're not placing the value of people above or below the productivity of businesses. These sorts of people may possibly support the extreme deregulation you're talking about.

The second type are people who support a broadly libertarian approach to economics, simply because they feel it's better for the economy. However, these types of people are very unlikely to support the extreme child abuse causing deregulation that you're talking about, so they're not likely for instance to place the importance of business productivity over the welfare of children in a workplace. Only when you conflate the two types do you get people who devalue human beings, but that type of person is incredibly rare.

This is a silly analogy, if someone wants people to be healthy and happy, but fail, that doesn't make them evil, just ineffective. It's as simple as that.

But laissez-faire is an extreme case, most libertarians don't go that far.

Sure, but even people like Ron Paul acknowledge that regulation is needed in some places, including the federal reserve. Strong libertarians tend to think that situation was created by government intervention in the wrong places anyway, and that unless the government breaks the mold of bailing out banks every time we hit a bust, we'll be stuck in boom and bust forever, so they are at least trying (generally) to achieve a greater good, although I do admit their ideas are stupid.

Well, libertarianism as a philosophy is all about maximising freedom. So you could argue that one can not be free, if you're burdened by bad health and oppression in your job etc...

You say that the sort of people I mention would be very rare - but they're just about all the Libertarians I meet and or encounter somewhere like NSG.

Of course - they push an extreme agenda, and then capitulate on an item or two... "well, YES, I DID say that there should be absolutely no regulation on industry, but of course I didn't mean CHILDREN should be working in the mines". But that's because - in my opinion, libertarianism (as exemplified in the American Libertarian Party) is a juvenille state of mind that is fairly quickly outgrown, in most people.

Personal issues absolutely SHOULD be free - but issues that affect other people must be controlled.

You say that the sort of people I mention would be very rare - but they're just about all the Libertarians I meet and or encounter somewhere like NSG.


Well I don't think most of the people on NSG who call themselves libertarian support things like that. Not the quieter (of which there is a larger portion) ones anyway.

Well I don't think most of the people on NSG who call themselves libertarian support things like that. Not the quieter (of which there is a larger portion) ones anyway.

Aren't there only like 3 libertarians on NSG anyway. They just SOUND like more?

Well I don't think most of the people on NSG who call themselves libertarian support things like that. Not the quieter (of which there is a larger portion) ones anyway.

This is classic Hydesland, I'm afraid.

Not defending Libertarianism as defined by the Libertarian Party of the U.S. or any of its recent standard bearers. Or HAS been argued by people here in NSG.

Instead, defending a hypothetical "libertarianism" that you define as little more than the platitude "maximizing freedom."

I'm sure we could come up with pithy nonsense phrases to define liberal, conservative, Democrat, and Republican as well, but they wouldn't help move discussion forward.

EDIT: That said, the OP is silly. One can obviously believe in a moral system in which individuals are left the liberty to do things other people may feel are wrong. Such a moral system is, for example, at the root of the U.S. Constitution.

This is classic Hydesland, I'm afraid.

Not defending Libertarianism as defined by the Libertarian Party of the U.S. or any of its recent standard bearers.

I don't think I've ever seen a credible libertarian writer, philosopher, or economist defend the 'Libertarian Party of the US' as actually libertarian, don't be ridiculous.


Or HAS been argued by people here in NSG.


Please show me anyone on NSG who has argued for the extreme sorts of deregulation GnI was talking about.


Instead, defending a hypothetical "libertarianism" that you define as little more than the platitude "maximizing freedom."


I did say that this is specifically looking at libertarianism from a philosophical view point, not a specific economic model, and yes, that's essentially what it is.


I'm sure we could come up with pithy nonsense phrases to define liberal, conservative

Yes you could, because those too are extremely broad terms, which I have already mentioned.

Aren't there only like 3 libertarians on NSG anyway. They just SOUND like more?

There's many, but they tend to be old fogies now, and don't post here very often.

There's many, but they tend to be old fogies now, and don't post here very often.

They're probably Republicans, really... pretending not to be associated with the current incumbent. Kinda like Ron Paul.

I don't think I've ever seen a credible libertarian writer, philosopher, or economist defend the 'Libertarian Party of the US' as actually libertarian, don't be ridiculous.

And, pray tell, who are these credible libertarian writers, philosophers, and economists that define the "real" libertarianism?


Please show me anyone on NSG who has argued for the extreme sorts of deregulation GnI was talking about.

Perhaps you have overlooked those here on NSG that openly support and/or supported Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party. Do I really have to dig up posts to prove these people exist?

Yes you could, because those too are extremely broad terms, which I have already mentioned.

So, you are basically admitting you will only defend libertarianism if by libertarianism we mean some vague platitude devoid of content. Thanks, but no thanks.

Please show me anyone on NSG who has argued for the extreme sorts of deregulation GnI was talking about.

We've had our share of outright anarcho-capitalists here.

And, pray tell, who are these credible libertarian writers, philosophers, and economists that define the "real" libertarianism?


Just look up libertarianism on wikipedia, you'll find plenty of accomplished academics cited there. Note, I'm not saying they all agree on what libertarian is, just that the general consensus, from my experience, is that the Libertarian Party of the US is not a good example of libertarianism.


Perhaps you have overlooked those here on NSG that openly support and/or supported Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party. Do I really have to dig up posts to prove these people exist?


Not many actually. And yet not even Ron Paul would support a lot of the stuff that GnI is talking about.


So, you are basically admitting you will only defend libertarianism if by libertarianism we mean some vague platitude devoid of content. Thanks, but no thanks.

No, read what I said. I specifically and explicitly said that you can come to this conclusion only if you look at it from a philosophical viewpoint, and I explicitly said that GnI is not likely actually talking about these sorts of people. So stop whining.

We've had our share of outright anarcho-capitalists here.

But these types of people only tend to pop up with one hit wonder posts in vague political philosophy threads, then disappear.

I agree that everything that does not harm another person or animal should be legalized. What you do to yourself is your business. Does that mean that I don't have morals? I wouldn't go shoot up heroine if it was legal, but if you did, who am I to judge? So just because someone thinks something should be legalized, does not mean that they would participate or even agree with the act.

But these types of people only tend to pop up with one hit wonder posts in vague political philosophy threads, then disappear.

Greill? GreaterPacificNations? Europa Maxima? And Nicea Sancta doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

Greill? GreaterPacificNations? Europa Maxima? And Nicea Sancta doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

Greill I thought was some sort of feudalist/monarchist, but I may be mixing him with someone else. GPN I have no idea about, you may be right about him. Europa Maxima was one of those people I was talking about who support extreme deregulation as a matter of moral principle, rather than purely to improve business productivity IIRC, also I don't think he was an anarchist either, but I haven't seen him for ages. As for Nicea Sancta, I'm pretty sure he's a troll, but I haven't actually seen him argue for anarcho-capitalism. But we could be here all night doing this.

Just look up libertarianism on wikipedia, you'll find plenty of accomplished academics cited there. Note, I'm not saying they all agree on what libertarian is, just that the general consensus, from my experience, is that the Libertarian Party of the US is not a good example of libertarianism.

So you expect us to rely on a Wiki definition of libertarianism that (1) openly admits there is no consensus as to what libertarianism is and (2) does use the Libertarian Party of the U.S. as an example of the only libertarian political party as the basis for defining "big L" Libertarians as not "small l" libertarians?

And I would note for the record, the title of the thread, the OP, and my post all referred to Libertarians.

Not many actually. And yet not even Ron Paul would support a lot of the stuff that GnI is talking about.

*watches Wilgrove, Conserative Morality, Melkor Unchained, and other proclaimed Libertarians disappear*

No, read what I said. I specifically and explicitly said that you can come to this conclusion only if you look at it from a philosophical viewpoint, and I explicitly said that GnI is not likely actually talking about these sorts of people. So stop whining.

What you want to do is the equivalent of defending the Democratic Party on the grounds that one can say good things about democracy as opposed to it's opposites. Again, nice for a philosophical circle-jerk, but not exactly tuned to reality.

By legalising something does not mean a personal endorsement. I would vote for heroin use to be legal but I am dead against people using it. My thinking is that we should treat drug addiction as the illness it is - by treating its victims not by jailing them. Prohibition does not work that's why Probition of alcohol was lifted by FDR. All prohibition does is drive the practice underground and create an army of criminals who grow fat on the trade. I don't like the word moral - it has too many religious overtones. I prefer "ethics" which are much broader beliefs.

So you expect us to rely on a Wiki definition of libertarianism that (1)openly admits there is no consensus as to what libertarianism is and

Yes, as I have said many times, it's an extremely broad term. Again, I'm not saying there is a consensus on what libertarianism is, quite the opposite actually, the fact that it's so broad was my whole point.


(2) does use the Libertarian Party of the U.S. as an example of the only libertarian political party as the basis for defining "big L" Libertarians as not "small l" libertarians?


Well I personally found this whole big L and small l debate a farce, hence me telling you not actually to use wikipedia as a source, merely as a vessel to find academics which wikipedia is likely to cite.


And I would note for the record, the title of the thread, the OP, and my post all referred to Libertarians.


I highly doubt he actually acknowledged the connotations of using a big L, in fact the type of libertarian he described, is quite different to the libertarian party, who aren't actually that socially progressive.


*watches Wilgrove, Conserative Morality, Melkor Unchained, and other proclaimed Libertarians disappear*


I didn't want to name names, but Wilgrove and Conservative Morality are the loud minority I'm talking about. As for Melkor Unchained, I am absolutely certain he is not the type of libertarian GnI is talking about, even if he did support Ron Paul (which I'm pretty sure he does not) since even Ron Paul isn't as extreme as the types of people GnI are talking about.


What you want to do is the equivalent of defending the Democratic Party on the grounds that one can say good things about democracy as opposed to it's opposites. Again, nice for a philosophical circle-jerk, but not exactly tuned to reality.

What I actually want to do is point out that not every libertarian is this 'evil' sort of libertarian GnI is talking about. I simply do not understand why you have an objection to this. And for the record, 'maximising freedom' is not just a meaningless platitude when taken empirically (it's extremely easy to call anything a 'meaningless platitude'), it's meaning is pretty clear and non-ambiguous.

Yes, as I have said many times, it's an extremely broad term. Again, I'm not saying there is a consensus on what libertarianism is, quite the opposite actually, the fact that it's so broad was my whole point.

Well I personally found this whole big L and small l debate a farce, hence me telling you not actually to use wikipedia as a source, merely as a vessel to find academics which wikipedia is likely to cite.

I highly doubt he actually acknowledged the connotations of using a big L, in fact the type of libertarian he described, is quite different to the libertarian party, who aren't actually that socially progressive.

I didn't want to name names, but Wilgrove and Conservative Morality are the loud minority I'm talking about. As for Melkor Unchained, I am absolutely certain he is not the type of libertarian GnI is talking about, even if he did support Ron Paul (which I'm pretty sure he does not) since even Ron Paul isn't as extreme as the types of people GnI are talking about.

What I actually want to do is point out that not every libertarian is this 'evil' sort of libertarian GnI is talking about. I simply do not understand why you have an objection to this. And for the record, 'maximising freedom' is not just a meaningless platitude when taken empirically (it's extremely easy to call anything a 'meaningless platitude'), it's meaning is pretty clear and non-ambiguous.

Meh.

So your whole big "point" is that not all libertarians are "evil", because -- although many libertarians and the Libertarian Party may have the views GnI critiqued -- there are other people that call themselves (or are called) "libertarian" that don't have those views.

How dare I criticize such a weighty contribution to the discussion?

I guess I'm a libertarian now because I generally support the notion of "maximzing freedom." Who, by the by, are the opponents of this notion?

Meh.

So your whole big "point" is that not all libertarians are "evil", because -- although many libertarians and the Libertarian Party may have the views GnI critiqued -- there are other people that call themselves (or are called) "libertarian" that don't have those views.

How dare I criticize such a weighty contribution to the discussion?

I guess I'm a libertarian now because I generally support the notion of "maximzing freedom." Who, by the by, are the opponents of this notion?

This was actually pretty much what I was going to say.

I object to Libertarianism as (what I consider) an implicit evil, and the defence is basically "no... Libertarianism is really ok... if you take away the various bed parts that most of it's proponents seem to consider core".

In which case, I agree. Libertarianism with all the bad parts taken out, isn't that bad. And water with all the hydrogen and oxygen taken out isn't that wet.

Meh.

So your whole big "point" is that not all libertarians are "evil", because -- although many libertarians and the Libertarian Party may have the views GnI critiqued -- there are other people that call themselves (or are called) "libertarian" that don't have those views.

How dare I criticize such a weighty contribution to the discussion?

I guess I'm a libertarian now because I generally support the notion of "maximzing freedom." Who, by the by, are the opponents of this notion?

Firstly, I don't think even the libertarian party go as far as the sort of deregulation GnI supports. Also, not only is it 'people who call themselves libertarian', but people who defined the word, pioneered the movement and basically created the whole concept, so yes I think my contribution is weighty (a lot of them going back to before the word even existed).

As for your other point. Strictly speaking, Libertarianism is merely the opposite of authoritarianism (one of the reasons Ron Paul is considered by many not actually to be libertarian, since he supports AUTHORITARIAN policies in many cases), so yes if you really do support the maximisation of freedom as a premise, then you could say you have a libertarian premise. However, as I said, you probably have to make an argument as to how what you're doing takes that premise to its natural conclusion, to (in my opinion), call yourself libertarian, something which you may or may not do.

Firstly, I don't think even the libertarian party go as far as the sort of deregulation GnI supports. Also, not only is it 'people who call themselves libertarian', but people who defined the word, pioneered the movement and basically created the whole concept, so yes I think my contribution is weighty (a lot of them going back to before the word even existed).

As for your other point. Strictly speaking, Libertarianism is merely the opposite of authoritarianism (one of the reasons Ron Paul is considered by many not actually to be libertarian, since he supports AUTHORITARIAN policies in many cases), so yes if you really do support the maximisation of freedom as a premise, then you could say you have a libertarian premise. However, as I said, you probably have to make an argument as to how what you're doing takes that premise to its natural conclusion, to (in my opinion), call yourself libertarian, something which you may or may not do.

I'm interested.

Are you presenting youself as a Libertarian/libertarian?

What exactly does it mean, to you?

(And no - 'maximising freedom' isn't a real answer, at least not one I can gain any meaning from).

I'm interested.

Are you presenting youself as a Libertarian/libertarian?

What exactly does it mean, to you?

(And no - 'maximising freedom' isn't a real answer, at least not one I can gain any meaning from).

Not really, look at my political compass, it's actually left leaning in an economic sense. As I said, libertarianism is a very broad term, but it's basically the process of having minimal government (as far as reasonably or morally possible, depending on your morals) or getting rid of the state altogether and having everything communised or whatever (if you're a left libertarian) in order to (you guessed it) maximise freedoms.

Not really, look at my political compass, it's actually left leaning in an economic sense. As I said, libertarianism is a very broad term, but it's basically the process of having minimal government (as far as reasonably or morally possible, depending on your morals) or getting rid of the state altogether and having everything communised or whatever (if you're a left libertarian) in order to (you guessed it) maximise freedoms.

And.. left-leaning in an economic sense would be... bad, for a libertarian?

That's much how I'd envisioned it...

Minimal government as far as reasonably/morally possible is everyone's agenda, isn't it (except, perhaps, for career government-people)? I want minimal government that will do what is needed, but I'd probably set that level way, way, way higher than some of the proponents.

I'm confused, though - you seem to be saying anarcho-communism is libertarianism... is there anything that isn't?

Just 'not moximising freedoms'? And, seriously - what does that even mean?

I mean - I'm in favour of maximum freedom for things like.. who can I sleep with, marry, what can I drink, eat, smoke... the sort of stuff that affects only consenting people...

But I'm absolutely in favour of minimising freedom for government, business, industry...

Am I half a libertarian, by your reckoning? And how do I reconcile that with the fact that Libertarians I meet tell me that they believe almost EXACTLY the opposite of my platform?

Firstly, I don't think even the libertarian party go as far as the sort of deregulation GnI supports.

Your lack of knowledge as to positions of the Libertarian Party doesn't equal a failure on our part.

To borrow from a recent post (that, as explained, borrows from an old post):

The Libertarian party has cleaned up its platform so it is vague and no longer includes some of the specific inanity it used to include (see below), but I'm not so optimistic that a coat of paint will cover the rusty positions for long. Borrowed from an old post of mine, here are some excerpts from the previous incarnation of the Libertarian Platform (unfortunately, the links don't work anymore and NOTE: the bold is my, perhaps unfair, characterization of the quoted passages):

1. No FDA, no regulation of medicine, and legalize child porn?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html

the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

2. No involuntary commitment of anyone, ever; no mental health programs; and no insanity defense

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.

3. No searches – even with warrants – without consent; criminals run free

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

4. Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/consmili.html

We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.

5. No immigration laws or controls of our borders whatsoever – terrorists, come on down!

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/intetrav.html

We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders

6. Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/amerindi.html

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

7. No legal tender?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/infldepr.html

We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

8. Environmental protection only through litigation?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pollutio.html

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.

9. More litigation is good?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions.

10. Child prostitution is A-OK?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/populati.html

We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.

11. And no child labor laws for the kiddie whores

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/famichil.html

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

12. Unilateral disarmament and withdrawal of all overseas troops

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/milipoli.html

U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems.

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea.

13. Complete isolationism

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html

The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling.

Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

Many of the above positions are arguably about "maximizing freedom" and all were official positions taken by self-proclaimed Libertarians. So who is kidding who here?

Just 'not moximising freedoms'? And, seriously - what does that even mean?

"Moximising freedoms" means making freedoms more moxy.

And.. left-leaning in an economic sense would be... bad, for a libertarian?

That's much how I'd envisioned it...

Minimal government as far as reasonably/morally possible is everyone's agenda, isn't it (except, perhaps, for career government-people)? I want minimal government that will do what is needed, but I'd probably set that level way, way, way higher than some of the proponents.

I'm confused, though - you seem to be saying anarcho-communism is libertarianism... is there anything that isn't?

Just 'not moximising freedoms'? And, seriously - what does that even mean?

I mean - I'm in favour of maximum freedom for things like.. who can I sleep with, marry, what can I drink, eat, smoke... the sort of stuff that affects only consenting people...

But I'm absolutely in favour of minimising freedom for government, business, industry...

Am I half a libertarian, by your reckoning? And how do I reconcile that with the fact that Libertarians I meet tell me that they believe almost EXACTLY the opposite of my platform?

Well look, this is where the big debate between left and right libertarians comes in, and which is the 'true' way to keep to the libertarian ideal. But strictly speaking, most of us are either authoritarian/statis (of which not any people on this board are), centrist, or left and right libertarians. And yes, I do consider anarcho-communism to be left libertarian, and so do many anarcho-communists. However, generally you don't call 'left-libertarians' just 'libertarians' any more, that term is usually referring to right libertarians.

-snip-

Interesting, I wasn't aware that these were some of their positions. How long ago was this their platform?

We do. I do at least.

But I'm only a social libetarian. I have moralistic views on abortion, for example, and on corporate conduct.

"Moximising freedoms" means making freedoms more moxy.

Errr... yeah, I knew that.

d'oh

Interesting, I wasn't aware that these were some of their positions. How long ago was this their platform?

I'm not sure when the platform changed, but these were current within the last two or three of years.

I would note that, although the current LP platform (http://www.lp.org/platform) doesn't contain these specifics, some of the same themes are found therein.

Well look, this is where the big debate between left and right libertarians comes in, and which is the 'true' way to keep to the libertarian ideal. But strictly speaking, most of us are either authoritarian/statis (of which not any people on this board are), centrist, or left and right libertarians. And yes, I do consider anarcho-communism to be left libertarian, and so do many anarcho-communists. However, generally you don't call 'left-libertarians' just 'libertarians' any more, that term is usually referring to right libertarians.

"Not many people on this board are" authoritarian/statist... perhaps... because it's insufficient. I'm entirely authoritarian. Statist, even. But only on the things that need authority.

I don't care who you sleep with, or how... but I DO care who you sell to, and how.

It is an inherently evil ideology.

I'm told that Islam, also, is Inherently Evil. Must be true.

Reduced regulation, un-fair trade, isolationism.

One can agree with or disagree with these positions, but I'm going to blow your mind by informing you that taking a position on those issues you disagree with is not "inherently evil."

Europa Maxima was one of those people I was talking about who support extreme deregulation as a matter of moral principle, rather than purely to improve business productivity IIRC, also I don't think he was an anarchist either, but I haven't seen him for ages.

Europa vacillated between his belief in anarcho-capitalism on a philosophic level and a more pragmatic belief in absolute monarchy, which many consider ironic/oxymoronic combining pragmatism with a monarchy. ;)

He was more or less like Greil minus Greil's love of a conservative civil society.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

Incorrect. Libertarians do not judge morality based on what is prohibited or allowed by government. For a Libertarian, and I speak as one, morality and government are completely separate.
For a Libertarian, the driving political principle is freedom, that people should have the freedom to do even those things that are immoral. The fact that we do not force them to stop does not mean that we condone what they do, it means we respect them enough to allow them to make their own moral decisions.

13. Complete isolationism

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html

The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling.

Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

Whoever wrote that post should learn what "isolationism" means.

What LP advocated here is merely the policy most other countries take - they don't build overseas bases and inject themselves into others' internal matters.


As for other points, one can notice a lot of demagogic bias, e.g. posing a repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material to be "legalize child porn" (which is actually covered by child abuse and rape laws already).
That's like calling a repeal of Assault Weapons Act "legalize murder and gang warfare".

Even with all cherry-picking, demagogues stay demagogues and distort everything so visibly it's impossible to take them seriously.

the idea is that people can think for themselves. the goverment has no right to treat people like they own them.

the idea is that people can think for themselves. the goverment has no right to treat people like they own them.

Well said.

Not exactly; Atheists can still have a moral basis; they can still be strongly opposed to drugs, and so on. What I was thinking is that if you believe that everything that doesn't harm someone is acceptable enough to be allowed, then do you have a moral basis? I believe that polygamous relationships are wrong (moral base), and therefore, I believe that polygamous relationships should remain illegal.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally make that argument. I was saying that the arguments made by conservative Christians regarding atheists are similar.

My issue with legislating morality where acts that an individual disagrees with don't harm other people, is that we would have to be so careful about who makes that decision.

You say that polygamous relationships are wrong, and therefore should be illegal. What about my friends, who think that reading The God Delusion is wrong and should be illegal? Or my friends that think that drinking alcohol is wrong and should be illegal? Should their feelings be law too?

[QUOTE]Because the "wrongness" of an act is internal, not external. If a person pursues a manner of behavior on bases that are self-delusional, for instance, such behavior might still be said to be wrong even if it does not harm others. (It does not follow that anyone else has the right to interfere.)

I believe that morality is internal. Everyone makes choices based on their personal morals. Not everyone is going to agree on what is morally right or wrong.

Well that would depend on perspective I guess.

I think that drugs are immoral, I think that promiscuity is immoral, I think that smacking your children is immoral. Many people disagree with me. Many people believe that the exact opposites of my beliefs are moral. Am I right? Are they right?

[QUOTE=Soheran;14064400]





I believe that morality is internal. Everyone makes choices based on their personal morals. Not everyone is going to agree on what is morally right or wrong.

Well that would depend on perspective I guess.

I think that drugs are immoral, I think that promiscuity is immoral, I think that smacking your children is immoral. Many people disagree with me. Many people believe that the exact opposites of my beliefs are moral. Am I right? Are they right?

The question is not who's right but who has the right to impose his/her morals on another.

[QUOTE=Saint Jade IV;14067044]

The question is not who's right but who has the right to impose his/her morals on another.


Which I think is the heart of the OP's question. At least that is my interpretation. And why I err on the side of caution when it comes to legislating morality and lean more towards letting people do what they want in their bedrooms and homes, regardless of whether I agree with it.

I believe that morality is internal. Everyone makes choices based on their personal morals. Not everyone is going to agree on what is morally right or wrong.

"I believe that judgment of truth is internal. Everyone makes choices based on their judgments of truth. Not everyone is going to agree on what is true."

I think those statements are all true, too, but I don't think they suggest that truth is essentially relative.

I think that drugs are immoral, I think that promiscuity is immoral, I think that smacking your children is immoral. Many people disagree with me. Many people believe that the exact opposites of my beliefs are moral.

But you can say the same about a whole range of beliefs concerning objective truth. I think that evolution accurately captures the origin of human life. Many people disagree with me. Does it follow that there is no objective truth on that topic... or just that one of us is wrong?

Whoever wrote that post should learn what "isolationism" means.

What LP advocated here is merely the policy most other countries take - they don't build overseas bases and inject themselves into others' internal matters.

Isolationism, as I've seen US libertarians use the term, seems to mean near total political disengagement with the outside world. This means withdrawing US membership in all international organization, including ones that the US was influential in the creation of. Goodbye WTO, we like our trade barriers just fine. Goodbye NATO, your entangling military alliances no longer seem attractive since the Reds collapsed. Bye UN, we may have founded(leading to you being headquartered in our NYC) but even a forum with no independent power impinges on our sovereignty too much.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

I am a Constitutionalist, and following the belief that at its conception (excluding some of the more recent amendments) the Constitution might even be called a Libertarian document of sorts, I feel like I should point out a couple of things. First: I am sure that there are many men (or women) out there who embrace Libertarianism in hopes that they will acquire the freedom to do "whatever they want." I am sure that many people embrace it with no redeeming purpose in mind.

However, (and I realize I'm fixing to destroy my credibility as far as most people are concerned) I am a Christian man, and yet I also consider myself to be a Libertarian. Now, whether or not you are religious, perhaps you can agree that the principle, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is a good principle worth some examination or even practical application. I say that to point out that a true Libertarian government is not purposed to permit people to do "whatever they want." It is to allow reasonable freedoms to everyone without the interference of each other or more importantly the government. I believe that a truly balanced Libertarian would still deny people the rights to do some things that I am sure that inherently immoral people would like to be able to do, in the spirit of preventing those people from being a hindrance to society (which is a term I am using in this case to simply refer to the collective).

Anyway, I hope you will reconsider your opinion of Libertarians in general because as I am sure many of them do indeed fit the diagnosis you have donned the philosophy, many of them (including myself) really seek few more freedoms than the average American is already given. My concerns are things like taxes (most of which I believe are wrong and would be unconstitutional had the constitution not been amended to permit them), and misappropriated spending (as a subsequent of and contributing to taxation), and I believe that is the concern of most true Libertarians as well.

the idea is that people can think for themselves. the goverment has no right to treat people like they own them.

Being able to think for yourself is irrelevent.

A person can be smart, can even be an expert - but cannot be expert in ALL things. Industry, for example, will hire people that are smarter than you to exploit the technology of psychology to convince you to buy products you don't need, to work out how to get the most remuneration out of you, etc.

So you see the ad for batteries where the mom can't find her kid, in the park, but LUCKILY she has the locator device that uses a duracell battery. What does this message use to make you buy their product? Fear for your children... preying on that as a weakness, and the implied message - if you DON'T buy our product, when your child goes missing you WON'T find him or her... in other words - parents who love their children have to buy this product.

That's why government HAS TO be involved, and a lot more involved than it is. Government's job is to BE our experts - to provide us all those experts that we don't have for ourselves.

It isnt a matter of them owning us - WE should be considering ourselves stakeholders in the government, not it's enemy.

In the US, at least, that's not true at all.

Ah, yes, I forgot that the Fleeing Felon Rule no longer applies after Tennessee v. Garner.

However, the gist of the argument holds up.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

Bolded above is why I find this to not be controversial. Yes we have morals. We just don't believe in forcing our personal morality on others.

Bolded above is why I find this to not be controversial. Yes we have morals. We just don't believe in forcing our personal morality on others.

Indeed. The anathema of the initiation of force is one of the key elements to all stripes of libertarians.

Whoever wrote that post should learn what "isolationism" means.

What LP advocated here is merely the policy most other countries take - they don't build overseas bases and inject themselves into others' internal matters.

As for other points, one can notice a lot of demagogic bias, e.g. posing a repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material to be "legalize child porn" (which is actually covered by child abuse and rape laws already).
That's like calling a repeal of Assault Weapons Act "legalize murder and gang warfare".

Even with all cherry-picking, demagogues stay demagogues and distort everything so visibly it's impossible to take them seriously.

As I said, the bold quotes were mine and were arguably unfair characterizations.


The Libertarian party has cleaned up its platform so it is vague and no longer includes some of the specific inanity it used to include (see below), but I'm not so optimistic that a coat of paint will cover the rusty positions for long. Borrowed from an old post of mine, here are some excerpts from the previous incarnation of the Libertarian Platform (unfortunately, the links don't work anymore and NOTE: the bold is my, perhaps unfair, characterization of the quoted passages):


You'll have to be more explicit about how the LP platform's stance isn't isolationism, however. The only ground I can see for arguing it is distinct from isolationism depends on whether you consider allowing foreign trade (albeit without trade agreements) to be anathema to isolationism.

And. to be accurate, the repeal of all laws regulating the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material does legalize child porn -- especially when combined with "the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies."

I fully admit to being biased and engaging in cherry-picking, but those complaints are rather hollow given that I quoted copious positions straight from the old LP platform. If you don't want to deal with these quotes on the merits, so be it. But simply calling me a demagogue is avoiding the issues.

Regardless, using the Way Back Machine, I've found links to that old LP platform (http://web.archive.org/web/20050305030704/http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#top). People can judge the inanity for itself.

Isolationism, as I've seen US libertarians use the term, seems to mean near total political disengagement with the outside world. This means withdrawing US membership in all international organization, including ones that the US was influential in the creation of. Goodbye WTO, we like our trade barriers just fine. Goodbye NATO, your entangling military alliances no longer seem attractive since the Reds collapsed. Bye UN, we may have founded(leading to you being headquartered in our NYC) but even a forum with no independent power impinges on our sovereignty too much.

I'm not a supporter of complete isolationism. While being a libertarian, I am also a free market capitalist. Not laissiez faire capitalism, but a system with some solid regulation. It's not a matter of staying out of international affairs. It is a matter of not overstepping our bounds.

Isolationism, as I've seen US libertarians use the term, seems to mean near total political disengagement with the outside world. This means withdrawing US membership in all international organization, including ones that the US was influential in the creation of.
Which is what libertarians DO NOT support. Rather, they support using these in the same way that others use them, rather than trying to gain 'world domination'. Yes, reviewing membership in some if and when they become unneeded.

Goodbye WTO, we like our trade barriers just fine.
Libertarian stance has always been on abolishment of all tariffs. It also tends to support agreements to have them abolished by others - but just that, not regulatory agreements.


Goodbye NATO, your entangling military alliances no longer seem attractive since the Reds collapsed.
Possibly. Europe doesn't have any significant military power to be able to help defend US, but enough to deter Russia and China from walking over them. And later admissions or talks about admissions are nothing more than political bullying. NATO is not an alliance, it's submitting yourself to be a US protectorate, gaining its possible defensive help in exchange for giving or lending bases to wage offensive wars around the globe.

As I said, the bold quotes were mine and were arguably unfair characterizations.
Sorry for giving a benefit of doubt. But these are then politician-like picking out emotionally-charged issues out of the big picture, like "Abolish Assault Weapons Act" -> "Legalize armed assaults by civilians" logic.


And. to be accurate, the repeal of all laws regulating the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material does legalize child porn -- especially when combined with "the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies."
Actually it doesn't legalize CP. It's impossible to produce CP without committing a felony of rape or sexual assault. And even for erotic (not pornographic) materials it's at least child abuse.

Legalization of exchange of information, goods, technologies doesn't mean repeal of completely different laws covering assault.

Abolishment of the specified laws will make it impossible to convict people for possession of CP, as it does no harm to others, but it would still be criminal to produce it.


I fully admit to being biased and engaging in cherry-picking, but those complaints are rather hollow given that I quoted copious positions straight from the old LP platform. If you don't want to deal with these quotes on the merits, so be it. But simply calling me a demagogue is avoiding the issues.
I want to deal with them on their merits, rather than cherry-picked implications out of context.

So you see the ad for batteries where the mom can't find her kid, in the park, but LUCKILY she has the locator device that uses a duracell battery. What does this message use to make you buy their product? Fear for your children... preying on that as a weakness, and the implied message - if you DON'T buy our product, when your child goes missing you WON'T find him or her...
Essentially, the described ad is an example of this biased cherry-picking practice. Factual message is "Duracell works longer than Generic", but is presented as "If you buy Generic, you will lose your children!".

In the same way, out of getting the government's nose out of jacking off, you pick out that it will put an end to Dalton v. State-like cases.

Sorry for giving a benefit of doubt. But these are then politician-like picking out emotionally-charged issues out of the big picture, like "Abolish Assault Weapons Act" -> "Legalize armed assaults by civilians" logic.

What I picked out were particularly stupid policy statements by the Libertarian Party. Yes, I then added inflammatory titles. Feel free to explain the "big picture" on any of the items I picked.

Actually it doesn't legalize CP. It's impossible to produce CP without committing a felony of rape or sexual assault. And even for erotic (not pornographic) materials it's at least child abuse.

Legalization of exchange of information, goods, technologies doesn't mean repeal of completely different laws covering assault.

Abolishment of the specified laws will make it impossible to convict people for possession of CP, as it does no harm to others, but it would still be criminal to produce it.

First, you contradict yourself here as your last sentence admits that the LP position would legalize the possession, use, sale, or distribution of child porn. Your only (mistaken) argument is that it would still be illegal to produce child porn.

Second, you (deliberately, perhaps) overlook the effects of the other LP platform position I noted which would "repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality." Such a repeal would negate the laws that assume any sex with children is necessarily rape or sexual assault. By definition, this platform would mean that child porn could be produced without penalty.

Third, I challenge your assertion that the possession, use, sale, and distribution of child pornography doesn't cause harm -- even though the creation of such material involves rape or sexual assault.


I want to deal with them on their merits, rather than cherry-picked implications out of context.

Then feel free to do so, rather than just engage in hand-waving about cherry-picking. I provided quotes and have subsequently provided a link to the original that works. If my quotes are unfair or out-of-context, feel free to show that.

Which is what libertarians DO NOT support. Rather, they support using these in the same way that others use them, rather than trying to gain 'world domination'. Yes, reviewing membership in some if and when they become unneeded.

Whether one advocates such extreme isolationism or not doesn't have much to with libertarianism per se, but when I've seen libertarians advocate "isolationism" this is the form its taken, most recently with Ron Paul.

Libertarian stance has always been on abolishment of all tariffs, and entering agreements to have them abolished by others. (But preferably not regulatory agreements).

I know, but libertarianism and free trade aren't staples of most nation's politics. Some libertarians want the US out of the WTO because it's supposedly "managed trade", not "free trade", but the WTO provides disincentives for protectionism without risking all out trade wars. So one tries to "free" trade by leaving the WTO and one is more likely to get more protectionism rather than less.

Possibly. Europe doesn't have any significant military power to be able to help defend US, but enough to deter Russia and China from walking over them. And later admissions or talks about admissions are nothing more than political bullying. NATO is not an alliance, it's submitting yourself to be a US protectorate, gaining its possible defensive help in exchange for giving or lending bases to wage offensive wars around the globe.

You see the practical use of mutual defense organizations if not NATO as it presently exists, yes? Generally, those I seen advocating isolationism are against any such relations with others.

But well, if it's yours, I can reply to the points.


The Libertarian party has cleaned up its platform so it is vague and no longer includes some of the specific inanity it used to include (see below),
Or let's put it this way, the lp.org website started to represent the moderate-libertarian position, which is the one expressed by Libertarian candidates, rather than the ultra-libertarian one.

The basic axiom of the ultra-libertarian position is that we can all, technically, live without a government, and not all that badly - therefore, every instance of government intervention has to be weighed for its merits, and implemented only if it can, beyond reasonable doubt, improve the citizens' quality of life.

The stance of moderate-libertarians is simply that we could use much less government intervention.


1. No FDA, no regulation of medicine, [..]
the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances
Doesn't say that exactly. The libertarian position is rather that FDA approval should be just that - approval. A certificate and a sign "FDA approved".
Whether to buy only FDA-approved drugs or not, however, is everyone's own business.
Though FDA may be replaced by or compete with a private body.


We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.
Don't see much wrong with that, although there are minor caveats.



[B]3. No searches – even with warrants – without consent; criminals run free

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant.
Doesn't say "no searches". Says "no covert surveillance". The difference is major.


4. Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
Simply keep the same laws for everyone.

5. No immigration laws or controls of our borders whatsoever – terrorists, come on down!
There were immigration laws and controls in 2001. Thanks to them, there has been no acts of terrorism throughout the year.

...Oh wait.


6. Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.
If you read it further, it doesn't say anything about returning.

What it says is:
The Issue: The rights of American Indians have been usurped over the years.
The Principle: Individuals should be free to select their own citizenship, and tribes should be free to select the level of autonomy the tribe wishes.
Solutions: Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.
Transition: The Bureau of Indian Affairs should be abolished leaving tribal members to determine their own system of governance. Negotiations should be undertaken to resolve all outstanding differences between the tribes and the government.
- I.E. it suggests to simply let the Native Americans self-govern themselves. In the territories they have now.

7. No legal tender?

We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account,
Again, the point here is not "no money", it's "no compulsory restriction to government-issued currency".

Although the other part about elimination of government-produced money is fairly extreme.
Again there's no telling if it was the real party's platform or just someone's choice to go extreme, though. From other sources, it's not the real one.

8. Environmental protection only through litigation?
[...]
Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.
Which is, actually, a much stricter stance on pollution than EPA's. Having the failing company pay for cleanup and all damages caused is a way to make any negligence towards pollution a serious gamble risking the entire company.


10. Child prostitution is A-OK? Already discussed above, doesn't say that.
The people who wrote it were simply writing for those interested, without having in mind some less than fair opponents who will take and distort their points.


12. Unilateral disarmament and withdrawal of all overseas troops
*Partial* disarmament to keep nuclear warfare to the deterrence minimum rather than total destruction.
Withdrawal of overseas troops, yes. It's called Department of Defense, even though it hasn't been used for this purpose for a very long time.

First, you contradict yourself here as your last sentence admits that the LP position would legalize the possession, use, sale, or distribution of child porn. Your only (mistaken) argument is that it would still be illegal to produce child porn.
Correct, not mistaken. Nowhere there it says "Legalize rape".

If my quotes are unfair or out-of-context, feel free to show that.
Of course.


Second, you (deliberately, perhaps) overlook the effects of the other LP platform position I noted which would "repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality." Such a repeal would negate the laws that assume any sex with children is necessarily rape or sexual assault.
Actually, I've addressed it. You have an implication that this involves trade of sex, which the context doesn't suggest. It says "Goods, services, information, biological and medical technologies". That suggests trade of commercial products. Again, the writers didn't foresee that people will be attacking that platform through distortion of individual points.

In has an explicit part on sexual rights, which says:

22. Sexual Rights
The Issue: Government has presumed to decide acceptability over sexual practices in personal relationships, imposing a particular code of moral and social values and displacing personal choice in such matters.

The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.

Solutions: We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.

Transitional Action: We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.
Case closed. From the use of word adults, it's clear that the LP position does include keeping the age of consent rules. Thus, their violation would still be rape.


Third, I challenge your assertion that the possession, use, sale, and distribution of child pornography doesn't cause harm -- even though the creation of such material involves rape or sexual assault.
Possession, use, sale and distribution of crime scene photographs and war footage doesn't cause harm - even though the creation of such material involves murder and destruction.

But well, if it's yours, I can reply to the points.
*snip*


LOL, you complain about my titles and "cherry-picking" and then, rather than argue about the actual language of the old LP platform, you attack the accuracy of the admittedly inflammatory titles.

AND you cherry-pick sentences out of the LP platform in order to ignore the full implication of what is being said.

For example, on searches, the LP platform didn't just say that "covert surveillance" wasn't allowed -- which is stupid enough -- but also said: "Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions."

So, within extremely broad categories, the LP is saying no searches without consent -- even with a warrant.

Finally, I love your arguments that "well they said X, but they meant Y" or that "well this isn't really the LP platform" even though it is directly quoted from the 2004 LP platform that only recently got changed.


EDIT: If you want to claim that the LP is really represented by its candidate's positions, rather than the platform, fine. You really want to defend the record and philosophy of Bob Barr?

Correct, not mistaken. Nowhere there it says "Legalize rape".


Of course.

Actually, I've addressed it. You have an implication that this involves trade of sex, which the context doesn't suggest. It says "Goods, services, information, biological and medical technologies". That suggests trade of commercial products. Again, the writers didn't foresee that people will be attacking that platform through distortion of individual points.

In has an explicit part on sexual rights, which says:

Case closed. From the use of word adults, it's clear that the LP position does include keeping the age of consent rules. Thus, their violation would still be rape.

Possession, use, sale and distribution of crime scene photographs and war footage doesn't cause harm - even though the creation of such material involves murder and destruction.


Fair point. The other part of the LP Platform does suggest that the part of the platform I am relying on should be read more narrowly -- although it is unclear to me that voluntary exchange sexually-related services excludes the exchange of sex itself. I will concede that it appears, in the absence of anything more concrete, that the age of consent laws are (and were) OK with the Libertarian Party.

I do think your complaint that "they didn't know this would be scrutinized" is either disingenuous or reflects a degree of naivete that borders on the inane.

And, although I'm not going to bother looking up more of the research now, I do think the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography causes harm -- and this harm extends beyond the harm caused by the production of such images. See, e.g., link (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/Briefings/imagesofchildabuse_wda48219.html), link (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/Findings/imagesofabuse_wda48280.html):

Children can experience intense feelings of powerlessness, knowing that there is nothing they can do about others viewing pornographic pictures/films of themselves (and sometimes their coerced sexual abuse of others) indefinitely.


Children express concerns over how pornography will be viewed (i.e. that they enjoyed it or were complicit in its production).


Children are aware that the sexual abuse they endured to produce the pornography can be distributed commercially or non-commercially for the arousal of others. They are also aware that it can be used to groom and abuse other children.


Children suffer in the knowledge that there is a permanent record of their sexual abuse, which can subsequently prevent, delay or exacerbate the fear of disclosure.

LOL, you complain about my titles and "cherry-picking" and then, rather than argue about the actual language of the old LP platform, you attack the accuracy of the admittedly inflammatory titles.
Well, I had to, because these were bolded and put as if they were summaries. These were your words and your arguments - what I ought reply to, LP's arguments?



AND you cherry-pick sentences out of the LP platform in order to ignore the full implication of what is being said.
For example, on searches, the LP platform didn't just say that "covert surveillance" wasn't allowed -- which is stupid enough -- but also said: "Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions."
Actually, I omitted it only because it appears to me that this position is separate and non-controversial. The protection of medical and legal communications, for one, is a strongly established necessity for the professions.


EDIT: If you want to claim that the LP is really represented by its candidate's positions, rather than the platform, fine. You really want to defend the record and philosophy of Bob Barr?
No. I mean, he's better than all other candidates at the moment, but his positions are not pure libertarianism, and not mine.

Fair point. The other part of the LP Platform does suggest that the part of the platform I am relying on should be read more narrowly -- although it is unclear to me that voluntary exchange sexually-related services excludes the exchange of sex itself. I will concede that it appears, in the absence of anything more concrete, that the age of consent laws are (and were) OK with the Libertarian Party.
More than that, critical. The Libertarian position is that CP and child sex are wrong not because they are sick, but because children can't give informed consent.


I do think your complaint that "they didn't know this would be scrutinized" is either disingenuous or reflects a degree of naivete that borders on the inane.
They might have known, but didn't take enough effort to use politically-correct, picking-proof language. Again, taking statements out of context is not really scrutiny, but more along the lines of demagogic debate (i.e. debate intended to prove the opponent wrong/evil, rather than to find the truth); actual fair scrutiny would search for opposing statements.

But W/E.


And, although I'm not going to bother looking up more of the research now, I do think the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography causes harm -- and this harm extends beyond the harm caused by the production of such images. [...]
Children can experience intense feelings of powerlessness, knowing that there is nothing they can do about others viewing pornographic pictures/films of themselves (and sometimes their coerced sexual abuse of others) indefinitely.
[...]
OK, this is a point, but it only applies to those who already are victims. And it's not really direct harm, which makes legislation complicated. Surely you'd object to being sued (let alone imprisoned) because someone's feeling were hurt by knowing someone can see them recorded on video.

And what about recordings of other crimes? What about rape victims, who suffer [repeat all the same], knowing that once they've come to police, there is nothing they can do about others reading reports of the crime in the newspapers, together with their photos, indefinitely?


So it's not that simple. If we take emotion (children!) out of the picture, a lot of people are hurt by the consequences and recordings of crimes committed against them. While I agree that CP is not exactly the same as a newspaper report, there are things it is like, say, videos of beating, mutilation, war. Some of them also produced on purpose. Then we see them - not in some underground porn shop - in the news. Does that not hurt? I don't think so.

More than that, critical. The Libertarian position is that CP and child sex are wrong not because they are sick, but because children can't give informed consent.

Actually, you've made clear that the Libertarian position is that there is nothing wrong with the possession, use, sale, or distribution of child pornography. And the only objection to the production of child pornography is that it inherently involves committing rape or sexual assault.

OK, this is a point, but it only applies to those who already are victims. And it's not really direct harm, which makes legislation complicated. Surely you'd object to being sued (let alone imprisoned) because someone's feeling were hurt by knowing someone can see them recorded on video.

*sigh*

I gave you several examples from a quick Google search of how research has proven that the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography causes harm beyond any rape or sexual assault that occurred in its making.

In addition to trivializing these harms as "hurt feelings," you ignore that this was not an exhaustive list. Additional harms from the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography include:


prohibiting the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography is critical to preventing and punishing the production of child pornography. You can't completely divorce the source from the demand. The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials.


child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing other children into sexual activity; a child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult, or to pose for sexually explicit photographs, can sometimes be convinced by viewing depictions of other children `having fun' participating in such activity;


child pornography is often used by pedophiles and child sexual abusers to stimulate and whet their own sexual appetites, and as a model for sexual acting out with children; such use of child pornography can desensitize the viewer to the pathology of sexual abuse or exploitation of children, so that it can become acceptable to and even preferred by the viewer

See, e.g., link (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach050102.htm)

And what about recordings of other crimes? What about rape victims, who suffer [repeat all the same], knowing that once they've come to police, there is nothing they can do about others reading reports of the crime in the newspapers, together with their photos, indefinitely?

If you cannot see the difference between a video tape circuling commercially and freely of one's being raped and a police report of such rape, you are seriously disturbed?

And we have laws that protect rape victims from being identified in the media. Granted, as a Libertarian, you must be against those laws as well.

So it's not that simple. If we take emotion (children!) out of the picture, a lot of people are hurt by the consequences and recordings of crimes committed against them. While I agree that CP is not exactly the same as a newspaper report, there are things it is like, say, videos of beating, mutilation, war. Some of them also produced on purpose. Then we see them - not in some underground porn shop - in the news. Does that not hurt? I don't think so.

Your speculation about other "bad things" being recorded is completely speculative, trivializes the suffering of victims of child sexual abuse, and is inapposite.

Also, isn't your whole Libertarian point that child pornography should be legal to possess, use, sell, and distribute? So we aren't talking about an underground porn shop, we are talking about out in the open!!!

Actually, I omitted it only because it appears to me that this position is separate and non-controversial. The protection of medical and legal communications, for one, is a strongly established necessity for the professions.

Then you must be arguing from ignorance. The LP Platform doesn't merely state that medical and legal communications should be confidential and privileged (which is different from immune to discovery absent consent of all parties). It says:

Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.


So all correspondence, all bank and other financial records, all employment records "and the like" are impervious to government searches (even with a warrant!) without the "consent of all parties involved in those actions"!!!!

That is neither a minor change nor a non-controversial one. It is a major restructing of the law of searches and seizures that would definitely encourage criminal activity.

Actually, you've made clear that the Libertarian position is that there is nothing wrong with the possession, use, sale, or distribution of child pornography. And the only objection to the production of child pornography is that it inherently involves committing rape or sexual assault.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the possession, use, sale, or distribution of any kind of entertainment data.

The only major, sufficient to outlaw it, wrong with CP lies in that it's impossible to produce without felony.


prohibiting the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography is critical to preventing and punishing the production of child pornography.
Not exactly. Rather, it should be seen this way: "Our police is not competent enough to find and punish the producers, therefore we should have it punish the distributors and owners".

It might be a good idea indeed. But it's a realpolitik tradeoff for combating a specific situation, not an inherently right decision.

Actually, I support outlawing distribution of such materials, if only to have a valid reason to detain and question the distributors to find the producers.


The document you've linked to has been written by someone very idealistic, who didn't look into the implications of some proposed changes, and didn't think enough. Since then, this document has long been changed, and the old one doesn't exist anymore other than in memories.
There's a reason we have a hundred people working on creating, debating and legislating a single law at a time - not a single person writing a hundred laws at once. It's because the latter is guaranteed to mess up and overlook the consequences of what he suggests, while the former system has time to scrutinize and discuss what they're legislating.



child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing other children into sexual activity; a child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult, or to pose for sexually explicit photographs, can sometimes be convinced by viewing depictions of other children `having fun' participating in such activity;
Valid point.

But what about movies involving extreme amounts of violence? They can well serve to stimulate the motivations for real-life violence. CP is not the only kind of data that can be useful in committing felonies.


child pornography is often used by pedophiles and child sexual abusers to stimulate and whet their own sexual appetites,
Or to substitute the need for actual crime.
Regular porn goes a long way in substituting and weakening the desire for real sex, at least.


If you cannot see the difference between a video tape circuling commercially and freely of one's being raped and a police report of such rape, you are seriously disturbed?
I've already foreseen the point and replied to it: While I agree that CP is not exactly the same as a newspaper report [...]
However, the first is often a part of the second. I have seen in the news fragments of videos produced by the criminals.


Your speculation about other "bad things" being recorded is completely speculative, trivializes the suffering of victims of child sexual abuse, and is inapposite.
And this response trivializes other forms of suffering, starting from regular rape.

The document you've linked to has been written by someone very idealistic, who didn't look into the implications of some proposed changes, and didn't think enough. Since then, this document has long been changed, and the old one doesn't exist anymore other than in memories.

There's a reason we have a hundred people working on creating, debating and legislating a single law at a time - not a single person writing a hundred laws at once. It's because the latter is guaranteed to mess up and overlook the consequences of what he suggests, while the former system has time to scrutinize and discuss what they're legislating.


Nice try. The document I linked to was the official National Platform of the Libertarian Party adopted in Convention, May 2004. It was only recent superceded by the Platform adopted in Convention in 2008.

You can't claim the 32-page document was the work of a single wacko or has "long been changed." Neither is true.

I agree that the evidence is clear the Libertarian Platform was not well thought-out and overlooked the consequences of what was suggested. But I think that is an inherent flaw in the Libertarian Party, not just an abberation in this one document.

Not exactly; Atheists can still have a moral basis; they can still be strongly opposed to drugs, and so on. What I was thinking is that if you believe that everything that doesn't harm someone is acceptable enough to be allowed, then do you have a moral basis? I believe that polygamous relationships are wrong (moral base), and therefore, I believe that polygamous relationships should remain illegal.

So libertarians have no morals because they do not conform to your morals?

Wait, what! :rolleyes:

Then you must be arguing from ignorance. The LP Platform doesn't merely state that medical and legal communications should be confidential and privileged (which is different from immune to discovery absent consent of all parties). It says:
No, I've read it, and also read it in the original. It's just that what appears shocking to you often doesn't move my brow. And, also, reading it in the original rather than out of context gives a very different impression - privileged, yes, but immune, no.


Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

So all correspondence, all bank and other financial records, all employment records "and the like" are impervious to government searches (even with a warrant!) without the "consent of all parties involved in those actions"!!!!
The Libertarian Party supports very strong privacy laws, is that news to anyone?

However, it doesn't exactly say "impervious to government searches", it says "not open to review". "Open to review" means more than just possible to be accessed, it means open to be accessed at whim.

It could be interpreted in your way if it was the only phrase there. But it isn't, and it's only in the "principles", not solutions, which conflict with your interpretation.


The Right to Privacy
The Issue: Privacy protections have been eroded gradually over many years. The Social Security Number has become a universal ID number, causing rampant and massive identity theft. Government routinely keeps records on the bank accounts, travel plans, and spending habits of law-abiding civilians, for no other reason than they "might" commit a crime in the future.

The Principle: The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

Private contractual arrangements, including labor contracts, must be founded on mutual consent and agreement in a society that upholds freedom of association. On the other hand, we oppose any use of such screening by government or regulations requiring government contractors to impose any such screening.

Solutions: We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties. We oppose all restrictions and regulations on the private development, sale, and use of encryption technology. We specifically oppose any requirement for disclosure of encryption methods or keys, including the government's proposals for so-called "key escrow" which is truly government access to keys, and any requirement for use of government-specified devices or protocols. We also oppose government classification of civilian research on encryption methods. If a private employer screens prospective or current employees via questionnaires, polygraph tests, urine tests for drugs, blood tests for AIDS, or other means, this is a condition of that employer's labor contracts. Such screening does not violate the rights of employees, who have the right to boycott such employers if they choose. We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing. We further oppose the nearly universal requirement for use of the Social Security Number as a personal identification code, whether by government agencies or by intimidation of private companies by governments.

Transitional Action: We also oppose police roadblocks aimed at randomly, and without probable cause, testing drivers for intoxication and police practices to stop mass transit vehicles and search passengers without probable cause. So long as the National Census and all federal, state, and other government agencies' compilations of data on an individual continue to exist, they should be conducted only with the consent of the persons from whom the data is sought. We oppose government regulations that require employers to provide health insurance coverage for employees, which often encourage unnecessary intrusions by employers into the privacy of their employees.


As it says, they don't like that the government is spying on law-abiding civilians, and they protest use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties.

Their opposition is to violation of privacy of people who aren't suspected of any crime, and without probable cause - not to searches of suspects' property and data.

1. No FDA, no regulation of medicine, and legalize child porn?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html

the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

2. No involuntary commitment of anyone, ever; no mental health programs; and no insanity defense

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.

3. No searches – even with warrants – without consent; criminals run free

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

4. Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/consmili.html

We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.

5. No immigration laws or controls of our borders whatsoever – terrorists, come on down!

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/intetrav.html

We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders

6. Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/amerindi.html

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

7. No legal tender?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/infldepr.html

We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

8. Environmental protection only through litigation?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pollutio.html

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.

9. More litigation is good?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions.

10. Child prostitution is A-OK?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/populati.html

We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.

11. And no child labor laws for the kiddie whores

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/famichil.html

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

12. Unilateral disarmament and withdrawal of all overseas troops

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/milipoli.html

U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems.

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea.

13. Complete isolationism

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html

The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling.

Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

Many of the above positions are arguably about "maximizing freedom" and all were official positions taken by self-proclaimed Libertarians. So who is kidding who here?

I quoted the above only so that the discussion below would make sense.


Or let's put it this way, the lp.org website started to represent the moderate-libertarian position, which is the one expressed by Libertarian candidates, rather than the ultra-libertarian one.

The basic axiom of the ultra-libertarian position is that we can all, technically, live without a government, and not all that badly - therefore, every instance of government intervention has to be weighed for its merits, and implemented only if it can, beyond reasonable doubt, improve the citizens' quality of life.

The stance of moderate-libertarians is simply that we could use much less government intervention.

This is a nice rationalization, but it ignores that what I was quoting was the official National Platform of the Libertarian Party adopted in Convention, May 2004.

Apparently official publications of the Libertarian Party aren't fair to scrutinize for the policies and positions of the Libertarian Party. And you've already stated that we can't look to Libertarian candidates to define Libertarian policies and positions. Do you apply this generous obfuscation to all parties?



Doesn't say that exactly. The libertarian position is rather that FDA approval should be just that - approval. A certificate and a sign "FDA approved".
Whether to buy only FDA-approved drugs or not, however, is everyone's own business. Though FDA may be replaced by or compete with a private body.

In other words, you quibble with whether there would still be something called the FDA, even though it would have none of the powers of the Food & Drug Administration. You don't comment on the fact that all vitamins, drugs, and similar substances would be COMPLETELY DE-REGULATED.



Don't see much wrong with that, although there are minor caveats.

Um. Did you skip the part about no spending money on any program of psychiatic, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment? Did you skip the part about no criminal defenses related to capacity or insanity?


Doesn't say "no searches". Says "no covert surveillance". The difference is major.

We've gone over this in some detail. You are the one who is now cherry-picking.


Simply keep the same laws for everyone.

Among other things, ignores the role that the UCMJ plays in regulating the behavior of soldiers not subject to "the same laws for everyone" because they are in another jurisdiction.


There were immigration laws and controls in 2001. Thanks to them, there has been no acts of terrorism throughout the year.

...Oh wait.

Cute. So, because of 9/11, you support the complete elimination of all border controls? And your logic is?


If you read it further, it doesn't say anything about returning.

What it says is:

- I.E. it suggests to simply let the Native Americans self-govern themselves. In the territories they have now.

Um. What part of "Indians should have their property rights restored" doesn't refer to returning property to Native Americans?

I actually have some sympathy for this one, but it isn't realistic at all.


Again, the point here is not "no money", it's "no compulsory restriction to government-issued currency".

Although the other part about elimination of government-produced money is fairly extreme.
Again there's no telling if it was the real party's platform or just someone's choice to go extreme, though. From other sources, it's not the real one.

Glad to see even you admit this platform position is extreme. But it is from the real 2004 Platform of the Libertarian Party. I don't know what "other sources" you are relying on to claim otherwise.


Which is, actually, a much stricter stance on pollution than EPA's. Having the failing company pay for cleanup and all damages caused is a way to make any negligence towards pollution a serious gamble risking the entire company.

I note you don't defend the abolishment of the EPA as such. One could argue for stricter tort laws regarding pollution, but nothing makes such laws mutually exclusive of government regulation to protect the environment.


Already discussed above, doesn't say that.
The people who wrote it were simply writing for those interested, without having in mind some less than fair opponents who will take and distort their points.

We have discussed that and I agree my characterization was overstated. Perhaps you could explain, however, the explicit reference to "anyone, including children" being free to exchange "goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality"?
*

I notice you skipped number #11. Is that because you agree that laws "infringing on childrens rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws" have merit?


*Partial* disarmament to keep nuclear warfare to the deterrence minimum rather than total destruction.
Withdrawal of overseas troops, yes. It's called Department of Defense, even though it hasn't been used for this purpose for a very long time.

Not sure where you got the word "partial," but perhaps that is fair. The position speaks for itself.

No, I've read it, and also read it in the original. It's just that what appears shocking to you often doesn't move my brow. And, also, reading it in the original rather than out of context gives a very different impression - privileged, yes, but immune, no.

The Libertarian Party supports very strong privacy laws, is that news to anyone?

However, it doesn't exactly say "impervious to government searches", it says "not open to review". "Open to review" means more than just possible to be accessed, it means open to be accessed at whim.

It could be interpreted in your way if it was the only phrase there. But it isn't, and it's only in the "principles", not solutions, which conflict with your interpretation.

As it says, they don't like that the government is spying on law-abiding civilians, and they protest use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties.

Their opposition is to violation of privacy of people who aren't suspected of any crime, and without probable cause - not to searches of suspects' property and data.

Congratulations, you've proven you are much better at cherry-picking and selective reading than I ever was. :tongue:

But your semantics games and tap-dancing don't really answer the point. Every citizen is presumed to be law-abiding until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, the 4th Amendment allows searches of materials belonging to such "law-abiding" or "innocent" citizens upon a proper showing of probable cause. If you support a major re-writing of the laws regarding search and seizure, fine--but don't act like that isn't what is being proposed.

Essentially, the described ad is an example of this biased cherry-picking practice. Factual message is "Duracell works longer than Generic", but is presented as "If you buy Generic, you will lose your children!".


Exactly. The ad is not factual, and appeals to emotion instead, relying on the fact that the average consumer doesn't understand pyschology, and will just act on the implanted message.

Which is why businesses cannot be allowed to exist without heavy regulation.

This is a nice rationalization, but it ignores that what I was quoting was the official National Platform of the Libertarian Party adopted in Convention, May 2004.
Haven't been there.

Probably couldn't even if drove wherever it is, not a member.


Do you apply this generous obfuscation to all parties?
Sure. Bush is as true to conservative ideals as... OK, that is a bad comparison.


In other words, you quibble with whether there would still be something called the FDA, even though it would have none of the powers of the Food & Drug Administration. You don't comment on the fact that all vitamins, drugs, and similar substances would be COMPLETELY DE-REGULATED.
I do, I support it if it happens. The only regulation I support is laws agains forgery of approval documents, but other than that, the consumer should have uninfringed power to override whatever someone else thinks is better for him.


Cute. So, because of 9/11, you support the complete elimination of all border controls?
No. I just note that border controls can only stop Mexicans looking for work, not anyone determined and funded.


Um. What part of "Indians should have their property rights restored" doesn't refer to returning property to Native Americans?
The part where their rights are being infringed in regards to the property that they have now (reservations).


I note you don't defend the abolishment of the EPA as such. One could argue for stricter tort laws regarding pollution, but nothing makes such laws mutually exclusive of government regulation to protect the environment. No, I don't. I believe EPA has merits.


We have discussed that and I agree my characterization was overstated. Perhaps you could explain, however, the explicit reference to "anyone, including children" being free to exchange "goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality"?
What should I explain about it? As mentioned above, it can be seen that this doesn't involve abolishment of laws of consent, thus, a voluntary exchange of sex for money by children is not physically possible as it can't be voluntary.


Not sure where you got the word "partial," but perhaps that is fair. The position speaks for itself.
"Partial" from "replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets".


Solutions: U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems.

Congratulations, you've proven you are much better at cherry-picking and selective reading than I ever was.
Maybe. But what I'm doing now is simply selecting the clear statements that give hints about how to interpret the vague ones.


Every citizen is presumed to be law-abiding until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, the 4th Amendment allows searches of materials belonging to such "law-abiding" or "innocent" citizens upon a proper showing of probable cause.
And a requirement of probable cause is what LP is arguing for. They're arguing against searches of individuals who are not suspect, and where is no probable cause.

Exactly. The ad is not factual, and appeals to emotion instead, relying on the fact that the average consumer doesn't understand pyschology, and will just act on the implanted message.
Just like the "ZOMG if they abolish Assault Weapons Act everyone will be running with machineguns!" argument of the gun-prohibitionists, for instance.


Which is why businesses cannot be allowed to exist without heavy regulation.
This is ridiculous. You actually propose that the government should step in to forbid this advertisement?

And regulation by whom, politicians who use the very same technologies routinely?

Just like the "ZOMG if they abolish Assault Weapons Act everyone will be running with machineguns!" argument of the gun-prohibitionists, for instance.


Which isn't an unreasonable argument. No one NEEDS an assault weapon for any reasonable purpose.

Anyone who hunts with an assault rifle needs to learn to fucking shoot, not compensate in rounds-per-minute.


This is ridiculous. You actually propose that the government should step in to forbid this advertisement?

And regulation by whom, politicians who use the very same technologies routinely?

Absolutely. Regulate that sort of shit into the ground. Regulate the politicians too. I'm not sure why you consider making people be honest to be a bad thing.

Which isn't an unreasonable argument. No one NEEDS an assault weapon for any reasonable purpose.

Anyone who hunts with an assault rifle needs to learn to fucking shoot, not compensate in rounds-per-minute.
Except the Assault Weapons Act banned not assault rifles, but semi-automatic firearms which merely don't need to be manually reloaded after every shot. It didn't in any way affect actual assault weapons, which had been banned already.

It's use of psychology and lies to convince the 'consumer' (the voter) to support it.

In a similar manner, "PATRIOT Act" is a clear use of psychology by the government.



Absolutely. Regulate that sort of shit into the ground. Regulate the politicians too.
So politicians should regulate the business, and should be regulated too - but who should regulate the politicians?



By the way, why are you still not in one of the remaining commie countries?

Except the Assault Weapons Act banned not assault rifles, but semi-automatic firearms which merely don't need to be manually reloaded after every shot. It didn't in any way affect actual assault weapons, which had been banned already.

It's use of psychology and lies to convince the 'consumer' (the voter) to support it.

In a similar manner, "PATRIOT Act" is a clear use of psychology by the government.


So... you agree then?


So politicians should regulate the business, and should be regulated too - but who should regulate the politicians?


We had a thread on regulation, not long ago, where I was pretty explicit on this. Hell, you were even IN that thread.

I didn't say 'politicans' should regulate anything - I said the government should. I also believe there should be other regulatory agencies, separate from the government OR the industry. I also believe advocacy groups should be given power to regulate.


By the way, why are you still not in one of the remaining commie countries?

Errr... because my wife is American?

What's that supposed to mean, anyway? Everyone that believes more regulation is needed... is a 'commie'?

You'll be voting McCain, then?

So... you agree then?
No. It is an unreasonable argument, because it's wrong - so-called Assault Weapons Act didn't affect assault rifles.



I didn't say 'politicans' should regulate anything - I said the government should. Run by politicians.

I also believe there should be other regulatory agencies, separate from the government OR the industry. I also believe advocacy groups should be given power to regulate.
Why even have private enterprise? Would be much easier to have it all run by government.


What's that supposed to mean, anyway? Everyone that believes more regulation is needed... is a 'commie'?
Everyone who wants to "Regulate the Hell out of them" and "Regulate that [cunning advertisements] to the ground" is at best a commie. There are much worse flavors of totalitarianism supporters than commies, however.

No. It is an unreasonable argument, because it's wrong - so-called Assault Weapons Act didn't affect assault rifles.


Which doesn't answer the question I asked.

Don't you think politicians should be prevented from lying and/or being deliberately misleading?


Run by politicians.


Pointless comment.


Why even have private enterprise? Would be much easier to have it all run by government.


Seems reasonable, if not totally irrelevent to the topic.


Everyone who wants to "Regulate the Hell out of them" and "Regulate that [cunning advertisements] to the ground" is at best a commie. There are much worse flavors of totalitarianism supporters than commies, however.

Communism doesn't necessarily equate to regulation. So that comment is, at best, kinda stupid.

Don't you think politicians should be prevented from lying and/or being deliberately misleading?
In a proper society? No.


Pointless comment.
As is the suggestion. You suggest to regulate against implied lies in advertisement using a body run by people whose entire profession is about lying.


Seems reasonable, if not totally irrelevent to the topic.
You ought have moved into one of the countries that do that. They have proven that industries indeed can be run by the government. They have also shown how successfully.


Communism doesn't necessarily equate to regulation. So that comment is, at best, kinda stupid.
Communism doesn't, of course. But the best results in regulation have been achieved by the red commies we've spent so much effort on defeating (apparently only to have their ideology still create a fifth column).

Which isn't an unreasonable argument.
Yes it is so.

No one NEEDS an assault weapon for any reasonable purpose.
An assault weapon as defined by the 1994 ban was a semi-automatic rifle that had 2 or more cosmetic features. It banned weapons that looked a certain way, not weapons that fired at a certain rate.

Anyone who hunts with an assault rifle needs to learn to fucking shoot, not compensate in rounds-per-minute.
Assault weapons are not assault rifles. Assault rifle is a technical term definded as a select-fire rifle chambering mid-sized cartridges (between pistol and rifle). The .223 Remington/5.56x45mm NATO cartridge is actually less powerful than the .30-06 Springfield hunting cartridge. The Springfield round has greater range and penetration than the Remington.

Absolutely. Regulate that sort of shit into the ground. Regulate the politicians too. I'm not sure why you consider making people be honest to be a bad thing.
Stopping ads like that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. If you did that before you knew it somebody'd be make it illegal to say it in person and ban books. If you can do one then you can do the other.

I find their economic policy a lot less moral than their social policy (Which i agree with fully.)

I don't get how right-wingers claim to be "The moral" party, when basically all they do is make sure you're born.
THEN you're on your own til your old enough to join the army, then they LOVE you again.
Btw, if you get shot and end up in crippling pain, they'd rather you either die (if your poor) or spend loads of your hard earned cash (Euthanasia not allowed.) until you end up poor, or die anyway. Whichever makes them richer.

I have always wondered, is there such a thing as a Libertarian on economics, moderate on social issues, strong on defense, strong on foreign policy? What is that?

I'm afraid what you mean is exactly the stance of the Republicans.

I have always wondered, is there such a thing as a Libertarian on economics, moderate on social issues, strong on defense, strong on foreign policy? What is that?

I'm afraid what you mean is exactly the stance of the Republicans.

I would vote for such a Libertarian.

Thank you for your answer, no wonder I am a Republican and

I'm afraid what you mean is exactly the stance of the Republicans.

*ahem*

"...moderate on social issues..."

Last I checked, no. At one point, yes. However, not now.

I have always wondered, is there such a thing as a Libertarian on economics, moderate on social issues, strong on defense, strong on foreign policy? What is that?

If by "strong" you mean "warmongering", yes.

The term you want is "neo-conservative."

I find it interesting that many people tend to label those who have a different position on something as either amoral or immoral.

I would vote for such a Libertarian.

Thank you for your answer, no wonder I am a Republican and
... and what? And... I would like to invite you around to dinner? And... I hereby give you two million dollars? Or...

Arggh, no! They got him! Staked through the heart! Poor MS...

In a proper society? No.


No? You think politicians SHOULD lie, and be deliberately deceptive?


As is the suggestion. You suggest to regulate against implied lies in advertisement using a body run by people whose entire profession is about lying.


I didn't say anything like that. Perhaps go back and actually read it before you reply?


You ought have moved into one of the countries that do that. They have proven that industries indeed can be run by the government. They have also shown how successfully.


As I said, it's irrelevent... but there's nothing INTRINSICALLY any worse about a governemnt-run industry than there is about a privately-owned one.


Communism doesn't, of course. But the best results in regulation have been achieved by the red commies we've spent so much effort on defeating (apparently only to have their ideology still create a fifth column).

When you type ridiculous crap, do you KNOW it's ridiculous crap?

Yes it is so.


Not it's not so.

Wow... this is easy AND fun!


An assault weapon as defined by the 1994 ban was a semi-automatic rifle that had 2 or more cosmetic features. It banned weapons that looked a certain way, not weapons that fired at a certain rate.


Seems reasonable. Ownership of that kind of weaponry is symptomatic of an inferiority, anyway - so addressing the cosmetic appearance is largely as appropriate as regulating the specific performance.


Assault weapons are not assault rifles. Assault rifle is a technical term definded as a select-fire rifle chambering mid-sized cartridges (between pistol and rifle). The .223 Remington/5.56x45mm NATO cartridge is actually less powerful than the .30-06 Springfield hunting cartridge. The Springfield round has greater range and penetration than the Remington.


See my face? Is it bothered?


Stopping ads like that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. If you did that before you knew it somebody'd be make it illegal to say it in person and ban books. If you can do one then you can do the other.

Bollocks. Companies shouldn't have 'first amendment rights', because they're not people.

No? You think politicians SHOULD lie, and be deliberately deceptive?
No, I don't. I'm not so sure we need them.

It's their job to use deception and psychological tricks. You don't need a politician to speak out his thoughts. You don't need one to reason. You only need professional politicians to present black as white.


As I said, it's irrelevent... but there's nothing INTRINSICALLY any worse about a governemnt-run industry than there is about a privately-owned one.
No, of course not. There's just the experience.


When you type ridiculous crap, do you KNOW it's ridiculous crap?
When you are advocating extreme regulation, do you KNOW you advocate what USSR implemented?

No, I don't. I'm not so sure we need them.


I am sure we need them. At least one of us knows something.


It's their job to use deception and psychological tricks. You don't need a politician to speak out his thoughts. You don't need one to reason. You only need professional politicians to present black as white.


Not at all - you are conflating the modern (largely American) concept of marketed politicians, with the purpose that government actually serves.


No, of course not. There's just the experience.


Experience teaches us that privately owned business fuck the consumer and eventually lead you into situations where the market implodes on itself.


When you are advocating extreme regulation, do you KNOW you advocate what USSR implemented?

So much wrong with this comment that it's hard to even work out how to address it. Not only is it still your ridiculous hijack, but it's not even logical. It's the same as saying 'Stalin had blue eyes and was a mass-murdering fuckhead... thus all people with blue eyes must be mass-murdering fuckheads'.

The UK has MUCH tighter regulation than the US does, and somehow - it isn't the USSR. Why might that be? Maybe - because regulation, communism, and totalitarian despotism are not intrinsically connected?

I am sure we need them. At least one of us knows something.
It was a milder way of saying "I'm sure we don't need them".


Not at all - you are conflating the modern (largely American) concept of marketed politicians, with the purpose that government actually serves.
It doesn't take a professional politicians to serve. It takes education in specific disciplines that will be used, that's all.


Experience teaches us that privately owned business fuck the consumer and eventually lead you into situations where the market implodes on itself.
A situation which has been built by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which are both abbreviations with F standing for "Federal".

A fully free market has peaks and falls, lots of them, all the time. Government intervention instead keeps it going right until the big collapse.



The UK has MUCH tighter regulation than the US does, and somehow - it isn't the USSR. Why might that be?
Not yet. Though depends on which USSR we take, if it's the earlier NEP one, they are much more similar.

Maybe - because regulation, communism, and totalitarian despotism are not intrinsically connected?
Communism isn't, but then USSR never had it. The other two of course are. Regulation is what totalitarianism does. Totalitarianism is total regulation.

It was a milder way of saying "I'm sure we don't need them".


So, you're not unsure - you're just wrong?


It doesn't take a professional politicians to serve. It takes education in specific disciplines that will be used, that's all.


Right.

And that comment is propelling the conversation forwards, how?


A situation which has been built by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which are both abbreviations with F standing for "Federal".

A fully free market has peaks and falls, lots of them, all the time. Government intervention instead keeps it going right until the big collapse.


Ah, you instantly assumed I was talking about the current fiscal fuck-up. See - capitalism is fundamentally flawed, right?

Or... would you say that your original argument was crap, because the examples are only equally as relevant?


Not yet. Though depends on which USSR we take, if it's the earlier NEP one, they are much more similar.


Indeed. After all, both 'UK' and 'USSR' have a 'u' in them, don't they?


Communism isn't, but then USSR never had it. The other two of course are. Regulation is what totalitarianism does. Totalitarianism is total regulation.

Rubbish. You could have a government that rules with an iron hand by absolutely REMOVING regulation.

Curious that your argument about communism caused you to end up talking about the USSR, which you, yourself, are now arguing wasn't communist.

If I leave you alone long enough, you'll argue both sides.

So, you're not unsure - you're just wrong? I see that disagreeing with you means being wrong in your book.

That's the problem with totalitarians, they want to apply their values to everyone.


Right.
And that comment is propelling the conversation forwards, how?
It simply proves that politicians aren't needed. Countries should be run by economists.

Ah, you instantly assumed I was talking about the current fiscal fuck-up. See - capitalism is fundamentally flawed, right?
Since you didn't specify, that was the thing to do. You can't throw an argument without a supporting example, and then blame others for making a different assumption when they do provide the example you ought to.

And, no. First, there's no a connection between what one poster assumed another was implying and merits of capitalism.
Second, capitalism has its golden ages and depressions, but the alternative we've seen, USSR, has been one huge 70-year depression.


Indeed. After all, both 'UK' and 'USSR' have a 'u' in them, don't they?
And both have a habit on infringing on citizens' rights.

Curious that your argument about communism caused you to end up talking about the USSR, which you, yourself, are now arguing wasn't communist.
Communism and red 'commies' aren't the same. The 'commies' were always socialist, a whole different system.

Communism can only be built from the ground up, not through government intervention.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the possession, use, sale, or distribution of any kind of entertainment data.

The only major, sufficient to outlaw it, wrong with CP lies in that it's impossible to produce without felony.

LOL. Now you've come full circle. You started out arguing it was OK to legalize child pornography because it's production already involved other crimes. Now you are arguing that it is only OK to ban the production of child pornography because it is impossible to produce without a felony. Let me know when you are done arguing with yourself about this. ;)

Regardless, I have shown with evidence that it is not just the production of child pornography that causes harm, but also the possession, sale, use, and distribution. So your premise is simply wrong.


Not exactly. Rather, it should be seen this way: "Our police is not competent enough to find and punish the producers, therefore we should have it punish the distributors and owners".

It might be a good idea indeed. But it's a realpolitik tradeoff for combating a specific situation, not an inherently right decision.

Actually, I support outlawing distribution of such materials, if only to have a valid reason to detain and question the distributors to find the producers.

This ignores the fact that there are independent reasons to punish distributors and owners. From the expert testimony I linked to earlier:

The Subcommittee has asked whether there is any connection between those who trade or possess child pornography and those who molest children. Based on my experience and based on my consultation with experts who have made it their business to study that connection, my answer is a resounding and alarming - - yes.

The Internet has caused explosive growth in the market for child pornography. The volume of child pornography circulated on the Internet is staggering and the number of persons obtaining, trading and distributing these images is downright appalling. Recently, Operation Candyman uncovered more than 7,200 such traffickers worldwide in a single e-group. The number of e-groups, newsgroups, bulletin boards, and the like that cater to child pornography is enormous. Yet, these facts, and this trend, do not sufficiently capture the gravity of the situation.

Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children. These offenders included a school bus driver, a foster parent, a mentor for underprivileged children, a member of the armed forces, a delivery person, a landscaper, a prison case worker, a janitor, an office manager, a security guard and his wife. This number, though alarming, probably represents only a small fraction of child molestations committed by the more than 7,200 Candyman members - - the vast majority of whom did not make admissions.

My colleagues at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service tell me that, according to statistics compiled from their investigations, a frighteningly high percentage of the child pornography offenders investigated were also involved in the sexual molestation of children. Their studies indicate consistently that, of the total number of child pornographers investigated over the past several years, nearly 40 percent have been determined to be child molesters.

In addition, in November 2000, Dr. Andres E. Hernandez, PsyD., Director of the Sex Offender Treatment Program, Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCI Butner, presented the results of his study of child pornography offenders entitled, Self-Reported Contact Sexual Offenses by Participants in the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Sex Offender Treatment Program: Implications for Internet Sex Offenders. This study, among other things, explored the correlation between child pornography offenses and actual child molestation. Dr. Hernandez' data indicates that the majority of the persons in his study convicted of child pornography offenses actually molested significant numbers of children without detection by the criminal justice system. The study also indicated that "these offenders target children in Cyberspace in a similar manner as offenders who prey on children in their neighborhood or nearby park. They seek vulnerable children, gradually groom them, and eventually contact them to perpetrate sexual abuse."

I have attached to my written testimony a summary of the report prepared by Dr. Hernandez. Dr. Hernandez concluded that 76 percent of the child pornographers or travelers (those who travel or intend to travel interstate for the purpose of having sex with a minor) who participated in his study admitted to having committed contact sex crimes which went undetected by the criminal justice system. These offenders had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each. In fact, this group of offenders admitted to having molested a combined total of 1,433 victims without ever having been detected. That is not 1,433 more offenses - - it is 1,433 more victims. If you factor in the number of times they offended against each individual victim, the number would be significantly higher. In addition, while Dr. Hernandez' study lumped child pornographers and travelers in the same category, his data shows that the number of undetected sex crimes was significantly higher for child pornographers than it was for travelers. In short, child pornographers, who consisted of 49 of the 62 subjects, were responsible for the vast majority of the 1,433 victims reported for that group. [The group consisted of 49 Child Pornography Offenders and 13 "Travelers."]

The Subcommittee has asked whether child molesters use child pornography to seduce children. Our experience has shown that the answer to that question is undeniably - - yes. The FBI's Innocent Images Task Force has conducted several hundred online investigations where the agents pose as children. The agents report that sexual predators routinely send images of child pornography to them as part of the grooming process to increase the likelihood of a sexual encounter. The child pornography typically depicts a child of the same age as the Agent's cover having sexual acts with an older man. The purpose behind this is clearly to lower the inhibitions of the person the offender believes is a child and to convince the child that the activity is fun and acceptable.

Specifically, we have found that child pornography is used by child molesters to:


Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.
Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.
Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.
Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.
Groom them into a sexual relationship. Some offenders take advantage of the fact that some children are curious about sex. They show them images which appear to depict other children enjoying sexual activities with adults to encourage their victims to engage in sex. Others take advantage of the guilt and shame commonly experienced by their victims by taking pictures or videos of the sexual activities with their child victims to use as an insurance policy against disclosure by them.

The Subcommittee has asked whether child pornography seduces child pornographers to molest children. It definitely has that effect on some of the collectors. Those who trade in child pornography participate in organized (like "Candyman") or informal (chat rooms, F-serves, news groups, bulletin boards, Web sites, etc.) networks of like-minded individuals, which serve as support groups. That these individuals can easily find, identify with, correspond with, and trade child pornography with each other, gives them comfort in the fact that they are not alone and tends to validate their offending behavior. They feel they are part of a vast network of like-minded people who believe it is acceptable to engage in sexual fantasies about children, thus lowering their inhibitions about acting on their fantasies and increasing the likelihood that they will actually molest children.

The best indicator of future behavior is a pattern of past behavior. The next best indicator of future behavior is what an individual wants to do. Some individuals may be sexually aroused by viewing images depicting nude children but are repulsed by seeing images depicting an adult interacting with a child sexually. Others might enjoy viewing images depicting nude children but are more excited by viewing depictions of children "playing" sexually with other children. Others still are aroused by viewing any image depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, but are most aroused when viewing images depicting children engaged in sexual acts with adults.

An individual's child pornography collection is the best indicator of what he is fantasizing about. In turn, an individual's fantasies are the best indicators of what he wishes to do. Therefore, those who collect images depicting adults engaging in sexually explicit conduct with children are the most likely to molest children.

I am aware of no real evidence that child pornography alone induces a sexual attraction to children where the offender lacks a sexual predisposition for children. However, when used by individuals who have a predisposed sexual interest in children, child pornography can sexually arouse them, fuel their sexual fantasies about children, validate their sexual attraction to children, and help them rationalize this behavior. All of these behaviors increase the risk that these individuals will act out their fantasies by sexually molesting children.

Our practical experience confirms these findings. The FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit has conducted interview upon interview of child sex offenders. The information obtained from the offenders themselves leaves no doubt that child pornography fuels some child pornographers to live out their fantasies on real children.




Valid point.

But what about movies involving extreme amounts of violence? They can well serve to stimulate the motivations for real-life violence. CP is not the only kind of data that can be useful in committing felonies.

I provide hard data, you respond with rank speculation. And do you really believe violent movies cause violent crime? I didn't think so.


Or to substitute the need for actual crime.
Regular porn goes a long way in substituting and weakening the desire for real sex, at least.

Again, you respond to hard data with rank speculation. The studies showing causation and an extremely high correlation between collection of child pornography and child molestation can't be so easily dismissed.



I've already foreseen the point and replied to it:
However, the first is often a part of the second. I have seen in the news fragments of videos produced by the criminals.

Oooh, nice try at moving the goalposts.

You originally compared child pornography to a police report about a rape. I suggested there was a rather significant difference to the victim (among others) between commercial and public release of a video of an actual rape and the mere existence of police reports.

But then again your first statement in this post suggests that one should be free to buy, sell, possess, and distribute tapes of actual rapes occurring because that is inherently harmless.



And this response trivializes other forms of suffering, starting from regular rape.

Not so. In fact, the opposite is true.

First, you say the production of child pornography is rape, but you then contrast it with "regular rape."

Second, if I commit a violent rape, which I videotape and sell copies of the video over the internet, should I face any additional punishment for my actions in publicizing and profiting from the rape or is only my conduct in committing the rape itself relevant to my punishment?

Thanks for the links and info, Cat...I oppose child porn because in the main, you cannot produce it without exploiting a child (the rare exceptions being perhaps animated), but I hadn't actually looked seriously into whether or not child pornography made the exploitation of children worse overall, or lessened it (as some claim, apparently without any evidence).

Maybe. But what I'm doing now is simply selecting the clear statements that give hints about how to interpret the vague ones.

Or, more precisely, using vague statements to contradict the implications of clear statements. :D

And a requirement of probable cause is what LP is arguing for. They're arguing against searches of individuals who are not suspect, and where is no probable cause.

Curious, if that is all the LP meant, why didn't they say that? Why is it the words probable cause only appear in one sentence referring to roadblocks?

Either the LP meant what they actually said, in which case they would be completely re-writing search and seizure laws, OR they are hopelessly incompetent at making a basic point about supporting the 4th Amendment. Which do you prefer?

Curious, if that is all the LP meant, why didn't they say that?
They did say that. Precisely that.

"We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties."

There was no suggestion to ban searches.


LOL. Now you've come full circle. You started out arguing it was OK to legalize child pornography because it's production already involved other crimes. Now you are arguing that it is only OK to ban the production of child pornography because it is impossible to produce without a felony.
It's not possible to ban CP production because it's already banned by rape laws. Its production involves felonies, and as such is a crime. The crime comes [should come] not from the motive being CP, but from actions involved. Motive might be an aggravating factor, but just that.


[...]
Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children.
[...]
In addition, while Dr. Hernandez' study lumped child pornographers and travelers in the same category, his data shows that the number of undetected sex crimes was significantly higher for child pornographers than it was for travelers.
[...]
Yes, there's a strong correlation between collecting CP and child molestation. Big surprise.

However, participation in an activity that has correlation to criminal activity is not per se sufficient to form a crime. (The LP stance is that crime can only be committed against a person or an organization).

What it should be, however, in my opinion, is strong grounds for investigation, and probable cause.

In other words, it would be a violation of fundamental rights to convict one for an activity that merely correlates with crime, but is not criminal. However, it would be fair to lift the right to privacy on that ground.



But then again your first statement in this post suggests that one should be free to buy, sell, possess, and distribute tapes of actual rapes occurring because that is inherently harmless.
Tapes of staged rape imagery (in porn) are distributed that way.
On moral and other grounds, I certainly do not like the idea of actual rape being used that way. However, when it comes to actually sentencing someone, I don't see the distinction - which he might not even be aware about - as sufficient to warrant imprisonment.

We do produce and distribute tapes of war footage, after all - and that's mass murder.



First, you say the production of child pornography is rape, but you then contrast it with "regular rape." It is rape, but of a special kind. Takes more malice to commit, for one.

Second, if I commit a violent rape, which I videotape and sell copies of the video over the internet, should I face any additional punishment for my actions in publicizing and profiting from the rape or is only my conduct in committing the rape itself relevant to my punishment?
Not as a separate offense. You should face a much harsher than average sentence based on the motive, however.

They did say that. Precisely that.

"We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties."

There was no suggestion to ban searches.

Utter bullshit. If that was all the LP party said, you'd have a point, except for 3 things: (1) the only protections provided by the Fourth Amendment are limits on searches and seizures, so inherently they are talking about banning or limiting searches; (2) they specifically say they oppose some government use of search warrants, which by definition is a ban on searches; and (3) I've already explained that pretty much all search warrants are supported by probable cause but otherwise involve "innocent" parties.

Regardless, I guess we are just supposed to ignore as superfluous and meaningless the part that says:

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions

Or, does that, as I've contended, refer to limits or bans on searches? Hmmm?



It's not possible to ban CP production because it's already banned by rape laws. Its production involves felonies, and as such is a crime. The crime comes [should come] not from the motive being CP, but from actions involved. Motive might be an aggravating factor, but just that.

Um. How is it "not possible" to ban the production of child pornography? The laws of the United States and all 50 states seem to disagree with you there. As well as your own argument contradicting you here, you seem to have a problem with reality.

Regardless, creation of child pornography is identifiable and punishable a separate offense -- not merely an aggravating motive of a sexual assault crime.


Yes, there's a strong correlation between collecting CP and child molestation. Big surprise.

However, participation in an activity that has correlation to criminal activity is not per se sufficient to form a crime. (The LP stance is that crime can only be committed against a person or an organization).

What it should be, however, in my opinion, is strong grounds for investigation, and probable cause.

In other words, it would be a violation of fundamental rights to convict one for an activity that merely correlates with crime, but is not criminal. However, it would be fair to lift the right to privacy on that ground.

First, you blithely ignore the evidence of direct harm caused by possession, use, sale or distribution of child pornography that more than justifies limits on such activity.

Second, you blithely ignore the evidence of causation as well as correlation between possession, use, sale, or distribution of child pornography and child pornography.

Third, you ignore the evidence that there are chid molestations committed by those who possess, use, sell, or distribute child pornography that go undetected and unpunished -- except for the laws against child pornography.

Fourth, out of a rather lengthy recital of evidence you "cherry-picked" two senteces as if they were representative of the evidence provided. As I said, your ability to cherry-pick and read selectively has far exceded mine.


Not as a separate offense. You should face a much harsher than average sentence based on the motive, however.

So, unlike the LP, you support laws--like hate crime legislation--that impose greater penalties on crimes based on motive? Interesting.

Regardless, you dodge the point. It isn't my motive that is distinct here, but my additional actions in making, selling, and profiting from the tape of the rape.

It is an inherently evil ideology. Reduced regulation, un-fair trade, isolationism.

That's assuming that reduced regulation, UNRESTRICTED trade (Trade can not be unfair), and isolationism are all inherently evil things.

1. Reduced regulation: I don't need thousands of government officials wasting tax money to stand around in a factory and give it the "all clear" only for yet another short, media-spotlight disease outbreak to get loose.

2. Unrestricted trade: To people want different things. They give something up for the thing they want. They may not be happy about what they got, but they got it. Why do you want to force one side to be unhappy?

3. Isolationism: Unattainable until we are no longer a superpower.

Theoretically, libertarians SHOULD be socially progressive, which would be their only saving grace - but many of them pursue the same homophobic, sexist, racist agendas as the rest of America's rightwing spectrum.
Some of us are. Some of us aren't. Those who aren't should not call themselves Libertarians.

Utter bullshit. If that was all the LP party said, you'd have a point, except for 3 things: (1) the only protections provided by the Fourth Amendment are limits on searches and seizures, so inherently they are talking about banning or limiting searches;
Limiting, because Fourth Am. limits them, not bans.

(2) they specifically say they oppose some government use of search warrants, which by definition is a ban on searches; and (3) I've already explained that pretty much all search warrants are supported by probable cause but otherwise involve "innocent" parties.
This is a party platform, not a law proposal. It's not going to be copy-pasted into the code of laws.

If your interpretation was what LP meant to say, they wouldn't need to add the term "innocent".
Also, the term "innocent third parties" clearly implies there's the second party - likely, the suspect.


The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions

Or, does that, as I've contended, refer to limits or bans on searches? Hmmm?

Limits, yes.
Bans, no.
As said in the article, it's aimed at protecting the non-suspects. The part you quote isn't from the solutions or transition (i.e. what they want to do), it's from the principles (i.e. what they believe) - that's why it uses vague "open to review" concepts rather than "permit" or "ban" as in actual proposals.


Um. How is it "not possible" to ban the production of child pornography?
Like it's impossible to ban machineguns with a new weapons act. They're already banned, you can't make them "double-banned" - the laws are redundant.



First, you blithely ignore the evidence of direct harm caused by possession, use, sale or distribution of child pornography that more than justifies limits on such activity.
No, I don't. I even agree it justifies limits. However, the nature of the harm is not such as to make criminal penalties appropriate on the basis of videotape contents alone.

Since distribution of CP is evidence of a crime - go full speed ahead with criminal investigation to find the producer and punish the distributors as accomplices to crime.
Treating anything to do with CP as probable cause for lifting privacy - fine.
Civil litigation for moral damages dealt by distribution - fine with that too.
Criminal penalty for possession - sorry, no. That's punishment without guilty act and without proof of guilty mind.


Third, you ignore the evidence that there are chid molestations committed by those who possess, use, sell, or distribute child pornography that go undetected and unpunished -- except for the laws against child pornography.
In other words, "We are too incompetent to find the criminals, so we'll arrest for correlating activities".

It's all good fun to scream "ZOMG terrible behind bars them all!" until you face such a risk. And if we start going after correlating activities, there will be something to endanger you too.


Furthermore, how about ::air quotes:: my Nicaraguan friend ::air quotes:: sends you some emails containing CP attachments? He'll even make it look like it's in a newsgroup. Your client downloads them, and voila, you're in possession. Now just get cops here, and enjoy several years of felony conviction in federal prison, greet Daddy Tripod for you're among rapists.
Extremely improbable, yes, but Dalton was imprisoned for pedophilic contents of his private diary.



So, unlike the LP, you support laws--like hate crime legislation--that impose greater penalties on crimes based on motive? Interesting.
Absolutely. I would even argue that criminal penalties should be primarily based on motives, crime profile, and the risk of repeat offenses, while the actual act is more of a basis for civil damages.

Regardless, you dodge the point. It isn't my motive that is distinct here, but my additional actions in making, selling, and profiting from the tape of the rape.
Making it involved a crime already. Selling and profiting is what people do. Since it doesn't involve sufficient consequences to consider it a crime against anyone in particular, it should be an aggravating factor, not a separate offense.

That's assuming that reduced regulation, UNRESTRICTED trade (Trade can not be unfair), and isolationism are all inherently evil things.

1. Reduced regulation: I don't need thousands of government officials wasting tax money to stand around in a factory and give it the "all clear" only for yet another short, media-spotlight disease outbreak to get loose.

2. Unrestricted trade: To people want different things. They give something up for the thing they want. They may not be happy about what they got, but they got it. Why do you want to force one side to be unhappy?

3. Isolationism: Unattainable until we are no longer a superpower.


Which little escape from reality do you call home? Of course trade can be unfair, and for a number of reasons - not least the whole monopoly concept, but also - because trade isn't always as 'willing' as you like to make it sound, nor even vaguely equitable.

any trade is the exchange of items each party considers less valuable or useful than that which he gains in return. This is the base reason to engage in trade. The question of whether trade is fair only becomes complicated when governments interfere through regulation, tariffs, trade sanctions, quotas, et cetera or when some item is forcibly taken and a pittance is left as "payment" in order to provide the illusion that a just exchange was made. Many on the "left" seem to think that all trade consists of the latter unjust forcible acquisition and the solution is to have more of the former. I disagree. True free trade means that both parties may haggle to whatever exchange rate they want for the values of the goods exchanged.

The rule of law, as long as it does not infringe on citizens' rights to express their opinions openly, must be upheld. Especially to those in authority, for morality need not be enforced so much as the public is to be instructed in it for civil society to survive. Those individuals that the public looks up to with such esteem that they allow these individuals to have power over them must be held to a moral standard as thery are meant to be the educators of morality through the example they set.

The problems I have with libertarianism are two-fold:
1: absolute economic liberty allows for too much of a gap between rich and poor, at least in its application as the leadership and populace lack virtue due to rampant, amoral consumerist stupidity and immoral corporate excess.

2: Instead of holding the authorities accountable for the power they already have, libertarianism would merely decrease the amount of power with, if going based upon the traditions of the Founding Fathers combined with modern cultural conditions, less acountability towards the people

3: I have no problem about people living nontraditional lifestyles (gay in traditionally straight OR vice versa) as long as it is kept PRIVATE. However people must have some sort of moral code to abide by that links them to common tradition and culture where they can feel comfortable expressing their views (ie Nationstates regions such as International Communist Union, various Ron Paul regions, NS Bible Church, etc.) Moral relativism in a culture is a foolish proposition in my opinion which leads to the fall of that culture. A culture must have a common, comprehensive moral background that it holds dear to survive and not risk assimilation.

any trade is the exchange of items each party considers less valuable or useful than that which he gains in return.


This is such obvious bullshit, that your next few lines immediately point out even you know it's rubbish.


This is the base reason to engage in trade. The question of whether trade is fair only becomes complicated when governments interfere through regulation, tariffs, trade sanctions, quotas, et cetera or when some item is forcibly taken and a pittance is left as "payment" in order to provide the illusion that a just exchange was made. Many on the "left" seem to think that all trade consists of the latter unjust forcible acquisition and the solution is to have more of the former. I disagree.


You are allowed to disagree. You're wrong, but that's okay.


True free trade means that both parties may haggle to whatever exchange rate they want for the values of the goods exchanged.

'True' free trade is like ideal physical laws - mathematically helpful, perhaps, but having absolutely no relevence to reality.

It is strange that the words "morals," "moral," and "morality" are tossed about so much without so much as an acknowledgment as to what they represent. What is morality according to you, and for what reason?

Is it based irrationally on a book with arbitrarily chosen values? Is it based on life? Is it based on personal gain? What are the values that define your morality?

Meanwhile:
Grave, I do not understand why your first quote or Tothe is "such obvious bullshit." What is a fair trade if it is not one in which both parties see themselves as having gained? What can you point to, other than your flat statement, to object to his statement? In your second quote, again, you assert a statement without argument.

'True' free trade is like ideal physical laws - mathematically helpful, perhaps, but having absolutely no relevence to reality.
The idea that because an idea is not manifest in the world at the moment, it is irrelevant, is incorrect. In the years preceding the American Revolution, the idea of an independent United States was not yet manifest, yet, obviously, it is not irrelevant. If humankind had taken your principle to heart, we would never have progressed at all. Your statement is a blanket condemnation of any abstract thinking or thinking about the future. I reject such a statement.

Which little escape from reality do you call home? Of course trade can be unfair, and for a number of reasons - not least the whole monopoly concept, but also - because trade isn't always as 'willing' as you like to make it sound, nor even vaguely equitable.

And yet you fail to explain why it isn't as willing as I make it sound. Care to?

3: I have no problem about people living nontraditional lifestyles (gay in traditionally straight OR vice versa) as long as it is kept PRIVATE. However people must have some sort of moral code to abide by that links them to common tradition and culture where they can feel comfortable expressing their views (ie Nationstates regions such as International Communist Union, various Ron Paul regions, NS Bible Church, etc.) Why must the common culture exclude "nontraditional lifestyles"?

And yet you fail to explain why it isn't as willing as I make it sound. Care to?

I don't have to explain why. Predatory business arrangements are not a hidden aspect of trade. Monopolies are not a secret. A supplier of a good that NEEDS the money has to accept pretty much whatever price is offered, especially when that market has been cornered.

Trade isn't intrinsically willing. If you don't already know that, you're probably not ready to debate the topic, yet.

Im a libertarian who is a conservative Christian, yes I have morals, lol. Don't categorize libertarians into one group, like any political philosphy, there's variances. For instance, I don't support legalizing most recreational drugs like the US Libertarian party does.

Im a libertarian who is a conservative Christian, yes I have morals, lol. Don't categorize libertarians into one group, like any political philosphy, there's variances. For instance, I don't support legalizing most recreational drugs like the US Libertarian party does.

So, you're not socially libertarian??

Im a libertarian who is a conservative Christian, yes I have morals, lol. Don't categorize libertarians into one group, like any political philosphy, there's variances. For instance, I don't support legalizing most recreational drugs like the US Libertarian party does.

Heh there goes that Conservative Christianity again? How does that work then?

Heh there goes that Conservative Christianity again? How does that work then?
Isn't all Christianity, being based on a 1700 year old series of doctrines, theoretically Conservative?

Isn't all Christianity, being based on a 1700 year old series of doctrines, theoretically Conservative?

Perhaps but I would have thought that the teachings of Christ were more Socialist.

I mean are you not supposed to 'love thy neigbour'?

Perhaps but I would have thought that the teachings of Christ were more Socialist.

I mean are you not supposed to 'love thy neigbour'?
"Loving thy neighbour" isn't necessarily purely Socialist. I mean, I entirely agree that Christ serves as excellent inspiration for Socialism, but my understanding of a lot of Christian mythology is that Christ fundamentally rejected institutional thought of any kind in favour of divinely inspired wisdom, so Christ deliberately wasn't proposing any school of thought in particular in his teachings.

Ummm so is Christianty based on Christian mythogly or the teachings of Christ?

I would argue strongly that Christians should ignore ebeything except what Christ taught.

I don't belive what he taught has much im common with Conservative views, and would place his teachings more akin with Socialism.

Ummm so is Christianty based on Christian mythogly or the teachings of Christ?

I would argue strongly that Christians should ignore ebeything except what Christ taught.

I don't belive what he taught has much im common with Conservative views, and would place his teachings more akin with Socialism.

But they are conservative with a small 'c' - the country we live in has been a Christian one for a long time, it is part of the establishment.

Im a libertarian who is a conservative Christian, yes I have morals, lol. Don't categorize libertarians into one group, like any political philosphy, there's variances. For instance, I don't support legalizing most recreational drugs like the US Libertarian party does.
Hold it. So you take the economically liberal "screw the poor" part of libertarianism which pretty much completely contradicts the advertised (but rarely adhered to) Christian dogma. Then you take the socially conservative "busy body everyone's live to do what I say is right" part of religion which is direct contradiction to libertarianism.

You've taken the 2 worst parts of both groups. Basically, you fail at being a good christian, and you fail at being a libertarian. Look at you soul. Really. Just admit that you are too greedy and selfish to be a good christian in regard to the charity and caring about your fellow man (even if he is a bit stinky). Don't dress it up in saying you are a libertarian.

Wow, didn't know my remarks would get that much response, usually people ignore me on these threads, lol. Yes, I am both a conservative Christian and a libertarian, sounds confusing, doesn't it? To me, libertarianism in the US is about wanting a federal small government, government that stays out of people's lives, and respects the Constitution, instead of paying lip service to it as the Republican and Democratic parties currently do. It is also about states right's and democracy, if the voters or the legislature of a US state wants to outlaw most abortions, or legalize gay marriage, that is the right of that state, the federal government and the courts should stay out of social issues, and give those rights back to state voters and legislatures, just like the 10th amendment says.I disagree with legalization of most recreational drugs, because I believe that when someone takes those drugs, they are not only harming themselves, but society as well, although if a state were to legalize those drugs, that would be the right of that state to do so, (in the US Federal drug laws wouldn't allow that)

What I mean about being a conservative Christian is that I believe in the Bible as the word of God, I believe that human life whether is in the form of an unborn child or an elderly person, is sacred, I personally disagree with gay marriage, but believe that state legislatures and voters should have the right to legalize or outlaw it, if they choose to legalize, well that's democracy in action, and that's fine by me.

But they are conservative with a small 'c' - the country we live in has been a Christian one for a long time, it is part of the establishment.

*shrug* So a small 'c' changes the meaning of the word?

*shrug* So a small 'c' changes the meaning of the word?

In Britain large C is the Conservative party whereas small c is a conservative view point (that things are okay as they are and there is no need to change anything) - the two do not always coincide.

In response to "Fishutopia" I'm not the greedy rich person you think I am, I'm actually a poor college student, I believe in churches and charities helping the poor, not big government, because government is often inefficient when it comes to social aid, wasting taxpayer money in the process, and government social aid is another step towards socialism. I do believe in helping the poor, actually I donate 15 % percent of my income to my churches food pantry program. I'm not stating to brag, that's not the person that I am, as Jesus said, when you do something for someone else, "Let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing", ie, don't make it public. I just said that to show a point there

Ummm so is Christianty based on Christian mythogly or the teachings of Christ?

I would argue strongly that Christians should ignore ebeything except what Christ taught.

I don't belive what he taught has much im common with Conservative views, and would place his teachings more akin with Socialism.

What kind of socialism? It's clear that he views giving to the poor only good if it's done voluntarily out of the goodness in your heart, rather than to impress someone, or from being coerced. Support for voluntary charity over forced redistribution tends to come from the right rather than the left.

Yes, I am both a conservative Christian and a libertarian, sounds confusing, doesn't it? To me, libertarianism in the US is about wanting a federal small government, government that stays out of people's lives, and respects the Constitution, instead of paying lip service to it as the Republican and Democratic parties currently do. It is also about states right's and democracy, if the voters or the legislature of a US state wants to outlaw most abortions, or legalize gay marriage, that is the right of that state, the federal government and the courts should stay out of social issues, and give those rights back to state voters and legislatures, just like the 10th amendment says.I disagree with legalization of most recreational drugs, because I believe that when someone takes those drugs, they are not only harming themselves, but society as well, although if a state were to legalize those drugs, that would be the right of that state to do so, (in the US Federal drug laws wouldn't allow that)
What are you going to do when someone breaks the law? i.e. a state with a law that makes taking certain drugs illegal. You are going to take away that person's liberty. Thus you aren't libertarian. For the record, I'm socially liberal, and economically socialist, so we are coming at this from very different sides.

The clarification makes you less evil than my thinking that triggered my 1st post. I pegged you as the kind of "George Bush christian" who uses Christianity if it will help him, but throws it out when it is inconvenient. WWJD? Not the death penalty, that's for sure George.

I would argue strongly that Christians should ignore ebeything except what Christ taught.
Even if Christ seems to have taught not to do so? :p

We could go off on huge tangents on this one, but to stick to the topic, I think that Christianity, by name and by creed, is conservative (small c) in the sense that Edwards talks about (that it holds historical testimony as its primary authority) but that what Christ taught is not necessarily so. What Christ taught might be liberal, and as such Christianity would have liberal elements to it in contrast with some Conservative ideals (big C). It might even also be radical, in that could be a huge departure from the way the world works at the minute. But because it's deliberately maintaining and sticking to a historical set of ideas, it's still conservative (small c), regardless of whatever Christ himself taught.

Incidentally, the Big/small C controversy could be equally seen to apply to C/christianity, as a Big/small L debate probably applies to L/libertarianism. But that's for another day.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

Thats ridiculous and not even deserving of commentary.

In response to "Fishutopia" I'm not the greedy rich person you think I am, I'm actually a poor college student, I believe in churches and charities helping the poor, not big government, because government is often inefficient when it comes to social aid, wasting taxpayer money in the process, and government social aid is another step towards socialism. I do believe in helping the poor, actually I donate 15 % percent of my income to my churches food pantry program. I'm not stating to brag, that's not the person that I am, as Jesus said, when you do something for someone else, "Let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing", ie, don't make it public. I just said that to show a point there
With similar circumstances to yours (Edwards Street) I would like to express my wholehearted agreement with your comment here, and I believe it is truly a shame that fewer people believe this way (especially considering the considerable proof that this is a more practical manner of thinking).

If someone breaks a state law, they face the punishment from that state for that law, I don't get the point of post # 203 Don't compare me to President Bush, I can't stand him, I don't believe he is a true conservative, he's a neo-conservative (there's a big difference). One person mentioned that there are people who are "Big L" libertarians, and "small L" libertarians, I belong to the 2nd group, I'm libertarian when it comes to philosohphy on government, but I'm not a member of the US Libertarian party.

In reference to post 206, thanks :wink:

Edwards Street, to quickly quote someone, click the quote button located at the bottom right hand corner of the post (next to a green thing).

In Britain large C is the Conservative party whereas small c is a conservative view point (that things are okay as they are and there is no need to change anything) - the two do not always coincide.

Ahh yes I see that, but as the poster I'm addressing appears to be American......

In response to "Fishutopia" I'm not the greedy rich person you think I am, I'm actually a poor college student, I believe in churches and charities helping the poor, not big government, because government is often inefficient when it comes to social aid, wasting taxpayer money in the process, and government social aid is another step towards socialism. I do believe in helping the poor, actually I donate 15 % percent of my income to my churches food pantry program. I'm not stating to brag, that's not the person that I am, as Jesus said, when you do something for someone else, "Let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing", ie, don't make it public. I just said that to show a point there

15%? That's all? That's not very Christlike. The Bible has a clear image of the true believer, and it involves giving EVERYTHING, not some piddling 15%.

And you complain about how ineffective socialism is.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle;14073856]15%? That's all? That's not very Christlike. The Bible has a clear image of the true believer, and it involves giving EVERYTHING, not some piddling 15%.

Hmm.... Doesn't the Bible talk about 10 % tithe? The anarcho-socialism/communism that New Testament believers participated in was voluntary, and for a temporary, specific purpose (to help advance Christianity in it's early days). Christians were never commanded to participate in such actions. Are you implying that Christians should give up all possessions, and basically live like monks?

Well, if you want to continue this debate, I won't be back until Wednesday.....

Hmm.... Doesn't the Bible talk about 10 % tithe? The anarcho-socialism/communism that New Testament believers participated in was voluntary, and for a temporary, specific purpose (to help advance Christianity in it's early days). Christians were never commanded to participate in such actions. Are you implying that Christians should give up all possessions, and basically live like monks?

Yes. And, if you'd actually read your bible, you wouldn't be able to come to any other conclusions.

Which is why most modern 'christians' follow a soft version of Christianity, which allows them to salve their conscience with attendance at a christian gathering place, while never actually having to do any of the things it would require to actually live a Christlike life.

Do Libertarians have morals?
No. No, they do not.

Limiting, because Fourth Am. limits them, not bans. This is a party platform, not a law proposal. It's not going to be copy-pasted into the code of laws.

If your interpretation was what LP meant to say, they wouldn't need to add the term "innocent".
Also, the term "innocent third parties" clearly implies there's the second party - likely, the suspect.

Limits, yes.
Bans, no.
As said in the article, it's aimed at protecting the non-suspects. The part you quote isn't from the solutions or transition (i.e. what they want to do), it's from the principles (i.e. what they believe) - that's why it uses vague "open to review" concepts rather than "permit" or "ban" as in actual proposals.

Now you are playing more word games -- this time on the difference between a limit and a ban.

Regardless, we disagree on what the relevant part of LP platform means and how it reflects on the LP. We can leave it at that.


Like it's impossible to ban machineguns with a new weapons act. They're already banned, you can't make them "double-banned" - the laws are redundant.

OK, so far I've been letting you get away with an assumption that just isn't so. Not every case of production of child pornography involves an identifiable (let alone prosecutable) case of sexual assault or rape. In fact, FBI statistics (pdf) (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204911.pdf) on child pornography show that significant numbers -- a majority even -- of child pornography incidents known to state or local law enforcement in the U.S. in 2000 did NOT involve ANY identifiable accompanying offenses--let alone a violent or sexual offense.

Moreover, your assumption shows a basic ignorance about child pornography statutes. You might read this pdf (http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/child_pornography.pdf). Also, here are the the federal laws regarding child pornography (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_110.html), namely CHAPTER 110—SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN:

18 USC § 2251 . Sexual exploitation of children (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002251----000-.html)
18 USC § 2251A. Selling or buying of children (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002251---A000-.html)
18 USC § 2252. Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002252----000-.html)
18 USC § 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002252---A000-.html)
18 USC § 2252B. Misleading domain names on the Internet (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002252---B000-.html)
18 USC § 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002252---C000-.html)
18 USC § 2253. Criminal forfeiture (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002253----000-.html)
18 USC § 2254. Civil forfeiture (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002254----000-.html)
18 USC § 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002255----000-.html)
18 USC § 2256. Definitions for chapter (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html)
18 USC § 2257. Record keeping requirements (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html)
18 USC § 2257A. Record keeping requirements for simulated sexual conduct (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257---A000-.html)
18 USC § 2258. Failure to report child abuse (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002258----000-.html)
18 USC § 2259. Mandatory restitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002259----000-.html)
18 USC § 2260. Production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor for importation into the United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002260----000-.html)
18 USC § 2260A. Penalties for registered sex offenders (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002260---A000-.html)


Take, just as an example, 18 USC § 2260. It is clear the law covers child pornography offenses relating to the production of child pornography outside the jurisdiction of the United States. In such cases, it is highly unlikely anyone could be successfully prosecuted for rape or sexual assault, but they are nonetheless guilty of serious crimes causing direct and severe harm to children.


No, I don't. I even agree it justifies limits. However, the nature of the harm is not such as to make criminal penalties appropriate on the basis of videotape contents alone.

I've document at length the direct and indirect harm that more than justifies criminalization of the posession, use, sale, or distribution of child pornography. That you belittle or ignore such evidence is your call, but it still exists.

The Supreme Court addressed the balancing of state interests and potential free speech issues regarding the possession of child pornography in Osborne v. Ohio (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=495&invol=103), 495 U.S. 103 (1990). Unlike the mere private posession of obscene material in one's home which is protected under the First Amendment (see Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)), the Court held there was no such right to privately possess child pornography. The Court explained:

[T]he State does not rely on a paternalistic interest in regulating Osborne’s mind. Rather, Ohio has enacted in order to protect the victims of child pornography; it hopes to destroy a market for the exploitative use of children. . . . It is . . . surely reasonable for the State to conclude that it will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand. . . . Other interests also support the Ohio law. First, as [[I]New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)] recognized, the materials produced by child pornography permanently record the victim’s abuse. The pornography’s continued existence causes the child victims continuing harm by haunting the children in years to come. TheState’s ban on possession and viewing encourages possessors of these materials to destroy them. Second, encouraging the destruction of these materials is also desirable because evidence suggests that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce other children into sexual activity.

Id. at 109-111 (citations omitted).


Since distribution of CP is evidence of a crime - go full speed ahead with criminal investigation to find the producer and punish the distributors as accomplices to crime.

Now you are not making sense AND are contradicting yourself. First, you've been arguing that production of child pornography is not itself a crime, but rather involves accompanying crimes. Second, if you are going to stretch the law regarding accomplices so far to make the distributors of child porn guilty of rape, why not allow the State to simply punish them for the direct crime of distribution of child pornography? Third, as noted above, you are making a faulty assumption that, even if the producer is identified, an identifiable crime of rape or sexual assault can be successfully brought against such producer -- let alone his/her "accomplices."


Treating anything to do with CP as probable cause for lifting privacy - fine.

Meethinks this goes back to your lack of understanding of what probable cause is and how it relates to searches and seizures. If child pornography is not inherently criminal to produce, possess, sell, or distribute, then of what crime is it's possession "probable cause" and whom or what does it authorize to be searched and/or seized?

Civil litigation for moral damages dealt by distribution - fine with that too.

Fine. But that is not mutually exclusive of criminal penalties. See 18 U.S.C. § 2255.

Criminal penalty for possession - sorry, no. That's punishment without guilty act and without proof of guilty mind.

To the contrary, one cannot be convicted of possession of child pornography without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of both a guilty act and a guilty mind.

Look at 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002252----000-.html). Section makes it a crime, knowingly to possess “1 or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other matter which contain any visual depiction . . . of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

As the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u10337), 513 U.S. 64 (1994), the word "knowing" applies not just to the possession of child pornography but to knowledge that the thing possess is child pornography. It must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that, in addition to knowing her/she possess the material in question, the defendant knew that the material depicted sexually explicit conduct and that at least one of the performers was a minor.

Moreover, the statute provides that it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant “possessed less than three matters containing [such] visual depiction” and “promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person other than a law enforcement agency, to access any [such] visual depiction . . . (A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or (B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency andafforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.” 18 U.S.C. § 2252(c). So even if one knowingly possesses one or two items of child pornography, one can't be convicted if, after learn of such possession, one either deletes it or reports it to law enforcement.

This should make it abundantly clear that both a guilty act and a guilty mind are required to convict one of possession of child pornography -- not to mention the categories of use, sale, and distribution.


In other words, "We are too incompetent to find the criminals, so we'll arrest for correlating activities".

It's all good fun to scream "ZOMG terrible behind bars them all!" until you face such a risk. And if we start going after correlating activities, there will be something to endanger you too.

This might be a more compelling argument if it were not for the abundant evidence I have already presented regarding CAUSATION of direct and indirect harm from child pornography. Although the evidence of an extremely high correlation between "mere" possession/use/sale/distribution of child pornography and child molestation is disturbing and could theoretically justify criminalization of those activities, we don't have to go to that hypothetical.


Furthermore, how about ::air quotes:: my Nicaraguan friend ::air quotes:: sends you some emails containing CP attachments? He'll even make it look like it's in a newsgroup. Your client downloads them, and voila, you're in possession. Now just get cops here, and enjoy several years of felony conviction in federal prison, greet Daddy Tripod for you're among rapists.

Nice try. As I've explained above, the scenario you describe would not entail criminal possession of child pornography on my part. And, even if it did, I could escape liability merely by deleting the attachments when I discovered them. So much for your scare-tactics scenario.

Extremely improbable, yes, but Dalton was imprisoned for pedophilic contents of his private diary.

That you would refer to the Dalton case speaks eloquently of your ignorance, your desperation, or both.

Dalton was a convicted child pornographer who, after violating his parole, pled guilty to pandering child pornography based on his private descriptions of the torture and rape of children in his personal journal. Dalton's conviction for pandering was subsequently overturned, although he was sentenced to prison for violating his parole. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton) actually does a decent job of summarizing the relevant facts:

In 1998, Brian Dalton was charged with possession of child pornography; he pled guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He was released after 4 months and received 3 years probation. After violating his probation by failing to attend a sex offender treatment program, he was arrested. His mother then informed his probation officer that she had found questionable material in his apartment, a journal. Dalton's journal was retrieved; it contained graphic depictions of the torture and rape of children. Police determined the depictions were fictional.

Dalton was charged with production and possession of child pornography. As part of a plea bargain, he pled guilty to one of the charges in July 2001. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison, in addition to the remaining time from the first case. Dalton then attempted to change his guilty plea, to pursue an appeal. The trial court denied his request.

Dalton, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, charged that the Ohio child pornography statute was unconstitutional. *snip*

The case received wide publicity because of the private nature of a diary and a novel application of state child pornography laws.

In July 2003, the Court of Appeals of Ohio vacated the conviction and allowed Dalton to retract his guilty plea, accepting his argument that he would not have pled guilty had he not received ineffective assistance from his court-appointed lawyer. The court did not speak to the constitutional issues.

In November 2003, the Ohio Supreme Court declined, by a 5-2 vote, to take the case on further appeal. The case was sent back to trial court, and in March 2004, was dismissed. The trial judge held that "the charge did not meet the standard of the Ohio law that prosecutors used."

In addition to noting the objectionable prosecution of Dalton for private writings was ultimately unsuccessful, it is worth noting that, because he was guilty of violating his parole on his original conviction, it is not clear that Dalton spent a single day in jail because of the second set of charges.

Again, so much for your bogeyman.


Absolutely. I would even argue that criminal penalties should be primarily based on motives, crime profile, and the risk of repeat offenses, while the actual act is more of a basis for civil damages.

I don't have the time or patience to explore what this means or how it appears to require a massive re-writing of criminal law in this country (including the overturning of centuries-old understandings). Suffice it to say I am suprised that you directly contradict the LP Party on this issue.

Take, just as an example, 18 USC § 2260. It is clear the law covers child pornography offenses relating to the production of child pornography outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
It's called playing the world police. No matter how heinous, crimes outside US jurisdiction should be prosecuted by the appropriate local authorities.



The Supreme Court addressed the balancing of state interests and potential free speech issues
"Balancing of state interests and free speech" is in itself what LP objects to. There can be only one form of relationship between them, that is, free speech first, state interests second. Classified materials are covered by clearance and NDA.


It is . . . surely reasonable for the State to conclude that it will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand. . . .
It is also reasonable to conclude that the state will decrease the rate and severity of traffic accidents by banning cars with more than 50hp and more than 60mph maximum speed.



Second, if you are going to stretch the law regarding accomplices so far to make the distributors of child porn guilty of rape, Only the beginning of the distribution chain, of course. Those trading in CP with its producers.

why not allow the State to simply punish them for the direct crime of distribution of child pornography?
Because that might affect the end of the chain, i.e. porn shops who simply buy the goods from middlemen and resell them. This does not involve corpus delicti, actual damage.
Although it might make sense to prohibit it, but rather covered by civil trade laws. Again, it's one thing to sell "fresh" CP, another to sell 50's CP.

If child pornography is not inherently criminal to produce, possess, sell, or distribute, then of what crime is it's possession "probable cause"
Possession isn't, distribution is - of being accomplice in production.
Possession together with other factors, however, raises reasonable suspicion, allowing investigation.


To the contrary, one cannot be convicted of possession of child pornography without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of both a guilty act and a guilty mind.
Of course one can. There's no guilty act in jacking off to CP, and there's no guilty mind required to do it.

The LP stance does not consider there to be guilty act, if there's no corpus delicti, and there is none in jacking off to CP.


Nice try. As I've explained above, the scenario you describe would not entail criminal possession of child pornography on my part. And, even if it did, I could escape liability merely by deleting the attachments when I discovered them. Good for you that you're one of the few to have read the law and know what to do.
Though note there won't be just 3.



His mother then informed his probation officer that she had found questionable material in his apartment, a journal. Dalton's journal was retrieved; it contained graphic depictions of the torture and rape of children. Police determined the depictions were fictional.

Dalton was charged with production and possession of child pornography. As part of a plea bargain, he pled guilty to one of the charges in July 2001. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison, in addition to the remaining time from the first case. Dalton then attempted to change his guilty plea, to pursue an appeal. The trial court denied his request.
Which is exactly why some of the CP laws are wrong.


I don't have the time or patience to explore what this means or how it appears to require a massive re-writing of criminal law in this country (including the overturning of centuries-old misunderstandings).
Of course it does require a rewriting of the criminal law from the ground up. No one said it's something likely to happen, only that it would be a more fair system. Monetary liability based on damages, forced correction depending on motives and state of mind.

Suffice it to say I am suprised that you directly contradict the LP Party on this issue.
I'm not in the LP. I disagree with it on many issues. Basically I only agree with it on the fundamental principle that we need more freedom, not less.

I don't have to explain why.

I'm stopping here. I refuse to go on with this madness. Andaras was far more sensible then you.

I'm stopping here. I refuse to go on with this madness. Andaras was far more sensible then you.

I miss Andaras. Silly Commie that he was.:(

I miss Andaras. Silly Commie that he was.:(

At least he explained himself. not well, but he gets points for trying.:tongue:

Ten dollars says he'll be back before next year.

At least he explained himself. not well, but he gets points for trying.:tongue:

Ten dollars says he'll be back before next year.

He was already back, briefly, in another thread. Up to his old antics, and got DEATed the moment someone reported him.

He was already back, briefly, in another thread. Up to his old antics, and got DEATed the moment someone reported him.

He just needs to learn to play a bit nicer. But I do miss him. His antics provoked my laughter in more than one occasion.:tongue:

I'm stopping here. I refuse to go on with this madness. Andaras was far more sensible then you.

Then you missed the explanation - if I need to explain why, you're in no position to be having this discussion.

So, there's really no point in doing so. But I did anyway. And then you chose to ignore it.

Not knowing it becuase you just don't know, that's maybe excusable ignorance. Not knowing because you CHOOSE to not know... that's something else.

Then you missed the explanation - if I need to explain why, you're in no position to be having this discussion.

And of course, you're the one who decides whose opinion deserves to be explained, and whose is automatically right.
So, there's really no point in doing so. But I did anyway. And then you chose to ignore it.

Where did you explain? In this thread?

Not knowing it becuase you just don't know, that's maybe excusable ignorance. Not knowing because you CHOOSE to not know... that's something else.
???
A little clearer, please?

And of course, you're the one who decides whose opinion deserves to be explained, and whose is automatically right.


Irrelevent.

You made an obviously ignorant statement which is easily contradicted by facts. The fact that you claimed you need explanation of HOW such a thing could be, simply suggests that you're not ready to discuss the topic.


Where did you explain? In this thread?


In the post which you apparently failed to read, actually.


A little clearer, please?

Claiming you don't know something is bad enough, especially when you felt obliged to throw your ignorance into the debate.

Ignoring it when someone offers the explanations is even worse.

Irrelevent.

How so? Are you admitting that's the case, or merely dismissing the argument because you have no answer?
You made an obviously ignorant statement which is easily contradicted by facts. The fact that you claimed you need explanation of HOW such a thing could be, simply suggests that you're not ready to discuss the topic.
Please, show me where I made an ignorant statement and show me the facts that prove me wrong. If you do that, I'll admit that I'm not ready to discuss the topic.

In the post which you apparently failed to read, actually.

Where? Show me.

Claiming you don't know something is bad enough, especially when you felt obliged to throw your ignorance into the debate.

Claiming I don't know something? Forgive me for not being able to read your mind and figure out your opinions on something over the internet, I can only do that on weekends.

Ignoring it when someone offers the explanations is even worse.
Please, show me where I ignored your explanation.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You want to engage in a discussion of economics, yet you need it explained to you that trade is not always an equal footing proposition?

I agree with GnI. You're not ready for this conversation.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You want to engage in a discussion of economics, yet you need it explained to you that trade is not always an equal footing proposition?

I agree with GnI. You're not ready for this conversation.
Every one has their own price on everything. Trade is exchanging a certain amount of something in exchange for another. By trading, you are accepting that you value something more than what you already have. By it's very definition:
Being in accordance with relative merit or significance
all trade is fair.

Every one has their own price on everything. Trade is exchanging a certain amount of something in exchange for another. By trading, you are accepting that you value something more than what you already have. By it's very definition:

all trade is fair.

The nonsensical proposition of "if you paid for it, it's fair to you" falls apart on even the slightest examination, and thus I restate my original point. You're not equipped for this discussion.

Trade is fair when entered into at arms length, with no side under any compulsion to engage in the transaction. if you eliminate those, you so strangle the definition of "fairness" such that it if you were to give me all the money in your wallet under threat of death, it's a fair deal, since you chose, of your own free will, to give it to me in exchange for me not killing you

I'm a little tipsy right now, so forgive me if I'm being a little nonsensical but:

CM, you are dreaming if you think that we'll be ok without government intervention in trade. We have massive government intervention in the market in every country, seriously just look at the agricultural sector, without intervention (and yes, buffer stocks do count as intervention, I do not view that as a 'free market' activity), price fluctuations, as well as income fluctuations among farmers income, would really badly fuck everything up.

I'm not sure why I should bother responding to your selective responses which try to wish away some of my best points, but W/E.

It's called playing the world police. No matter how heinous, crimes outside US jurisdiction should be prosecuted by the appropriate local authorities.

Um. First, this has nothing to do with playing "world police." If you paid attention the law proscribes actions occurring completely within the jurisdiction of the United States. Second, I guess nobody important gets hurt by child pornography if it is made with foreign kids. :rolleyes:

"Balancing of state interests and free speech" is in itself what LP objects to. There can be only one form of relationship between them, that is, free speech first, state interests second.

LOL. Do you believe that anyone should be free to say anything at any time and any place by any method without consequences?

If so, you are looney.

If not, you believe in some balancing of free speech and other interests. Some examples are defamation, fighting words, subversion of a fair trial, "crying fire in a crowded theatre," etc.

Classified materials are covered by clearance and NDA.

Sure they are. :rolleyes:

It is also reasonable to conclude that the state will decrease the rate and severity of traffic accidents by banning cars with more than 50hp and more than 60mph maximum speed.

Let's see, you skipped over the evidence that production of child pornography does not necessarily involve prosecutable rape or sexual assault as you assume.

You skipped over the various evidence of direct and indirect harm caused by the possession, use, sale, or distribution of child pornography.

Instead, you seize on one sentence out of the Osborne case which you then try to rebut with a ridiculous analogy. Regardless, your use of the word "reasonable" is more than a bit questionable and there are reasons other than "OMG, freedom!!" why banning cars with more than 50hp or more than 60mph maximum speed would be a bad idea.

Only the beginning of the distribution chain, of course. Those trading in CP with its producers.

Again, what crime have the producers necessarily committed if there is no law against child pornography?

Moreover, you do an excellent job of moving the goalposts. You've gone from saying that production, possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography should be legal to saying that production and some distribution should be illegal. Perhaps if we keep discussing this long enough you will just admit that child pornography can be outlawed altogether.

Because that might affect the end of the chain, i.e. porn shops who simply buy the goods from middlemen and resell them. This does not involve corpus delicti, actual damage.

First, don't use legal terms you don't understand like "corpus delicti," which has nothing to do with "actual damage."

Second, I've shown that the possession and sale of child pornography does cause actual damage. Your continued ignoring of those facts doesn't make them go away.

Third, I'm curious as to how you would write this law that would punish producers of child pornography and some distributors, but would not punish other distributors based on some amorphous notion of the "chain."


Although it might make sense to prohibit it, but rather covered by civil trade laws.

If you can prohibit and attach penalties to an activity, why exactly is better to do so civilly rather than criminally? Isn't the impingement on "freedom" similar?

Again, it's one thing to sell "fresh" CP, another to sell 50's CP.

So which are you saying is worse, sale of a single instance of child pornography or mass distribution of child pornography? Which should be punishable? :confused:


Possession isn't, distribution is - of being accomplice in production.

Again, you move the goalposts: you said we should treat "anything to do with CP" as probable cause.

Moreover, this answer dodges the question: if child pornography isn't inherently illegal to produce, distribution is being an accomplice to what crime?

Possession together with other factors, however, raises reasonable suspicion, allowing investigation.

Again, you move the goalposts: you went from probable cause to mere reasonable suspicion.

Regardless, possession "together with" what "other factors" raises reasonable suspicion of what crime? And whom or what does it authorize to be searched and/or seized?


Of course one can. There's no guilty act in jacking off to CP, and there's no guilty mind required to do it.

The LP stance does not consider there to be guilty act, if there's no corpus delicti, and there is none in jacking off to CP.

Again, you don't know what "corpus delicti" means and should not use that phrase.

There is a rather significant difference between saying there is "no guilty act" and the "LP stance does not consider there to be [a] guilty act." My whole point is the LP stance is not just wrong, but ridiculous.

Regardless, you do a nice job of ignoring the actual law I cited and the fact that there is a clearly defined guilty act and guilty mind required for a conviction on possession of child pornography. Your argument isn't really that there is no clearly defined guilty act or guilty mind, but that you don't think the act or state of mind should be a crime. Do you get the difference?

Finally, you again ignore the copious evidence that mere possession -- let alone sale, use, and distribution -- of child pornography CAUSES direct and indirect harm to children and society.


Good for you that you're one of the few to have read the law and know what to do.
Though note there won't be just 3.

Um. Did you skip the part about how merely unwittingly receiving an e-mail with some child pornography attached wouldn't be a crime in the first place? Or was that just inconvenient?


Which is exactly why some of the CP laws are wrong.

How? Why? I've explained how the Dalton case shows no such thing.


Of course it does require a rewriting of the criminal law from the ground up. No one said it's something likely to happen, only that it would be a more fair system. Monetary liability based on damages, forced correction depending on motives and state of mind.

I'm not in the LP. I disagree with it on many issues. Basically I only agree with it on the fundamental principle that we need more freedom, not less.

I'm glad to see you increasingly distancing yourself from the absurdity that is the Libertarian Party.

The funny thing is that, although I disagree with the LP regarding hate crime legislation, I would have the same (among other) objection to your criminalizing mere motives and states of mind as the LP would -- there should be no thought police. Crimes are based on actus reus--a specific wrongful deed--combined with the appropriate mens rea--a guilty or wrongful purpose. Nothing more, nothing less.

Our criminal justice system is far from perfect, but you would trample on basic concepts proven by experience of history to best protect both societal interests and individual liberty.

if you eliminate those, you so strangle the definition of "fairness" such that it if you were to give me all the money in your wallet under threat of death, it's a fair deal, since you chose, of your own free will, to give it to me in exchange for me not killing you
Hmmm... Point taken.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

I disagree. I am a pretty libertarian kind of guy and think that a lot of lousy things should be legal yet I do not think that these lousy things are ok to do. It is simply that we should not prevent people from being dumbasses and we should not bail them out of the jams caused by their dumbassery.

If someone breaks a state law, they face the punishment from that state for that law, I don't get the point of post # 203
If you suggest that a person's liberty can be taken from them for anything that doesn't harm someone else (such as using drugs) you are not a libertarian. You may have some libvertarian leanings, but you are not a libertarian.
Don't compare me to President Bush, I can't stand him, I don't believe he is a true conservative, he's a neo-conservative (there's a big difference).
I didn't. I said I originally thought you were a "George Bush Christian" but I had changed my mind.

i think we do :D

that is...i think we do have morals :D special 'liberatarian morals'

If you suggest that a person's liberty can be taken from them for anything that doesn't harm someone else (such as using drugs) you are not a libertarian. You may have some libvertarian leanings, but you are not a libertarian.

Hah it's a long way to go for drug use to cause no harm to others though.

If you use recreational drugs, you are part of a system that causes harm to lots of other people, if only because criminal activity is not harmless.

If you use recreational drugs, you are part of a system that causes harm to lots of other people, if only because criminal activity is not harmless.


If you commit a violent act (the only thing true libertarians say should be outlawed) then you should be punished. If you take drugs, and no-one is hurt by you, then there's no problem. Being part of the system is no grounds for something being criminal.

Here comes an example to show how absurb that position is. You are part of the system that elected Kissinger (if you are old enough). He has been found guilty of war crimes in some countries, so that makes you a war criminal. See how being part of the system makes you guilty, makes no sense?

LOL. Do you believe that anyone should be free to say anything at any time and any place by any method without consequences?
With the exception of information he vowed not to disclose by contract, and with the exception of using speech as a tool of committing a crime (in which case it's the crime which is to be punished, not speech).

If not, you believe in some balancing of free speech and other interests. Some examples are defamation, fighting words, No. These are free speech we just try to censor out not to hurt our ears.
subversion of a fair trial, "crying fire in a crowded theatre," etc. Violation of contract in the first case, some crime or perhaps tort (not sure which) in the latter.


Let's see, you skipped over the evidence that production of child pornography does not necessarily involve prosecutable rape or sexual assault as you assume.
Non-coitus naked pictures are generally hard to consider patently offensive, and tend to be erotica.
And still, child abuse stands.


Regardless, your use of the word "reasonable" is more than a bit questionable and there are reasons other than "OMG, freedom!!" why banning cars with more than 50hp or more than 60mph maximum speed would be a bad idea.
Ah, yes, they're much less fun to drive. And people would get to the point a bit slower. But there'll be less accidents.


Moreover, you do an excellent job of moving the goalposts. You've gone from saying that production, possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography should be legal to saying that production and some distribution should be illegal.
No, I went from explaining that there is reasoning behind LP's stance that CP laws should be eliminated, as production remains illegal anyway and the rest doesn't cause criminal damage, to my own position that it would actually be desirable to take some measures against distribution.


Third, I'm curious as to how you would write this law that would punish producers of child pornography and some distributors, but would not punish other distributors based on some amorphous notion of the "chain."

The first-stage distributors are linked with the producers. Thus, they're aware of the crime, and are accomplices to it by providing funding.

The end of the chain retail shop isn't.


If you can prohibit and attach penalties to an activity, why exactly is better to do so civilly rather than criminally? Isn't the impingement on "freedom" similar?
Civil liability doesn't deal the same damage to the person as criminal. If one hasn't committed a crime causing actual harm to any person, it's not fair to apply a disproportionately harmful penalty.
Furthermore, sending a person to a crime university and permanently taking them out of the legal workforce - basically dooming them to a life of crime - in the end does more damage than doing nothing.

That's the case with the retail shop selling questionable material.


Moreover, this answer dodges the question: if child pornography isn't inherently illegal to produce, distribution is being an accomplice to what crime?
It is illegal to produce as it involves sexual crimes and child abuse. What doesn't, e.g. drawing or rendering CP pictures, isn't the issue.

If there is a harmful activity involved in CP production that is not covered by law, guess which law should be worked on. Because otherwise that activity will be legal as long as it's not filmed, which we don't want.

Again, you move the goalposts: you went from probable cause to mere reasonable suspicion. Just corrected what I meant. It's enough to have reasonable suspicion for an investigation.

Regardless, possession "together with" what "other factors" raises reasonable suspicion of what crime? And whom or what does it authorize to be searched and/or seized?
Together with working with kids, or there being suspicion of child abuse, or any other factor that suggests one might be not merely jerking off. Note that it's hard to detect that someone has CP, so most arrests for it are either based on such factors, or random.
Surveillance, for instance.


Again, you don't know what "corpus delicti" means and should not use that phrase.
There is a rather significant difference between saying there is "no guilty act" and the "LP stance does not consider there to be [a] guilty act."
My stance doesn't either. If it doesn't do actual criminal harm (and I don't count hurting to know someone has something as such), it's not a guilty act. If a law says otherwise, it's a law I would prefer to do without, and don't consider to be morally justifiable.
Thus, possession of CP is not a guilty act in my book.


Finally, you again ignore the copious evidence that mere possession -- let alone sale, use, and distribution -- of child pornography CAUSES direct and indirect harm to children and society.
No, that there is correlation between possession and crimes. Activity correlated with crime is not yet crime.


The funny thing is that, although I disagree with the LP regarding hate crime legislation, I would have the same (among other) objection to your criminalizing mere motives and states of mind as the LP would -- there should be no thought police. Crimes are based on actus reus--a specific wrongful deed--combined with the appropriate mens rea--a guilty or wrongful purpose. Nothing more, nothing less.
You're misunderstanding. Of course, if there is no body of crime, guilty act and guilty mind, there is no crime, and as such there can't be any conviction.
Rather, motives and state of mind should be the key factor for deciding on what correction to apply.
Note I'm saying "correction", not "penalty". Penalties, in all but the most severe cases, should be expressed in USD and based on the damage caused by the crime.

The reason for choosing correction based on motives and person's depth of involvement in criminal activities is that it's correction. If you fix a car's suspension after an accident, you fix it based on what's wrong with it, not on how badly you were hurt in the accident.

If you commit a violent act (the only thing true libertarians say should be outlawed) then you should be punished. If you take drugs, and no-one is hurt by you, then there's no problem. Being part of the system is no grounds for something being criminal.

Here comes an example to show how absurb that position is. You are part of the system that elected Kissinger (if you are old enough). He has been found guilty of war crimes in some countries, so that makes you a war criminal. See how being part of the system makes you guilty, makes no sense?


Let me just remind you of the words to which I was replying.


Fish said: 'If you suggest that a person's liberty can be taken from them for anything that doesn't harm someone else (such as using drugs) ....'

My response was just saying, if you use recreational drugs don't even belive that nobody is harmed because of your choice.

That was it, really that was all I ws saying.

With the exception of information he vowed not to disclose by contract, and with the exception of using speech as a tool of committing a crime (in which case it's the crime which is to be punished, not speech).

Nice circular definition. It's either always free speech or sometimes it isn't. My examples were just that: examples of when it isn't, i.e., when it is a crime.

No. These are free speech we just try to censor out not to hurt our ears.

So you have no problem with defamation (false statement about another person that causes that person harm) or speech that is inherently incites hatred or violence and places the targets of the words in immediate danger of harm?

Violation of contract in the first case,

WTF? One can subvert a fair trial without violating any contract. Think about it a moment.

some crime or perhaps tort (not sure which) in the latter.

Again, circular. If crying fire in a crowded theatre is a crime or tort, then it is not free speech. Thanks for illustrating my whole point, which is that even you believe there should be some instances where the value of speech must be balanced against other interests.


Non-coitus naked pictures are generally hard to consider patently offensive, and tend to be erotica.
And still, child abuse stands.

You really should look at the child pornography statutes I linked and the FBI statistics I linked.

First, you have yet to provide a single reason why it harms anything to have laws against the production of child pornography--even if such laws may have some potential overlap with other criminal statutes.

Second, you ignore that there are cases -- a majority of cases involving production of child pornography -- where there is sufficient evidence to convict the defendant for production of child pornography but not sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of other identifiable crimes.

Third, production of child pornography constitutes child abuse precisely because there are laws that define the use of a child in producing pornography is child abuse. Either you object to such laws -- in which case you don't think production should be criminal -- or you don't -- in which case I don't know why you are arguing.

No, I went from explaining that there is reasoning behind LP's stance that CP laws should be eliminated, as production remains illegal anyway and the rest doesn't cause criminal damage, to my own position that it would actually be desirable to take some measures against distribution.

Faulty, unrealisitic, and harmful reasoning is still "reasoning behind."

Still I'm glad to see even you don't accept the LP's logic regarding legalization of child pornography.


The first-stage distributors are linked with the producers. Thus, they're aware of the crime, and are accomplices to it by providing funding.

The end of the chain retail shop isn't.

*sigh* You ignore my first two points, and don't actually answer the third.

The question was "how would you write this law that would punish producers of child pornography and some distributors, but would not punish other distributors based on some amorphous notion of a 'chain'?"

Care to take another shot at answering the question asked?


Civil liability doesn't deal the same damage to the person as criminal. If one hasn't committed a crime causing actual harm to any person, it's not fair to apply a disproportionately harmful penalty.
Furthermore, sending a person to a crime university and permanently taking them out of the legal workforce - basically dooming them to a life of crime - in the end does more damage than doing nothing.

That's the case with the retail shop selling questionable material.

You are (1) begging the question of whether possession, use, sale, or distribution of child pornography should be a crime and (2) continuing to ignore the copious evidence that such activities all cause harm to other persons.


It is illegal to produce as it involves sexual crimes and child abuse.

Um. First, as I noted above, the "it can't be illegal twice" argument doesn't make sense from the beginning.

Second, the "it can't be illegal twice, so it should be legal" argument is inherently contradictory.

Third, you ignore the real evidence I provided that identifiable cases of production of child pornography do NOT necessarily involve IDENTIFIABLE AND/OR PROSECUTABLE sexual crimes or child abuse.


If there is a harmful activity involved in CP production that is not covered by law, guess which law should be worked on. Because otherwise that activity will be legal as long as it's not filmed, which we don't want.

Nice try. If we have sufficient evidence that someone produced child pornography but not sufficient evidence to convict them of another crime, should they or should they be convicted of a crime?


Just corrected what I meant. It's enough to have reasonable suspicion for an investigation.

Again, you shouldn't use terms you don't understand, which apparently includes "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion." Police don't need even reasonable suspicion to investigate something. They only need reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop-and-frisk type search. This pdf (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf) may help you understand the relevant terms and their relationship to search and seizure laws.


Together with working with kids, or there being suspicion of child abuse, or any other factor that suggests one might be not merely jerking off. Note that it's hard to detect that someone has CP, so most arrests for it are either based on such factors, or random.

You didn't answer the question asked: what crime these other factors create a reasonable suspicion of or whom or what does it authorize to be searched and/or seized?

I think you are in over your head here.

Regardless, are you saying that working with kids is sufficient for reasonable suspicion that one is a child molester? It can't be reasonable suspicion that one possesses child pornography, because you don't think that possession is a crime.


Surveillance, for instance.

Not to bring up a dead horse, but you were arguing earlier in favor of the statement that "The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant." I'm glad to see you don't really believe that.


My stance doesn't either. If it doesn't do actual criminal harm (and I don't count hurting to know someone has something as such), it's not a guilty act. If a law says otherwise, it's a law I would prefer to do without, and don't consider to be morally justifiable.
Thus, possession of CP is not a guilty act in my book.

Define "criminal harm."

No, that there is correlation between possession and crimes. Activity correlated with crime is not yet crime.

Um. I did present evidence of a correlation between possession and crime, but also evidence of how possession CAUSES additional crime--and both direct and indirect harm to society and children. You insisting such evidence doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.


You're misunderstanding. Of course, if there is no body of crime, guilty act and guilty mind, there is no crime, and as such there can't be any conviction.
Rather, motives and state of mind should be the key factor for deciding on what correction to apply.
Note I'm saying "correction", not "penalty". Penalties, in all but the most severe cases, should be expressed in USD and based on the damage caused by the crime.

Good. I'm glad to see your position wasn't as looney as it sounded.

As for whether prison is a more fit punishment for crimes than monetary damages, we can debate that another time. I do wonder, however, what happens in those cases (likely a majority of cases) where the defendant can't pay for all the damage he/she has caused.

I also don't understand your earlier emphasis on the distinction between civil laws and criminal laws, if the penalty for criminal is going to be civil damages.


The reason for choosing correction based on motives and person's depth of involvement in criminal activities is that it's correction. If you fix a car's suspension after an accident, you fix it based on what's wrong with it, not on how badly you were hurt in the accident.

I'm just curious, what are the motives of one that possesses, sells, and/or distributes child pornography and why shouldn't those motives be "fixed"--taking account of the defendant's depth of involvement in criminal activities?

But are they if that person thinks that they are right to do so? How many people does it take to regard an action as wrong to make it universally so? Who gets to decide?

You speak of it as if there is some kingship that dictates what is or isn't morally correct. Of course for a religions person like myself we believe that morality is derived from an absolute source, but that source as I understand it, is that absolute right in and of itself. I say that to point out, one shouldn't concern himself with "who" the rules come from or "who" gets final say. One should spend his time and energy towards trying to align himself with the right that he discovers by research, meditation, spiritual/intellectual awareness, etc. A true libertarian is not a person trying to see how much he can get away with. Libertarians are people who believe that piling law upon law and rule upon rule onto an already convoluted government system is a harmful manner of legislating. In the least I believe any man can agree that legislating in that manner is detrimental to capitalism, and I believe that that also would be at the forefront of the interests of a true libertarian.

So if you are trying to understand a Libertarian, understand that the "who" decides isn't important. I (a Constitutionalist and so a Libertarian) don't much care who believes that Social Security is a good idea or an idea based on moral correctness; I believe that it is an economically and personally harmful thing for our government to institute. I believe that because I have studied Social Security and I believe that I know who should (and SHOULDN'T) be responsible for good-will activities. I don't believe that because I believe that I should have "final" say or some sort of ultimate decision making capacity. I say it because I believe it's true, as a Libertarian.

I was thinking about this today; Libertarians have a desire to legalise everything that doesn't cause harm to another person, even things that have a questionable moral basis. When something is legalised, it is generally accepted that society condones it - i.e. that it is alright, and so therefore, under a Libertarian state, ideas that have a questionable moral basis would be "deemed alright by society."

The idea that came to my head subsequently was, therefore, if that is true, then Libertarians must have no morals.

Discuss.

There is an abundance of libertarian literature explaining how violence is not the only manner in which immoral actions would be "punished".

Much of libertarian philosophy is based on specialization, interaction, mutual dependency between free individuals. If no person is an island, they will certainly be aware of the consequences of committing acts that society does not condone.

The nonsensical proposition of "if you paid for it, it's fair to you" falls apart on even the slightest examination, and thus I restate my original point. You're not equipped for this discussion.

Trade is fair when entered into at arms length, with no side under any compulsion to engage in the transaction. if you eliminate those, you so strangle the definition of "fairness" such that it if you were to give me all the money in your wallet under threat of death, it's a fair deal, since you chose, of your own free will, to give it to me in exchange for me not killing you

Who would call that trade?

Trade is defined as willing exchange.

As far as I can tell everything in his post is correct.

By definition trade is as fair as any interaction can possibly get.

Engaging in trade affirms that one does value a good more than what one exchanges for it.