"He started it!" "No, HE started it!"

jscoppe · 2012-05-24T19:03:01.427662+00:00

C.S. Lewis called this the "Natural Law" or the law that we all understand due to the nature of man. We all intrinsically understand fairness, aggression, and attempt to adhere to a code of conduct. We don't adhere to it very well, but almost all of us understand that code.

m_bowers · 2012-05-24T18:27:56.754169+00:00

If the prosecutor really gave a shit about justice or doing her job, she'd prosecute the police officers for assault.

vajav · 2012-05-24T18:23:23.188282+00:00

Markets can never be free or fair until the government stops trying to manipulate them.

camandable · 2012-05-24T15:29:45.039388+00:00

Gender is not a protected class in public accommodations (theaters), but it is in hiring. The protected classes in accommodations are, Race, Color, Region, and National Origin. A private company can choose, with few limitations, who they want to serve. All-male or all-female clubs are legal. "Ladies night" is also a good example.

Osterstriker · 2012-05-24T15:25:37.228315+00:00

I respectfully disagree. People need to be able to lobby their government. It's important enough that it's been specifically protected by our constitution. I will not advocate or support an effort to limit freedoms for anybody.

I do agree that we need to curtail the government's ability/power to grant favors as the solution to the problem, but there will still be lobbying even if we do that. Any form of government will still be able to pass laws that affect free trade or the lives of it's constituents. It's a good thing to be able to lobby your government and provide them information or make your opinion known.

The only way to completely remove the problem is to completely eliminate government. I do not advocate that. I'm a Minarchist, not an Anarchist.

starphish · 2012-05-24T15:18:51.175934+00:00

Solution: Buy more eggs!

Bovice1 · 2012-05-24T15:13:48.221755+00:00

This sounds similar to the premise of the original Honor Harrington book.

lifeishowitis · 2012-05-24T15:02:35.336519+00:00

Except it wasn't garbage. It was something that someone requested and it happened to fall on the ground during transfer. It was immediately picked up by the person requesting it.

It may be against the law to give money to panhandlers, but that law is unjust. I don't side with the police when they enforce unjust laws, just as I don't side with the government when they pass them.

I must have missed the sarcasm tag, but I'll let my post stand anyway.

Impyman18 · 2012-05-24T14:38:00.069178+00:00

Or a knifing, or a beating, or a mugging...

Osterstriker · 2012-05-24T14:20:39.240745+00:00

People use freedom to do things that other people don't like. Freedom to lobby is intrinsic to the proper functioning of a representative republic. The problem isn't the lobbying. It's the favors granted to one group or industry by government.

mepper · 2012-05-24T13:59:18.383638+00:00

They'd still be just as great when measured against other freshwater lakes. Probably even greater since at least one larger lake would be erased by saltwater.

conn2005 · 2012-05-24T13:52:55.232951+00:00

I may be miss-remembering some details, but this article has some good references.

conn2005 · 2012-05-23T16:35:06.977950-07:00

Yes.

conn2005 · 2012-05-23T16:33:28.066647-07:00

Essentially, if there were private roads, those owners could require you to be licensed, right?

Yep.

Gov't owns public roads, so why can't they set the limits on what you can do on said roads?

The US government owns nothing. They hold property in 'trust' for the people. They are already my roads because the government came to my employer and told him that he must take money from me and give it to them or face a cage. If a thief takes your money and buys a car with it, does the car belong to the thief?

newpua_bie · 2012-05-23T23:28:02.550035+00:00

Raise taxes "even more?" [1] Federal taxes are at historic lows - their lowest since 1950.

Wikipedia shows 26.9%. You link shows 14.8%.

It's easy to talk about regulation in the abstract, whether it's overregulation, underregulation, bad regulation, or whatever, but it doesn't carry much meaning unless we're talking about specifics.

We add thousands of pages of regulations per year and take away almost none. Some may be good, many are bad. The overall burden of complying is the problem I was addressing.

I used to work in corporate compliance, so this is a topic near-ish and dear-ish to my heart.

You should have stayed in. It's the fastest growing sector of the economy.

my department also liked regulation

Corporations often do like regulations as they present a barrier to entry into the industry and many often outright help certain companies over others.

It's easier to have everyone on the same page with regard to the ADA than to have to create those rules from scratch.

So you want less freedom because it's just easier? That's pretty lazy. I'm sure it's easier for the ADA to just mandate permanent swimming pool lifts be put in all public pools across the US, but since it cost over $10,000 per pool, the owners don't feel it's easier. Especially since many already have more versatile cheaper mobile lifts. But hey, I'm sure that it makes it a lot harder for an individual to compete against the big chains so I doubt the Hilton will fight too hard against it.

Do you suppose that social mobility is greater in regulation-free Somalia, or in highly-regulated Canada?

I was wondering how long it would be before somebody tried to bring up Somalia. The situations are not comparable. It would be much better if the US would drastically reduce it's regulations, reduce taxes, and let entrepreneurship flourish here.

newpua_bie · 2012-05-23T23:14:55.660145+00:00

The Us has lost ground due to over-regulation, over-taxation, and the general economic malaise that was caused by the crony capitalism in government. As we remove those impediments, entrepreneurship will increase dramatically.

conn2005 · 2012-05-23T23:12:49.569712+00:00

My rationale is that you broke a law, which is designed to keep people safe regardless of whether it generates revenue for the state or not.

That may be the intent. It's irrelevant. A law that violates freedom and the constitution should be voided regardless of intent. If congress or the state legislature passed a law against public speaking or sporting events with the intent of avoiding riots, it would also be wrong.

It's common sense that getting hit by a car doing 35MPH is going to cause more injury then a car doing 25 MPH.

Again irrelevant. Getting hit by a baseball is worse than getting hit by a tennis ball. That doesn't make a law outlawing the use of baseballs just.

You're only argument so far is that the police are jackbooted thugs that can't think for themselves

Again. I never said that or inferred it. I stated that they could not be absolved of their actions merely because they were acting on orders.

while ignoring the root of the cause, the policy maker who wrote the law to begin with

Not ignoring it, just not addressing it. I agree with you that it should be the first order of business. Again, that still doesn't make the police who carry out the orders blameless.

You don't get to pick and choose the laws you want to follow then get upset when the law shits on you.

Sure I do. That's called freedom. I also get to complain about unjust laws while I obey them out of fear of the consequences. I also get to try and convince others on the internet of the cause of freedom. I also have the freedom and duty to attempt to repeal the laws that I feel are unjust.

You do, however, get to pick and choose the people that write the laws.

I get to do that too. I also get to complain when the guy/girl I like fails to win office. I even get to complain when the guy/girl I favor does something stupid.

Hitting him was a crime and speeding more than likely significantly increased the injuries he suffered.

So? There's an argument to be had that he should face a stiffer punishment depending on the severity of the injuries, but that already happens to a great degree. He will have to pay a larger amount of money for more serious injuries and there are different crimes associated with death, serious injury, and minor injuries.

It's certainly not hard to show that a car moving faster requires longer stopping distances and alters the amount of time the driver needs to react.

So? Is it safer to drive more slowly when the situation calls for it? Sure. Should the government take money by force when there is no victim or injury? No. I drive slowly and pay attention in residential neighborhoods because I don't want to be responsible for injuring or killing someone, not because a random cop might clock me and make me pay $100.

You cannot possibly say that no one has ever been injured because a car couldn't stop in time. That's illogical and disingenuous.

I never made that argument, but it seems easier for you to argue against strawmen than to actually understand my argument and make salient points. Please continue.

It's almost as bad as bringing up tenuous connections to the previous actions of the Nazis in an effort to blame someone for doing something you don't agree with.

Never did that either. It's called the Nuremberg Defense Nuremberg Defense. Please look it up so that you are not ignorant about it next time. It's a common term for the argument that you presented and does not mean that the speaker is trying to link anybody to the Nazis.

You brought up Nazis solely to invoke the emotions related to their evil history.

Now you're projecting some intent on my actions that are simply not there. Since I've stated as much, now you're just calling me a liar. Conversation's over. Goodby.

conn2005 · 2012-05-23T22:53:41.920637+00:00

Sure. But the government limiting the rights of individuals by requiring a license to exercise their freedom is still a (minor) tyranny. If a car company denies you the ability to own a car, it's different than the government telling you that you cannot operate your own car when you want to.

conn2005 · 2012-05-23T22:50:40.239167+00:00

In this subreddit? I'm not sure. Generally, since the Federal government is the worst offender, Ron Paul supporters focus on it. One tactic to alleviate the fears of statists is to correctly point out that the states would be able to better address any issues or problems they might have in reducing the Federal government's role. It is also correct to point out that it is much easier to move from state to state than it is to move from country to country.

However, no libertarian would accept tyranny from the state any more than he/she would from the Federal government. Libertarians also work to reduce the State government's influence on individual liberty.

You can choose not to drive or fly and you're not losing out on any rights - there are other ways to travel.

You're right that there are other ways to travel, however, it is still a limitation of freedom to take away a choice from someone or force them to go through difficult/costly steps in order to exercise their choices. Government should never have a hand in limiting such freedoms.

You have no right to fly by plane or drive by car.

Correct, but the government has no "right" or constitutional power to limit you from doing so.

conn2005 · 2012-05-23T22:42:35.853363+00:00

I'm not following your argument here. All things that limit freedom should be opposed. Federal or state. The mistake I made was saying "unconstitutional" instead of "anti-freedom" or some variant. My point still stands. The argument that you should just move if you don't like a law or process is fallacious.

conn2005 · 2012-05-23T22:39:53.672992+00:00

Sure. If you crash, I will happily sue you for damages and press for incarceration if you were negligent and didn't learn how to fly first. Thank goodness my homeowner's insurance will cover some of the cost if you're unable to pay.

Since you probably don't want to wreck you very expensive aircraft, you probably don't want to die, you probably don't want to pay for damages, and you probably don't want to spend time in jail, it's very likely that you would learn to fly well before attempting such a thing.

conn2005 · 2012-05-23T21:02:13.084843+00:00

So if you don't agree with a strip search when you board an airplane, you should move or not fly? If you don't agree with the military industrial complex and endless wars, we should all just move to another country or not live? If we don't agree with the drug war, we should all just move to the Netherlands?

I plan to work against unconstitutional laws and limits to freedom. If you don't agree, you can always move.

newpua_bie · 2012-05-23T20:36:38.480246+00:00

I'm aware. This was just a fact that I found interesting and thought that others would too. It was not a rebuttal.

conn2005 · 2012-05-23T20:35:58.223348+00:00

I disagree. I know that the Supreme court has decided otherwise, but you have a constitutional right to Freedom. The freedom to travel is part of that.

conn2005 · 2012-05-23T20:27:11.943897+00:00

You purposefully brought up the Nazis in an effort to be hyperbolic.

This is your interpretation and I find it very strange. I purposely brought up the concept of the "Nuremberg defense" which is the widely known term for the concept of "I was just following orders." It's link to the Nazis is only coincidental.

Getting a speed ticket does not violate either of these rights.

Show me your driver's license so I can run it and see if you have outstanding warrants, your driving history, your age, ethnicity, date of birth, etc. This is certainly a violation of privacy. You just believe that you it is justified because they were violating a law that has no victim. Your only rationale so far has been "it's illegal so you shouldn't do it."

If you think it is trying riding a bike on a public street once in a while.

I do it all the time and I've never been hit by a speeder. Thus I have never been a victim. However, my brother-in-law was hit by a guy who was speeding. Hitting him was a crime with a victim. Speeding itself with no crash, damage, or injury has no victim.

Popular-Uprising-

TROPHY CASE

Popular-Uprising-

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login