Comparing Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian answers...

[Osborn F Enready]

I thought many of you would find this interesting, especially concerning many of the questions covered.

I will list a sample of what is listed, but if you are curious of the comparison, please click on the link to check out the entire article, as well as the website itself.

Comparing political philosophies

(homepage)
Advocates for Self-Government - Libertarian Education

Should there be a draft for military purposes? Liberal: Yes, but not during peacetime. Conservative: Yes. America must always be strong to deter potential enemies. And young people need military service to learn patriotism and discipline. Libertarian: Absolutely not, under any circumstances. The draft is slavery. Slaves make poor defenders of freedom. Should government own or control newspapers, radio, or television? Liberal: Yes. We need the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) to guarantee high-quality programming. In addition, the government should restrict advertising aimed at children. We also need laws to ensure balanced coverage by the conservative-dominated talk radio networks. Conservative: Government should not own radio or TV networks but should make it a crime for them to broadcast offensive material. We also need laws to ensure balanced coverage by the liberal-dominated television networks. Libertarian: No. Government ownership or control of press or electronic media has no place in a free society. Owners of newspapers and broadcasters should be responsible for what they publish. Let parents and consumers decide what may come into their homes. Should government regulate sexual activity among consenting adults, including prostitution? Liberal: Generally not. But, if prostitution were legal, it should be regulated to protect public health and to make sure that women are not exploited. Conservative: Yes. Prostitution, homosexuality, adultery, and fornication should all be illegal because they are antithetical to family and religious values. Libertarian: No. Sexual activity involving consenting adults violates the rights of no other person. The right of adults to make their own decisions in this most private area must be respected. Should drugs like marijuana, cocaine, and heroin be legalized? Liberal: Perhaps. Marijuana could be legalized, but the production and sale should be regulated and taxed. Tax money should be used for drug-treatment programs. Conservative: Are you nuts? Drugs cause crime, harm families, encourage criminal gangs, and promote other social ills. We need stricter anti-drug laws, longer sentences, and more prisons. Libertarian: Yes. Peaceful drug use violates no other person’s rights. People have the right to control their own bodies. Drug laws subsidize criminals, cause more crime, corrupt law enforcement, destroy civil rights, and do not work. Should it be legal for people to travel or move into and out of the U.S. without limitation? Liberal: We should allow people trying to escape political oppression to come to America, and give them government aid to help them get settled. But we should strictly limit their number because they take American jobs. Conservative: No. We have too many immigrants already. They go on welfare, take our jobs, increase crime and disease, and refuse to learn English. Libertarian: Yes. All individuals have the same rights, regardless of where they were born. Anyone willing to take responsibility for himself or herself has the right to travel and seek opportunity. America has always benefitted from immigrants. They tend to work hard, start businesses, become educated, improve our economy, and make America a more culturally dynamic place. Should government subsidize farmers and regulate what they grow? Liberal: Yes. Farmers need protection from low prices for their crops and against bad weather. Also, these farm programs help supply food to the needy. Conservative: Some support is needed so that family farms are not lost, and to protect American farmers against unfair foreign competition. Many farm programs are expensive and wasteful, but they can’t be completely eliminated. Libertarian: No. Business are not entitled to have the government force taxpayers to support them. Farmers should operate in a free, competitive market, just as all others in business should. Should government impose tariffs, quotas, embargoes, or other restrictions on international trade? Liberal: Tariffs and quotas are needed to save American jobs. Trade embargoes can also be used to punish right-wing dictators who oppress their people. Conservative: Trade barriers are necessary to protect industries vital to national defense and to keep American businesses competitive. Trade embargoes can also be used to punish left-wing dictators who oppress their people. Libertarian: Trade barriers violate the rights of Americans and foreign people who desire to trade. Trade barriers cut everyone’s productivity and cost more jobs than they save. Should the government mandate a minimum wage? Liberal: Yes. Otherwise, employers will exploit workers by paying only subsistence wages. Everyone is entitled to a living wage. Conservative: No. Employers should be able to hire the best employees they can get at the lowest price set by market competition. Libertarian: No. Such laws violate the right of employees and employers to strike their own deals. Economics and history show that minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Isn’t taxation the only way to pay for necessary government services? Liberal: Without taxes, not enough people would be willing to pay for welfare for the poor, or education, or environmental protection, or so many other important things which only government can provide. In fact, the government should probably raise taxes so it can do more good. Conservative: Without taxes, not enough people would be willing to pay for a national defense, or subsidies to vital industries, or to fight the War on Drugs, or so many other important things only government can provide. However, taxes are somewhat high, so it may be possible to reduce them slightly. Libertarian: Taxation is immoral and indistinguishable from theft. We should replace taxation with voluntary methods of funding legitimate govenment functions. Besides, most “government services” can be provided by private sector business, charities, and other organizations. Should the U.S. government send troops to intervene in the affairs of other countries? Liberal: Yes, if it will advance the cause of human rights, topple oppressive right-wing dictators, or help poor and starving people in third-world countries. Conservative: Yes, if it will help fight terrorism, topple oppressive left-wing dictators, or protect vital U.S. interests such as oil. Libertarian: No. The U.S. government has no authority to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries except in response to a military attack on the American homeland. Should the United States government continue to participate in and support the United Nations? Liberal: Yes, because the U.N. is the last best hope for world peace and because it performs valuable humanitarian missions. Conservative: Yes, but we should pressure the U.N. to take more pro-American stances. Libertarian: Not as presently constituted and financed by tax dollars. A voluntarily financed forum for international cooperation would not be objectionable. Should young Americans be compelled to serve in some capacity in the name of “national service”? Liberal: Yes, everyone has the obligation to “give back” for what society has done for them, and to learn the importance of helping others. Conservative: Yes, when it can be justified for national defense purposes. Libertarian: No. Mandatory labor is slavery regardless of whether it is masked by the euphemisms “draft” or “national service.” Should the U.S. government help American businesses during hard economic times with low-interest loans or subsidies? Liberal: Yes. This will save jobs, and American workers need all the help they can get during a recession. However, corporations shouldn’t be allowed to use such support to make excessive profits. Conservative: Yes. Government should help business stay in business. Such a policy promotes free enterprise. Libertarian: No. Government can only help some businesses by stealing from other businesses and taxpayers. No one has the right to be subsidized at the expense of others.

Many people see me personally differ with a few issues here, but only in certain points concerning international affairs. I am not partisan, but I for the meantime support the canidates, and party that most protects my core values, which are the Bill of Rights, and Constitutional Justice. That puts me squarely in the side of Libertarians currently.

Where do you fall between the expressed opinions to the questions?

Generally Conservative?
Generally Liberal?
Generally Libertarian?

[Athena]

Wow those liberatarian answers seem excessive to me. Kind of like a bible thumber who thinks the bible provides the absolute answer to all our problems. I can't read through the whole list, because the answers seem so knee jerk on some kind of belief, instead of well rounded.

Actually, I started to question the liberatarian judgement presented here, on the issue of prostitution. While I am in favor of legalizing prostitution, I am aware of sex slavery and do think strong measures need to be taken to protect women and children. I also think, just as beauticians and barbars and manicuriest must follow rules of cleaniess, so should prostitutes. Considering nothing but some kind of principle about freedom, seems immature to me.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Athena Wow those liberatarian answers seem excessive to me. Kind of like a bible thumber who thinks the bible provides the absolute answer to all our problems. I can't read through the whole list, because the answers seem so knee jerk on some kind of belief, instead of well rounded. Actually, I started to question the liberatarian judgement presented here, on the issue of prostitution. While I am in favor of legalizing prostitution, I am aware of sex slavery and do think strong measures need to be taken to protect women and children. I also think, just as beauticians and barbars and manicuriest must follow rules of cleaniess, so should prostitutes. Considering nothing but some kind of principle about freedom, seems immature to me.

Seems to me that the person who is strongest or can gather the biggest gang making decisions for everyone else is quite immature. "I'm right and if you don't agree that I'm right, I'll thump you. That will show you I'm right." That's the general impetus of most any form of government, including, and possibly especially, any form of "democracy".

The kind of belief libertarians have is that it is wrong to initiate force against your fellow human being.

What part of that do you disagree with?

What grounds do you think it is proper to initiate force? (notice the word "initiate". that doesn't mean respond to force but to use force initially)

Do you believe it is proper to initiate force because you don't agree with the way someone else lives? Perhaps their home isn't clean enough? Perhaps they don't eat the right food? What makes it your position to decide for them how to best live their life?

As to your example of barbers and beauticians ... At what point does a person fall into such a category? In some states poor black people have been arrested for braiding other people's hair for money. Do you feel this is appropriate? If not, do you feel that the only difference is whether they used their hands, rather than tools and chemicals such as scissors and shampoo? Or, should only those that use more harsh chemicals and power tools (blow dryers and electric clippers?) be regulated? And, if I'm willing to pay someone without the proper paperwork to cut my hair, what makes it your business to stop me from doing so?

For prostitutes, if I buy a woman a $100 dinner and a night on the town, and she sleeps with me one time and never sees me again, should that be illegal? Should you regulate the single woman who goes on a date with a different man each week to make sure she doesn't spread disease, without any other indication that she might do so? What makes things different if we cut out the in between stuff and I just come up with the $100 directly to a woman?

Knee-jerk ... You're right, we libertarians haven't thought through any of this stuff. That's why I have so many questions. Let's see your deep insights.

Keith

[rmnunez]

Someone has written a book denouncing critical leftist hypocrisy and how this affects their opposition to intervention in Iraq.

I still remember the sense of dislocation I felt at 13 when my English teacher told me he voted Conservative. As his announcement coincided with the shock of puberty, I was unlikely to forget it. I must have understood at some level that real Conservatives lived in Britain - there was a Conservative government at the time, so logic dictated that there had to be Conservative voters. But it was incredible to learn that my teacher was one of them, when he gave every appearance of being a thoughtful and kind man. To be good you had to be on the left. Even when millions were murdered and tens of millions were enslaved and humiliated, the 'root cause' of crimes beyond the human imagination was the perversion of noble socialist ideals. As a child of politicised parents, Observer columnist Nick Cohen followed in their tradition and became a trenchant voice on the liberal-left in the 1980s and 90s. But the Iraq War changed all that and forced him to rethink. In an exclusive extract from his incendiary new book about the failings of the modern left, he argues that anti-Americanism has left it blind to the evils of militant Islam. There were many moments in the Thirties when fascists and communists co-operated - the German communists concentrated on attacking the Weimar Republic's democrats and gave Hitler a free run, and Stalin's Soviet Union astonished the world by signing a pact with Nazi Germany in 1939. But after Hitler broke the terms of the alliance in the most spectacular fashion by invading the Soviet Union in 1941, you could rely on nearly all of the left (from nice liberals through to the most commited Marxists) to oppose the tyrannies of the far right. Consistent anti-fascism added enormously to the left's prestige in the second half of the 20th century. A halo of moral superiority hovered over it because if there was a campaign against racism, religious fanaticism or neo-Nazism, the odds were that its leaders would be men and women of the left. For all the atrocities and follies committed in its name, the left possessed this virtue: it would stand firm against fascism. After the Iraq war, I don't believe that a fair-minded outsider could say it does that any more. Saddam Hussein appalled the liberal left. At leftish meetings in the late Eighties, I heard that Iraq encapsulated all the loathsome hypocrisy of the supposedly 'democratic' West. Here was a blighted land ruled by a terrible regime that followed the example of the European dictatorships of the Thirties. And what did the supposed champions of democracy and human rights in Western governments do? Supported Saddam, that's what they did; sold him arms and covered up his crimes. Fiery socialist MPs denounced Baathism, while playwrights and poets stained the pages of the liberal press with their tears for his victims. Many quoted the words of a brave Iraqi exile called Kanan Makiya. He became a hero of the left because he broke through the previously impenetrable secrecy that covered totalitarian Iraq and described in awful detail how an entire population was compelled to inform on their family and friends or face the consequences. All decent people who wanted to convict the West of subscribing to murderous double standards could justifi ably use his work as evidence for the prosecution. The apparently sincere commitment to help Iraqis vanished the moment Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990 and became America's enemy. At the time, I didn't think about where the left was going. I could denounce the hypocrisy of a West which made excuses for Saddam one minute and called him a 'new Hitler' the next, but I didn't dwell on the equal and opposite hypocrisy of a left which did the same thing. All liberals and leftists remained good people in my mind. Asking hard questions about any of them risked giving aid and comfort to the Conservative enemy and disturbing my own certainties. I would have gone on anti-war demonstrations when the fighting began in 1991, but the sight of Arabs walking around London with badges saying 'Free Kuwait' stopped me. When they asked why it was right to allow Saddam to keep Kuwaitis as his subjects, a part of me conceded that they had a point. When the second war against Saddam Hussein came in 2003, they told me there was no other way to remove him. Kanan Makiya was on their side. He was saying the same things about the crimes against humanity of the Baath party he had said 20 years before, but although his arguments had barely changed, the political world around him was unrecognisable. American neoconservatives were his champions now, while the left that had once cheered him denounced him as a traitor. Everyone I respected in public life was wildly anti-war, and I was struck by how their concern about Iraq didn't extend to the common courtesy of talking to Iraqis. They seemed to have airbrushed from their memories all they had once known about Iraq and every principle of mutual respect they had once upheld. I supposed their furious indifference was reasonable. They had many good arguments that I would have agreed with in other circumstances. I assumed that once the war was over they would back Iraqis trying to build a democracy, while continuing to pursue Bush and Blair to their graves for what they had done. I waited for a majority of the liberal left to off er qualified support for a new Iraq, and I kept on waiting, because it never happened - not just in Britain, but also in the US, EU, India, South America, South Africa ... in every part of the world where there was a recognisable liberal left. They didn't think again when thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered by 'insurgents' from the Baath party, which wanted to re-establish the dictatorship, and from al-Qaeda, which wanted a godly global empire to repress the rights of democrats, the independent-minded, women and homosexuals. They didn't think again when Iraqis defied the death threats and went to vote on new constitutions and governments. Eventually, I grew tired of waiting for a change that was never going to come and resolved to find out what had happened to a left whose benevolence I had taken for granted. All right, you might say, but the reaction to the second Iraq war is not a good enough reason to write a book. The US and British governments sold the invasion to their publics with a false bill of goods and its aftermath was a bloody catastrophe. It was utopian to hope that leftists and liberals could oppose Bush while his troops poured into Iraq (and killed their fair share of civilians) while at the same time standing up for the freedoms of others. There was too much emotional energy invested in opposing the war, too much justifiable horror at the chaos and too much justifiable anger that the talk of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be nonsense. The politically committed are like football fans. They support their side come what may and refuse to see any good in the opposing team. The liberal left bitterly opposed war, and their indifference afterwards was a natural consequence of the fury directed at Bush. Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam which stands for everything the liberal left is against come from the liberal left? Why will students hear a leftish postmodern theorist defend the exploitation of women in traditional cultures but not a crusty conservative don? After the US and British wars in Bosnia and Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansers, why were men and women of the left denying the existence of Serb concentration camps? As important, why did a European Union that daily announces its commitment to the liberal principles of human rights and international law do nothing as crimes against humanity took place just over its borders? Why is Palestine a cause for the liberal left, but not China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo or North Korea? Why, even in the case of Palestine, can't those who say they support the Palestinian cause tell you what type of Palestine they would like to see? After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington why were you as likely to read that a sinister conspiracy of Jews controlled American or British foreign policy in a superior literary journal as in a neo-Nazi hate sheet? And why after the 7/7 attacks on London did leftish rather than right-wing newspapers run pieces excusing suicide bombers who were inspired by a psychopathic theology from the ultra-right? Socialism, which provided the definition of what it meant to be on the left from the 1880s to the 1980s, is gone. Disgraced by the communists' atrocities and floored by the success of market-based economies, it no longer exists as a coherent programme for government. Even the modest and humane social democratic systems of Europe are under strain and look dreadfully vulnerable. It is not novel to say that socialism is dead. My argument is that its failure has brought a dark liberation to people who consider themselves to be on the liberal left. It has freed them to go along with any movement however far to the right it may be, as long as it is against the status quo in general and, specifically, America. I hate to repeat the overused quote that 'when a man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything', but there is no escaping it. Because it is very hard to imagine a radical leftwing alternative, or even mildly radical alternative, intellectuals in particular are ready to excuse the movements of the far right as long as they are anti-Western. Don't you know your left from your right? Part II | Review | The Observer

[bishop]

a lot of those answers seem pretty polarized to me.. most americans, imo, do not fall into any ideological camp - therefore much of the liberal/conservative/libertarian issues don't directly apply. i tend to think that most americans want a mix of all three (or four, whatever)...

my answers to those questions almost split evenly between the three ideologies.

[rmnunez]

The left is an ambiguous term and what it includes is a subjective conclusion based on an individual's experiences. Mr. Cohen, as a pubescent, thought "good" people had to be lefties like his mom. The left has brought together people concerned with human rights, environmental preservation, refugees, poverty, discrimination, labour and a wide range of other pressing issues.

These issues are part of everyone's agenda, but the left has adopted and integrated them in what seems like a desperate attempt to keep socialism relevant in the globalised, cybernetic and capitalistic post-Cold War world. These variously motivated people find their policies given a louder voice when reiterated by supporters rallying around the world and join with them when they rally, its the "globalophobe effect".

Integrating the left's numerous "fellow-travellers" is something that produces odd "bedfellows" like quiet ecofreaks as Saddam torched Kuwaiti oil wells and intentionally despoiled the natural environment there. How come Greenpeace never mentioned the lousy conditions resulting to even the Garden of Eden, with the displacement, discrimination and impoverishment of the autoctonous Marsh Arabs? Even AI and HRW could have chimed in. Where were the human rights activists rallying as Slobo engaged in ethnic cleansing? Pacifists often include vehement anti-nuclear weapons proliferationists, I doubt they agree with the president of Iran's perspective or Kim II of Korea’s, but I know they don't endorse Bush's.

We have to recognize how without getting into acute detail, the "left" is really an amalgamation of generally associated "fellow-travellers"; socialists, environmentalists, feminists, homosexuals, trade-unionists, erstwhile integrationists, multiculturalists, the globalophobic, transgendered and alternatively life-styled as well as pacifists, and some others I inadevertently may have omited. These are what I describe generally as "the left", notwithstanding that many could be actually conservative and may seem to adopt positions inconsistent with their priorities.

They all share a virulent antagonism for anything emanating from whatever they fit under the labels of "US" (and particularly "Bush"), "Republican" or "conservative", or associated with these. This underlying and rather knee-jerkian opposition to anything the gringoes have ever done, do or intend to do (usually premised in dark conspiracies) fuels the critical left as they blame Bush and gringan conservatives or Republicans for everything from melting Arctic ice, terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation, refugees and poverty to even unusual hurricanes in the Caribbean.

Ask a critical lefty how he feels about Castro/Raul in Cuba, where they stand in the confrontation between Bush and Kim II or the Iranian ruler, what they think of Chavez and Assad II. Saddam was of the same style, and denounced as such by lefties -but only as long as the united statians backed him, once he became their enemy the left did a 180.

[Keith Hamburger]

Estimado Sr. Munez,

I don't see what your posts have to do with the OP, in any way. The OP made no mention of Iraq or supporting anyone in a leadership role in another country.

Perhaps you could attempt to stay on topic.

Keith

<Edit> Ok, on review I did see the question ...
"Should the U.S. government send troops to intervene in the affairs of other countries"

That's an awful miniscule portion of the entire post to base such a long rant on. As said before, Perhaps you should address the actual topic.

[rmnunez]

My post was to address bishop's contention united statians aren't really leftists rather than some sort of hodge-podge ideology that combines ideas from different perspectives. I think the left is a combination of ideas, with a single unifying theme, the denunciation of all things united statian.

[another day]

I consider myself libertarian in some aspects. Anything that is a personal freedom, ie: prostitution, drug use, suicide etc. Should be legal. However unlike most libertarians I believe in SOME socialist aspects. However I think that if you should choose to be the ultra-free self-sustaining person, you have a right to withdraw yourself from the taxation process. However, you would not have access to ANY of the institutions and benefits those taxes provide. If you want that "ultra-freedom" then you need to be prepared to be completely independant and self-sustaining. The truth is, the ultra-freedom of pure libertarianism is not a viable way to run a society. It is just as unworkable as total communism. Take the US health care system...you don't pay alot of taxes towards it but when you suffer a stroke or something, your suddenly in for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars. So what's worse, a system like Canadas where health care is free, but you gradually pay into it through quite high taxes (not to the extent where you can't comfortably live however), or a system where you don't pay until something happens and then suddenly you owe the government your life savings all at once. And really what are the chances you are NEVER going to use the health care system in your life? Nil. You will likely use it at least a few times, and probably many times.

The ideal is a careful balance where one can be taxed for certain essential services, but not feel like they are robbed. And people who use less services should be credited. Like an insurance premium that goes down with good driving and no accidents.

I also believe in compassionate purposes such as welfare for those with disabilities, mental impairments etc. But certainly no welfare at all for people who are capable to work but just don't feel like it.

My biggest beef is the way our taxes don't go back in society, but rather get pumped into the giant bloated machine of government, with it's ridiculously expanding number of obscure departments and useless personel.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I will list a sample of what is listed, but if you are curious of the comparison, please click on the link to check out the entire article, as well as the website itself.

Wow, the Libertarian bias is laid on thick, isn't it?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Same with the liberal and conservative, so don't go complaining.

I characterize myself as conservative, but not in the way this does, I guess I have to come up with a new ideology.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: another day I consider myself libertarian in some aspects. Anything that is a personal freedom, ie: prostitution, drug use, suicide etc. Should be legal. However unlike most libertarians I believe in SOME socialist aspects. However I think that if you should choose to be the ultra-free self-sustaining person, you have a right to withdraw yourself from the taxation process. However, you would not have access to ANY of the institutions and benefits those taxes provide. If you want that "ultra-freedom" then you need to be prepared to be completely independant and self-sustaining.

Question: do you think one should be free to pick and choose the institutions (and therefore the taxes) that he has access to? Or should it be an all-or-nothing proposition?

The truth is, the ultra-freedom of pure libertarianism is not a viable way to run a society.

I think this is your argument's biggest flaw. Is society some vast machine that needs to be "run" by some "engine"? My own answer, based upon personal observation and reflection, would be a resounding "No". However, I'd like to hear more about your opinion on this matter.

It is just as unworkable as total communism. Take the US health care system...you don't pay alot of taxes towards it but when you suffer a stroke or something, your suddenly in for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars.

Remember that the high costs of U.S. health care are due in large part to the regulatory mechanisms placed upon health care.

Basically, I see your proposal as leading to one of the following: 1) more people opt out of the system than it can ultimately sustain itself without, and the system collapses; 2) situation #1 approaches and the system decides to force people to stay in it, leading back to square one.

- Rob

[Gods_Mercenary]

I think this is your argument's biggest flaw. Is society some vast machine that needs to be "run" by some "engine"? My own answer, based upon personal observation and reflection, would be a resounding "No". However, I'd like to hear more about your opinion on this matter.

Have you ever seen a developed society without relatively pervasive governmental structures? No, this would lead me to believe that technological progress is only possible through some sort of governing structure. That, and the fact that society started developing when cities with a government began popping up supports my belief that, to be constructive, man must be governed.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Have you ever seen a developed society without relatively pervasive governmental structures?

Define "developed" and "pervasive", please.

No, this would lead me to believe that technological progress is only possible through some sort of governing structure.

Really? Up until the New Deal era, most R&D was done privately. I wasn't aware that the State could plan progress. Or did you have something else in mind?

That, and the fact that society started developing when cities with a government began popping up supports my belief that, to be constructive, man must be governed.

Society doesn't exist without cities and governments? How, then, can one speak of tribal societies and the like?

- Rob

[Athena]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Seems to me that the person who is strongest or can gather the biggest gang making decisions for everyone else is quite immature. "I'm right and if you don't agree that I'm right, I'll thump you. That will show you I'm right." That's the general impetus of most any form of government, including, and possibly especially, any form of "democracy". The kind of belief libertarians have is that it is wrong to initiate force against your fellow human being. What part of that do you disagree with? What grounds do you think it is proper to initiate force? (notice the word "initiate". that doesn't mean respond to force but to use force initially) Do you believe it is proper to initiate force because you don't agree with the way someone else lives? Perhaps their home isn't clean enough? Perhaps they don't eat the right food? What makes it your position to decide for them how to best live their life? As to your example of barbers and beauticians ... At what point does a person fall into such a category? In some states poor black people have been arrested for braiding other people's hair for money. Do you feel this is appropriate? If not, do you feel that the only difference is whether they used their hands, rather than tools and chemicals such as scissors and shampoo? Or, should only those that use more harsh chemicals and power tools (blow dryers and electric clippers?) be regulated? And, if I'm willing to pay someone without the proper paperwork to cut my hair, what makes it your business to stop me from doing so? For prostitutes, if I buy a woman a $100 dinner and a night on the town, and she sleeps with me one time and never sees me again, should that be illegal? Should you regulate the single woman who goes on a date with a different man each week to make sure she doesn't spread disease, without any other indication that she might do so? What makes things different if we cut out the in between stuff and I just come up with the $100 directly to a woman? Knee-jerk ... You're right, we libertarians haven't thought through any of this stuff. That's why I have so many questions. Let's see your deep insights. Keith

Democracy is an ideology and government by the people is only one expression of that ideology. The opposite to having a democratic form of government is an autocratic form. Education is essential to democratic forms of government but not autocratic ones. To be more precise, governments are combinations of democratic and autocratic.

Why do I object to giving people too much freedom? Simple, there are some really awful people who do terrible things unless they are prevented from doing so. However, the first line of defense against this is education that transmits a culture that manifest social order using social pressure rather than government control. That is the best way to improve civilization.

Most of your questions are so outrageous I think you intended to flame, rather than discuss. And I didn't say prostitution should be illegal. I said like other business it should be regulated for health reasons, and to prevent the sex slave activity that happens internationally.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Autolykos Define "developed" and "pervasive", please. Really? Up until the New Deal era, most R&D was done privately. I wasn't aware that the State could plan progress. Or did you have something else in mind? Society doesn't exist without cities and governments? How, then, can one speak of tribal societies and the like? - Rob

Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean a country that furthers human advancement through its culture and progress (think Greece, Rome, France).

By pervasive I mean something that makes laws and is present in everyday life.

I don't mean governments specifically making the progress, I mean governments allowing for progress. I'd like to see Edison invent the lightbulb in a primitive tribal area with constant warfare.

So tribal societies are desirable? Spend one day in a sub saharran tribal village, and come back and make that assertion.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I mean a country that furthers human advancement through its culture and progress (think Greece, Rome, France).

Now you appeal to some alleged universal value called "human advancement". Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do...

By pervasive I mean something that makes laws and is present in everyday life.

Fair enough, here. Thank you for the clarification.

I don't mean governments specifically making the progress, I mean governments allowing for progress. I'd like to see Edison invent the lightbulb in a primitive tribal area with constant warfare.

That begs the question -- were it not for governments, would there be nothing more than primitive tribal areas with constant warfare? My own answer is "No". What's yours?

While we're at it, why don't you also explain how governments "allow" for progress?

So tribal societies are desirable? Spend one day in a sub saharran tribal village, and come back and make that assertion.

Straw man. I was not arguing in favor of tribal societies, and I think you know it.

- Rob

[Gods_Mercenary]

You got me arguing for human advancement, goddammit! :)

I think there may be some alternative to a statist society, but humanity seems reluctant to try it. Perhaps, as social animals, we subconciously want to be governed? Do you seriously think that civilisation wouldn't disolve without a government, I've not seen an example in history where humans can achieve something without some higher organization protecting and guiding them.

I do know that you weren't arguing in favor of tribal society, but I see no other alternative to the state than this.