Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 17 of 36
Not everyone wants to be involved in democracy, and yet... here we are.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not everyone wants to be involved in democracy, and yet... here we are.
Not everyone wants to be under the thumb of authoritarian government, whether it be democracy, theocracy, republic, or dictatorship. I suppose it's easy to get the impression that libertarians don't like democracy, and that's probably our fault mostly. But in actually, democracy is probably what we'd use for our ideal society. Democracy has many advantageous. It allows valuable feedback from the citizenry and, more than anything else, it's stable. Citizens in a democracy have at least some hope of changing their government without bloodshed.
But the one thing democracy doesn't do is guarantee a righteous outcome. Might doesn't make right and majority rule is about as likely to produce injustice as theocracy or dictatorship -perhaps more so. That's why we don't have direct democracy and why our democratic input is limited to choosing representatives.
SergeantX
"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Ergo, the statement that such laws carry no risk is demonstrably false in practice.
We were talking about the danger of societal conformity and the risk of stifling free thought, but sure I think I get your point - any piece of law to govern society can be used as a justification/pretext by some in authority to abuse their power and be intrusive into citizen's lives? But it's just one traffic law of many as far as I'm concerned - an idiot traffic cop wanting to abuse his power can find other pretexts/justifications. Though of course you could be arguing for getting rid of all traffic law?
As for checkpoints generally, at the moment I'm thinking of them as being a necessary evil in a place, to the extent that laws there are being flouted. Their main purpose should be deterrence - basically making people think. Once people have assumed the correct habits such as putting a seat belt on and teaching their kids the same, they are no longer needed. And a bit like speed cameras with no film in them - not as sinisterly intrusive as some citizens might feel.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
As for checkpoints generally, at the moment I'm thinking of them as being a necessary evil in a place, to the extent that laws there are being flouted. Their main purpose should be deterrence - basically making people think. Once people have assumed the correct habits such as putting a seat belt on and teaching their kids the same, they are no longer needed. And a bit like speed cameras with no film in them - not as sinisterly intrusive as some citizens might feel.
The viewpoint you're presenting here is, in my opinion, antithetical to everything I love about my country. Evil is never necessary. I don't want, and won't obey, a government that attempts to make people think, or insists they follow correct habits. The government you seem to want treats people as ignorant children who must be coddled and controlled "for their own good". I could never support that.
Out of curiosity, did you see Serenity?
SergeantX
"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sarge- I get a strong anti-democratic whiff from a lot of peeps who call themselves Libertarians. Why do you suppose that is?
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well shit sarg,
while I fully do admire B. Franklin's quote about liberty versus "presumed safety",
we all also have a right to life.
If you want to take libertarianism to an extreme, then the state shouldn't be regulating who gets to drive, and who gets to fly a plane, and who gets to shoot a gun etc.
Do you suggest that walking outside the house should be more akin to a warzone of extreme darwinism?
Should we not regulate drunk driving? What about road construction safety? Should it simply be the drivers fault if he was driving along a dark road and then all of a sudden crashed into an open, gaping chasm?
Do you want daily life to be a game of Survivor? Do you think that would be good for society as a whole? How much could we get done in such an environment? What would the costs be to us all?
What about safety's that prevent predatory lending, variable interest rates etc.... we are all ignorant before we are wise... is it okay that so many young kids were targetted and hooked on credit cards that they will be trying to pay off for the rest of their lives?
or is this another case of state versus federal regulation?---I'm assuming no because we're talking about seatbelts too...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- I get a strong anti-democratic whiff from a lot of peeps who call themselves Libertarians. Why do you suppose that is?
Because so often the positions we're arguing against define democracy as unlimited majority rule. Unlimited government power, regardless of the form it takes, is tyranny (or at least strongly tends toward such). Also, unfortunately, most people touting democracy don't seem to understand the "constitutionally limited" aspect of our government. They tend to think that if the majority wills it, that's how it ought to be.
SergeantX
"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The government you seem to want treats people as ignorant children who must be coddled and controlled "for their own good".
You see, the thing about a seat belt law is that it doesn't control - it just provokes and reminds lazy minds (ie. human ones). One can quite easily defy it if one chooses to. But generally if anyone wants to ignore the law on this I say good luck to them - I don't think they should be hunted down or made example of or anything. It's that freedom to think for yourself and make foolish choices you were talking about - after all it isn't a government slap on the wrist that you have to worry about if you decide to be 'a free thinker' in this case and not wear a seat belt.
Quote:
I don't want, and won't obey, a government that attempts to make people think, or insists they follow correct habits.
I thought of another example of legitimate state intervention. Let's say you are driving late at night on a long journey, and you see a government funded sign reading: 'Tired? Take a break.'
You suddenly realise, 'Gosh, I AM tired.' Then you have freedom of choice, you can say if you want, 'No! I won't let government control my life!' and drive on - in which case good luck to you. Have your rights been seriously violated because of this momentary intrusion into your thoughts from the government? I would say not. As for most other people, well there's a chance it could save their lives. Benign, benevolent, effective intervention from the government I would say; even moreso than the seatbelt example.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
while I fully do admire B. Franklin's quote about liberty versus "presumed safety"
Apparently, not so much.
Quote:
Do you suggest that walking outside the house should be more akin to a warzone of extreme darwinism?
Not in the slightest. Libertarianism doesn't demand that we be allowed to cavort about recklessly putting other people in jeopardy. In fact, it's the government's purpose to curtail those who do.
But what we're talking about here are laws that aren't about protecting others, but protecting me from my own decisions - essentially overriding my own judgment with someone else's.
SergeantX
"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As long as your personal recklessness doesn't impact others... you're not part of the heathcare system, you don't drive up auto insurance, and your family is not depending on your income or your stability... But, to tell you the truth, in the practical day-to-day world I've seen very few cases where personal recklessness (eg drug use, risky hobbies/ extreme sports etc.) doesn't affect somebody at some point- parents, partner, and/or child. If nothing else there are personal entanglements that keep anyone's actions from being completely self-contained. And if someone's child or partner starts leaning on "the system" because of your personal habits its not longer a personal or private matter. So.... ????
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME