It’s flawed because it is a poor analogy. The same way the goverment does not ban antibiotics because some misuse them - nobody would ban matches because someone causes a fire. Antiboitics are regulated - you can’t just buy them whenever you want. Fires and when and where to set them are regulated. You can’t just set a fire in dry conditions.
So harm must be absolutely direct in order for it to be disallowed in your libertarian land. Anything that is more complex or causes indirect harm (like incorrectly taking antibiotics and creating resistant bacteria strains that kill others) is OK. It you can’t prove that MY particular factory is causing your cancer, then it’s OK for me to keep putting crap in the water.
I’m starting to think you are playing a parody of a libertarian for our entertainment.
I’m not proposing an ideal society. I don’t think such a thing is possible. But a well-funded and transparent legal system would much less susceptible to corruption.
And when was the government doing Tony’s dirty work? I thought he was doing the dirty work and paying the cops to look the other way? Reducing the size of the government won’t prevent this.
Cold hard facts like whenever you give government power they will abuse it? They abuse it now. Libertarian ideals are beneficial in moderation. As are authoritarian ideals. I’m not trying to come up with an all-encompassing philosophy, just stating my ideas on the role of government.
People who do not cover up when sneezing spread their germs around and may infect other people. Do you think there should there be laws preventing that?
People who do not wash their hands in the bathroom may spread disease. Do you think there should be laws preventing that?
People allow their cats to roam outside. The cat may run into the road, and an oncoming vehicle may swerve, causing an accident and harming people. Do you think there should be laws preventing that?
As I pointed out before - due to chaos theory, your neighbor’s outdoor fan may eventually lead to a tornado that will destroy your house. Do you think there should be laws against outdoor fans?
I am very much in favor of a healthy court system. I can’t imagine a sane individual who wasn’t.
They were arresting his competitors. He didn’t have to kill them. That’s how I looked at it. Why would he kill his competitors instead of having his boys get them? Seems like work to me.
If the government is transparent and accountable, then how much abuse could there be? How much abuse do you think there currently is in the US? Can you give some examples? Is government abuse really a serious problem anywhere in the first world?
There are far more ideals in the world than libertarian and authoritarian. Any your constant implication that anyone who’s not pro-libertarian is somehow pro-authoritarian is ridiculous and insulting.
I’ll say it again: the world is far more complicated than you seem to think it is.
Whenever? As it every time you give them power? That is like saying whenever you give wealthy property owners freedom, they will abuse it, to the detriment of society. Every time. Is that what you meant?
Yes. Are you aware of the incarceration rate in the United States? Are you aware of the effect drug prohibition is having on this country? Have you heard of the Patriot Act? Did you know the president can now order the assassination of American citizens without offering proof to the public let alone due process? How about the subsidies the government hands out? I would consider that an abuse. Do I need to continue?
I apologize if I’m being insulting it isn’t my intent. They are on the same spectrum. It’s merely a tool to gauge how much freedom anyone has in a given society. I agree that total freedom and total slavery are both objectionable.
And power is far more corruptible than you seem to think it is.
The “butterfly effect” is basically a statement that in a dynamic non-linear system like the weather, a tiny change in initial conditions can lead to a huge difference down the road. So I would say I am using it correctly in my example.
You’re not seeing the point. It’s about regulating technology, and mitigating the abuse of freedoms committed by corruption, greed, violence, or [insert negative human trait] by gaming any given system (not about laying down laws restricting the natural course of things, especially biology).
We live in a modern world that harbors technologies in very esoteric and complicated fields, that if left unregulated would poison the natural world. There’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. We do not live in an era where people fight with bows and arrows, but nuclear power and wielding the application of science in ways the general population just doesn’t understand, especially how unchecked misuse/abuse can totally destroy the land, sea and air at large.
In this land of unleashed liberty, I suppose I can accumulate as much Cobalt 60 as I can find and flush it down my toilet.
Of course, once people start dropping like flies, you’d have to figure out how all this Cobalt 60 is getting into the water, and from which toilet. Good luck.
The courts have a limited role in government. On certain occasions judges have abused their power. But largely they are there to weigh evidence as it relates to a certain statute. No problem there. My problem is with the statute’s creators.
I’m all for legalizing drugs, but the law is what it is, you can’t call it “abuse” for the government to enforce them.
Not a fan of the patriot act.
Need a cite for “the president can now order the assassination of American citizens without offering proof to the public let alone due process”.
“How about the subsidies the government hands out?” Could you be more specific? I’m not a fan of farm subsidies, but others, like small business loans or green energy subsidies seem good to me. It’s not clear how that constitutes “abuse” though.
Your response reads like just a list of random things you don’t like rather than a coherent explanation of government “abuse.”
That’s the point though. They’re not on the same spectrum. You can’t judge every society ever on some linear scale with freedom on one end and slavery on the other. It’s just not that simple.
When did I say power wasn’t corruptible? Do you not agree that it’s easier to hold governments accountable than corporations or other powerful interests?
The fan tornado example is a complete non sequitur. The fan might cause a tornado, or it might prevent a tornado that would have happened otherwise. We have no way of knowing what effect the fan will have, so it makes no sense to ban it. We do, however, know what effect overuse of antibiotics will have. It’ll have the same effect as the guy mailing out anthrax had.
I would argue it’s an abuse for them to pass them. So if the government banned jumping jacks because people were spraining their ankles. It wouldn’t be an abuse to throw hundreds of thousands in jail for breaking the law? “well it’s the law, can’t do anything about it now”
an abuse to take taxpayer funds and give them to specific companies. It’s not only bad business but the opportunity for corruption is apparent.
you asked for examples of abuse. I gave a few of the ones that bother me.
sure you can. Doing so wouldn’t give you a complete picture of the society but it would give you an idea on how much power the government had over it’s citizens.
Terr apparently does not believe in the germ theory of disease. Or he does not agree with the scientific assessment that overuse of antibiotics by people who do not need them leads to resistant strains of bacteria that will kill others.
I gave a cite to a WHO statement that confirms this. Terr did not address it, and continues to skate around the facts. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria caused by misuse of antiibiotics is a fact. Giving folks unfettered, unregulated access to antibiotics will increase this risk to the public. There is simply no getting around this.
Creating exaggerated, hyperbolic statements like “should sneezing in public be against the law” is simple nonsense. There are no laws or regulations, because we have deemed the risk to be low, so we tolerate it. The risks of other behaviours are higher, so we create regulations. Society as it stands is sensible, and there are only a few extreme types who think that throwing these regulations away makes any kind of sense.
Sue someone after you’ve been harmed? And only if you can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the party in question has caused you DIRECT harm? Great. That is a licence to pollute, and damage the common resources of the country. Just keep a large legal staff on retainer, and you’re golden. Unless the libertarians have come up with a magic court system that works so much better than the current one.
But according to The Chaos Theory, punching someone in the nose could prevent a tornado from happening, so why do Libertarians want to limit my rights, Huh?