Libertarian types

[cckerberos]

*Originally posted by Fenris *
**

Hardly. There ARE protections for minorities, and should be. But a democracy cannot exist or function if it can be stopped completely by a minority of one person. There has to be some compromise, and as long as the people truley opposed to the situation can leave (with their property), it’s (IMO) the best real-world solution I can envision.

Fenris **

The compromise/best solution would be that the minority consents to be ruled by the majority on the condition that the majority respects the rights of the minority.

[cckerberos]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
**Because one person’s pursuit of happiness may cause untold pain and suffering for others. Ask anyone whose loved one died of a drug overdose. **

This is absurd. Because the results of an action might make someone else unhappy the government can step in?

[cckerberos]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
And those who have more property have more rights?

Of course they do. But that’s in no way the hideous statement that you seem to imply it to be, since my having more rights than you do in no way infringes upon what rights you do have.

You’re right about the last two, but I agree with the first. Some people don’t know how to build structures safely and the state does have an interest in making sure that structures are built safely. Fewer people needing to go to the ER that way. Or do you honestly believe that everyone knows what he’s doing, that there are no fools in this world?

If someone builds something on his own property and it collapses on top of him, it’s nobody’s fault or concern but his own. If it collapses on top of someone else, then it is the builder’s fault and proper legal procedures should be followed. Prior government approval is hardly necessary.

Yeah, well, some people ARE idiots who don’t know what’s best for them. Have you never seen a man smoking while pumping gas into his car? Or crossing three lanes of traffic to get to the freeway exit? Check out other Pit threads to see how stupid some people are. We have a choice: we either let these fools kill themselves or we stop them before they kill themselves plus any innocent bystanders.

Let them kill themselves. If they harm innocents, prosecute if possible. That’s a far better than a heavy-handed, patronizing, intervenionist state.

[Jonathan_Chance]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**What is so extreme about the inoffensive notion of peaceful honest people being free to pursue their own happiness in their own way? We understand that the “nature” of some humans is to recoil in horror at the thought of others being happy when they are not — and that is exactly why we advocate a government whose sole purpose is to keep us secure from them.
**

Dammit, Lib, you’re giving us all a bad name again!

I vote Libertarian (along with 212 others in my county in 2000. I advocate minimalist government. I discuss it with my friends. My wife won’t talk to me about it. In short, I proselytize.

But I also spent two years covering the hill. I am not so utopian as to believe, as you appear to, that:

People are peaceful

or

People are honest

They’re simply not. Given a chance to acquire more goods, power, money or insert desired object here most people will do so. If they have to screw someone else over then they will.

The reason I can’t buy into the full tilt boogie Libertarian dogma is that it seems to ignore that. Given a chance to pollute, a corporation will. Make that pollution public knowledge and the vast majority of consumers wont alter their purchasing behavior one single bit.

Welcome to the nature of the beast. Man is the selfish social animal. Most of us like other people…sure, no worries. But the fact is that to most of us others are just that…others. And therefore of little to no consequence.

Therefore the Libertarian viewpoint, if it is ever to be successful must take that into account.

Unless, of course, you’d prefer to perceive yourself as ‘right’ in your arguments while forfeiting the possibility of effecting change.