You don’t like constitutional limitations on the majority? What protection would we have, otherwise, from “tyranny of the majority.” Most of us like having these protections.
So, yes, under a Libertarian system, the majority couldn’t ban marijuana, any more than under our system the Christian majority can ban Judaism.
I’m not seeing how, in any way, you’re demonstrating that this is a bad thing.
I like it too. But a Constitutional Amendment, like any other law, is enacted by a majority vote - not by the decision of some elite group.
Your self-serving excuses are not a substitute for morality. If a man believes he has the right to have sex with his wife whenever he wants, he is still guilty of rape, and if a thief believes that all the world belongs to him, he is still guilty of theft. You are taking active and deliberate action that denies the owner of those trees his property.
A rapist is clearly committing an act of violence. But a thief stealing apples is not and I made sure to make that clear in my post.
You claimed that the sole justification for coercion in the libertarian system was in response to violence. This was your claim, not mine. All I did was demonstrate that you couldn’t live within your own system. You want laws against non-violent crimes like theft and you want police to enforce them. Which is exactly what I said. And what was your response when I said that? You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, Nemo. Well, apparently I did know what the fuck I was talking about.
Actually, now that I think about it, force/enforcement wouldn’t be coercion. It would be “the threat, realized” - i.e. force/enforcement would be the consequence of choosing *not *to yield to *attempted *coercion.
Geez, now I have a headache - what say we all just go be incorrigible anarchists and forget about the mind-numbing mental gymnastics.
I’m not seeing your point here. I think it’s pretty clear enforcement is coercion. I break a law. The police come along and arrest me. It would be highly unusual for me to want to be arrested. But I’m not given the option of refusing arrest. I either cooperate based on the knowledge that the police will use force or I resist and the police use that force.
Coercion requires options, in addition to what you want or don’t want. If refusing arrest is not an option, then being arrested is not coercion - regardless of whether you want to be arrested or not. Arrest and prosecution are the results of a law’s *failure *to coerce you. It is the carrying out of the threats contained in the law that were meant to deter you from, i.e. coerce you into not, doing whatever you did.
You refused the option of *not *being arrested when you refused to be coerced by the *threat *of arrest - i.e. when you broke the law.
That said, I agree with you regarding Libertarianism. Libertarians are like “anarchists” who want to be able to do whatever they want *but *with protection from the consequences of their choices. Few people understand what anarchism is. If they understood it, they’d understand that it already is and always has been.
You can’t have anarchy (or Libertarianism) *and *deny people the right to create governments or otherwise seek to organize, separate and/or protect themselves from the things (and people) they fear or hate.
Anarchy isn’t a “I can do whatever I want and you have to let me.” scenario. Anarchy is exactly what we have - an “I can do whatever I want and you can do whatever you want, in response to what I do.” scenario. The fact that “whatever you want” includes creating and maintaining a government that will take care of such things, is a part of that.
The common/popular idea of “anarchism” isn’t about doing whatever you want. It’s about preventing others from *interfering *while you do whatever you want, which is tyranny.
If you do, you are being willfully ignorant of the fact that libertarians view theft as violence against property. One could ascertain this basic fact by skimming a Wikipedia level explanation of libertarianism.
To say “you couldn’t live within your own system” is false. His system likely allows for defense of property. If his system is libertarianism it most certainly does.
If you don’t like the definitions of the terms used in a quick explanation of libertarianism, the honest thing to do would be to address that issue, not pretend to not notice them( good lord I hope you’re pretending)
Well, at the very least, some interference is needed to manage shared resources (land, water). We could get away with putting that off when there was still “frontier” but those days are gone. I suppose you could experiment with anarchy zones on large islands. I do think there’s something to be said for having experimental zones with different amounts of regulation, something like we have with states but more extreme and thematic.
Libertarianism, in this instance, lets everyone have exactly what they want. If Bob wants to smoke marijuana and Joe wants to not smoke marijuana, libertarian laws would allow Bob to smoke marijuana and Joe to not smoke marijuana. Simple as that. On the other hand, if we go with “majority rules”, then there’s a risk that Bob will not be allowed to have exactly what he wants.
In essence there are two different questions here: “Do you want to smoke marijuana?” and “Do you want it to be legal for people to smoke marijuana?” Each individual, presumably, has an opinion about each question. Regarding the first question, different individuals can make different decisions without affecting each other. But regarding the second question, the decision isn’t individual, but rather corporate. Why should 51% of the people, if they want to outlaw marijuana, be legally allowed to make the decision for everyone? Why not just let everyone make his or her own decision about whether to smoke pot?
In elections, each person votes for a candidate, not for a law. When a majority supports a certain law, there’s no guarantee that they’ll vote for a candidate who supports that law. Consider the following scenario.
Candidate Smith supports torturing and murdering fluffy bunny rabbits and wants marijuana to be legal. Candidate Jones opposes torturing and murdering fluffy bunny rabbits and wants marijuana to be illegal. Most voters oppose torturing and murdering fluffy bunny rabbits and want marijuana to be legal. The voters choose Jones, since the bunny rabbits are their highest priority, and thus they elect a candidate who does not share their views on marijuana.
Given the vast number of things that the President and Congress do during a single term, it’s unlikely that a typical voter will support everything that his or her candidate supports. Most of us would probably agree that we have to vote for candidates who hold some positions that we find repulsive, simply to vote against candidates whose positions we find even more repulsive. So there’s no guarantee that “the people” support every law that gets passed.
Ah, voters - that’s always an interesting wrinkle in politics and would be even more so in Libertarian politics, which are actually quite diverse.
The voters who choose the winners are not “the majority” - never *have *been.
It’s not the screamers you have to worry about - you know who *and *where the screamers are. It’s the ones who don’t scream that blow you up when you’re not looking - i.e. those who aren’t taken seriously because they don’t complain “properly” or loud enough. Those who don’t give the lives of others any more value than society gives theirs but who have the same access to weapons as anyone else and much *more *access to much *worse *weapons than the average “law-abiding” citizen. Add the great big pile of “free” people who aren’t eligible to vote and you’re talking about a “majority” of less than 10% of the free, walking talking population. And if you think kids aren’t free, then you should consider the fact that your own own children could probably get their hands on a gun before you ever even found one that didn’t make your butt look big.
I agree, people would be much better off if they got out of each others’ faces, but government can’t make that happen and most believe there’s no reason *not *to pick on others as long as the law and government exist as a threat to those who might want to physically shut them up. They think it’s OK because they “only” bully and torture the ones who have no value and they “only” do it, for the most part, psychologically, not physically.
This society isn’t anywhere *near *psychologically mature enough for *any *“lesser” form of “governing”. You cannot legislate psychology - you can’t govern the fears and insecurities of a society of bullies and victims.
I suppose…if you pulled out all the stops and repealed all laws regarding assault and murder…it would be messy, granted, but there would definitely be some maturing and movement on the psychological end of the spectrum - which is where the perceived “problems” everyone wants to “fix” are actually entrenched.
I think this is just a disagreement over what coercion is defined as. We seem to be in agreement on what the issue is, we just don’t agree on what it’s called.
“Violence against property”? What a foolish notion. Can you also murder or rape property?
I’m not surprised this is a tenet of libertarianism. But the rest of us don’t have to take it seriously.
Why should 49% of the people, if they want to legalize marijuana, be legally allowed to make the decision for everyone?
That phrasing is inane, certainly. Theft is bad enough as it is; it doesn’t need some new philosophical redefinition. Theft is rarely actually violent; if I lift something out of the bed of your pickup truck while you aren’t watching, that’s non-violent theft.
(It can even be said to harm you. Not all harm is “violence.”)
Libertarians lose a lot of sympathy when they try to re-define common words.
But it’s necessary to sustain the libertarian illusion. As this thread as shown, libertarians want to claim that they’re special because the only thing they make illegal is acts of violence. But then they run into something else they want to make illegal - usually some form of property crime. So they redefine the new crime as an act of violence in order to maintain their purity.
Let me refer you back to the hypothetical I used in a previous post. How would your principles apply to my apple picking scenario? Suppose some people want to pick apples freely wherever they find them and other people want to reserve some apples for their own use based on property ownership. How do you resolve this dispute?
My rule would be simple. We’d take a vote and let the majority set the rules for everyone. (I’d personally vote with the property owners.)
But would libertarian principles come to the same result? Or would you ask why should 51% of the people, if they want to outlaw apple picking, be legally allowed to make the decision for everyone? Or perhaps you would ask why should 51% of the people, if they want to outlaw private property, be legally allowed to make the decision for everyone? Either way, you’re saying the issue has already been decided on ideological grounds and there’s no point in taking a vote. That’s what I object to - letting ideology rather than the people decide what the people are allowed to do.
Because the 49% of the people who want to legalize marijuana in this scenario are not trying to trample on anyone’s freedom, but the 51% of the people who want to use force to prevent other people from smoking marijuana are trying to trample on other people’s freedom.
And it’s unnecessary! All they have to say is that they oppose violence, and recognize property! They don’t need to try to bolt the latter on to the former. They can call them two separate cases of “The Good” and go from there.