[nexttime]

(Original post by robin22391)
for example libertarians would want guns legalised, but the media would rip them apart in the uk...they need to take it step by step....liberty and ending wars aswell as less taxes and stopping the bailout of banks is a winning formula if only they would use it....they need a ron paul style candidate who is good with online media.

How would letting banks collapse help?

[robin22391]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I too wouldn't take drugs because I think it's a stupid thing to do. But if people want to, that should be their right.

My main problem with the criminalisation of drugs is that it is paternalistic - the state is dictating what people can and cannot do because it might be bad for them. My problem with this is that if it continues to expand the ambit of state control over individual autonomy, where will we end up? Will fast food be banned because it's bad for you? Alcohol? Smoking anywhere?

I don't smoke because I think it's foolish - it's demonstrably bad for you - but if people want to do it in a private place (that is, not on the street - in restaurants or bars or places of work or your home or your car it's absolutely fine if the owner of these places allows it) they should absolutely have the right to do so.

Part of life, in my view, is having the freedom to make what other people think might be bad decisions. Some people say I'm foolish for trying to be a lawyer when the market is so bad - but nobody has said yet to me 'you shouldn't be allowed to try to be a lawyer'.

I apply this sort of view very widely. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with people making bad decisions if they didn't have to pay the bills for it.

The problem at the moment is that if people take drugs, or smoke, or drink to excess, and then become ill, they're treated by the NHS. What this basically means is the tax paid by people who don't do these things because they recognise how bad they are has to be used to support people who made stupid choices. I think that's wrong. But I don't think the solution is trying to legislate against these activities - I think the solution is getting the government out of the business of providing healthcare. That way, nobody is having to foot the bill of someone that made a choice that damaged their health.

Margaret Thatcher once said 'if you want to cut your own throat, don't come to me for a bandage'. This is broadly my position. Do what you will, but don't expect society to bail you out when something goes wrong. This is a position of freedom tempered by responsibility, and this is my position.

in many cases the smoker is paying alot of tax on his cigarette, and this pays the health bill, essentially they collectively pay a tax incase they get ill.

and perhaps we could have a voluntary tax system where you get to choose what you want to fund or something

[Aspiringlawstudent]

The idea of wanting socialism but not wanting authoritarianism is just completely insane. You can't have socialism without authoritarianism; the vast majority of free people will not give their money away to a government without taxes being applied to them.

Taxes are the government applying force or coercion to extract money. Taxes are theft by government.

Socialism cannot survive without this force being applied.

If you want anarchism, read about Murray Rothbard and Anarchocapitalism.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by robin22391)
in many cases the smoker is paying alot of tax on his cigarette, and this pays the health bill, essentially they collectively pay a tax incase they get ill.

and perhaps we could have a voluntary tax system where you get to choose what you want to fund or something

We do - it's called the private sector.

Except it's not a 'tax' because by their very nature taxes aren't voluntary - it's a bill.

When I go to Tesco, I don't pay a 'tesco tax' - I give my money to a private company because it gives me something I want.

I choose to buy things, and the person or company I buy them from gets my money. It's completely voluntary and works very well.

Why can't the private sector provide everything?

[robin22391]

(Original post by nexttime)
How would letting banks collapse help?

if they are failed businesses it is ridiculous to keep them standing, let them go bankrupt as it is their fault...rather than encourage them, many more banks will spring up to replace them and any criminal bankers can be jailed.

the economy would have recovered faster if they just gave everyone in britain some free cash and thats a fact.

[robin22391]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
We do - it's called the private sector.

Except it's not a 'tax' because by their very nature taxes aren't voluntary - it's a bill.

When I go to Tesco, I don't pay a 'tesco tax' - I give my money to a private company because it gives me something I want.

I choose to buy things, and the person or company I buy them from gets my money. It's completely voluntary and works very well.

Why can't the private sector provide everything?

i worry of corruption, and i worry that this corruption will turn the free market into a bunch of global corporate monopolies, i also worry that the average joe is not well equipped to actually make the best choice rather than being scammed.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by robin22391)
i worry of corruption, and i worry that this corruption will turn the free market into a bunch of global corporate monopolies, i also worry that the average joe is not well equipped to actually make the best choice rather than being scammed.

And you think governments are immune to corruption?

You think governments know how to make the best choices for everyone?

There are over sixty million people in this country - how could a government of a few hundred people possibly know what each of us wants?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by robin22391)
if they are failed businesses it is ridiculous to keep them standing, let them go bankrupt as it is their fault...rather than encourage them, many more banks will spring up to replace them and any criminal bankers can be jailed.

the economy would have recovered faster if they just gave everyone in britain some free cash and thats a fact.

Do you know anything about economics? Or are you being deliberately silly? If you printed money and gave it to people, that would just cause inflation which would make everything more expensive in line with the amount of extra money in the economy and therefore nobody would be any better off.

That's what they tried to do in Zimbabwe, and look where it got them.

Furthermore, if you don't want to give failed businesses money through bailouts, why do you think failed people should get money through welfare which is just another kind of bailout? If the principle is that nobody owes a duty to compensate people for their own bad practices or bad luck, why should people be treated differently from businesses which are ultimately just groups of people? It is illogical to make a distinction between the two.

[nexttime]

(Original post by robin22391)
if they are failed businesses it is ridiculous to keep them standing, let them go bankrupt as it is their fault...rather than encourage them, many more banks will spring up to replace them and any criminal bankers can be jailed.

the economy would have recovered faster if they just gave everyone in britain some free cash and thats a fact.

There would be huge downsides of punishing people for their bank choice though. As we saw with Northern Rock, people would panic at the slightest whisper of trouble and all banks, "failed" or not, would be under by now. The only usable ones would be, surprise surprise, the government owned one(s).

The economy would not have recovered faster giving people cash if that cash came from other people within that economy.

[robin22391]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
The idea of wanting socialism but not wanting authoritarianism is just completely insane. You can't have socialism without authoritarianism; the vast majority of free people will not give their money away to a government without taxes being applied to them.

Taxes are the government applying force or coercion to extract money. Taxes are theft by government.

Socialism cannot survive without this force being applied.

If you want anarchism, read about Murray Rothbard and Anarchocapitalism.

that depends what you mean by socialism, true communism in the end up in theory was anarchism.

i agree taxes are theft, it should be like a non for profit club where if i choose to pay tax i get the benefits rather than being born into salvery.

essentially i think some major things in society should be not for profit and controlled by responsible people who are answerable to the people. for example i dont think the police or army or fire/ambulance services should be in the freemarket

have you heard of freetown christiania, it is in denmark, they are doing quite well for an independent place with no government. or have you heard of the free state project in new hampshire. if something like this could happen in the uk that would be a good step.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by robin22391)
that depends what you mean by socialism, true communism in the end up in theory was anarchism.

i agree taxes are theft, it should be like a non for profit club where if i choose to pay tax i get the benefits rather than being born into salvery.

essentially i think some major things in society should be not for profit and controlled by responsible people who are answerable to the people. for example i dont think the police or army or fire/ambulance services should be in the freemarket

have you heard of freetown christiania, it is in denmark, they are doing quite well for an independent place with no government. or have you heard of the free state project in new hampshire. if something like this could happen in the uk that would be a good step.

Why shouldn't everything be in a free market?

[robin22391]

(Original post by nexttime)
There would be huge downsides of punishing people for their bank choice though. As we saw with Northern Rock, people would panic at the slightest whisper of trouble and all banks, "failed" or not, would be under by now. The only usable ones would be, surprise surprise, the government owned one(s).

The economy would not have recovered faster giving people cash if that cash came from other people within that economy.

the cash is made on a computer

id prefer to have them all fail back then and then we can start over rather than keep a bubble going another few years and artificially keep this style of economy going only for it to fail later again.

if something is inefficient you shouldnt feed it money as it only makes matters worse

[im so academic]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I think I quite often overestimate the intelligence of the general population - quite possibly because I spend too much time on TSR and with people that are rather politically active and intellectually well-developed.

I think the problem we have in this country is that we think not about principles, but about issues. People adopt contradictory stances by not following principles and simply kowtowing to popular opinion - for example, nobody in the main parties at the moment advocates legalising drugs. But none of them would say they want to ban alcohol. None of them would say that polygamy is okay, but all of them are for gay marriage - which doesn't make sense if your principle is that mentally competent consenting adults should be able to live however they like.

And what if your principle isn't that?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by im so academic)
And what if your principle isn't that?

If your principle isn't maximising freedom, I think you're wrong.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by robin22391)
the cash is made on a computer

id prefer to have them all fail back then and then we can start over rather than keep a bubble going another few years and artificially keep this style of economy going only for it to fail later again.

if something is inefficient you shouldnt feed it money as it only makes matters worse

Did you completely ingore my post about inflation?

[im so academic]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
If your principle isn't maximising freedom, I think you're wrong.

Wait a second, I'm not expressing my opinion, so don't say I'm. I'm just saying that other people may not think that way and have their reasons for alcohol/gay marriage but not for the legalisation of other drugs/polygamy.

Alternatively, people may not think that legalisation of drugs/polygamy are "hot" issues at the moment now. Consider immigration and employment.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by im so academic)
Wait a second, I'm not expressing my opinion, so don't say I'm. I'm just saying that other people may not think that way and have their reasons for alcohol/gay marriage but not for the legalisation of other drugs/polygamy.

Alternatively, people may not think that legalisation of drugs/polygamy are "hot" issues at the moment now. Consider immigration and employment.

Well, I've explained why that's stupid.

If you don't follow principles but instead think about issues, you inevitably adopt contradictory positions, which makes you look like a fool.

[Annoying-Mouse]

The vast majority of people don't take an active interest in politics, it's very passive. They take their interests through watching news on television or reading a newspaper. Both the news and newspaper, when it comes to politics, tend to be about either Conservatives or Labour party.

There's also the fact that libertarianism (your brand) doesn't appeal to people. The vast majority of people like the NHS. You would rather scrap the NHS, wouldn't you? The vast majority of people like gun control. You would rather allow guns, wouldn't you? The vast majority of people don't want all drugs legalized. You would rather allow all drugs to be legalized, wouldn't you? The vast majority of people like welfare. You would rather get it scrapped, wouldn't you? They hold these opinions because our society is statist for the most part. We aren't as statist as continental Europe but we aren't as individualistic as America.

Freedom is a means to an end not an end in of itself. If we were going to fully maximize it then we'd become an anarchocaptalist society where you have the freedom to rape unwanted babies.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
The vast majority of people don't take an active interest in politics, it's very passive. They take their interests through watching news on television or reading a newspaper. Both the news and newspaper, when it comes to politics, tend to be about either Conservatives or Labour party.

There's also the fact that libertarianism (your brand) doesn't appeal to people. The vast majority of people like the NHS. You would rather scrap the NHS, wouldn't you? The vast majority of people like gun control. You would rather allow guns, wouldn't you? The vast majority of people don't want all drugs legalized. You would rather allow all drugs to be legalized, wouldn't you? The vast majority of people like welfare. You would rather get it scrapped, wouldn't you? They hold these opinions because our society is statist for the most part. We aren't as statist as continental Europe but we aren't as individualistic as America.

Freedom is a means to an end not an end in of itself. If we were going to fully maximize it then we'd become an anarchocaptalist society where you have the freedom to rape unwanted babies.

eh?

I have never heard anyone advocate that.

The style of anarchocapitalism I am familiar with is based upon the non-coercive axiom: it is always wrong to use force unless you are using it in self-defence or in defence of another.]

[im so academic]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Well, I've explained why that's stupid.

If you don't follow principles but instead think about issues, you inevitably adopt contradictory positions, which makes you look like a fool.

The average person really doesn't care whether someone can get high or marry multiple people. They care whether they can get a job, earn a decent salary etc. That can answer the question in the OP actually.