The Libertarian Viewpoint

[Gunfingers]

I'm curious about the movements to ban hate speech, though. I've never heard of such movements. Are they mainstream?

There are no really mainstream movements in the states that i'm aware of. The Green Party probably has people who would push this perspective, but i couldn't name one. Internationally, it is illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany. That's an example of a ban on hate speach.

I can understand wanting freedom. What I don't understand is wanting freedoms just because they're freedoms. Clearly, some limits on freedoms are necessary to make a good society work. I want to maximize our personal freedoms, too, but only in the framework of a society that makes sure everyone has what they need and they work together.

The idea of opposing freedoms just because they're freedoms is so alien to me that i actually had to stop for a while and wrap my head around it. Near as i can tell you're saying that we should envision the society that we want, and then determine what freedoms we must restrict to make this society work. From a libertarian perspective that would be bad. To us we should start by assuming everything is legal and then work out what creates an ureasonable restriction on another's freedoms and ban only those actions. In most free western societies it works out more-or-less the same way, but there are differences. For example there are people on these very boards who would never accept a society that includes homosexuality, and to make their society work that freedom would be restricted where in a libertarian legal system that would not stand no matter what the societal view.

 

[Magic Man]

There are no really mainstream movements in the states that i'm aware of. The Green Party probably has people who would push this perspective, but i couldn't name one. Internationally, it is illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany. That's an example of a ban on hate speach.

I'm not really sure that counts as hate speech.

The idea of opposing freedoms just because they're freedoms is so alien to me that i actually had to stop for a while and wrap my head around it.

Why would you try to wrap your head around it? I never brought that idea up and it's a silly one.

Near as i can tell you're saying that we should envision the society that we want, and then determine what freedoms we must restrict to make this society work. From a libertarian perspective that would be bad. To us we should start by assuming everything is legal and then work out what creates an ureasonable restriction on another's freedoms and ban only those actions.

I'm not saying the first one. What we need to do is see what works and see what we have to do - and what freedoms we have to limit - to achieve what works. I would generally agree with the second option. I would just go a bit further in saying we along with banning those actions, we would need to ban a few others, too.

 

[Gunfingers]

I would just go a bit further in saying we along with banning those actions, we would need to ban a few others, too.

See, that's where you're losing me, and is exactly what i struggle to wrap my head around. If it doesn't restrict someone else's freedoms, why ban it?

 

[Magic Man]

See, that's where you're losing me, and is exactly what i struggle to wrap my head around. If it doesn't restrict someone else's freedoms, why ban it?

Because it might help the overall good of the society. If I think of a good example, I'll let you know. Right now I can't. Basically, I'm just saying that freedom shouldn't be the only basis for deciding laws.

 

[Jackytar]

Because it might help the overall good of the society. If I think of a good example, I'll let you know. Right now I can't. Basically, I'm just saying that freedom shouldn't be the only basis for deciding laws.

:sleep:

Jackytar

 

[T-Dawg]

Because it might help the overall good of the society. If I think of a good example, I'll let you know. Right now I can't. Basically, I'm just saying that freedom shouldn't be the only basis for deciding laws.

An example? How about alcohol? It doesn't restrict the freedom of others directly, but it does cause health issues and could result in death if the drunk person is stupid enough to try driving while under the influence.
That's an example of restricting a freedom for the overall good of society, isn't it? I wouldn't agree with it, but I can understand why a government would want to do it.

 

[Jackytar]

An example? How about alcohol? It doesn't restrict the freedom of others directly, but it does cause health issues and could result in death if the drunk person is stupid enough to try driving while under the influence.
That's an example of restricting a freedom for the overall good of society, isn't it? I wouldn't agree with it, but I can understand why a government would want to do it.

There are lots of good examples, TAL, but this isn't one. Remember, your freedom ends when it impinges on the freedoms of others. Drunk driving would fall under this and laws against it are justified under Libertarian ideals.

Jackytar

 

[Gunfingers]

There are lots of good examples, TAL, but this isn't one. Remember, your freedom ends when it impinges on the freedoms of others. Drunk driving would fall under this and laws against it are justified under Libertarian ideals.

Jackytar

This is exactly what i was talking about earlier. 99% of the time you guys are going to use the "good for society" metric and it's going to line up precisely with protection of individual liberties, because for most of us freedom is a major part of society. The reason that libertarians don't use that metric is because of the 1% of the time when someone claims it isn't "good for society" if people are allowed to drink, or smoke pot, or marry members of their own gender, or get abortions, or interact with other races, or whatever.

Allowing the "good for society" metric is very bad for the individual.

 

[Magic Man]

:sleep:

Jackytar

Thanks for that very productive response. :clap

 

[Magic Man]

Allowing the "good for society" metric is very bad for the individual.

It may be in some cases, but if it's good for the society, then it's good for every individual on a less shallow basis.

 

[Gunfingers]

It may be in some cases, but if it's good for the society, then it's good for every individual on a less shallow basis.

At best it is good for most individuals, and even that isn't a certainty. I honestly don't know what you're trying to defend. What is society? Why should it be protected over individual freedoms? Who decides what is "better" for it?

 

[T-Dawg]

There are lots of good examples, TAL, but this isn't one. Remember, your freedom ends when it impinges on the freedoms of others. Drunk driving would fall under this and laws against it are justified under Libertarian ideals.

Jackytar

I was talking about drinking in and of itself, not just drunk driving.

 

[Magic Man]

At best it is good for most individuals, and even that isn't a certainty. I honestly don't know what you're trying to defend. What is society? Why should it be protected over individual freedoms? Who decides what is "better" for it?

Society is the community we live in. Everyone has a responsibility to society. I think of it in terms of a small tribe a thousand years ago. Everyone had their duties within the tribe. The tribe worked together to make life easier and better for everyone.

The "who" that decides what's better for society is logic and reason. For instance, it's clear that providing healthcare to all of our society's people is in everyone's interest. It helps those who couldn't afford it otherwise, and it helps those who can afford it now. Having a healthy society is just good for everyone. Just like providing schools and police and water, etc. to everyone is good for the whole society.

 

[Gunfingers]

Now you've changed the game. We're not talking about restricting freedoms anymore. Having a police force and hospitals doesn't restrict anyone's freedoms.

 

[Jackytar]

I was talking about drinking in and of itself, not just drunk driving.

Drinking or other drugs should not be banned. Now, you are free to educate, discourage and ridicule anybody who behaves in a self-distuctive manner, but as long as they are adults and not hurting anybody else they should not (and cannot) be restrictied from engaging in such behavior. Even drunk driving should be okay if you, say, have 100 acres of land and your own roads to run around on.

Jackytar

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi TAL,

Uh, actually, that was the example I had in mind... I thought the whole Freddie Mac thing was a private corporation?

No, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSEs - Government Owned Enterprises. And those GSEs account for roughly 6 trillion dollars of the mortgage market.

You mean the housing bubble was created by the government? How?

Well, the Federal Reserve, the government bank artificially reduced interest rates thus misallocating the price of money providing a boom of easy credit. Couple that with the government forcing banks to lend to people with questionable credit histories and you have a housing bubble.

I thought Bush was a strong free-market advocate? I doubt he would have allowed government interference with the housing bubble... but meh, I don't know much on that subject, I'll leave it to someone smart (ie, mball) to argue with you on that one...

Bush was a bit schizophrenic on defending free market principles.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

Indeed it was. Ever heard of Goldman Sachs?

That you leave out Greenspan's interest rate cuts and Fannie and Freddie accounting for roughly 6 trillion of the mortgage market shows you don't have a firm grasp of what caused the housing bubble.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, the Federal Reserve, the government bank artificially reduced interest rates thus misallocating the price of money providing a boom of easy credit. Couple that with the government forcing banks to lend to people with questionable credit histories and you have a housing bubble.

Don't forget about all the people who didn't have enough common sense to not purchase homes well out of their price range.

 

[Magic Man]

Now you've changed the game. We're not talking about restricting freedoms anymore. Having a police force and hospitals doesn't restrict anyone's freedoms.

How does that change the game? I thought we were talking about things that help society but not necessarily the individual. The police have done me more harm than good, and yet they're still good for the society.

 

[Magic Man]

Don't forget about all the people who didn't have enough common sense to not purchase homes well out of their price range.

And don't forget about the loan companies who gave those people loans knowing there was no way in hell they were going to be able to repay them. Of course, the ones who really took advantage of it, like Goldman Sachs, just sold off the loans to others so that they would still be profitable while giving those other companies the short end of the stick.

God, I love capitalism.