Notoriuswun wrote:guy sajer wrote:
No I don't. I understand and agree fully that economic freedom essentially equates to greater civil freedom.
Beyond this point, I find your assertions in this post to be exaggerated and hyperbolic. "Freedom of speech is no longer even a concept in our society." This is a gross, gross overstatement, and quite honestly, it marks you as an ideologue as opposed to a thoughtful commentator, whether this is actually the case, I don't know.
In any case, we've hijacked this thread, so I'm cutting off the debate on my end and letting this thread get back to its regularly scheduled programming. I get the sense anyway that I'm arguing with an ideologue, and my experience teaches me that this is a waste of time. If I"m wrong, I'm happy to concede the point, but you'll have to do better than this to convince me otherwise.
All Libertarians are essentially idealouges...but all political entities start out this way.
Because of political correctness, I can't say or do certain things for fear of offending someone. Don't ask me exactly what these things are, as the list is very long. At least we don't live in the UK however, where they can't even refer to their coffee as black anymore.
I will give you a valid example of how a reduced state would help both the left and the right.
In GA, most of the residents are in favor of a statue of the ten commandments, but, because of federal govt intervention, they are no longer able to display it.
In CA, gay marriage laws, and medical marijunia laws are not recognized by the federal govt, and thus these civil rights are denied to gays and potheads alike.
If you haven't yet figured it out, I am more of a minarchist than anything else...I believe that a govt is essential for some duties, but (in its present state) it resembles something out of an Orwell novel. I believe that the people should be free to rule themselves, and that state laws should supercede federal ones. People would end up naturally migrating to those areas in where they had the most rights.
I can see you are no longer interested in debating something you can not hope to win - as you never really tried to present a valid argument in the first place.
ps threadstarter - I am sorry if we hijacked this thread - economics and politics are things I am very passionate about, as one can plainly see.
I'm not aware that I was morally obligated to present an argument. I attempted a very brief and general explanation as to why I find ideological approaches to political economy unsatisfactory. I never attemtped, nor do I have the time to write a long dissertation on the topic.
If it makes you feel good to imagine that I am hopelessly outclassed by you, go ahead and do so. We all must seize onto the small victories we can to make us feel good about ourselves. But give the gross exagerations and wild hyperbolic assertions you have made, I feel good about my chances.
In any case, I agree with much of what you've written above. I am by no means a "stereotypical" liberal, as Coggins would want to pigeonhole me. I find much of libertarian philosophy to be compelling; I just am not as prepared to take it as far as the more dogmatic libertarians.
As like the idea of freedom as a general first principle and to take consider deviations from this principel on a case by case basis. But I believe there are other social values that must be considered, and they sometimes conflict with freedom, and it is not always the case that freedom Trump's (although the burden of proof should be on those who argue for a reduction of freedom).
See, we're perhaps not that far away from each other.
Now, I should say something about women, so Harmony can't yell at me anymore.
The loss to human kind of what women might have contributed had they had the same freedoms and opportunities as men is a tragic waste.
One can also only assume that Mormons would be significantly better off as a group were women given the same opportunities as men to minister to the spiritual and other needs of the flock. This too is a tragic waste.