The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

Alex · 09-19-2008, 12:00 PM

I'm still not really seeing the connection you are trying to draw but I'll stab at it.

Speed controls on community owned streets are not, to me, an abrogation of freedom and liberty for anybody, so there isn't a "more freedom" side of the argument. If they are saying I can't drive 150 miles per hour in my front yard, then yes I start to have issue.

Also, the majority (whether simple or in some cases higher) trumps the argument every single time. Acknowledging that is a different thing from saying that the majority is wrong. There is no magic percentage. If the minimal number necessary to amend the constitution decides it is illegal to be an atheist then I would be a criminal, I would acknowledge I'm a criminal, and I'd think they were wrong and oppose such efforts to pass it and depending on various factors perhaps decide that civil disobedience or outright revolt is warranted.

I also am what I term a "progressive libertarian." In many issues I don't think the government should be involved at all (such as drugs from your list; personal property rights in almost all cases). On other issues I think the government should be involved (such as public education). On others I disagree with government being involved but agree it is a lost battle and I'm not particularly bothered by the outcome (social security and civil rights regulation of the private sphere).

Strangler Lewis · 09-19-2008, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

On others I disagree with government being involved but agree it is a lost battle and I'm not particularly bothered by the outcome (social security and civil rights regulation of the private sphere).

So you'd repeal the 13th Amendment, I guess. I mean, if one group of people wants to spend its personal wealth on owning another group of people, and the other group of people is unable to persuade the first group not to own them and lacks the resources to escape, why should the government intervene in this free market decision?

Moonliner · 09-19-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Also, the majority (whether simple or in some cases higher) trumps the argument every single time. Acknowledging that is a different thing from saying that the majority is wrong.

Thanks. That's all I was getting at.

09-19-2008, 12:00 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm still not really seeing the connection you are trying to draw but I'll stab at it. Speed controls on community owned streets are not, to me, an abrogation of freedom and liberty for anybody, so there isn't a "more freedom" side of the argument. If they are saying I can't drive 150 miles per hour in my front yard, then yes I start to have issue. Also, the majority (whether simple or in some cases higher) trumps the argument every single time. Acknowledging that is a different thing from saying that the majority is wrong. There is no magic percentage. If the minimal number necessary to amend the constitution decides it is illegal to be an atheist then I would be a criminal, I would acknowledge I'm a criminal, and I'd think they were wrong and oppose such efforts to pass it and depending on various factors perhaps decide that civil disobedience or outright revolt is warranted. I also am what I term a "progressive libertarian." In many issues I don't think the government should be involved at all (such as drugs from your list; personal property rights in almost all cases). On other issues I think the government should be involved (such as public education). On others I disagree with government being involved but agree it is a lost battle and I'm not particularly bothered by the outcome (social security and civil rights regulation of the private sphere).
	Submit to Quotes