Political "debates"

[Bluedevyl]

[Mike]

Preaching to the choir, brother. The sides of modern "debates" are usually framed to consolidate and bolster supporters they already have and not to actually convince anyone or look for cooperative solutions. We eliminate the middle ground so that everything becomes black and white... all or nothing.

[TheMaster]

I wish we could all just get along. Every can have their opinions, but it shouldn't make you want to attack someone (beliefs or otherwise). I want to live in an america where everyone gets to do what they want, how they want (as long as it doesn't hurt or hinder someone else), and the only thing the government does is protect our borders, protect its citizens, and nothing else.

If we were not so controlled by regulations and taxes, people that want to help the needy would be more able to. People should be able to marry who they want. If someone wants to do drugs, let them, and be there with open arms when they are ready to change. If people were more willing to accept peoples flaws, and lend a helping hand only when asked, i believe we would have less crime, less people on drugs, and more people living life to the fullest.

Call me naive, but i stand by that.

[Mike]

You're naive.

[TheMaster]

are you calling me naive because i am... or because i inadvertently told you to...

[akiva]

The older I get the less I am inclined to think that debate of any sort can actually make much difference. If you go back to Plato (and I do), he pretty clearly argues that the only way people can have genuine rational discourse is if everyone involved has basically the same understanding of the world. Most of Socrates ' interlocutors do not have the same worldview as Socrates. So most of them are trapped into making rhetorical or logical mistakes, and end up saying that agree with Socrates, but they really don't. So no one is persuaded. This is, I think, the real meaning of Socratic irony--his interlocutors simply can't believe that he means the things he says (e.g. that living a just life is essential), so they conclude he must be speaking ironically.

In the modern age, we have a lot of evidence to back up this general point. To me, one of the most alarming finding is that people are more likely to believe something that is demonstrably false after they are shown empirical evidence that it is false. In other words, if reality disagrees with your world, you believe that it's reality that's wrong, not your world view. To me that is a scary conclusion.

[TheMaster]

[Mike]

[TheMaster]

I do not think for a second that libertarian-ism will fix all issues, but I do believe it give an equal playing ground. Equality should mean everyone has the same opportunity, but not necessarily the same outcome. Someone that pushes themselves to be the best should be rewarded for being the best, while someone that enjoys doing 'just enough' shouldn't get the same recognition as those that are 'the best'.

[Mike]

But less regulation doesn't lead to a level playing field. There are always rules of the game, and if those rules aren't decided by a higher authority (hopefully chosen by and accountable to the people), then they will be decided on by whoever has the most power. Without oversight, it is acceptable to lie to and deceive people in order to trick them into buying your service/product. Without oversight, it can be (and has been) standard practice to discriminate against people based on race/color/religion/gender. These are not things that create a level playing field, and the only way to level it out in a libertarian system is to have the money/resources to even prove that these things are going on and then be able to create awareness so that the disadvantaged will have the information to make intelligent choices. But in an unregulated system, the people with power have greater freedom to buy up and control your sources of information, so how would you even know? If it weren't for government regulation, our free and open internet would have disappeared years ago, and I don't see how that would have been in anyone's best interest except for those at the top of the communications industry who would have stood to make even more money than they do now.

[TheMaster]

[Mike]

Then you have to understand that "government protecting its citizens" leads to all of the regulation and government oversight that we have today. Everything around us today that people complain about as "interference" is, at its core, government protecting its citizens. You can't ask for government protection while also asking the government to not meddle in your life.

[TheMaster]

I agree, to some extent, but when the Government is tell me what to eat, what to say/not say, and things of that nature, it has gone too far

[Bluedevyl]

I agree to the extent that I am REALLY not a fan of any regulatory body saying what it is and is not okay to do to your own person. While I am personally not a fan, I have many friends and some family members who, over the years, have been known to smoke weed from time to time. In our state, currently, this is illegal. However, there have been double-blind studies done that could convince a right-minded person that drinking 3 or 4 shots of 80-proof liquor is more detrimental to your health than someone who smokes an equivalent amount of weed.

One of these is okay, and is frequently advertised on TV, while thousands of people are serving jail time for the other. This doesn't seem right to me somehow.

[Mike]

[Mike]

@Bluedevyl

Agreed. Weed should be legal. Prostitution should be legal. Enforcement of morality laws without proven danger is questionable at best.

[TheMaster]

[Mike]

First you'll note that I agreed with Bluedevyl on weed. But as for your examples...

Your failure to wear a seatbelt results in a far higher likelihood of serious injury or death in the event of an accident. Average that over 300 million people, and we are talking about tens of thousands of extra injuries and deaths every year. Each of those results in higher health care costs for all citizens (either by greater costs raising insurance rates or by uninsured who require life-saving treatment they can't pay for). Not to mention each of those requires greater use of public services (police/fire and rescue/etc). Now factor in increased legal costs. Strain on the court system. Lost wages and productivity. And so on. So your decision to not wear a seatbelt seems to YOU like a decision that affects only you, but you are traveling on publicly maintained roads, relying on publicly funded services, and the consequences to you (and tens of thousands of other people like you) result in greater damage and cost to the whole of society. Where does the government's responsibility to protect its citizens end?

The presence of a firearm, on average, increases the likelihood that any altercation will lead to serious injury and death. The presence of a firearm increases the likelihood of accidentally injury and death. See above for potential costs of that. You see the pistol merely as a personal choice and used only for your protection. And I'm sure that YOU are perfectly safe with your firearm at all times. But on average, that's not the case. Increased danger. Increased cost. Now, the lives SAVED by the presence of a gun is something we can't measure, so you are free to argue that the benefits of open-carry/conceal-carry laws outweigh the measurable dangers. Lots of people argue that. But whether it is ultimately good or bad, it's clear that it's not just a matter of personal choice. It has effects on everyone around you. Where does the government's responsibility to protect its citizens end?

[TheMaster]

On the topic of the seat belt. I know that they save lives, in fact I almost always ware mine, but for the government to make a law making it mandatory for me to ware it is crossing that line. If I want to take that risk into my own hands I shouldn't be fined for it. Just like with Obama's healthcare plan, If I can't afford healthcare (which thankfully I can because by job pays for it, I know not everyone is that blessed), why am I going to be fined for not having it. If I don't feel the need to purchase healthcare, that is on me and i shouldn't be penalized for it.

On the subject of guns. I agree, if no one had guns there would be no gun violence, but criminals are going to do what they want. If you say I can't take my gun into the post office, i'm not going to take my gun into the post office, but a criminal could care less what the law is. He/she is going to bring their gun in and (potentially) start shooting. If I were allowed to bring my gun in, I could protect myself (and possibly people around me), but, since im not allowed, im now laying dead on the floor with my pistol in my car.

Also, I apologize as i did not fully read what you wrote before going gung-ho into my response. so here is my response for what you actually said.

Seat belt: wearing a seat belt or not does not affect all the reasons you mentioned. Whether or not i am wearing one at the time of the crash doesn't stop all of the first responders from responding.

Guns: My original point still stands.

[TheMaster]

I just want to insert a sidenote:

I am (while getting a little frustrated at times) really glad I am part of this debate/discussion. It really makes me think about where I truly stand. I'm sure at some point it will bring up a topic where I thought I thought one thing, when actually I don't. So, while we may not agree on things, at least I know what I believe. Thank you for being that opposition for me.