The case against guns

[MrJonno]

Your survival is not more important than my survival, or my liberty. This is why if you crash your car, which explodes into flames with you trapped inside, absolutely nothing in the law, common or codified, requires me or anyone else, including police and fire personnel, to put or lives at risk to save you.

Depends on the country, France for example has good Samaritan laws where its a criminal offence not to take reasonable actions to aid someone in an accident. Reasonable may not mean risking your life but it will certainly require you to phone the police and stay there until they arrive. Not to give first aid if trained would also be a crime

If you choose to live in a society you don't get an individual choice in what you pay or not pay to have the the privilege of living there

[Coito ergo sum]

An EU country has to change the same fee's to any citizen in the EU except it may discriminate between its own locals.

How can it charge "the same fee" to citizens of another country if it doesn't have to charge the same fee to the citizens of its own country? Presumably, it would be able to charge foreigners the highest fee applicable to those in its own country, right?

If Germany charges E1000 per year for a German student , it has to charge the same for a British one , how Germany could charge £2000 if it wanted for someone from say Western Germany but only £1000 to an Eastern Germany student (no idea if that happens in Germany), this does lead to the very silly Scotland situation where if you are 'Scottish' you pay £1800, if you are German and want to study in Scotland you pay £1800 as they can't discriminate but if you are English you pay £9000 as Scotland can discriminate internally even through Scotland isnt an independent country.

Yes, but if they can charge $1000 standard fee for local students, and $2000 for Western German students, why can't they charge $2000 for the French student? Does the law say that the lowest applicable tuition has to be charged to the foreign student?

It's gets even sillier if you are from Northern Ireland, as the Republic will grant anyone Irish citizenship is from there and they can them claim foreign low fees in Scotland

The Tory decision to introduce £9000 fees for England only could quite literally destroy the country, are there any restrictions in the US on when you count as a 'resident' in an individual state, you need to live for a few years in Scotland to count as 'Scottish'. Getting a degree isn't really optional as you will struggle to even get a job as a waiter without one these days

In the US residency requirements are decided by the universities themselves. Typical would be a 12 month residency requirement to be eligible for in-state tuition. You can also meet the residency requirement if your parent/guardian has resided in the state for 12 months, even if you haven't.

There are universities everywhere in the US. It's so easy to go to college, and yet - as with the health care debate - the US is being portrayed as somehow worse in this area than other countries. Anyone can go to college here. And, the more we get the government involved, the fewer college options there will be. We'll get one of these dopey meritocracy programs where there will only be a few big universities and kids that don't pass certain tests just can't go, and won't have anywhere else to go. Now, at least, if you've done bad in high school, kids can go to county or community colleges for cheap tuition and redeem themselves. These are colleges that anyone can get into regardless of grades, and they cost little enough that a bartender or waiter can work their way through. And, there is one within a 30 minute drive of almost everyone in the country.

[JimC]

I loathe Libertarianism as it wishes me and most of humanity dead so a tiny minority can be 'free', I live and have 'rights' because of the society I choose to live in. Attack that and you attack my survival.

I wish you dead? How so?

The only way 99.9% of humanity can survive is by strict controls and regulations on their behaviour, libertarianism wants to get of this so people can be 'free' to starve or be exploited. Fascism and communism attacked minorities and claimed to benefit majorities but libertarianism has nothing but contempt for most of humanity. It's the enemy of anyone who isn't not stupidly rich and has their own private island

A bit over the top, Jonno. Sure, we need government, but I'd like to keep the "controls" to some sort of reasonable, minimal set.

As a movement, Libertarians don't worry me, since they are nothing more than selfish fantasists who have about the same hope of dominating western political thought as an old style Marxist.

[MrJonno]

A bit over the top, Jonno. Sure, we need government, but I'd like to keep the "controls" to some sort of reasonable, minimal set

Reasonable is quite hard to define, what is the role of government whatever the people want it to be??

[Svartalf]

"Libertarianism is 'evil?'"

Really? Please tell me you can't be that stupid.

Isn't the black and white thinking of "good" and "evil" the kind of simplicity believers try to boil everything down to? Nice work.

Actually, it is THAT stupid to believe that a society can survive without a gummint given adequate means to enforce the laws and ensure the citizens' safety.
Any form of government that predicts to be ideal without factoring human nature in is moronic... libertarianism and modern representative democracy among others.

[JimC]

A bit over the top, Jonno. Sure, we need government, but I'd like to keep the "controls" to some sort of reasonable, minimal set

Reasonable is quite hard to define, what is the role of government whatever the people want it to be??

I don't want a government hat micro-manages its citizens lives...

[Tero]

I blame O-Bumma. Now we have MO politicians shitting in their pants and passing this stuff
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013050932 ... ority.html

[Collector1337]

I loathe Libertarianism as it wishes me and most of humanity dead so a tiny minority can be 'free', I live and have 'rights' because of the society I choose to live in. Attack that and you attack my survival.

I wish you dead? How so?

The only way 99.9% of humanity can survive is by strict controls and regulations on their behaviour,

So, you are in fact, that stupid.

libertarianism wants to get of this so people can be 'free' to starve or be exploited.

Seth is correct. You obviously know nothing about Libertarianism. Apparently, you are unable to differentiate between fiscal and social issues.

Fascism and communism attacked minorities and claimed to benefit majorities but libertarianism has nothing but contempt for most of humanity.

Where did you come up with this idiocy?

It's the enemy of anyone who isn't not stupidly rich and has their own private island

I'm not rich. I'm Libertarian. It's definitely not my enemy. Why do you think Libertarianism is only about fiscal policy, and totally ignore social policy like it doesn't exist?

[Seth]

I blame O-Bumma. Now we have MO politicians shitting in their pants and passing this stuff
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013050932 ... ority.html

Yeah baby! Go Missouri! I may just move there. I like it a lot, except for the humidity and the ticks.

And the author of the article is 100 percent correct in saying that the states are not required to even assist in enforcing federal laws.

This is exactly like Colorado's pot law in that what it does (by legalizing pot at the state level) is forbid state and local officials from using federal law as an excuse to harass pot smokers. Same thing here. The biggest problem we've had as a nation is the co-opting of our state and local police forces by the feds to help them to enforce federal laws, particularly drug laws. Things like asset forfeiture laws, which are a pernicious evil, give state and local police a strong financial motive to behave abusively in re drug laws.

In Missouri, once this law goes into effect, no state or local police officer or DA will be able to use federal law as a justification for arrest or prosecution. It'll be completely up to the feds to do it if they want to. And they don't begin to have the resources to do so, fortunately...at the moment.

And citizens can rest easy knowing that their local police department won't be busting down their door and shooting them to death over a sawed-off shotgun that's 1/4 of an inch shorter than is legal under federal law...like the feds did to Randy Weaver's wife and son at Ruby Ridge.

Of course, the provisions about arresting federal agents won't fly because of the supremacy clause, but the state certainly doesn't have to assist, facilitate or even cooperate with the feds, which includes giving them intelligence data.

Go Missouri! Good on ya!

[Seth]

Why do you think Libertarianism is only about fiscal policy, and totally ignore social policy like it doesn't exist?

That was a sarcastic rhetorical question, right? We already know the answer.

[Blind groper]

Libertarianism, and the various political philosophies that are opposite, are all, when taken to an extreme, total crap.

Individual liberty is, of course, important. But so is community welfare. A sane and balanced society will try to establish a balance and not go to either extreme.

I pointed out earlier, concerns about liberty will permit individuals to smoke pot or drink alcohol. But concerns about community welfare will prohibit driving when under the influence of either pot or booze.

Balance, not extremism.

[Seth]

Libertarianism, and the various political philosophies that are opposite, are all, when taken to an extreme, total crap.

Individual liberty is, of course, important. But so is community welfare. A sane and balanced society will try to establish a balance and not go to either extreme.

Which, interestingly, Libertarianism is all for. More so than socialism actually.

I pointed out earlier, concerns about liberty will permit individuals to smoke pot or drink alcohol. But concerns about community welfare will prohibit driving when under the influence of either pot or booze.

Balance, not extremism.

The Libertarian perspective on drunk driving is no different. It's an initiation of force against another if the drunk runs over someone. The drunk driver is fully responsible for the consequences of his actions, and for full compensation to those he has injured. And since driving BADLY when drunk is clearly an attempt to initiate deadly force against others, anyone so placed in danger is authorized to use deadly force to stop the threat to the same degree as if the drunk were shooting off a gun in a crowded shopping mall.

Libertarianism isn't against social order at all, in fact Libertarianism depends on social order, it's just against coercive attempts to create social order by government because we believe that individuals and the free market are sufficient to the task of keeping social order. Nobody needs a law to say "it's illegal to drive drunk." All one needs is one single law that covers EVERY act you perform in public: "If you initiate force or fraud against another, you will be held responsible for your acts." If you can drive drunk without hurting anyone else or endangering them, then you are free to do so. But if you screw up and hurt someone, then you pay the full price for your conduct, including "equalization" of injuries (in my opinion) which would mean that if you run over someone and break a leg, after paying compensation, YOU get your leg run over and YOU have to sit there for exactly as long as it took the ambulance to arrive to your victim, and YOU get the same medical care he did, but at YOUR expense.

Since you don't understand the concept embraced by "force or fraud," you might want to present some examples that puzzle you about how Libertarianism might deal with specific social issues and I'll try to tell you how the Libertarian philosophy deals with such issues.

If you have any honest interest in the subject that is.

[Blind groper]

Seth

It may surprise you to know that I have some sympathy for the libertarian philosophy.

What I am opposed to is extremism. Extreme libertarianism is anarchy, which should be opposed by every civilised human. Of, course, there is an opposite, which is typified by communism, in the pure sense. Both anarchy and pure communism lead to disaster.

As always, the key is to take a middle road, which is more balanced.

[MrJonno]

Since you don't understand the concept embraced by "force or fraud," you might want to present some examples that puzzle you about how Libertarianism might deal with specific social issues and I'll try to tell you how the Libertarian philosophy deals with such issues

Someone forces themselves into living in a country, thinking they have some automatic right to do so , they doesn't agree with the charges (taxes) put on him by the people already living in so decides to steal from that country by refusing to pay up

Your very existence is an act of force, taking oxygen and breathing out disease

[Seth]

Seth

It may surprise you to know that I have some sympathy for the libertarian philosophy.

What I am opposed to is extremism. Extreme libertarianism is anarchy, which should be opposed by every civilised human. Of, course, there is an opposite, which is typified by communism, in the pure sense. Both anarchy and pure communism lead to disaster.

As always, the key is to take a middle road, which is more balanced.

I view the political spectrum differently. Imagine a ring, and on that ring is a bead that can move freely about the ring. The bead represents human liberty and happiness. The ring is in the vertical plane and gravity is replaced by negative human freedom. Now imagine that there is a small gap at the top of the ring large enough for the bead to fall through.

On the left side of the ring is collectivism/socialism/communism and like ideologies with the amount of government control increasing as the bead moves up to the left. On the right side of the ring is conservatism/theocracy and fascism and like ideologies with increasing amounts of government control as the bead moves to the right. At the extreme ends of the ring are State Socialism on the left and Fascism on the right.

At the bottom, at the lowest point, is Libertarianism.

As the forces of society and culture move the bead right or left from it's natural resting point of Libertarianism (not anarchy, we'll get to that) it moves easily at first as the left/right changes are small. As the changes get larger either way, it takes more coercive force either way to get the bead to move up and around until it nears the top at either end of the ring, where it gets really easy to move again. One small push beyond the maximum right or left puts the bead into the gap in the middle, where it falls through the center of the ring, which is Anarchy, death, destruction and it ends up again on the bottom of the ring at Libertarianism, or as we like to call it "Maximum Effective Ordered Liberty," a resting point achieved by the least possible coercive force of government displacing the bead of individual liberty in either direction.