Open NavShopOpen Search

Forums > Social Discussion > Freedom and the State.

Login/Join to Participate
Page:
onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Posted:
There have been many posts lately concerning freedom and the state- examples being the issues of drugs being legal/illegal and the threads on how governements (particularly the US and UK) are using the terrorist threat as an excuse to push legislation curtailing some personal liberties.

That's been discussed in those other threads, and some of those threads are ongoing.

So I'll say that those things are off-topic here, and merely mention them to put this thread in context.

The issue on which this thread is based is a very specific one, and one which I feel underlies the issues mentioned above; i want to get this discussion going because I feel that much of the confusion/misunderstandings which occur in the previous threads could be alleviated by clarifying this issue.

And that issue is that, IMO, for a state to be 'free' requires substantial state curtailment of some individual liberties ie 100% freedom is impossible (or at least is impossible as anything other than a temporary and highly unstable state).

Further, that many of those who critisise the current state of affairs in the west with regard to liberty, are actually failing to see just how many liberty-restricting devices are in place to maintain the freedoms they do have.

Here's a quick list of things which restrict the liberty of individuals, at least some of which I think most here will agree are good, and which actually help maintain freedom-

1. laws against adults having sex with minors

2. laws limiting alcohol comsumption for drivers

3. murder being illegal

4. gun use restricted or banned

5. discrimination against groups based on their skin colour or sexuality being illegal

6. police and other groups to enforce the above

All these things that are in place to protect freedom, necessitate curtailment of some liberties (eg the freedom of an employer to not employ blacks, the freedom of a murder to kill whom he/she wants).

Imagine that the govt. one day decides to disband, and to let the population have 100% freedom.

Inevitably individuals and groups would arise that were stronger, or had more guns, or simply more will to dominate- and then that 100% freedom is gone.

To me that suggests that-

1. our current state of freedom is actually a balance between two opposing forces of freedom and constraint

2. that that balance is an integral part of any possible nation/state

and, going back to it's relavance to those other threads- i do feel that some posters have a very black-and-white view when it comes to the issues of liberty and the state, and that they tend to profer simplistic opinions that certain state restrictions are 'against liberty' whilst neglecting the fact that the very existence of freedom actually requires the substantial work of deciding where to draw a line.

ie bag searches are not wrong because they infringe on ones personal liberty (though they may be wrong for other reasons- i'm not saying that bag searches are right here)- that can't be the reason as the very existence of freedom requires personal liberty infingements.

(please remember that this thread is about the principle of freedom being based on liberty curtailment (or not- you may disagree with that view)- it's not about bag searches, drugs etc, those have several ongoing threads already that I'm sure you can find if you want to discuss them).

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

KyrianDreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England

Posted:
Well, first of all I don't think all of the things in your list do promote freedom. But its my presumption that that isn't quite what you are going for here, and so I will try and stay on what i perceive as the topic.



In actuality, the goverment is supposed to have our rights laid out to protect us form the government. Its supposed to be stating things that governments have to respect- and their denizens, like police officers, etc.



After that it gets tricky. TBH, I don't think there are a lot of people who would murder someone just because it was legal. Its probably less dangerous to murder someone with the govt making it illegal, because you get less of the open vendettas and such.... and if someone really wants to do it, they will. In general, I'm not sure we should have all these laws that protect you from your fellow citizens- an understanding of what will get them into trouble, maybe, but, its up to you and your friends largely to enforce...



Alcohol limitation for drivers is the only one I really wonder about a bit, but I'm not sure it works as it should anyway.



Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with people having states (nation-states) which limit some personal freedoms for "secuirty" and people can move there if they want, if there's also states that don't, and people can move there if they want. Looser borders, more variation.



I dont think freedom should entail curtailing liberties. And I think its really true that the giving up freedom for security means neither thing. In the end. Go ahead, try and change my mind- but if you're just going to flame me PM.



-Kyri



-thats what happens when you're doing something else whilst writing a long post... sorry!
EDITED_BY: Kyrian (1124927358)

Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Posted:
Written by: Kyrian


I dont think freedom should entail curtailing liberties.



So what practical method would you use to prevent bullies with superior strength from taking control of sections of the population?

(incidently, it'd be good if you could use line breaks in future replies as I, and many others here, find solid blocks of text difficult to read).

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

KyrianDreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England

Posted:
Bullies take control of society anyway, if you hadn't noticed. They just bully based on slightly different things than raw physical strength. I don't actually think, in todays world that would change- I think there will always be the in group and the out group and it won't be based on bare knuckles fighting.

Bullies here can be taken down by the police, if a group gets enough courage. But sometimes the police don't help, or make things worse. And then it still takes the same thing it would without police, essentially vigilante's, but people defending each other by banding into groups and taking on other groups. Its a workable structure, made much better by the ability to travel somewhere else as well.

Having open borders is very crucial to my argument tho, if you have nowhere to go than perhaps its time to have some governments which curtail freedoms.

Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Posted:
Maybe your open borders would make things workable.



However, how would you deal with states who choose to have governments who then closed down their own borders?



If a majority of states did this then the free/non-governed states would effectively be hemmed in and unable to travel.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

linden rathenGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
6,942 posts
Location: London, UK

Posted:
it depends on your idea of freedom which in any society is very vague

as far as i can see there are two opposing types of freedom.

physical freedom and mental freedom

physical freedom is the freedom to do what you want

with out govn. and law you would have physical freedom because you could do anything you wanted

mental freedom is freedom from the other side.

almost complete loss of physical freedom all your iniative is removed and you do exactly as your told when your told (btw this is a very interesting expierence having done it for a few hours once tongue)

basically it is the freedom from responsibilty the ultimate 'nanny state'

as far as freedom and the state is concerned its a balance between physical and mental freedom

the gov. exsists to protect the majority. ie the state as a whole. to do this certain levels of physical freedom must be removed

by removing these the gov gives mental freedom and stops radical groups exploiting these freedoms and damaging the state.

moving on, a gov's abilty to function well it revolves around the its abilty to control the state and the balance between physical and mental freedom. when the state is damaged it looks to the gov for protection. this can only occur through removal of physical freedoms.

the problem is getting the balance correct.. and its will never be truely achieved as there will always be radicals or states that feel vulnerable. using an open border policy even if totally accepted would encourage exploitation of physical freedom

ok i hope that makes sence - i probably shouldnt post when tierd tongue

back

KyrianDreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England

Posted:
As near as I can figure you would need some kind of trade agreement between states saying people can move wherever they want, but they then have to be 100% subject to the laws of the state they move to. Which could mean all kinds of things, but basically that way it would make some sense.

I'm not completly sure how that would be enforced- thats something which i've puzzled over a bit before, and at the time I had a better answer than I do now, but as I can't remember what I had said, I'll have to get back to you.

Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

simian110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London

Posted:
indeed, onewheeldave
a big thumbs up for that first post smile

Freedoms and Rights are often viewed as sacred cows, and any reduction in them viewed as not merely undesirable, but almost taboo.

Which is pretty odd, because rights and freedoms exist in equlibrium. The more of one, the less you have of the other.

If someone has a right to something, you lose the freedom to stop them doing it, possibly to you.
Every right incurs a duty, and every duty reduces freedom.

So freedom. It's nice, but i couldn't eat a whole one.

and yes, i also reckon the world would end up a lot more awesome if every nation had open borders and no immigration policy at all. But how to get to that point?
"If i were you, i wouldn't start from here..."

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

linden rathenGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
6,942 posts
Location: London, UK

Posted:
hmmm
Written by: simian


i also reckon the world would end up a lot more awesome if every nation had open borders




not sure i agree there tongue for starters if your going to have open borders why have a state at all

also it'd end up with everyone piling into one or two countries.

nice idea but it couldnt work practically

(personally id run stright to barbados wink )

back

simian110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London

Posted:
"not sure i agree there tongue"

that's fine, but please don't stick your tongue out at me, or i'll be forced to raise my eyebrow... umm



"if your going to have open borders why have a state at all?"

i don't follow you. A nation state consists of many more factors than its immigration controls. i can't see any irredeemable problems with obtaining citizenship simply through residency.



"also it'd end up with everyone piling into one or two countries."

You reckon? i don't. But even if that did happen, then what's the problem? If an area becomes too overcrowded, then you could move.



"nice idea but it couldnt work practically"

Probably not, purely on the basis of OWDs objection: "how would you deal with states who choose to have governments who then closed down their own borders?"



"personally id run stright to barbados"

you can do that already tongue



anyway. This is all a bit offtopic so we should probably move this somewhere else if we wanna debate/fight about it wink

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Posted:
Here's an acid test that I'd like to see applied for individual liberties.

If an action cannot be shown to have a DIRECT and MEASURABLE harmful effect on a GENERALLY MEASURABLE third party, then it should not be illegal.

In other words, there should be no victimless crimes on the individual level.

So, in other words, no gambling laws, no drinking laws, no drug laws, no sodomy laws, etc.

In a murder case there is a direct and measurable harm to the victim. In drunk driving there is a significant potential of direct and measurable harm to other drivers.

In doing a line of coke there isn't.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Posted:
Written by: Doc Lightning



Here's an acid test that I'd like to see applied for individual liberties.



If an action cannot be shown to have a DIRECT and MEASURABLE harmful effect on a GENERALLY MEASURABLE third party, then it should not be illegal.



In other words, there should be no victimless crimes on the individual level.



So, in other words, no gambling laws, no drinking laws, no drug laws, no sodomy laws, etc.



In a murder case there is a direct and measurable harm to the victim. In drunk driving there is a significant potential of direct and measurable harm to other drivers.



In doing a line of coke there isn't.





It's highly debatable, and, as I'm sure you're aware,it has been extensively discussed on many threads here on HOP.



(It also brings up the old, old drug thing- let's be mindful of where that can lead in terms of staying on-topic smile )



Mike, I don't believe that you really think there should be no laws on gambling, drinking and drugs- that would mean that 8 year olds can buy, use and be sold drugs, allowed to gamble etc.



That's the point I'm trying to make in this thread; virtually no-one believes these things should not be restricted, even if the only restriction is an age limit.

Written by: simian





Which is pretty odd, because rights and freedoms exist in equlibrium. The more of one, the less you have of the other.



If someone has a right to something, you lose the freedom to stop them doing it, possibly to you.







You put it better than me smile

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

KyrianDreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England

Posted:
Just to clarify, am I in the virtually no-one camp?

Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

mausBRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
4,191 posts
Location: Sihanoukville, cambodia

Posted:
clap clap clapfor OWD on that first post.

Doc- completely agree,one of my life mottos is that it it doesn't hurt anyone else, and it gives you some form of pleasure-do it.

....However....i can understand why the laws you stated are in place,as all things should be done in moderation.some people have little self control,and if it wasn't for said laws would get themselves into a very poor financial/mental/physical state.

although on an individual level,many could control such vices,many others cant,and the actions of those people can have a knock on effect for those around them.

perhaps we need to stop pointing fingers at the government for being too controlling,but rather sit back,accept the fact that many (not all of us) couldn't do their job if we tried, and view them more as moderators od society?

just a thought...not necessarily my opinion.
quietanalytic
503 posts
Location: bristol

Posted:
quote: 'Here's an acid test that I'd like to see applied for individual liberties.

If an action cannot be shown to have a DIRECT and MEASURABLE harmful effect on a GENERALLY MEASURABLE third party, then it should not be illegal.'

This isn't right. For instance, incitement to racial hatred should definitely be illegal, even though the harmful effect is both a) indirect (since it's the audience, not the inciter, who are going to inflict the damage) and b) not measurable. How do you measure the effect of such an incitement?

Furthermore, there's a wide class of things which deserve to be illegal, even though no harm ensues. Invasion of privacy is the first that comes to mind: I think it should be illegal for my phone to be tapped for no reason, or for someone to plant a camera to watch me in the shower, even if no harm ensues as a result.

Lastly, you run into two problems. The first is that the notion of 'harm' isn't a very precise one. Does poking fun at someone constitute harm? The second is that it's not at all clear why harm to other people deserves to be made illegal, whilst harm to yourself doesn't. What's so special about you? Take the following example: you're about to cross a bridge, and someone physically intervenes to prevent you from doing so. It transpires that the bridge was unsafe; had you stepped onto it, you would have died. Individual liberty is important, but the freedom to accidentally kill yourself isn't particularly important. Indeed, it would be negligent *not* to prevent you from crossing that bridge. The analogy with government legislation & drugs should be obvious: in this case, the government is intervening (that is, legislating) in order to prevent people from unintentionally doing great harm to themselves. Not to do so might be considered negligent.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not claiming that these are the governments motives. I'm just pointing out that the case isn't nearly as clear-cut as you seem to think.

ture na sig

SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom

Posted:
Hey Quiet,

I agree with all of your points 'cept one:

"the government is intervening (that is, legislating) in order to prevent people from unintentionally doing great harm to themselves."

I'd say with drink, drugs etc etc then you're doing *deliberate* harm to yourself. Like if you *knew* the bridge was unsafe and decided to walk across it anyway. In that case, I'd say if you're that stupid then you deserve whatever you get. (be that a shorter journey, or a fatal fall)

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

quietanalytic
503 posts
Location: bristol

Posted:
mm, possibly, possibly not. a large number of people will recognise on some level that drink/drugs are dangerous; but many people start taking drugs in the belief that no harm is going to come to them. for instance, i've had some near-misses over the years, mostly due to wildly overestimating my ability to behave safely on drugs. it wasn't that I was unaware of the risk, I just thought I had it under control.

ture na sig

linden rathenGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
6,942 posts
Location: London, UK

Posted:
i think it depends

another analogy is putting a tiger in a cage.

its your liberty to wander around lions but some people will need protecting from them so you build a cage

and while some people will be safe with the lion some wont

its bout protecting the majority. while the state should protect minorities as well ultimatly its first cause is to protect the majority of people.

you could say that murders should be let free and all the normal safe people locked up.... but it wouldnt work

back

SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom

Posted:
Valid point quiet, but I stil think that (for example) people who smoke are being a bit strange. I mean if it says *on the packet* "SMOKING KILLS" then you have to wonder what, exactly is going through their heads. Anyone want to comment?

I think that this is kinda the same thing. If you are going to drink to excess, or take drugs, and you're aware of what might happen, then blaming the government isn't right. I've done both of the above, but never smoked because I didn't see the point. I've never had a bad experience with either drugs or drink, but I admit that it *could* have happened.

Maybe if the state built "recreation centres" where people could do these things in a safe environment (and with VAT added) then there would be less deaths from drugs or over-drinking. There was a guy in the UK recently who died on his 18th birthday from drinking too much. It's scary, my cousin is having her 18th in a few days time.

I just had deja vue.

Sorry... back to the issue. Hang on, I've finished! ubblol

Carry on... biggrin

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Posted:
The drugs issues are interesting, but I'd like to see this thread not turn into another drugs issues thread; so here's a couple of links to already existing threads which cover it and are available for 'bumping'-

a very relevant one on 'prohibition'
[Old link]

and this 6-page epic on legal vs. illegal drugs
[Old link]

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

linden rathenGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
6,942 posts
Location: London, UK

Posted:
i read about that boy too sethis was called mark shielding

drank 3 pints, 6 double whiskys and 3 shots in 30 min

was nasty

people call on the government all the time for new legislation for all kids of things - and yet people often complain of a nanny state.

despite my loathing of polititions you have to admit they do fairly well at balancing one against the other

the main problem i see is with the VERY large steps recently taken in the US and the UK that have moved both gov's closer to dictator ship should certain criteria be bet

eg in the UK should a national emergancy be declared the running of the country is the hands of 12 un elected people

i think lack of borders would only work with one large country - if countries or states exsisted with in it then there would be a lot of legal issues about laws and customs etc would be very hard to deal with

back

KyrianDreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England

Posted:
The point of the borders is to let each peoples decide their own laws (or live under someone doing that) and customs, etc. You only have to let people thru the border, you can do whatever you like with them on the other side, altho i think perhaps they should be able to look at the countries laws, or know that not all of the countries laws are public.

Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Posted:
Written by: onewheeldave


Mike, I don't believe that you really think there should be no laws on gambling, drinking and drugs- that would mean that 8 year olds can buy, use and be sold drugs, allowed to gamble etc.




No, I think it would be reasonable to establish an age of adulthood where these things would become legal, say 18 or 19.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Posted:
However you want to phrase it Mike, it's a matter of the state saying to some members of the population that there are certain things they are not permitted to do, and therefore cutting down on their personal liberties and ability to choose.

(this would be the minors disallowed from drug use, sexual acts etc, and the adults who would be disallowed from supplying minors with drugs etc).

And that, IMO, is a good thing- I'm not disputing that.

What I am wanting to make clear is that there is always a trade off between freedom and constraint for the state to exist.

You cannot, have any kind of meaningful state unless there are some constraints to the personal liberties of the individuals within it.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

KyrianDreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England

Posted:
Written by: onewheeldave



What I am wanting to make clear is that there is always a trade off between freedom and constraint for the state to exist.

You cannot, have any kind of meaningful state unless there are some constraints to the personal liberties of the individuals within it.



Er, whyever not? You have a govt collect some taxes, offer some jobs, help build some roads maybe, Do some work at the borders, and basically not get too involved.... Whats not meaningful about it? They provide a place for other states to send diplomatic negotiations and possibly oversee some kind of arbitration process. The original american government was a pretty large step towards this type of thing.

Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Posted:
Written by: onewheeldave


You cannot, have any kind of meaningful state unless there are some constraints to the personal liberties of the individuals within it.



Of course, but as I believe it was Ben Franklin said: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

The state has no business forbidding swinging my fist at the air.

Likewise, I believe the state has no business telling whether I can or can't smoke pot, or have sex with another man, or sleep in my dayclothes (which is still illegal in Boston, although I doubt it's enforced).

These things aren't banned for the good of society; they're banned because they offend someone's sensibilities. There is no victim in any of these crimes.

And I submit that you cannot have a truly free society while such laws remain on the books. The Netherlands seems to be leading the way.

As far as the Western world goes, the U.S. seems to be trailing.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Posted:
Written by: onewheeldave


You cannot, have any kind of meaningful state unless there are some constraints to the personal liberties of the individuals within it.



Of course, but as I believe it was Ben Franklin said: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

The state has no business forbidding swinging my fist at the air.

Likewise, I believe the state has no business telling whether I can or can't smoke pot, or have sex with another man, or sleep in my dayclothes (which is still illegal in Boston, although I doubt it's enforced).

These things aren't banned for the good of society; they're banned because they offend someone's sensibilities. There is no victim in any of these crimes.

And I submit that you cannot have a truly free society while such laws remain on the books. The Netherlands seems to be leading the way.

As far as the Western world goes, the U.S. seems to be trailing of late.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Posted:
Written by: Kyrian



Er, whyever not? You have a govt collect some taxes, offer some jobs, help build some roads maybe, Do some work at the borders, and basically not get too involved.... Whats not meaningful about it? They provide a place for other states to send diplomatic negotiations and possibly oversee some kind of arbitration process. The original american government was a pretty large step towards this type of thing.


Are the taxes going to be voluntary? Is so, what about those who don't want to pay them. If the taxes are compulsory, then again you've got the state infringing upon personal liberty.

And, beyond that, even if you did have a govt. which didn't intervene, then, like I said before, what's to prevent some citizens taking up arms and setting themselves up in positions of power.

It seems to me that, if you don't have a govt which infringes on personal liberties, then some other group will be free to set themselves up to take advantage of others.

Historically, when a land is without effective government, there tends to arise warlords or bandits who, in addition to creaming profits off the peasants, also generally administer some kind of 'law'.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom

Posted:
Written by: onewheeldave


Historically, when a land is without effective government, there tends to arise warlords or bandits who, in addition to creaming profits off the peasants, also generally administer some kind of 'law'.



Define "Effective" as it pertains to governments please?

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Posted:
One indication of 'effective' government would be the relative lack of warlords smile

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Posted:
Written by: Doc Lightning



........................

The state has no business forbidding swinging my fist at the air.

Likewise, I believe the state has no business telling whether I can or can't smoke pot, or have sex with another man, or sleep in my dayclothes (which is still illegal in Boston, although I doubt it's enforced).

These things aren't banned for the good of society; they're banned because they offend someone's sensibilities. There is no victim in any of these crimes.

And I submit that you cannot have a truly free society while such laws remain on the books.



I agree that not all laws currently in existence are sensible or good, and I agree that there should be limits as to exactly how far the state can impose it's will on people.

The whole point I was trying to make with this thread is that some restrictions on individuals are a prerequisite of any state.

Previously, many posts on HOP seemed to be assuming that a totally free state (ie one which involved no restrictions to individual liberties) was possible, and that is what I wanted to address.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Page:

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [freedom state] we found the following existing topics.

  1. Forums > Freedom and the State. [33 replies]

      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Subscribe now for updates on sales, new arrivals, and exclusive offers!