MSimon wrote:I say playing with matches in a forest is EVERYBODY'S business.
The only way I can see to stop that is to make matches contraband. Or perhaps we need to appoint a minder for every citizen. Who will mind the minders?
There is no need to ban matches, (or risky sexual behavior) All that needs to be done is to drop a hammer on those who set the forest on fire. (Or infect someone else with a disease.)
Deterrence is the theory on which our entire crime prevention system operates.
MSimon wrote:
As I understand it the Communist states promised safety. The promise destroyed them. Be careful what you wish for.
Liberty without risk? I don't see how you can get it.
You get it the same way you get a perfect "Q". You don't. You get a good "Q" and you use it.
MSimon wrote:
Jefferson understood the problem well D and anticipated you by some 200 years:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson
I think he has a very different idea of Liberty than do you. I recently read a comment in which someone argued that "Liberty" is being able to do what you want within the accepted social framework, while "freedom" is being able to do anything you want. The commenter argued that "Freedom" can be viewed as unchecked, while "Liberty" can be viewed as "Freedom" within the boundaries of social norms, a sort of Burkean sort of Freedom.
While I might not agree with the fellows explanation of the terms, I do note that in any monarchy, the King is free to do anything he wants, and represents the extreme of "freedom." He can literally do ANYTHING he wants, and TOO anyone he wants. He is in effect, totally "free." Everyone else is constrained in what they can get away with. Constrained by the law. The King's law.
MSimon wrote:
Note: Eric hates debate. If you want a debate on the subject I'm your man.
Sure he hates debate. If I were on the wrong side, I couldn't win one either. I've always said that in winning a debate, the first thing you have to do is be on the "correct" side.
Eric will start out like he wants to debate, but when you point out his thinking yields a paradox, or puts him in an uncomfortable position, he simply runs away. For example, In discussing Homosexuality and Pedophilia, Eric explained how he was against the one thing, but accepting of the other. When asked why, he says "because it is illegal."
When I pointed out that up till the 1970s, Homosexuality was illegal too, and would he have been against it because it was illegal, or would he have supported it when it was illegal? This question he will not answer. It puts him in an uncomfortable position one way or the other. He simply wants to believe what he wants to believe, and he doesn't want anyone making him THINK about the consistency of his philosophy.
Libertarianism is very much like what Reagan said about the Democrat Congress's budget. "It's a great plan if you don't expect to live very long."
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —