Thread: Libertarian constitution

I don't know how many of you are Libertarians (I doubt many are), but I thought it would be a good idea to list what a constitution for a libertarian nation would look like, if only for reference. If you re a libertarian, feel free to suggest new laws or changes. If you aren't, feel free to critique what's written here.
Please don't resort to Ad Hominem attacks, Strawman arguments, or propaganda against libertarians. To do so would be no different than me saying democrats are communists or republicans are racist oligarchs.

1) copy amendments 1-6, 8; clarify 1, 2, and 10
2) No law shall be made which takes away the rights of the people unless it is to prevent the greater loss or right by another. All such laws must be ratified by a popular vote in which not less than two thirds of the people agree that it should be law, and that it does not unduly take away the rights of the people.
3) All taxes levied by the government shall be sales or luxury taxes which are voluntary, and the payment of these taxes shall afford the payer(s) certain privileges which are derived from the use of the money raised by the tax.

I have been a registered libertarian, but recently changed to "unaffiliated" as it gives me more say in primary elections.

I have never been silly enough to believe libertarians will ever form a government. No libertarian who truly believes in the philosophy would have any interest in being in charge. People who want to be heads of government want to tell other people what to do ... anathema to a libertarian.

I vote for libertarians whenever I can because libertarians are the closest thing the U.S. has to a third political party. I am sick of the Republicans and Democrats, who argue endlessly in public but do pretty much exactly the same things when elected. I don't really expect my libertarian votes to change anything, call it a form of hopeless protest.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

1) copy amendments 1-6, 8; clarify 1, 2, and 10

Could you expand on that please (to save those of us not familiar with your constitution from having to do a lot of research).

I know little about Libertarianism so this might throw some light on it. (I will be honest and say that my uninformed impression is currently very negative.)

2) No law shall be made which takes away the rights of the people unless it is to prevent the greater loss or right by another. All such laws must be ratified by a popular vote in which not less than two thirds of the people agree that it should be law, and that it does not unduly take away the rights of the people.

A laudable aim but probably totally impractical in reality. Both in the sense of who judges the relevant value of rights/losses and having a referendum on every law (and getting a significant/representative number of votes).

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

1) copy amendments 1-6, 8; clarify 1, 2, and 10

Could you expand on that please (to save those of us not familiar with your constitution from having to do a lot of research).

I know little about Libertarianism so this might throw some light on it. (I will be honest and say that my uninformed impression is currently very negative.)

2) No law shall be made which takes away the rights of the people unless it is to prevent the greater loss or right by another. All such laws must be ratified by a popular vote in which not less than two thirds of the people agree that it should be law, and that it does not unduly take away the rights of the people.

A laudable aim but probably totally impractical in reality. Both in the sense of who judges the relevant value of rights/losses and having a referendum on every law (and getting a significant/representative number of votes).

1) Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right to assemble peaceably in a public place. (typed form memory)
I would specify that, while Atheism isn't an "establishment of religion", it is still protected under the law. (mostly by adding "or lack thereof" a couple of times). I would also keep them from exhibiting undue influence on the press.
2) A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (also typed from memory)
I would specify that ALL arms are protected under this, though they may require sensible (to 2/3 of the people) levels of training to license their possession. Who want's an RPG or V-2 rocket in the hands of every idiot in the country. WMDs would be restricted to paramilitary organizations of large size (kind of a militia).
3) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I would also require consent of the owner in war time if they haven't freely abandoned it. Remarkably, this seems to be one of the few amendments in the first ten not yet seriously violated by the federal government.
4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would alter to ban "catch all" warrants (like after the Boston marathon) and things like the recent law which gives everyone's phone records to the feds.
5) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
first, remove the "times of war" clause.
second, make it so that the owner (or agreed upon third person mediator), not the government, decides what "just compensation" is.
6) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
no serious changes.
8) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Specify that, if you purposely and willfully committed the crime, what you did to your victim cannot be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" as you willfully inflicted it on someone against their will.
10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Put in safeguards to make sure this is actually followed, unlike in the present government. Also, we would likely have city-states instead of large areas of land under one "state" government.

No serious changes to 7 or 9.
Bill of Rights Transcript Text

As for the second one, the voting system would be online, with a government ID number (such as tax ID) used to log into the voting system. That way anyone could vote any time during the week.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

8) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Specify that, if you purposely and willfully committed the crime, what you did to your victim cannot be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" as you willfully inflicted it on someone against their will.

I'm not sure I understand this. It almost sounds like you are suggesting an "eye for an eye" approach to justice.

As for the second one, the voting system would be online, with a government ID number (such as tax ID) used to log into the voting system. That way anyone could vote any time during the week.

The main problem here is ensuring that the people who vote are representative of the population as a whole. I don't know what typical voter turnouts are like in the US but I imagine it is a minority of the population. And likely to fall if there are votes more frequently (unless you can turn it into a reality TV show )

Or maybe you don't think that is important. Does it matter if those who don't vote are unhappy with the resulting laws?

And what about groups who do not have access to an online voting system perhaps because of geography (e.g. too rural), poverty, age, culture (e.e. the Amish), etc?

Unknowable beat me too it.

The US Constitution is already libertarian to a large degree.

Where's we'd disagree, and where I think many libertarians get it wrong, it not including all the protections inherent in the US Constitution (e.g., the 14th amendment). Libertarians refers to ALL levels of government, not just the Federal role. Forfeiting federal involvement only so the States can run rough shod over people's rights IS NOT libertarian--despite this being the way it's sometimes presents by a few prominent politicians such as Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

8) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Specify that, if you purposely and willfully committed the crime, what you did to your victim cannot be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" as you willfully inflicted it on someone against their will.

I'm not sure I understand this. It almost sounds like you are suggesting an "eye for an eye" approach to justice.

As for the second one, the voting system would be online, with a government ID number (such as tax ID) used to log into the voting system. That way anyone could vote any time during the week.

The main problem here is ensuring that the people who vote are representative of the population as a whole. I don't know what typical voter turnouts are like in the US but I imagine it is a minority of the population. And likely to fall if there are votes more frequently (unless you can turn it into a reality TV show )

Or maybe you don't think that is important. Does it matter if those who don't vote are unhappy with the resulting laws?

And what about groups who do not have access to an online voting system perhaps because of geography (e.g. too rural), poverty, age, culture (e.e. the Amish), etc?

It isn't really an "eye for an eye" approach. I just don't see how it can be considered justice to give painless lethal injection to someone who raped and murdered six women. At the very least, people would think twice before escalating violence.
Though I would be willing to allow a person to accept jail time in most cases, in stead of receiving the same punishment as his victim. Also, it only comes into effect if they willfully and purposefully harmed them, meaning that it wasn't an accident. If I kill someone by stabbing them 13 times, why should I be spared a similar death?

The "representative of the population" thing is one reason I said 2/3 instead of a simple majority. If 2/3 of the people who vote agree with it, then chances are that those that didn't vote won't make it a majority opposed. (the other is so that you can't just convince 51% to agree with you, like now).
I would also have a simple way for laws to be repealed, so they don't become permanent like here. (how many stupid laws are on the books that are next to impossible to get rid of?) I'd maybe an automatic (should law X be repealed) vote that is always open and starts with everyone's vote opposite what it way when the law was passed. People could then change their votes at will.

Satellite and radio communications can pretty much reach everywhere. There's no reason a free internet voting terminal couldn't be placed in every city and town (similar to how we pay for voting booths and buildings now), though people would have to vote to pay for it. Also, many Amish have internet access for business (selling quilts, food, seeds, stoves, etc.), just away from their homes. Even if they didn't, they could send their vote through the mail, it would just take a little while to be counted instead of being instant.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

I have never been silly enough to believe libertarians will ever form a government. No libertarian who truly believes in the philosophy would have any interest in being in charge. People who want to be heads of government want to tell other people what to do ... anathema to a libertarian.

The only people who did join the government would likely be the ones that want it to have integrity, as serving in office may even take away rights. (ex. in order to prevent conflict of interest, you couldn't directly own stock in a company you are regulating.)

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

It isn't really an "eye for an eye" approach. I just don't see how it can be considered justice to give painless lethal injection to someone who raped and murdered six women. At the very least, people would think twice before escalating violence.

You are starting with the assumption that capital punishment is appropriate. But we probably don't want to go down that particular rabbit hole (well, I don't).

If I kill someone by stabbing them 13 times, why should I be spared a similar death?

Because it would be a "cruel and unusual" punishment? If it was wrong for you to do it, how is it OK for someone else to do it?

If someone rapes and tortures their victim for days (or years) would you say that doing the same to them is a suitable punishment?

Though I would be willing to allow a person to accept jail time in most cases, in stead of receiving the same punishment as his victim.

How about letting them pay compensation to the victim and/or their family as another option? You could call it, oh I don't know, "Sharia Law"...

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

It isn't really an "eye for an eye" approach. I just don't see how it can be considered justice to give painless lethal injection to someone who raped and murdered six women. At the very least, people would think twice before escalating violence.

You are starting with the assumption that capital punishment is appropriate. But we probably don't want to go down that particular rabbit hole (well, I don't).

If I kill someone by stabbing them 13 times, why should I be spared a similar death?

Because it would be a "cruel and unusual" punishment? If it was wrong for you to do it, how is it OK for someone else to do it?

If someone rapes and tortures their victim for days (or years) would you say that doing the same to them is a suitable punishment?

Though I would be willing to allow a person to accept jail time in most cases, in stead of receiving the same punishment as his victim.

How about letting them pay compensation to the victim and/or their family as another option? You could call it, oh I don't know, "Sharia Law"...

1) for cases where a person brutality murders someone, yes, especially if they don't accept that it was wrong. Others, I'll debate.
2) How is it fair for you to shoot or stab (both painful methods of killing) several people, then, when you've been found guilty (after getting to live off of other's money for a long time), you get a nice, painless death. If people knew that they would be killed the same way as their victims, at the very least they'll choose a less painful way of murdering people. This part of the law isn't really necessary, though, if to many object. I just wanted the option to have unrepentant psychopaths taught a lessen before they die. Not that it would really matter to them in the long run.
3) Letting people pay money in compensation for serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) is an incredibly stupid idea. The rich will then be able to essentially get away with anything they want.
Many video games (ex. Skyrim) a similar "Justice" system. The player learns very quickly, though, that if they have enough money, they can get away with slaughtering entire villages for fun. Also, sharia law is religiously based, which is a direct violation of Amendment #1. At least jail time lets them be rehabilitated in a way. Accepting it would mean they want to change (or at least that they realize how brutal their actions were)

There is no agreement for capital punishment among libertarians--though all would argue for use of lethal force in self defense.

--
And your assumption that capital punishment is effect as a deterrent is not supported by the science--most criminals do not consider consequences.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

There is no agreement for capital punishment among libertarians--though all would argue for use of lethal force in self defense.

I'd be willing to reserve it on to the worst criminals, the ones that can't be rehabilitated.

I have a few light questions for Libertarians which could help dispel the negative misconception about Libertarian

1- Do you take into consideration that the founding fathers were people that wanted the "Freedom to trade human slaves as their private property"?
2- Who owns the earth? As in, who gave the earth as a "private property" to some and not to others?
3- If you buy land from someone that stole it, is it your property? If you buy a stolen good, and sell it, does it belong to the person who bought it? Addendum, wasnt the US stolen from the native americans, like the Israelis are doing with bulldozing Palestinian villages?
4- Are property rights and the right to squeeze profits, greater than human life? Can you say someones property rights or right to make a profit is greater than the right to live?
5- A boat crashes on an island, the first to land is Libertarian Joe, who says, "First! Its Mine! My private Property!" or to Baron Bolton Libertarian who inherited his private property from his father and enjoys torture, either say ~you can sign this 300 year servitude contract or freely choose to die of thirst. Im not killing you, the environment is."
6- Are you wondering WHY did the anti-labor anti-safety and pro-child labor Fascist industrial elites in the 30s (American Liberty League), promote Libertarian ideas and slogans? (You dont find it a bit strange?)

These have a big pinch of humorous banter, but if you are good sports the answers could nonetheless help understand the Libertarian point of view.

====
EDIT:
"If I kill someone by stabbing them 13 times, why should I be spared a similar death?"

I though I was exaggerating to highlight and make a point easier to get in an entertaining way, but reality is surpassing fiction.
I propose a reality TV show called "Libertarian Island" it would be a riot to watch

In today's episode:
~
-See you Bob, Im off to rape duty
-Tell me about it
-Yes instead of trying to solve social issues and prevent them, we use repression and rape rapist
-Did he use lube?
-Not sure, the juge will give the instructions
~

===

I will try my best to make another comment that will be serious and composed, it might be hard, but I'll try.

I would think that the first amendment in a Libertarian constitution should be:

I've got mine, so bug off and leave me alone.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

1) for cases where a person brutality murders someone, yes, especially if they don't accept that it was wrong. Others, I'll debate.
2) How is it fair for you to shoot or stab (both painful methods of killing) several people, then, when you've been found guilty (after getting to live off of other's money for a long time), you get a nice, painless death. I just wanted the option to have unrepentant psychopaths taught a lessen before they die. Not that it would really matter to them in the long run.

One of the problems with democracy is that people with such morally reprehensible values are allowed to vote.

If people knew that they would be killed the same way as their victims, at the very least they'll choose a less painful way of murdering people.

Except that isn't true.

This part of the law isn't really necessary, though, if to many object.

Well, according to you, it would only need just over 1/3rd to stop your vile and vindictive ideas being implemented. So, I suppose that is something.

3) Letting people pay money in compensation for serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) is an incredibly stupid idea.

It was a JOKE. Sheesh. Maybe people without a sense of humour shouldn't be allowed to vote either. (Another JOKE.)

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

I don't know how many of you are Libertarians (I doubt many are), but I thought it would be a good idea to list what a constitution for a libertarian nation would look like...

1) copy amendments 1-...
2) No law shall be made which takes away the rights of the people unless it is to prevent the greater loss or right by another.
...

I think your topic is interesting. Here's what it makes me think about off the bat. Since the issue of what the Founders' intended (and to what degree their intentions should be considered valid today) never seems to be settled given the continual debate I often wish we could come to agreement. For example "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." If you had you're way with a constitution for a libertarian nation, maybe you could clarify what you *want* this phrase to mean today. Could you make it clearer than the Founders apparently did? Maybe we could discuss specific examples of issues that come up in this area and how you feel the proper libertarian approach would resolve them--and would it be better than it is today?

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

There is no agreement for capital punishment among libertarians--though all would argue for use of lethal force in self defense.

I'd be willing to reserve it on to the worst criminals, the ones that can't be rehabilitated.

How would you know if they could be rehabilitated or not if you've killed them?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

There is no agreement for capital punishment among libertarians--though all would argue for use of lethal force in self defense.

I'd be willing to reserve it on to the worst criminals, the ones that can't be rehabilitated.

How would you know if they could be rehabilitated or not if you've killed them?

Excellent point.

Ok, now Im more serious.

One of the problems with a constitution for the US is that the US is huge continental zone, wouldn't it be better to have independent states choosing which network or coordination protocol to join? And be able to join another network if they realize the one they had was not suited for their needs/environment/priorities/values?
THis way one state could be libertarian inspired and we could see if that works out, and other states could try alternate modes of governance or society.

"no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The problem with this, is that people can use Religion as an excuse to disobey laws or rules or codes of conduct that everyone else is expected to abide by.
What If the Red Lunetarians say their religion prohibits them from not charging full throttle through a red traffic light in a school zone?
Imo you just need to say religion is not to be invoked as a reason or parameter in any public policy decision.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,"

Agree, but want to point out that, If the mass media is mostly owned as private property by 1% of the population, the right to speak on a soap box is better than nothing but not sufficient to address the problems of control of information.

WMDs would be restricted to paramilitary organizations of large size (kind of a militia).

~Whose turn is it to check the Thermonuclear warheads? JoeBob? I dont think so JoeBob is passedout from binge drinking. Maybe it was BillyBob's turn? Yeah maybe)~
~Yeah we are the, hum, Fedayin Militiahkbar, I mean Freedom Militia, yeah, thats the ticket, we have the cash-filled suitcase for this libertrian freemarket transaction, and we are purchasing a Thermo-Nuclear Warhead to be delivered by sending it on the deregulated libertarian derail-o-thon railway, thank you.~

4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would alter to ban "catch all" warrants (like after the Boston marathon) and things like the recent law which gives everyone's phone records to the feds.

Sounds good to me

Originally Posted by icewendigo

One of the problems with a constitution for the US is that the US is huge continental zone, wouldn't it be better to have independent states choosing which network or coordination protocol to join? And be able to join another network if they realize the one they had was not suited for their needs/environment/priorities/values?
THis way one state could be libertarian inspired and we could see if that works out, and other states could try alternate modes of governance or society.
...

Yes, it is indeed one of the problems with a constitution in such a huge country as the U.S. It illustrates the continual yin/yang so to speak of the issue of states' rights vs. a strong federal government. And to a large extent, of course, states can (and do) choose as I think you describe above. But this creates various other problems. For example, when laws vary among states it becomes difficult and often prejudicial to businesses trying to operate (in those different states). Obviously, some benefit and others don't. We can write this off, so to speak, as the cost of doing business and we often do just that if we can't get uniformity in the laws among the various states. But another example could involve individual rights. For some of us the answer is something like, "If you don't like the laws in State X then move to State Y. For others of us this is unacceptable because we perceive that individual rights ought to be uniform in what we think a nation of united states ought to be.

""If you don't like the laws in State X then move to State Y. For others of us this is unacceptable because we perceive that individual rights ought to be uniform in what we think a nation of united states ought to be."

I disagree, because its MUCH harder to have laws that reflect the values of all(or most) people in a super-giant-aggregate pan-continental zone with various environments and millions of people scattered in varisou climates. If one person is happy with all the laws in the super-aggregate, I grantee other people will object, first of all, and second it is guaranteed that less people will be happy because there will be less diversity. Thats like imposing 31 baskets of Pistachio Ice Cream, instead of having 31 flavors people can pick, even if Pistachio lovers really like Pistachio Ice Cream, it is guaranteed that a population will be less happy with it than if there were 31 different flavors to choose from.

In addition, as you probably will have noticed, its much harder to try something new when you have to convince a gazillion people that dont have the same life experiences/environment as you do in order to move that godzillian social brontosaurus along, than having a smaller prototype. If the Wright brothers had to convince a majority of people in the planet Earth that flying was possible planes might not yet exist, the same if they had to convince the whole of Europe, but in a Europe of diverse countries they could have tried to convice one small state to try, and once successful other would have joined. Its just a metaphor, not a good one, but its easier for society to evolve when subgroups can implement innovation, the downside is that some parts will be lagers and the last to get with the program, but overall it will move faster because the majority can follow the innovators much more rapidly if they have an example than if they need to be convinced to change without proof/something to see.

" But this creates various other problems. For example, when laws vary among states it becomes difficult "

Indeed, there are major advantages to coordination, thats why there would be network protocols and that it should be a hard question when choosing not to join a network protocol. Another way to see it , is that people/governance will have a network rule to choose and they should see it as an advantageous default and may collaborate with their input reflecting their reality, but if the network solution is not practical they have the option to opt out and make their own rule suited for their environment/values.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

""If you don't like the laws in State X then move to State Y. For others of us this is unacceptable because we perceive that individual rights ought to be uniform in what we think a nation of united states ought to be."

I disagree, because its MUCH harder to have laws that reflect the values of all(or most) people in a super-giant-aggregate pan-continental zone with various environments and millions of people scattered in varisou climates. If one person is happy with all the laws in the super-aggregate, I grantee other people will object, first of all, and second it is guaranteed that less people will be happy because there will be less diversity. Thats like imposing 31 baskets of Pistachio Ice Cream, instead of having 31 flavors people can pick, even if Pistachio lovers really like Pistachio Ice Cream, it is guaranteed that a population will be less happy with it than if there were 31 different flavors to choose from.

In addition, as you probably will have noticed, its much harder to try something new when you have to convince a gazillion people that dont have the same life experiences/environment as you do in order to move that godzillian social brontosaurus along, than having a smaller prototype. If the Wright brothers had to convince a majority of people in the planet Earth that flying was possible planes might not yet exist, the same if they had to convince the whole of Europe, but in a Europe of diverse countries they could have tried to convice one small state to try, and once successful other would have joined. Its just a metaphor, not a good one, but its easier for society to evolve when subgroups can implement innovation, the downside is that some parts will be lagers and the last to get with the program, but overall it will move faster because the majority can follow the innovators much more rapidly if they have an example than if they need to be convinced to change without proof/something to see.

" But this creates various other problems. For example, when laws vary among states it becomes difficult "

Indeed, there are major advantages to coordination, thats why there would be network protocols and that it should be a hard question when choosing not to join a network protocol. Another way to see it , is that people/governance will have a network rule to choose and they should see it as an advantageous default and may collaborate with their input reflecting their reality, but if the network solution is not practical they have the option to opt out and make their own rule suited for their environment/values.

I observe all that you cite above. You say you disagree. Do you mean with those who perceive that individual rights ought to be uniform? Or did you mean something else? Also, clarify for me please what you mean by network protocols. In what specific context do you refer to network protocols that states might choose?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

I have a few light questions for Libertarians which could help dispel the negative misconception about Libertarian

1- Do you take into consideration that the founding fathers were people that wanted the "Freedom to trade human slaves as their private property"?
2- Who owns the earth? As in, who gave the earth as a "private property" to some and not to others?
3- If you buy land from someone that stole it, is it your property? If you buy a stolen good, and sell it, does it belong to the person who bought it? Addendum, wasnt the US stolen from the native americans, like the Israelis are doing with bulldozing Palestinian villages?
4- Are property rights and the right to squeeze profits, greater than human life? Can you say someones property rights or right to make a profit is greater than the right to live?
5- A boat crashes on an island, the first to land is Libertarian Joe, who says, "First! Its Mine! My private Property!" or to Baron Bolton Libertarian who inherited his private property from his father and enjoys torture, either say ~you can sign this 300 year servitude contract or freely choose to die of thirst. Im not killing you, the environment is."
6- Are you wondering WHY did the anti-labor anti-safety and pro-child labor Fascist industrial elites in the 30s (American Liberty League), promote Libertarian ideas and slogans? (You dont find it a bit strange?)

These have a big pinch of humorous banter, but if you are good sports the answers could nonetheless help understand the Libertarian point of view.

====
EDIT:
"If I kill someone by stabbing them 13 times, why should I be spared a similar death?"

I though I was exaggerating to highlight and make a point easier to get in an entertaining way, but reality is surpassing fiction.
I propose a reality TV show called "Libertarian Island" it would be a riot to watch

In today's episode:
~
-See you Bob, Im off to rape duty
-Tell me about it
-Yes instead of trying to solve social issues and prevent them, we use repression and rape rapist
-Did he use lube?
-Not sure, the juge will give the instructions
~

===

I will try my best to make another comment that will be serious and composed, it might be hard, but I'll try.

Not sure how you would handle rape. May have to automatically commute those sentences into prison time. Maybe do something with anatomically correct robots.
The point is to make them realize that what they did was wrong and to get them to change their actions. While stabbing a person who murdered people by stabbing them would teach him what it's like to be stabbed, and therefore teach him to empathize with his victims, it wouldn't be the only way. You wouldn't have to let him die from it. In fact, he would be better off if you treated the wound afterwards.

As for your questions:
1) They didn't consider them people. We do. Therefore, as people, they have all of the same rights as anyone else in the country.
2) Insert your Deity of choice. Actually, to start off, we would have to go with whoever currently owns it, or find somewhere like the moon or mars or the bottom of the ocean that we could claim.
3) How do you steal land? Did you dig a hole through to the crust and move it? Anything that is stolen would have to go back to whoever owned it before it was stolen, I guess. Though you'd have to have a starting point where you say "no theft before this counts" as all land on Earth was likely stolen from someone at some point.
4) You would have to give me an example. Do you mean "do you have to save someone's life if you can?" In that case, no, as it would degenerate quickly into a "he had the money to pay for my brother's kidney transplant but didn't" argument.
5) there isn't a question there. Is it an example of #4? If so, I'd say that letting the second person live there but not use any of your stuff would be fine, as they can likely find water and food as easily as you can. Asa long as you don't positivly contribute to the other's loss of life. Besides, how can you have government with two people? No system of government would hold up in that situation, only the desire for someone to talk to.
6) They didn't. Fascism is about larger government and more government control. Libertarianism is about smaller government and less government control. They are nothing alike, and comparing them is like saying "do you know why communists wanted to create a free market?". It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Not sure how you would handle rape. May have to automatically commute those sentences into prison time. Maybe do something with anatomically correct robots.

Ah, you had me fooled there for a while. I thought this was a serious thread at first.

Note to self: request the mods create a specific "Humor" subforum.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

1) Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right to assemble peaceably in a public place. (typed form memory)
I would specify that, while Atheism isn't an "establishment of religion", it is still protected under the law. (mostly by adding "or lack thereof" a couple of times). I would also keep them from exhibiting undue influence on the press.

I'm not sure what this adds. You would prevent establishing atheism as a state religion? You would allow free exercise of atheism? How would that be different than what we have today? And whom would you keep from exhibiting undue influence on the press? That sounds like some sort of additional restriction on freedom of the press, which is not a libertarian idea at all. It's the opposite of libertarian.

2) A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (also typed from memory)
I would specify that ALL arms are protected under this, though they may require sensible (to 2/3 of the people) levels of training to license their possession. Who want's an RPG or V-2 rocket in the hands of every idiot in the country. WMDs would be restricted to paramilitary organizations of large size (kind of a militia).

Again you are not changing anything. The right to bear arms, except with some "reasonable" limits, which is up to interpretation - that's what we already have.

3) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I would also require consent of the owner in war time if they haven't freely abandoned it. Remarkably, this seems to be one of the few amendments in the first ten not yet seriously violated by the federal government.

Your changes are fairly meaningless, as quartering of troops hasn't been done even during wartime anyway.

4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would alter to ban "catch all" warrants (like after the Boston marathon) and things like the recent law which gives everyone's phone records to the feds.

Arguably, this is already illegal. Just need some judges with backbone, and populace that actually believes in it.

5) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
first, remove the "times of war" clause.
second, make it so that the owner (or agreed upon third person mediator), not the government, decides what "just compensation" is.

Nonsense. If the owner decides, then there is no longer any possibility of eminent domain, and nothing can get done. No roads built, no bridges, etc. An agreed upon third person - agreed upon by whom?

6) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
no serious changes.
8) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Specify that, if you purposely and willfully committed the crime, what you did to your victim cannot be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" as you willfully inflicted it on someone against their will.

Huh?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Ok, now Im more serious.

One of the problems with a constitution for the US is that the US is huge continental zone, wouldn't it be better to have independent states choosing which network or coordination protocol to join? And be able to join another network if they realize the one they had was not suited for their needs/environment/priorities/values?
THis way one state could be libertarian inspired and we could see if that works out, and other states could try alternate modes of governance or society.

"no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The problem with this, is that people can use Religion as an excuse to disobey laws or rules or codes of conduct that everyone else is expected to abide by.
What If the Red Lunetarians say their religion prohibits them from not charging full throttle through a red traffic light in a school zone?
Imo you just need to say religion is not to be invoked as a reason or parameter in any public policy decision.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,"

Agree, but want to point out that, If the mass media is mostly owned as private property by 1% of the population, the right to speak on a soap box is better than nothing but not sufficient to address the problems of control of information.

WMDs would be restricted to paramilitary organizations of large size (kind of a militia).

~Whose turn is it to check the Thermonuclear warheads? JoeBob? I dont think so JoeBob is passedout from binge drinking. Maybe it was BillyBob's turn? Yeah maybe)~
~Yeah we are the, hum, Fedayin Militiahkbar, I mean Freedom Militia, yeah, thats the ticket, we have the cash-filled suitcase for this libertrian freemarket transaction, and we are purchasing a Thermo-Nuclear Warhead to be delivered by sending it on the deregulated libertarian derail-o-thon railway, thank you.~

4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would alter to ban "catch all" warrants (like after the Boston marathon) and things like the recent law which gives everyone's phone records to the feds.

Sounds good to me

1) I was actually considering this as the founding document for a new city-state that would hopefully be copied. That idea would work, though it might conflict with one of the other law I wanted to post.
2) You speak like you are a computer programmer. interesting. Moving on though, that might work, though you could have people later who say "this violates my religious rights". For example, say you make a law that says that anyone who performs marriages must not discriminate based on age, gender, sexual orientation, species (because, lets face it, you'd totally consider marrying an Orion from star trek), number of people in a marriage, race, national origin, etc. Now imagine Father Jacobs says "my religion says that marriage is monogamous (forgetting for a second that it wasn't in the OT).
Now, if we forget that this is technically taking away his freedom to choose his clients, this law didn't take religion into account when it was being made, though it does violate religious rights.
3) What control of information? The point is that there is no government control, only private. And with the prevalence of the internet, can anyone really be considered as "owning the media"?
4) Forgot the training courses now, didn't we? Somehow Billy Bob and his hunting buddies are going to learn all they need to construct and safely control nuclear weapons? I also forgot to mention that it would be restricted to larger groups (say 1000 or more members.).
Still, how is this any different that a corrupt government having control of nuclear weapons?
5) glad we agree on something.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

1) Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right to assemble peaceably in a public place. (typed form memory)
I would specify that, while Atheism isn't an "establishment of religion", it is still protected under the law. (mostly by adding "or lack thereof" a couple of times). I would also keep them from exhibiting undue influence on the press.

I'm not sure what this adds. You would prevent establishing atheism as a state religion? You would allow free exercise of atheism? How would that be different than what we have today? And whom would you keep from exhibiting undue influence on the press? That sounds like some sort of additional restriction on freedom of the press, which is not a libertarian idea at all. It's the opposite of libertarian.

2) A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (also typed from memory)
I would specify that ALL arms are protected under this, though they may require sensible (to 2/3 of the people) levels of training to license their possession. Who want's an RPG or V-2 rocket in the hands of every idiot in the country. WMDs would be restricted to paramilitary organizations of large size (kind of a militia).

Again you are not changing anything. The right to bear arms, except with some "reasonable" limits, which is up to interpretation - that's what we already have.

3) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I would also require consent of the owner in war time if they haven't freely abandoned it. Remarkably, this seems to be one of the few amendments in the first ten not yet seriously violated by the federal government.

Your changes are fairly meaningless, as quartering of troops hasn't been done even during wartime anyway.

4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would alter to ban "catch all" warrants (like after the Boston marathon) and things like the recent law which gives everyone's phone records to the feds.

Arguably, this is already illegal. Just need some judges with backbone, and populace that actually believes in it.

5) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
first, remove the "times of war" clause.
second, make it so that the owner (or agreed upon third person mediator), not the government, decides what "just compensation" is.

Nonsense. If the owner decides, then there is no longer any possibility of eminent domain, and nothing can get done. No roads built, no bridges, etc. An agreed upon third person - agreed upon by whom?

6) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
no serious changes.
8) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Specify that, if you purposely and willfully committed the crime, what you did to your victim cannot be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" as you willfully inflicted it on someone against their will.

Huh?

1) It would prevent religious groups from creating laws which religious groups in general like (say prayer time set aside in school, or letting schools allow religious authorities to talk to students), but which are a violation of atheists rights to not have a religion indoctrinated into their kids. And it would prevent the government from telling the press that they can't run a story. That's important for when there's a scandal the government wants to silence.
2) No we don't. We have states and cities which ban all gun ownership unless you have a concealed carry license and a "good reason" to own one.
3) Why give them the chance?
4) Yet they are issued.
5) yes, work can get done, you just have to get more for it than they want to pay. And a third party would be agreed upon by you and the government body that was trying to "eminent domain" your house from you. Also, there are cases where city governments have used "eminent domain" to take people's property to sell it to developers (for increased tax revenue).
6) I've been explaining that to other people.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

1) It would prevent religious groups from creating laws which religious groups in general like (say prayer time set aside in school, or letting schools allow religious authorities to talk to students), but which are a violation of atheists rights to not have a religion indoctrinated into their kids.

This is already covered by the establishment clause.

And it would prevent the government from telling the press that they can't run a story. That's important for when there's a scandal the government wants to silence.

This is already covered by "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

2) No we don't. We have states and cities which ban all gun ownership unless you have a concealed carry license and a "good reason" to own one.

All right. What exact wording will you use in the second amendment?

3) Why give them the chance?
4) Yet they are issued.

Right. And there's no way you can make people follow the Constitution by writing a new Constitution.

5) yes, work can get done, you just have to get more for it than they want to pay. And a third party would be agreed upon by you and the government body that was trying to "eminent domain" your house from you. Also, there are cases where city governments have used "eminent domain" to take people's property to sell it to developers (for increased tax revenue).

If the homeowner has control of the third party, then there will always be a few who won't go along, or will demand an unreasonable price. Yes, eminent domain has been misused. Your new constitution won't solve the problem unless it totally eliminates eminent domain.

6) I've been explaining that to other people.

("Note to self: request the mods create a specific "Humor" subforum."
Actually what would be better is a tab inside a thread, like Discussion tab in wikipedia for a specific page/topic, so you have the serious thread, and connected to it is the humor it inspired because you need the context of the thread to appreciate the humor)

You can make jokes about rednecks with nukes, But I can't make a joke about uses robots to rape rapists?

@harold The point is, the government will want to lowball them, they'll want to highball. A mediator makes sure they're in the middle.
As for the others, there's no point in not adding more protections. And #1 has been proposed.

6) They didn't. (American Liberty League)
They didnt what? Do You deny that they were fascists that hired observers to see how European Fascists operated, or that they were publishing Libertarian articles slogans and dogma?
(paraphrasing: the "freedom" for children to work in coal mines, the "freedom" to work without a union, the "freedom" to work without any safety "regulations")
BTW, general unrelated question just to have a rough idea, did you read any documents in the national archives of the US? Declassified documents, investigation transcripts, any document?

For example, say you make a law that says that anyone who performs marriages must not discriminate based on age, gender, sexual orientation, species (because, lets face it, you'd totally consider marrying an Orion from star trek), number of people in a marriage, race, national origin, etc. Now imagine Father Jacobs says "my religion says that marriage is monogamous (forgetting for a second that it wasn't in the OT).
Now, if we forget that this is technically taking away his freedom to choose his clients, this law didn't take religion into account when it was being made, though it does violate religious rights.

Maybe somethings lost in translation, Ill try to read it a few more times to understand what it means. Maybe Im too far outside the frame of reference of religious people (or atheists soaking in ubiquitous religious society with bills that says in god we trust) to understand how or why society would have anything to do with religion. IF someone wants to say he has a religious bond with a dog, or that his cat is his reincarnated grand father or his goldfish is the spirit/angel of Saint-Isaac, or that a wooden chair is made of the holy wood of the cross, I dont care, as long as his nonesense does not influence public policy and that he doesnt break laws and doesnt get any privilege or any waivers on rules established by secular society)

What control of information? The point is that there is no government control, only private. And with the prevalence of the internet, can anyone really be considered as "owning the media"?

Before the internet people could and did control information and governments have controlled information, while most media was PRIVATELY OWNED, this is a very important aspect of reality to understand because we assume thats impossible until we get a lot of evidence to this, which demonstrates a gaping flaw with the Privately owned media, you cannot ignore that flaw. Propaganda occurred without problems in the US all the while most of the media was privately owned. Did NBC or any other network ever talk as headlines of the Builderberg meetings? No. This requires a bit more research I cant posts pages of manufacturing concsent, the internet does help, but its current state might change and Im sure people are working on controlling it more than it is now, many aspects of media were once similar to the internet and similar processes that have controlled the old media can influence/steer/coral information on the internet. Controlling a population does not require 100% control of the media. Money, Hierarchy and control of information are mechanisms use to control the information.

5) glad we agree on something.

We probably agree on many many things, but understanding others points of views about hins we disagree with is the best way to learn new things
(as opposed to telling each other all day long the sky in blue on a cloudless sunny day, we agree but there little potential to learn something )

Freedom to do what we say, or else, isn't freedom (for that matter, how is free will free in the christian belief set when you get eternally tortured if you don't do what God wants? but that's another topic). They may have made it SOUND like a libertarian idea, but it wasn't. It's called political propaganda.

the religious thing was pretty much a version of the current "my religion says marriage is between one man and one woman" thing, yet priests are being forced to either perform same-sex marriages or stop doing marriage (at least that's what I heard). Yes, same-sex marriage is legal, but can you force people to perform a religious ceremony against their religious beliefs?

Arguably, this is already illegal. Just need some judges with backbone, and populace that actually believes in it.
4) Yet they are issued.

Imo this highlights the fact that a law, words on a paper, have limits, and that its better to find alternate safeguards to make sure the paper isnt all thats protecting you. A bit like a railgard/fence on a balcony is better that just a sign that "says" "dont fall off the 12th floor". In this case the polictical system is the problem that needs to be overhauled, its not democratic, not transparent, to many hierarchies, vulnerable to corruption, etc. If this is not addressed, if would be like going to Stalin and saying, "hey I just found a rule deep in the manifesto that "says" you cant do that" (pointless because its too late, youll be thrown in the gulag if not shot)

5) yes, work can get done, you just have to get more for it than they want to pay.

Unfair expropriation is bad, but theres another side to that coin: Theres more than one death curve in various roads where society paid many millions of dollars to make a detour, and paid in human lives sacrificed by the dozen in many car accident deaths, because some asshole didnt want to sell while only looking at things from his tiny limited navel gazing point of view (which is a failure of society to educate people). Made up illustration: In 2010, on a road X where the original owner has been dead for 30 years, someone died in a car accident because farmer brown in 1960 didnt want to sell or because Soap and Stick inc the finest soaps for the war effort in 1943 that hasnt existed since 1976 didnt want to sell back then. What Libertarians often fail to process or realize, is the big picture, emergent properties, civilization, the interaction/interference-attenuation/coordination/synergy of many people that makes the difference between having a civilization coordinated enough to put a man on the moon and living like cavemen. Abuses should be avoided with fair and transparent mechanisms, some form of random selected jury or direct democracy referendum could be established as a appeal to avoid scoudrelous expropriation that are not based on the best interest of society at large.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

the religious thing was pretty much a version of the current "my religion says marriage is between one man and one woman" thing, yet priests are being forced to either perform same-sex marriages or stop doing marriage (at least that's what I heard). Yes, same-sex marriage is legal, but can you force people to perform a religious ceremony against their religious beliefs?

And isn't this the nub of the problem: there will always be a clash of people's freedoms and rights. Person A wants the freedom to take whatever he wants; person B wants to hang on to his possessions. Person A thinks two people of the same sex must be free to get married; person B thinks that he must be free not to marry them. Person A thinks he should be free to inflict pain on criminals; any normal person thinks this is morally reprehensible.

Any system of laws must balance these conflicting freedoms and rights. You approach seems to be to impose the ideals and wishes of the 2/3rds majority on the rest. (Nothing wrong with that, per se, of course). But you have to realise that you are restricting the rights and freedoms of some proportion of the population, based on the ideas of the rest. Choosing to do this based on a majority vote is one approach. Who says this is morally better, in any absolute sense, than doing it by fiat (religious or otherwise)?

You seem to assume a whole set of rights and freedoms as being correct because you think they arte. And I guess that is where I see a problem with libertarianism. It seems to be based on the idea that "my" rights are inviolable but "his" rights must be curtailed if they impose on mine. (Where, typically, "my" rights are those of the white male middle-class subset of the population.)

Originally Posted by Strange

You seem to assume a whole set of rights and freedoms as being correct because you think they arte. And I guess that is where I see a problem with libertarianism. It seems to be based on the idea that "my" rights are inviolable but "his" rights must be curtailed if they impose on mine. (Where, typically, "my" rights are those of the white male middle-class subset of the population.)

This is not Libertarianism.
I cannot vouch for what He said. What you said is not Libertarianism. If that sounded like anything- it sounded Republican. It is Authoritarianism.

Libertarianism is the political position of Freedom as a Priority, it is not My Freedom over yours.
In fact, it is the opposite.

It is people wanting to oppress freedom that try to project that ideology onto others. Those that are Authoritarian believe that they must oppress the freedom of others if the behavior of others bothers them.
Such as banning gay marriage, banning ownership of material objects, banning the use of objects or substances, banning certain acts that are mostly harmless, but bother some people- like running nude down the street slathered in peanut butter, breastfeeding an infant or singing "Numa Numa" on top of Mount Everest.
Imposing laws on others, like "you must wear a seatbelt" even though that strikes me as a personal choice.

The reason always used to justify this Authoritarian behavior is: "It effects me and my life."
There literally, is not one single thing you can do that won't effect others. Nothing. It is impossible to consciously exist without being effected by others.
It is impossible to consciously exist and not effect others.

Authoritarianism can always be justified with persuasive "It effects my life and I'm unhappy about that " arguments but Freedom and Liberty are difficult to defend in spite of their necessity to human nature. programming and sanity.

Be grateful for the libertarian- he provides some counterweight against the dictator wannabes.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Libertarianism is the political position of Freedom as a Priority, it is not My Freedom over yours.
In fact, it is the opposite.

That is great as an ideal (as is Rousseau's social contract). But there will always be a conflict between one person's freedom and another's. The OP assumes certain freedoms are necessary, but then also accepts that they may need to be limited because of conflicts with other freedoms or for purely practical reasons. Another person may have a different starting point (and therefore end up with different conflicts and compromises).

I am just pointing out that there is no "absolute" freedom. It always based on a set of moral, philosophical or religious assumptions.

Originally Posted by Strange

I am just pointing out that there is no "absolute" freedom. It always based on a set of moral, philosophical or religious assumptions.

Oh, there is... It's called Anarchy.
I'm all for it, myself... but I understand that most people aren't because... well, we won't go there. Either way, libertarianism is as near to it as I can get and still be considered politically correct.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Strange

I am just pointing out that there is no "absolute" freedom. It always based on a set of moral, philosophical or religious assumptions.

Oh, there is... It's called Anarchy.

Well, almost. But under anarchy some, maybe most, people will have their freedom curtailed at the whim of those stronger, richer, better armed or just generally more powerful. So arguably there is less "total freedom" than under a representative democracy, or even some dictatorships.

Originally Posted by Strange

Well, almost. But under anarchy some, maybe most, people will have their freedom curtailed at the whim of those stronger, richer, better armed or just generally more powerful. So arguably there is less "total freedom" than under a representative democracy, or even some dictatorships.

That's a maybe. Those that try to control others may also get taken out til a balance of "Don't mess with me, I won't mess with you" is reached. Unless you've really experienced it, anything is speculation.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

the religious thing was pretty much a version of the current "my religion says marriage is between one man and one woman" thing, yet priests are being forced to either perform same-sex marriages or stop doing marriage (at least that's what I heard). Yes, same-sex marriage is legal, but can you force people to perform a religious ceremony against their religious beliefs?

And isn't this the nub of the problem: there will always be a clash of people's freedoms and rights. Person A wants the freedom to take whatever he wants; person B wants to hang on to his possessions. Person A thinks two people of the same sex must be free to get married; person B thinks that he must be free not to marry them. Person A thinks he should be free to inflict pain on criminals; any normal person thinks this is morally reprehensible.

Any system of laws must balance these conflicting freedoms and rights. You approach seems to be to impose the ideals and wishes of the 2/3rds majority on the rest. (Nothing wrong with that, per se, of course). But you have to realise that you are restricting the rights and freedoms of some proportion of the population, based on the ideas of the rest. Choosing to do this based on a majority vote is one approach. Who says this is morally better, in any absolute sense, than doing it by fiat (religious or otherwise)?

You seem to assume a whole set of rights and freedoms as being correct because you think they arte. And I guess that is where I see a problem with libertarianism. It seems to be based on the idea that "my" rights are inviolable but "his" rights must be curtailed if they impose on mine. (Where, typically, "my" rights are those of the white male middle-class subset of the population.)

"any normal person thinks this is morally reprehencible"
The point is to teach them. We aren't torturing them, we're showing them what they inflicted on their victims. Or would you rather let them sit behind bars for years, then have learned nothing when they get out? With most people you probably can talk to them and make them understand. With some people you can't. Some people don't understand, either because they are too self-absorbed or because they are psychopaths, what they are doing to their victims and why it's wrong.

2/3 is better than a simple majority, like we have now. It's also better than doing it by fiat because that way only takes into account the views of a small group (maybe even a single person) which is then forced on everyone. It is impossible to get 100% of people to agree on anything, and even if you could, someone could always come along and disagree. At least with 2/3, you know that twice as many people agree as disagree. Of course it isn't perfect, no system is, but it's better than the one we have now.

You don't understand Libertarianism at all if you think that. It's about everyone's rights being equal. I suggest things and defend them, but I'm not saying "my way is the only way". I also haven't suggested that My rights are any more important than anyone else's. Everyone has the same rights, or they aren't rights at all. Where did you get the idea that I thought I was better than anyone else?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Arguably, this is already illegal. Just need some judges with backbone, and populace that actually believes in it.
4) Yet they are issued.

Imo this highlights the fact that a law, words on a paper, have limits, and that its better to find alternate safeguards to make sure the paper isnt all thats protecting you. A bit like a railgard/fence on a balcony is better that just a sign that "says" "dont fall off the 12th floor". In this case the polictical system is the problem that needs to be overhauled, its not democratic, not transparent, to many hierarchies, vulnerable to corruption, etc. If this is not addressed, if would be like going to Stalin and saying, "hey I just found a rule deep in the manifesto that "says" you cant do that" (pointless because its too late, youll be thrown in the gulag if not shot)

5) yes, work can get done, you just have to get more for it than they want to pay.

Unfair expropriation is bad, but theres another side to that coin: Theres more than one death curve in various roads where society paid many millions of dollars to make a detour, and paid in human lives sacrificed by the dozen in many car accident deaths, because some asshole didnt want to sell while only looking at things from his tiny limited navel gazing point of view (which is a failure of society to educate people). Made up illustration: In 2010, on a road X where the original owner has been dead for 30 years, someone died in a car accident because farmer brown in 1960 didnt want to sell or because Soap and Stick inc the finest soaps for the war effort in 1943 that hasnt existed since 1976 didnt want to sell back then. What Libertarians often fail to process or realize, is the big picture, emergent properties, civilization, the interaction/interference-attenuation/coordination/synergy of many people that makes the difference between having a civilization coordinated enough to put a man on the moon and living like cavemen. Abuses should be avoided with fair and transparent mechanisms, some form of random selected jury or direct democracy referendum could be established as a appeal to avoid scoudrelous expropriation that are not based on the best interest of society at large.

4) This is merely the framework for the laws. If the framework has holes in it, the structure will too, or at least weak points. Though I haven't actually posted the law yet, there should be almost complete transparency in this government so that people can know what they are doing and stop it if it violates their rights.
5) Again, you want 5 million for your farm, I want to pay 50k. We go to an arbitrator who sets the amount at 150k. At that point I can either pay the 150k or not take your land. I can't say "no, I won't accept that amount" but if I don't like it, I can always complain about it and other people will stop using the negotiation company. If the government doesn't like it, they won't agree to the company. Therefore the arbitrator has to make both sides equally unhappy.
A compromise is when both sides go away unhappy.
And any decent planning company can avoid huge curves. They are just set on not changing the course of the road, so they change it as little as possible. Also, speed limits and guard rails are good things. They prevent motor vehicle deaths if people obey the rules.

"The point is to teach them."

This does not make it right, it shows inflicting pain and unusual punishment (or killing in the case of official murder, capital punishment if you prefer), is perfectly normal, sure torture all you want, abduct someone and torture them, the only thing you need is to say you ~*~I do it for a reason~*~, you're teaching that victim a lesson, or the victim "deserves it" and voila! A universal blank check for torturing!
In addition to a bad idea philosophically, its a bad idea just based on functionality. There are not automatically less crimes in primitive regressive societies that use repression, hum, forget about that, were in a libertarian thread.

At least with 2/3, you know that twice as many people agree as disagree.

Sure, but if 2/3 is better than 50%+1, what if 1/3 decides? That's Bad right? But if 50%+1 of the population cant be represented because its not enough, it mathematically means that LESS than 50% are getting their case imposed on a majority of people.
~ -Hey how about Sharia Law Stonnings? A loophole in Religious rights allows Stonning to death, should we fix it?
-Well 30% of the population wants Sharia Law Stonnings, 51% are against, and 19% undecided, but since 51% isnt "enough" to change anything, well, we keep it.~

"Everyone has the same rights, or they aren't rights at all."

Its conceptually impossible to imagine rights being equal without either restrictions or a batshit outcome.
Red Traffic lights: "Hey I'm Libertarian Joe, that Red light law is an authoritarian restriction on my "freedom" to ram throught intersections at full throttle with my eyes blindfolded as I juggle with live grenades!"
"Hey but I want the right to move around in a non-batshit crazy society where functional-driven restrictions are part of a logistical coordination mechanism for the benefit of all within the civilized society"

Also, speed limits

Some Libertarians would claim that speed limits infringe their freedom and "rights" to drive at the speed they want, and would ramble about statist rules and throw the catch phrase "would you force me with a gun to my head?" and other strange incantations.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

2/3 is better than a simple majority, like we have now. It's also better than doing it by fiat because that way only takes into account the views of a small group (maybe even a single person) which is then forced on everyone.

Again, I would point out that you are assuming certain values as being true. Why is a larger majority "better"? In what sense "better"? (I don't necessarily disagree with you; but it is an arbitrary moral judgement. It can be supported by a philosophical argument such as utilitarianism, but can be equally validly opposed by others.)

Where did you get the idea that I thought I was better than anyone else?

Apologies if you got that impression. It certainly wasn't intended. The point I was trying to make is that each individual will, inevitably, consider their own rights as more important than others (*). For an example, just look at NIMBYism: "Of course wind turbines are a good idea. As long as they are somewhere else."


(*) And their own morality as superior. Hence my little digs at your desire to torture people.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"The point is to teach them."

This does not make it right, it shows inflicting pain and unusual punishment (or killing in the case of official murder, capital punishment if you prefer), is perfectly normal, sure torture all you want, abduct someone and torture them, the only thing you need is to say you ~*~I do it for a reason~*~, you're teaching that victim a lesson, or the victim "deserves it" and voila! A universal blank check for torturing!
In addition to a bad idea philosophically, its a bad idea just based on functionality. There are not automatically less crimes in primitive regressive societies that use repression, hum, forget about that, were in a libertarian thread.

At least with 2/3, you know that twice as many people agree as disagree.

Sure, but if 2/3 is better than 50%+1, what if 1/3 decides? That's Bad right? But if 50%+1 of the population cant be represented because its not enough, it mathematically means that LESS than 50% are getting their case imposed on a majority of people.
~ -Hey how about Sharia Law Stonnings? A loophole in Religious rights allows Stonning to death, should we fix it?
-Well 30% of the population wants Sharia Law Stonnings, 51% are against, and 19% undecided, but since 51% isnt "enough" to change anything, well, we keep it.~

"Everyone has the same rights, or they aren't rights at all."

Its conceptually impossible to imagine rights being equal without either restrictions or a batshit outcome.
Red Traffic lights: "Hey I'm Libertarian Joe, that Red light law is an authoritarian restriction on my "freedom" to ram throught intersections at full throttle with my eyes blindfolded as I juggle with live grenades!"
"Hey but I want the right to move around in a non-batshit crazy society where functional-driven restrictions are part of a logistical coordination mechanism for the benefit of all within the civilized society"

Also, speed limits

Some Libertarians would claim that speed limits infringe their freedom and "rights" to drive at the speed they want, and would ramble about statist rules and throw the catch phrase "would you force me with a gun to my head?" and other strange incantations.

1) again, not torture. We aren't abducting people and torturing them. We (at most) take people that have been convicted of violent crimes and punishing them. Do you have a better way of punishing or rehabilitating people who commit violent crimes? Would it be better if we continue to do the same thing we currently do with prisoners, lock them away for years in an area where they learn only to "get tough", then release them into a peaceful society?
2)stoning people is already illegal, so bad example. You would have to have 2/3 of the people agree to allow it. Even then you would have many other city-states that didn't allow it that you could move to.
3) Traffic laws are rules you agree to follow for the privilege of using public (or private) roads. Also, if you were "to ram throught intersections at full throttle with my eyes blindfolded as I juggle with live grenades!" then you would be endangering other people's lives, which would be a greater violation of their rights.
4) Covered in #3. Using the road is a privilege, not a right, hence why you have to get a license, insure your car, etc.

Your examples are getting a bit rediculous, and you seem to understand the concept of rights less and less with every post.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

2/3 is better than a simple majority, like we have now. It's also better than doing it by fiat because that way only takes into account the views of a small group (maybe even a single person) which is then forced on everyone.

Again, I would point out that you are assuming certain values as being true. Why is a larger majority "better"? In what sense "better"? (I don't necessarily disagree with you; but it is an arbitrary moral judgement. It can be supported by a philosophical argument such as utilitarianism, but can be equally validly opposed by others.)

Where did you get the idea that I thought I was better than anyone else?

Apologies if you got that impression. It certainly wasn't intended. The point I was trying to make is that each individual will, inevitably, consider their own rights as more important than others (*). For an example, just look at NIMBYism: "Of course wind turbines are a good idea. As long as they are somewhere else."


(*) And their own morality as superior. Hence my little digs at your desire to torture people.

1) it isn't automatically correct, it's just better than the current system. No system is perfect, but we can improve them. And having many, independent countries lets those that don't like the law flee from oppression.
2) I can understand the wind turbine thing, as they can be a bit of an eye sore. I don't know how I'd handle that.
Also, not torture (yet again, don't know why I have to keep explaining), just a last-ditch effort to teach psychopaths the difference between right and wrong. If discussion can't teach them, maybe pain can.
Also, once again, tell me a better way to rehabilitate people that simply don't get that stabbing people is wrong.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

1) it isn't automatically correct, it's just better than the current system.

You miss the point. Why is it better? You don't seem to see that this is just an arbitrary value judgement. It appears to be one you just accept without question. Presumably just because you have been brought up with it.

2) I can understand the wind turbine thing, as they can be a bit of an eye sore.

Well, I like them, so you can build them here.

Also, once again, tell me a better way to rehabilitate people that simply don't get that stabbing people is wrong.

Given the nature of this forum, how about ... wait for it ... using science to find out. Rather than pandering to people's primitive urges to punish (which we already know doesn't work very well).

You are correct, Its true that I do not understand your concept of rights (or "the" concept of rights if you prefer putting it like that).

Traffic laws are rules you agree to follow for the privilege of using public

we agree that there should be rules people agree on if they're are in a location

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

3) Traffic laws are rules you agree to follow for the privilege of using public (or private) roads.

Who decides which things are rights and which are privileges?

If 2/3rds (+1) decide that "free speech" is a privilege and not a right, do you expect the remaining 1/3rd to just shut up and accept it?

(I put "free speech" in quotes because I assume that even libertarians agree there cannot be completely free speech any more than there can be a completely unregulated free market. Or maybe not ... what a scary world of human variety we live in )

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

1) it isn't automatically correct, it's just better than the current system.

You miss the point. Why is it better? You don't seem to see that this is just an arbitrary value judgement. It appears to be one you just accept without question. Presumably just because you have been brought up with it.

2) I can understand the wind turbine thing, as they can be a bit of an eye sore.

Well, I like them, so you can build them here.

Also, once again, tell me a better way to rehabilitate people that simply don't get that stabbing people is wrong.

Given the nature of this forum, how about ... wait for it ... using science to find out. Rather than pandering to people's primitive urges to punish (which we already know doesn't work very well).

It is better because it is more difficult to abuse. You need a larger majority to take the rights of a minority.

Then suggest a scientific way. Until we have one, we have to go with the best option available to us, even if it seems (or even is) barbaric.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

3) Traffic laws are rules you agree to follow for the privilege of using public (or private) roads.

Who decides which things are rights and which are privileges?

If 2/3rds (+1) decide that "free speech" is a privilege and not a right, do you expect the remaining 1/3rd to just shut up and accept it?

(I put "free speech" in quotes because I assume that even libertarians agree there cannot be completely free speech any more than there can be a completely unregulated free market. Or maybe not ... what a scary world of human variety we live in )

Rights can't be taken away by law, privileges can. Also, privileges are generally earned.
Rights may be restricted only when they interfere with other rights, and then only to a minimal amount.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

It is better because it is more difficult to abuse. You need a larger majority to take the rights of a minority.

Or, a smaller proportion have (what they perceive as) their rights removed. So, basically, utilitarianism. One problem with that it assumes that all rights are equally valuable.

Then suggest a scientific way. Until we have one, we have to go with the best option available to us, even if it seems (or even is) barbaric.

An enormous amount of scientific research has been done on the most effective ways of reforming criminals and others. As far as I know, none of this suggests that barbarism is "the best option available". In fact, it pretty much shows it is ineffective or has a negative effect. Hey, but it's cheap and panders to the masses so let's do it! Properly reforming the prison system would cost money.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Rights can't be taken away by law, privileges can. Also, privileges are generally earned.

That doesn't really answer the question. How do you decide which aspects of life fit into each category?

In the US it is (generally) agreed that bearing arms is a right. In other countries it is a privilege and in yet others it is not allowed at all.

The same is true of every single thing that you consider to be a right or a privilege or to be wrong. Who decides which it is? (The "easy" answer is God, but I guess you are not going for that one )

Show that it is less effective or that it has a negative effect and I'll forget about this point. I don't want to do it because it's cheap or it panders to the masses, I just think it's the best way in some cases.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Rights can't be taken away by law, privileges can. Also, privileges are generally earned.

That doesn't really answer the question. How do you decide which aspects of life fit into each category?

In the US it is (generally) agreed that bearing arms is a right. In other countries it is a privilege and in yet others it is not allowed at all.

The same is true of every single thing that you consider to be a right or a privilege or to be wrong. Who decides which it is? (The "easy" answer is God, but I guess you are not going for that one )

It's named in the constitution as a right. If it isn't, then it's a privilege. If you want to "upgrade" something to a right, amend the constitution.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Show that it is less effective or that it has a negative effect and I'll forget about this point. I don't want to do it because it's cheap or it panders to the masses, I just think it's the best way in some cases.

It is usual for the burden of proof to be placed on the person making the claim. I assume you have some scientific evidence to back up your beliefs?

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

It's named in the constitution as a right. If it isn't, then it's a privilege. If you want to "upgrade" something to a right, amend the constitution.

Do you mean the existing US constitution? And you just accept that without question?

So does that mean the constitution is infallible or perfect? Are countries that do things differently "wrong" in some absolute sense?

How about if you were starting from scratch creating a new constitution; how would you decide which things are rights and which are privileges?

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Show that it is less effective or that it has a negative effect and I'll forget about this point. I don't want to do it because it's cheap or it panders to the masses, I just think it's the best way in some cases.

But, as you asked so nicely:

The overall findings showed that harsher criminal justice sanctions had no deterrent effect on recidivism. On the contrary, punishment produced a slight (3%) increase in recidivism.

The effects of punishment on recidivism

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Show that it is less effective or that it has a negative effect and I'll forget about this point. I don't want to do it because it's cheap or it panders to the masses, I just think it's the best way in some cases.

It is usual for the burden of proof to be placed on the person making the claim. I assume you have some scientific evidence to back up your beliefs?

You claimed that it isn't effective or has the opposite effect. I don't know if it does or not. You are making the claim.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

You claimed that it isn't effective or has the opposite effect. I don't know if it does or not.

So you do just want to do it for fun, not because you know it works.

Here, knock yourself out: http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=e...als+recidivism

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

It's named in the constitution as a right. If it isn't, then it's a privilege. If you want to "upgrade" something to a right, amend the constitution.

Do you mean the existing US constitution? And you just accept that without question?

So does that mean the constitution is infallible or perfect? Are countries that do things differently "wrong" in some absolute sense?

How about if you were starting from scratch creating a new constitution; how would you decide which things are rights and which are privileges?

I start a new constitution with the first post in this topic. I accept the parts I believe are the best way to do things, and reject the ones I don't.
Countries that do things differently may be wrong, or maybe I'm wrong. I am trying to correct the problems I see in government. That's it.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

You claimed that it isn't effective or has the opposite effect. I don't know if it does or not.

So you do just want to do it for fun, not because you know it works.

Here, knock yourself out: effects punishment reform criminals recidivism

No, I'm doing it because what I know of psychology tells me that pain is a powerful motivator. If used correctly, it could teach them not to cause others pain.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

I accept the parts I believe are the best way to do things, and reject the ones I don't.

OK. So you accept that those things are rights. Why are they rights. Why did you choose not to reject any of them?

Your previous answer was: because they are in the constitution. Which suggests you have given it no thought at all: a right is a right is a right.

Countries that do things differently may be wrong, or maybe I'm wrong.

Exactly: different countries have different views on what rights are. How (on what basis) does one make this judgement?

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

No, I'm doing it because what I know of psychology tells me that pain is a powerful motivator. If used correctly, it could teach them not to cause others pain.

Pain may be a powerful motivator but the evidence (see posts above; I have corrected the link now) shows that it does not have the effect on criminal behaviour that you believe. So will you withdraw your desire to abuse and torture people?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

I accept the parts I believe are the best way to do things, and reject the ones I don't.

OK. So you accept that those things are rights. Why are they rights. Why did you choose not to reject any of them?

Your previous answer was: because they are in the constitution. Which suggests you have given it no thought at all: a right is a right is a right.

Countries that do things differently may be wrong, or maybe I'm wrong.

Exactly: different countries have different views on what rights are. How (on what basis) does one make this judgement?

They are rights because they are the basis of freedom. I don't know how else to explain.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

They are rights because they are the basis of freedom. I don't know how else to explain.

I think I can explain it for you.

You think they are absolute freedoms because they are the rights and freedoms you have grown up with.

If another country guaranteed other things as rights you would, presumably, just think that was unnecessary. They could just be privileges.

And if another country doesn't guarantee all the rights you have grown up with, then you would think it was overly restrictive.

Note that I am not saying you are wrong about any particular right, just pointing out that it is a completely arbitrary choice. Someone else might have a different opinion, which is equally valid.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

No, I'm doing it because what I know of psychology tells me that pain is a powerful motivator. If used correctly, it could teach them not to cause others pain.

Pain may be a powerful motivator but the evidence (see posts above; I have corrected the link now) shows that it does not have the effect on criminal behaviour that you believe. So will you withdraw your desire to abuse and torture people?

No, your link shows that locking violent criminals away makes them more violent. I don't have a problem with that. It makes sense. The problem is that it doesn't show evidence against my views.

Stop referring to my "desire to abuse and torture people". I don't want to abuse or torture people, I want to punish and rehabilitate.
Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of an entity, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit. Torture is the practice or act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain and possibly injury on a person, though psychological and animal torture also exist. (wikipedia)
It isn't abuse unless you can show that is is improper. It may be torture technically, though that has a negative connotation that it is pointless, or done for some ulterior motive.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

They are rights because they are the basis of freedom. I don't know how else to explain.

I think I can explain it for you.

You think they are absolute freedoms because they are the rights and freedoms you have grown up with.

If another country guaranteed other things as rights you would, presumably, just think that was unnecessary. They could just be privileges.

And if another country doesn't guarantee all the rights you have grown up with, then you would think it was overly restrictive.

Note that I am not saying you are wrong about any particular right, just pointing out that it is a completely arbitrary choice. Someone else might have a different opinion, which is equally valid.

Then form your own constitution and country. Suggest new rights if you want people to have them. This is supposed to be a basis for a new country. It works best if there are many, competing countries.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

No, your link shows that locking violent criminals away makes them more violent. I don't have a problem with that. It makes sense. The problem is that it doesn't show evidence against my views.

It does. You just refuse to see it. And you refuse to provide any evidence to support your sadistic desires.

Stop referring to my "desire to abuse and torture people".

No.

I don't want to abuse or torture people,

Yes you do.

I want to punish and rehabilitate.

Then STUDY the most effective ways of doing this. Don't just choose the method you will get the most pleasure from.

Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of an entity, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit. Torture is the practice or act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain and possibly injury on a person, though psychological and animal torture also exist. (wikipedia)

Exactly.

It isn't abuse unless you can show that is is improper.

Of course it is improper: it is abuse. It is also ineffective, as the science shows and you are unable to refute (other than, "but I want to do it, so it must be OK").

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Then form your own constitution and country. Suggest new rights if you want people to have them. This is supposed to be a basis for a new country. It works best if there are many, competing countries.

I said, I am not saying your choice of rights is incorrect.

I am just trying to get you to see/admit that they are completely arbitrary. Or explain why you think they are the best or most complete set of rights.

Going back to how this particular discussion started: on what basis do you decide if something is a right (and therefore goes in the constitution) or a privilege (and therefore requires laws)?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

No, your link shows that locking violent criminals away makes them more violent. I don't have a problem with that. It makes sense. The problem is that it doesn't show evidence against my views.

It does. You just refuse to see it. And you refuse to provide any evidence to support your sadistic desires.

Stop referring to my "desire to abuse and torture people".

No.

I don't want to abuse or torture people,

Yes you do.

I want to punish and rehabilitate.

Then STUDY the most effective ways of doing this. Don't just choose the method you will get the most pleasure from.

Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of an entity, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit. Torture is the practice or act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain and possibly injury on a person, though psychological and animal torture also exist. (wikipedia)

Exactly.

It isn't abuse unless you can show that is is improper.

Of course it is improper: it is abuse. It is also ineffective, as the science shows and you are unable to refute (other than, "but I want to do it, so it must be OK").

There is no point in talking to you. You aren't interested in discussion, just in bullying people. I've explained myself, and all you do is call me sadistic. I ask for evidence, and you post something which doesn't refute me.
A quick suggestion: stop ad Hominem attacks and strawman arguments, and actually discuss things.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

I've explained myself, and all you do is call me sadistic.

You have explained your belief in the use of abuse and torture. You haven't shown that it is effective.

I ask for evidence, and you post something which doesn't refute me.

I have provided a link to "About 20,400 results" Please use this to provide some evidence to support your views.

A quick suggestion: stop ad Hominem attacks and strawman arguments, and actually discuss things.

A quick suggestion: science forum? evidence?

You attack me and misrepresent my position by saying that I want to torture people "because it's fun" or "because you want to". That is both an Ad hominem attack and a strawman.

You posted a google search that backs up that longer prison time = worse behavior on release. That's it.

And just to show that I am researching it (although there doesn't seem to be many studies on using pain to teach because people like you think the idea is "barbaric"):
http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/0...eople-in-pain/

Yes, it shows that they have decreased response in a specific area of the brain, but:
Viding says that the findings could result from a reduced response to pain in general among kids who are callous and unemotional. “It may be that these children have atypical arousal response to pain,” she says, “For example, those children who are most callous may not feel pain as keenly as their peers and this may in turn mean that they find observing pain less distressing.” Similarly, prior research shows that callous children are less fearful than others— and the same is true for psychopaths. A reduction in the ability to feel both fear and pain might make such people less concerned about inducing such feelings in others.

This suggests that if they felt the pain of others they would be able to empathize with them.

"I don't want to abuse or torture people, I want to punish and rehabilitate."

(jaw hits the desk)

This is considered [censored] and [censored] in other cultures (no wonder the US is torturing people and no one is arrested for it).

I doesn't matter when you can find an excuse for it, everyone does. Like everyone else:

-Yes I tortured my neighbor, but not to abuse him your honor, I was teaching and nurturing his sadomasochistic side
-Yes, I tortured that, guy, but not to abuse him, he looked suspicious, what was he really doing with these Skittles? I wanted the truth, and it took a long and hard time before he told me what I really thought the right answer was.
-Yes, I tortured this poor heretic soul, but only to save his soul from damnation as part of the Inquisition, Im torturing out of compassion!
-Yes, the Taxi driver that "said" he was with the Taliban was paid 10,000$, but hes not confessing, 83 sessions of torture isnt abuse or inhuman, its to help him on the path of recovery
-Yes, he admited to a crime he didnt commit because the mentally retarded do that sometimes, but I didnt torture him to abuse him, it was to show how bad it was what he might have done but didnt do, in restrospect, i allowed him to benefit from a life experience, he knows more about torture and gruesome psychopathic behavior than he did with his mild retardation that prevented him from understanding how bad other people were, its an educational experience!
-Yes, I tortured, him, but, he "deserved it". Theres nothing wrong with torture when you think the person deserves it right? You can just say its punishment and rehabilitating therapy! YEah, thats the ticket, Im not a dangerous sociopath, Im a punishing rehabilitator!
-What? An extermination camp? Im just working here, I have a good justification, let me see what was the justification I was given for it, what was it again, "Danger to the fatherland something" "something something cleansing", anyway its not like something is bad if you can find an excuse to do it right? Its only bad when someone else does it, right?

Imagine yourself being tied with missing fingers and gruesome scars being told by psychopath joe
"Dont worry pete, I dont do it because I like it. No. Its for your own good. Its a liberating experience. Your even loosing a little weight there. You should thank me for my free rehabilitaiton, weight loss and personal growth interventions. Dont weep we will continue, where were we? ha yes the third toe...Remember, its most certainly is not because I want to abuse you that I do this... its for your own good"
===
Btw this is not to attack you or ad hominem anything but to share my point of view that torture is an inexcusable aberration, I realise that what is considered an inhuman barbaric gruesome anachronism where I am from (death penalty) is considered "normal" and "sane" in other cultures (and its not people born i such a culture's fault if they dont readily see this as wrong, the same way some people were fine with slavery when it was common), everything else in the exchange and explanation of Libertarian Constitution is just fine (I disagree, without falling out of my chair, but I admit that the nonchalant view of torture is not easing my worries about the neofeudal nightmare a Libertarian plutocracy could quickly become)

I have used the word neofeudal to describe Libertarianism as a figure of speech, but the torture angle puts a little extra feudal age flavor into it.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"I don't want to abuse or torture people, I want to punish and rehabilitate."

(jaw hits the desk)

This is considered [censored] and [censored] in other cultures (no wonder the US is torturing people and no one is arrested for it).

I doesn't matter when you can find an excuse for it, everyone does. Its not like the Torture of innocent women that went on during the Tatcher-approved Pinochet regime was for bad intentions, they didnt say we torture because we love to, they said they torture because the have to, and for good reasons too. Like everyone else:

-Yes I tortured my neighbor, but not to abuse him your honor, I was teaching and nurturing is
-Yes, I tortured that, guy, but not to abuse him, he looked suspicious, what was he really doing with these Skittles? I wanted the truth, and it took a long and hard time before he told me what I really thought the right answer was.
-Yes, I tortured this poor heretic soul, but only to save his soul from damnation as part of the Inquisition, Im torturing out of compassion!
-Yes, the Taxi driver that "said" he was with the Taliban was paid 10,000$, but hes not confessing, 83 seccions of torture isnt abuse or inhuman, its to help him on the path of recovery
-Yes, he admited to a crime he didnt commit because the mentally retarded do that sometimes, but I didnt torture him to abuse him, it was show how bad it was what he might have done but that someone happen to be guilty of, in restrospect, i allowed him to benefit from a life experience, he knows more about torture and gruesome psychopathic behavior than he did with his mild retardation that prevented him from understanding how bad other people were, its an educational experience
-Yes, I tortured, him, but, he deserved it. Theres nothing wrong with torture when you think the person deserves it right? Its punishment and rehabilitating therapy! YEah, thats the ticket, Im not a dangerous sociopath, Im a punishing rehabilitator!
-What? An extermination camp? Im just working here, I have a good justification, let me see what was the justification for it, what was it again, "Danger to the fatherland something" "something something cleansing", anyway its not like something is bad if you can find an excuse to do it right? Its only bad when someone else does it, right?

More strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. Why is it that people automatically think pain can't be used to teach? How is it more wrong to cause less pain to someone who hurt others than to release them so they can hurt others?

Before anyone gets the idea that all libertarian agree with me, the whole "use pain to teach psychopaths to empathize with their victims" thing is my idea. Many Libertarians would disagree with me. I just don't see how else you can teach someone who's incapable of learning through rational discourse and psychological counseling.
Go ahead, say I'm no better than the ones I want to teach. If I had another way to teach them, though, I would use it. I find the idea of harming others painful as well, though I'm more concerned with protecting others than some people seem to be.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

You attack me and misrepresent my position by saying that I want to torture people "because it's fun" or "because you want to". That is both an Ad hominem attack and a strawman.

It is not an ad-hominem because I am not saying that your argument s must be wrong because you are a sadist. It is not a strawman because I am responding to your argument with evidence that shows it doesn't work.

You posted a google search that backs up that longer prison time = worse behavior on release. That's it.

That is what all 20,400 papers say? Really?

Yes, it shows that they have decreased response in a specific area of the brain, but:
Viding says that the findings could result from a reduced response to pain in general among kids who are callous and unemotional. “It may be that these children have atypical arousal response to pain,” she says, “For example, those children who are most callous may not feel pain as keenly as their peers and this may in turn mean that they find observing pain less distressing.” Similarly, prior research shows that callous children are less fearful than others— and the same is true for psychopaths. A reduction in the ability to feel both fear and pain might make such people less concerned about inducing such feelings in others.

If anything, I would say this counters your argument. If such people feel pain less, then there is no point attempting to hurth them as a punishment. They won't care. And will be pleased that they have reduced you to their level. (But you and I already know you are at their level already.)

This suggests that if they felt the pain of others they would be able to empathize with them.

It suggests that if we knew enough about the way the brain works we might be able to treat them. Not mistreat them.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"I don't want to abuse or torture people, I want to punish and rehabilitate."

(jaw hits the desk)

Phew. I was beginning to wonder if I was being unreasonable in insisting that people should be treated with respect and dignity. You know what, maybe that should be a right enshrined in the constitution.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

How is it more wrong to cause less pain to someone who hurt others than to release them so they can hurt others?

Wow. And you accuse others of making strawman arguments. Un-frikkin-beleivable.

I assume what you mean to as was: How is it right to cause pain to someone if it is wrong to cause pain to someone?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

You attack me and misrepresent my position by saying that I want to torture people "because it's fun" or "because you want to". That is both an Ad hominem attack and a strawman.

It is not an ad-hominem because I am not saying that your argument s must be wrong because you are a sadist. It is not a strawman because I am responding to your argument with evidence that shows it doesn't work.

You posted a google search that backs up that longer prison time = worse behavior on release. That's it.

That is what all 20,400 papers say? Really?

Yes, it shows that they have decreased response in a specific area of the brain, but:
Viding says that the findings could result from a reduced response to pain in general among kids who are callous and unemotional. “It may be that these children have atypical arousal response to pain,” she says, “For example, those children who are most callous may not feel pain as keenly as their peers and this may in turn mean that they find observing pain less distressing.” Similarly, prior research shows that callous children are less fearful than others— and the same is true for psychopaths. A reduction in the ability to feel both fear and pain might make such people less concerned about inducing such feelings in others.

If anything, I would say this counters your argument. If such people feel pain less, then there is no point attempting to hurth them as a punishment. They won't care. And will be pleased that they have reduced you to their level. (But you and I already know you are at their level already.)

This suggests that if they felt the pain of others they would be able to empathize with them.

It suggests that if we knew enough about the way the brain works we might be able to treat them. Not mistreat them.

It is a strawman because you are misrepresenting my argument.
The first page (hence, the 10 or 20 most popular and relevant) show that in their headline. If you want to show evidence, read the articles and find the evidence.
If they feel less pain, then they don't know what pain the other person went through. It's better for them to experience some of it (and therefore have some idea what it must be like) than none of it.
Yes, it shows that we could learn how to better treat their mental problems. It doesn't show HOW to do that, only that it may be possible. This isn't "mistreat"ing them. Mis means wrong. You have yet to show that it IS wrong, instead, both of you just attacked me or the idea, by comparing me (and it) to nazis, terrorists, etc. (That's also evidence of an ad hominem attack).

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

How is it more wrong to cause less pain to someone who hurt others than to release them so they can hurt others?

Wow. And you accuse others of making strawman arguments. Un-frikkin-beleivable.

I assume what you mean to as was: How is it right to cause pain to someone if it is wrong to cause pain to someone?

No, I meant what I typed. Stop trying to twist my words into agreeing with you.
As you have yet to suggest an alternative, despite being asked several times, I can only assume that you agree with the current method of treating criminals, which is:
Incarcerate for long periods of time, then release them. Sure, they may be more violent now, but at least they were punished.
So, how is it better to do that than to hurt them, thus teaching them (because they now know what it's like to be hurt like that) not to hurt others.

I think the whole torture of the mentally retarded/criminally deranged is derailing the Libertarian Constitution
maybe we should make another thread like

"Did you know Torture was wrong? No?!?"

For some reason, despite the fact that it is a last ditch effort to treat only those who can't learn to empathise with their victims in any other known way, this idea has so far caused me to be labeled a nazi, and many other groups that are hated by people.
Present a better way or show me it won't work. Otherwise, I'm not going to bother trying to talk about this any more.

Constitutional law #4
4) All government records shall be freely available to the people in electronic form. The only exception is military records, which may only be kept secret as long as a civilian appointed board agrees that revealing them will threaten national security or the lives of the people, including members of the military.
5) No regulation shall be initially proposed by any member of congress that has not served at least 5 years in the private sector version of the field. Regulations must then be agreed with by 2/3 of the members of the congress, and 2/3 of the votes for or against it by a vote of the people.
6) The granting of citizenship shall not discriminate against a person based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, species, national origin, or any other category protected against government discrimination.

all government records shall be freely available to the republic in electronic form.

Agree

The only exception is military records, which may only be kept secret as long as a civilian appointed board agrees that revealing them will threaten national security or the lives of the people, including members of the military.

No, "Appointed" is a flaw imo, randomly selected is much better and less subjected to influence peddling (appointing the people of your faction/allegiance/dogma/philosophy or that may more easily be swayed/bribed and that would be less likely to report abuses). In addition I would put a short limit, maximum 1 year, the military can use this as a starting parameter and plan accordingly (assuming you are in a warmongering society that still uses military to kill other people).

"No regulation shall be initially proposed by any member of congress that has not served at least 5 years in the private sector version of the field."

?
Good luck with avoiding conflicts of interest Fox in the henhouse syndrome.
Tar and Arsenic are good for ya, thats what the Cigarette industry experts say, and they have more than 5 years of experience in the private sector, what does that cancer researcher know about cigarettes anyway? Hey get a load of this, he doesnt even smoke! What does he know. and "he" worked in a hospital instead of a Tabbaco multinational Private Sector head offices. Herh, let the experts decide.

6) The granting of citizenship shall discriminate against a person based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, species, national origin, or any other category protected against government discrimination.

Please tell me its a typo (or that something was lost in the translation)

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

[As you have yet to suggest an alternative, despite being asked several times, I can only assume that you agree with the current method of treating criminals, which is:
Incarcerate for long periods of time, then release them. Sure, they may be more violent now, but at least they were punished.

You are wrong.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

so far caused me to be labeled a nazi

Another dishonest strawman. The only person here who has used the word "nazi" is ... you. You have Godwinned yourself. Well done.

I am actually more interested in the question I have asked about the origin of rights, most recently in post #70. But you have ignored it and kept going on and on about wanting to inflict pain on people. I can't help it.

5) No regulation shall be initially proposed by any member of congress that has not served at least 5 years in the private sector version of the field. Regulations must then be agreed with by 2/3 of the members of the congress, and 2/3 of the votes for or against it.

Why is there a congress? I thought all issues were to be decided on by the population as a whole?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

all government records shall be freely available to the republic in electronic form.

Agree

The only exception is military records, which may only be kept secret as long as a civilian appointed board agrees that revealing them will threaten national security or the lives of the people, including members of the military.

No, "Appointed" is a flaw imo, randomly selected is much better and less subjected to influence peddling (appointing the people of your faction/allegiance/dogma/philosophy or that may more easily be swayed/bribed and that would be less likely to report abuses). In addition I would put a short limit, maximum 1 year, the military can use this as a starting parameter and plan accordingly (assuming you are in a warmongering society that still uses military to kill other people).

"No regulation shall be initially proposed by any member of congress that has not served at least 5 years in the private sector version of the field."

?
Good luck with avoiding conflicts of interest Fox in the henhouse syndrome.
Tar and Arsenic are good for ya, thats what the Cigarette industry experts say, and they have more than 5 years of experience in the private sector, what does that cancer researcher know about cigarettes anyway? Hey get a load of this, he doesnt even smoke! What does he know. and "he" worked in a hospital instead of a Tabbaco multinational Private Sector head offices. Herh, let the experts decide.

6) The granting of citizenship shall discriminate against a person based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, species, national origin, or any other category protected against government discrimination.

Please tell me its a typo (or that something was lost in the translation)

1) I meant the people, not the republic, but I'll change it later.
2) I was thinking of an election, but yes, I should limit terms to a few years at most, and the ability to keep most secrets to 1 year. I would limit military blueprints to a longer time period, say 10 years, so that any military tech that your enemy gets is outdated by a decade at least.
3) Sure, cigarette companies can prevent banning of certain "additives", but they also can't stop the medical industries from telling everyone how bad it is and getting the customers to "talk" them into removing it.
4) I thought I typed "shall not".

Originally Posted by Strange

5) No regulation shall be initially proposed by any member of congress that has not served at least 5 years in the private sector version of the field. Regulations must then be agreed with by 2/3 of the members of the congress, and 2/3 of the votes for or against it.

Why is there a congress? I thought all issues were to be decided on by the population as a whole?

You need someone to suggest the laws in the first place. If you let the people (who presumably have less of an understanding of the law) propose laws, the serious laws will be drowned out in a sea of stupid ones and ones that clearly violate the law. Just look up the petitions on the "whitehouse.gov" website for reference. Many of the proposed changes in laws are unconstitutional. Many of the other propositions are just stupid (ex. Make "Party in the USA" our National Anthem).

Strange, you have been ad hom - pure and simple.

Right off the bat, you said that you deplore Libertarianism. Then, you said you don't understand it.
From that point on, you've found every excuse and every twist to try to knock it and you're strongest method of doing so is by attacking the character of the person promoting it. You basically lured the guy into saying what you thought you could attack.

Saying that he has a sadistic desire to torture people is absurd.

You are not fooling any objective reader.

The distortion has been overwhelmingly from you, Strange, and your post count in this thread demonstrates your very strong feelings on the matter.


I disagree with the current "justice" system. I find it archaic, primitive, ineffective, expensive and it creates more harm than good. That doesn't mean that I think that someone who says, "It seems to work so far, do you have a better model?" somehow must have Sadistic desires, or support prison rape or any other character attack one can whip out to undermine the argument.
You should have proposed a better workable model, instead.

Icewendigo, you've been as bad. Strange just posted a lot more. Your Authoritarianism influenced how you responded- Heavily.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Strange, you have been ad hom - pure and simple.

Right off the bat, you said that you deplore Libertarianism. Then, you said you don't understand it.
From that point on, you've found every excuse and every twist to try to knock it and you're strongest method of doing so is by attacking the character of the person promoting it. You basically lured the guy into saying what you thought you could attack.

Saying that he has a sadistic desire to torture people is absurd.

You are not fooling any objective reader.

The distortion has been overwhelmingly from you, Strange, and your post count in this thread demonstrates your very strong feelings on the matter.


I disagree with the current "justice" system. I find it archaic, primitive, ineffective, expensive and it creates more harm than good. That doesn't mean that I think that someone who says, "It seems to work so far, do you have a better model?" somehow must have Sadistic desires, or support prison rape or any other character attack one can whip out to undermine the argument.
You should have proposed a better workable model, instead.

Icewendigo, you've been as bad. Strange just posted a lot more. Your Authoritarianism influenced how you responded- Heavily.

Thank you. I was beginning to thing no one was willing to look at things logically. I tried explaining that I'm simply trying to create a better system, but only got attacked for it.

It's why I posted it. After about 80 posts of it, anyone would get confused.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Strange, you have been ad hom - pure and simple.

I'm sorry you see it that way.

Right off the bat, you said that you deplore Libertarianism. Then, you said you don't understand it.

Actually, I said it the other way round, and that my "uninformed impression" was negative. If anything, it is less negative now than it was before (perhaps surprisingly). I always perceived it as a rather extreme right wing ideology. I can see that was probably a mistake.

From that point on, you've found every excuse and every twist to try to knock it and you're strongest method of doing so is by attacking the character of the person promoting it.

I don't think I have said anything to knock libertarianism; I still don't know enough, or have strong enough views to do so. The worst I think can be said about it at the moment (which, I think, is all I have said) is that it is a bit idealistic in that it seems to underestimate the inevitable conflicts of rights/freedoms that will occur. And that the choice of basic rights/freedoms to be enshrined in the constitution are basically arbitrary (unless you are religious). Even if the majority approve of them. (And I agree with most of the suggestions the OP has made - and I think I have said that).

The same "criticisms" could be made of most, if not all, political philosophies.

You basically lured the guy into saying what you thought you could attack.

I didn't "lure" him into expressing his views on punishing criminals; just asked him to clarify his initial statement.

Saying that he has a sadistic desire to torture people is absurd.

You want me to quote all the posts where he has said he wants to inflict pain on people?

I find his personal views on this morally repugnant and, dare I say it, evil. I try not to let that influence my views on libertarianism.

I disagree with the current "justice" system.

So do I.

That doesn't mean that I think that someone who says, "It seems to work so far, do you have a better model?" somehow must have Sadistic desires, or support prison rape or any other character attack one can whip out to undermine the argument.

Perhaps I have grossly misunderstood the OP's argument (and if I have, then I sincerely apologise) but my interpretation was that he was saying: "inflicting pain on people should work, do you have a better model?"

We all seem to agree that just incarcerating people is pointless, worse than ineffective, a waste of money (despite the fact it is done partly to avoid spending money) and perhaps cruel.

You should have proposed a better workable model, instead.

I am more interested in understanding TheUnknowable's views.

The most interesting questions, to me, are where rights come from, who says they are rights rather than privileges, etc.

I will not mention the whole pain thing again. It has become an unnecessary distraction. I should have avoided it the same way I avoided the death penalty issue.
A Knight's Tale (2001) - Quotes - IMDb

*slightly altered #5 to clarify that the second vote was by the people.

So far, the constitution is (corrected):
1) copy amendments from the US constitution and clarify:
1.1) Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right to assemble peaceably in a public place. (typed form memory)
I would specify that, while Atheism isn't an "establishment of religion", it is still protected under the law. (mostly by adding "or lack thereof" a couple of times). I would also keep them from exhibiting undue influence on the press.
1.2) A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (also typed from memory)
I would specify that ALL arms are protected under this, though they may require sensible (to 2/3 of the people) levels of training to license their possession. Who want's an RPG or V-2 rocket in the hands of every idiot in the country. WMDs would be restricted to paramilitary organizations of large size (kind of a militia). Also, WMDs are restricted to groups of 1000 or more members and they must have 10 authorized people for each WMD in their possession.
1.3) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I would also require consent of the owner in war time if they haven't freely abandoned it. Remarkably, this seems to be one of the few amendments in the first ten not yet seriously violated by the federal government.
1.4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would alter to ban "catch all" warrants (like after the Boston marathon) and things like the recent law which gives everyone's phone records to the feds.
1.5) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
first, remove the "times of war" clause.
second, make it so that the owner (or agreed upon third person mediator), not the government, decides what "just compensation" is.
1.6) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
no serious changes.
1.8) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Specify that, if you purposely and willfully committed the crime, what you did to your victim cannot be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" as you willfully inflicted it on someone against their will. It should, however, only be used, and to a minimal degree, when all other valid methods or rehabilitation have been reasonably tried and failed.
1.10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Put in safeguards to make sure this is actually followed, unlike in the present government. Also, we would likely have city-states instead of large areas of land under one "state" government.
Also add #7&9 as 1.7 and 1.9 without changes

2) No law shall be made which takes away the rights of the people unless it is to prevent the greater loss or right by another. All such laws must be ratified by a popular vote in which not less than two thirds of the people agree that it should be law, and that it does not unduly take away the rights of the people.
3) All taxes levied by the government shall be sales or luxury taxes which are voluntary, and the payment of these taxes shall afford the payer(s) certain privileges which are derived from the use of the money raised by the tax.
4) All government records shall be freely available to the people in electronic form. The only exception is military records, which may only be kept secret as long as a civilian appointed board agrees that revealing them will threaten national security or the lives of the people, including members of the military.
5) No regulation shall be initially proposed by any member of congress that has not served at least 5 years in the private sector version of the field or a similar, related field. Regulations must then be agreed with by 2/3 of the members of the congress, and 2/3 of the votes for or against it by a vote of the people.
6) The granting of citizenship shall not discriminate against a person based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, species, national origin, or any other category protected against government discrimination.

Re. (1.2): I would suggest rewording this to avoid the ambiguities that are present in the original. Make it the various clauses more explicit and separate: (a) the need for a militia to defend the country; and (b) the right of the public to bear arms (and explicitly say that this is to protect them from a government gone "rogue" if you think that is necessary).

I have other views on that clause but I will keep them to myself, given that my comments so far have come across as too negative.

(1.3) seems really odd. Is it really necessary? Was it a response to some historical event? (Those damned Brits camping out in citizens' houses?)

(1.5) Is it worth modifying the "double jeopardy" clause given that modern technology can find evidence that wasn't available at an initial trial. There are quite a few cases where it has been possible to find, say, DNA evidence against a murderer or rapist many years after the event. It would be a shame if they were allowed to remain free simply because the initial evidence was not compelling enough.

Shouldn't the "just compensation" simply be decided by a court (judge or jury)?

But how about something to limit the power of judges? For example, I gather that in the US a judge can effectively accuse, find guilty and sentence some for contempt of court, on the spot. It would seem fairer if they had to refer the person to another judge.

(1.10) What do you envision as the process for creating new "city states"? Would this also allow states to be split into smaller entities?

(3) It would be an interesting experiment to see how well voluntary taxes work.... I suspect not very, but would be delighted to be proved wrong. Have you done any work to see if sufficient funding for the government's needs can be raised from luxury taxes (assuming that they are paid)? I assume you are in favour of a smaller government anyway?

6) Species? Do non-human species have citizenship rights?

Rights that may be missing:

• What happened to freedom of expression? (Or have we not got there yet?)
• How about freedom of assembly?
• Right to a family life?
• Right to life?
• Freedom from slavery (an obvious omission from the original)?
• And another one I can't mention.

Originally Posted by Strange

I'm sorry you see it that way.

See, you're saying you're sorry- but not for your tactic or words. You're transferring the blame onto me. You are not sorry for you- you are sorry for ME.
I will express my own sorrow, thanks.

Originally Posted by Strange

I always perceived it as a rather extreme right wing ideology. I can see that was probably a mistake.

Far left, actually. It's one of those things- people often assume socialism is far left and capitalism far right... Freedom is associated with capital...
It's a four way scale.
Liberty is far left, but opposite socialism.

Originally Posted by Strange

I don't think I have said anything(snip)

What I addressed was where you nailed him with character attacks such as "desiring to torture" people.

Originally Posted by Strange

I didn't "lure" him into expressing his views on punishing criminals; just asked him to clarify his initial statement.

I would have to go up through at least ten posts and quote them in order to show what gave that strong impression. I do not think it was intentional- rather it was unconsciously done.
That is pure speculation on my part and I'll be more than happy to drop such speculations if you will drop your speculations as to his motives for his opinions on crime and punishment.

Originally Posted by Strange

You want me to quote all the posts where he has said he wants to inflict pain on people?

Feel free. Because I read his posts and NOT ONE said that he enjoys inflicting pain (sadistic desire) on people. Maybe if you go over the quotes- you will see his words and not your opinionated translation of them.

He's right. We're not divine. We're an evolved product and in nature- pain is the most effective way to ward off a problem aggressor. Ever see two animals sit down and talk it out? Oh, it happens, in its fashion... but not often. Pain is instant and effective- but in our screwed up and absurd society... it's ineffective for anything Long Term.
These are the facts. Yes, I just said them. Now go ahead and try to attack my character for pointing out the actuality of the Human Condition.

Originally Posted by Strange

Perhaps I have grossly misunderstood the OP's argument (and if I have, then I sincerely apologise) but my interpretation was that he was saying: "inflicting pain on people should work, do you have a better model?"

It isn't how I read it. Any of us could have misunderstood it. Maybe the Unknowable could provide a Brief Summary of his believed best approach to crime and punishment.

Originally Posted by Strange

We all seem to agree that just incarcerating people is pointless, worse than ineffective, a waste of money (despite the fact it is done partly to avoid spending money) and perhaps cruel.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Strange

The most interesting questions, to me, are where rights come from, who says they are rights rather than privileges, etc.

They are arbitrary. We decide them. They do not exist in nature. The only "right" in nature is "might makes right."
We choose 'rights' and then we write them up in a document, get "important" people to scribble their name on it and then we call it "law."
It's as substantial as will-o-th'-whisp, in reality.
But if the majority to choose to adhere to that document- support and uphold it, then we have a Constitution. It is a Belief.

Originally Posted by Strange

I will not mention the whole pain thing again. It has become an unnecessary distraction. I should have avoided it the same way I avoided the death penalty issue.

Passionate feelings on topics often lead to misunderstandings. believe me, I know this and you know I know this as you've read enough of my posts by now to see how often I commit the same crime.

Maybe someone just needs to slap my head.

1.2 I could clarify. I guess I'll do that in the next version.
1.3: The 3rd amendment was in place because the king liked to punish people he disagreed with by making them quarter troops and without compensating them. Not really nessecery, I suppose, and it is technically covered by #2.
1.5: interesting. I suppose you could have a grand jury review the new evidence and decide if it sigificantly alters things. This law does mean that the police will make sure they have a good chance of convicting the person before it goes to trial.
While a jury might work, I wouldn't want t judge deciding what is "fair" because it allows one person to make the decision, thus risking corruption.
Contempt of court is abused a bit. I would at least put in place an appeals procedure with another judge, though having to bring the person up on charges, then try them would work too.
1.10: New city-states would only need to have an area under their control/protection and have a constitution similar enough for the other city-states to accept it (say a simple majority of them). And spliting in to smaller entities would be up to the city-state, though I would like to have a simple majority of the city-states approve it. That would prevent one city (say NYC or Atlanta) from dividing itself into dozens of smaller cities in order to have more influence.
3: the idea was that, for example, you pay the tax for basic government functions, you get to vote, petition representatives, etc. Everyone would probably pay. You pay a road tax, you can get a license and drive on the public roads (as long as you follow the traffic laws). Anyone who doesn't pay has to either stick to private roads and property or ride public transportation.
I should add a section about tax changes having to pass a 2/3 vote of the people, to keep the government from increasing taxes whenever they want. Also, add in that they have to pay off all loans within 5 years of borrowing the money, and that they can't borrow more than the amount raised the previous year. That would help prevent runaway national debt like we have now.
6) Person will later be defined as any sentient being. I am trying to future-proof it against a time when we have aliens, transgenics (a mixture or two or more species), sentient androids, humans that have been so heavily genetically modified that they could be considered non-human, and any species we later learn is sentient but don't now see as sentient (say dolphins, who have a language, or whales).

Freedom of expression is covered in freedom of speech, isn't it?
Freedom of assembly is also covered in 1.1.
What does "right to a family life" mean? Some would consider it a government ban on non-traditional families, when, frankly, I don't care how many adult sentient beings are part of a "family", or what their "gender" is.
Right to life? That's an anti-abortion slogan in the US, and most Libertarians are for legalizing at least most abortions. Or do you mean "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
Freedom from the form of slavery used in the US (hereditary, where a person is property) is kind of implied, but I might specify it later. Indentured servitude of a sort (I get paid large amounts now and barely enough to live on later to do any legal activity you want me to do for the next 5 years up to 40 hours a week), I don't see as needing to be illegal. How does it violate your rights to let you sign a contract like that.
Have you mentioned it before? if not, I don't care. Freedom to hire a hooker? sure. Freedom to snort a line of coke off said hooker's ass? Why not?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You're transferring the blame onto me.

I'm sorry you see it that way.

I think the intention was: I'm sorry I used words that caused you to misunderstand my meaning. (Or something.) Does that work?

Yours is an interesting (and surprising) interpretation of the words. I will have to read my words and your response several more times to make sense of it...

It reminds me of people getting angry about an instruction manual that says something like, "pressing button A allows you to select ..." "What? How dare you? Of course I am allowed to! You cannot infringe my rights ... etc." So technical authors are told to write unnatural things like "pressing button A enables the selection of ..."

They are arbitrary. We decide them. They do not exist in nature.

That is what I was trying to get at. It would be interesting to know if TheUnknowable agrees.

The only "right" in nature is "might makes right."

I wouldn't call that a right, personally. Just the use (and potentially, abuse) of power. The the one with power decides what rights others will have (which may be a good thing or not).

Maybe the Unknowable could provide a Brief Summary of his believed best approach to crime and punishment.

I think that non-serious offences (say theft, breaking and entering, and the like) can be effectivly punished with fines. More serious crimes (say mugging and above) should require some form of rehabilitative action.
Inflicting pain on someone against their will is a last-ditch effort (at best) to rehabilitate them, and should only be used when all other viable methods of rehabilitation have failed.
If a criminal cannot be rehabilitated, they must at least be kept from hurting others again. For most crimes this would warrant imprisonment and possibly parole or added surveillance (say, ankle monitor). For the worst, this may mean death.

yes, I get that "rights" don't exist naturally. That's why I said we needed to choose the ones we thought were best. But whatever.

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Maybe the Unknowable could provide a Brief Summary of his believed best approach to crime and punishment.

I think that non-serious offences (say theft, breaking and entering, and the like) can be effectivly punished with fines. More serious crimes (say mugging and above) should require some form of rehabilitative action.
Inflicting pain on someone against their will is a last-ditch effort (at best) to rehabilitate them, and should only be used when all other viable methods of rehabilitation have failed.
If a criminal cannot be rehabilitated, they must at least be kept from hurting others again. For most crimes this would warrant imprisonment and possibly parole or added surveillance (say, ankle monitor). For the worst, this may mean death.

I'm not as nice as you are. I think rapists and murderers should just be killed. To heck with rehabilitation... Until we're able to really manipulate the human body, I don't see it doing much good.
The way I see it, man breaks into house, attempts to rape the damsel in distress; damsel whips out .38 special; blows him to smithereens- Problem solved. Rapist gone, damsel safe, society not burdened with long expenses of trials and prisons and food - everyone wins.



I don't agree with fines, either. It works for some, but for some, it creates so much hardship that it can really mess up a persons life.
In Singapore- they cane people. I hear it works really well.
You can be paying fines off for a long time- after a while, you don't remember what you're paying for- you're just struggling to keep up MORE payments on top of the car, insurance, house, bills...
But caning- you get it Done and Over with and after that- you won't do that again!
Now, I don't have a sadistic desire to cane people. But I do not give a hooting owl pellets rats back end about some petty criminal getting whipped. I really am not bothered by it in the least. I wouldn't be DOING the caning, now would I?
Remember that American kid that sprayed graffiti in Singapore and there was Public Outrage that they were going to cane him?

What they should have done for foreign relations is sent a cane back with him for his Probation Officer to keep by his desk.