Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I thought you already retracted the claim that "more laws = less freedom"?

Any law restricts your personal freedom. Some laws, though, are needed because others may try to take away your personal freedom.

Since laws restrict your freedom, laws should then be passed with great trepidation, assuming you care about freedom.

For exmaple, why should I be required to buy health care? How am is that protecting anyones freedom? It's not.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The laws allowing asset forfeiture and seizure by the Feds without conviction of a crime (first enacted in 1982) should be repealed. Unfortunately laws of this type are and have been common in the States since the beginning of the Republic. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/516/442/case.html

You have misstated what the law does (if people ca ...[text shortened]... s.

Your "throw some crap on the wall and hope some of it sticks" strategy is a bit tiresome.

Please.

The IRS is notorious for ruining the lives of perfectly innocent citizens, or do you deny this as well?

The sad fact is, there are no checks and balances any longer. Now we have a Congerss suing a sitting president? We all know that won't stick, but the fact is it is evidence of a broken system.

Originally posted by whodey
Any law restricts your personal freedom. Some laws, though, are needed because others may try to take away your personal freedom.

Since laws restrict your freedom, laws should then be passed with great trepidation, assuming you care about freedom.

For exmaple, why should I be required to buy health care? How am is that protecting anyones freedom? It's not.

I disagree with your position that an anarchist society is the most "free."

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I disagree with your position that an anarchist society is the most "free."

Anarchy never lasts long.

Eventually people unite to extend their power and authority over others rather than relying on their own individual power to control and manipulate others. After all, even though Obama has attacked countries like Libya, could you see him taking on Gaddafi by himself? LOL.

Having said all that, collectivism is human nature.

Originally posted by sh76
How do you protect and encourage the incentive to innovate, invent and grow businesses at personal financial risk without protecting intellectual property and the ability to run a business and make large profits?

one can make huge profits even if the government sets some boundaries so that the practices don't become too predatorial.


microsoft still makes huge profits even after being prevented of becoming a monopoly.


if you do not protect small business (by not allowing pure cutthroat free market), how can THEY innovate? true inovation often comes from a company without a product trying to revolutionize. big companies don't have much incentive to innovate when they can simply improve their existing product by 1% and market it to the consumer( eg Iphone X)

if pure free market laws were not broken for AIG, the world economy might have collapsed.

Originally posted by whodey
Any law restricts your personal freedom. Some laws, though, are needed because others may try to take away your personal freedom.

Since laws restrict your freedom, laws should then be passed with great trepidation, assuming you care about freedom.

For exmaple, why should I be required to buy health care? How am is that protecting anyones freedom? It's not.

"For exmaple, why should I be required to buy health care?"

because when/if you get sick and have no money, we as a society have decided it is unacceptable to simply watch you die.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
we as a society ,....

Which 'we' is that?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Which 'we' is that?

humans

if you have a job in a human community, if you drive your car on a road made by humans, if you enjoy government regulated fuel, if you didn't get to enjoy anarchy because the US government bailed out the asholes who caused the latest economic crysis, you live in a society and you must adhere to "we"

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I disagree with your position that an anarchist society is the most "free."

A society based on the principles of Proudhon and Bakunin would be extremely free as human beings would not be placed in a hierarchical society. Of course, that is true anarchy not the distorted version of anarchy whodey and you are referring to.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
humans

if you have a job in a human community, if you drive your car on a road made by humans, if you enjoy government regulated fuel, if you didn't get to enjoy anarchy because the US government bailed out the asholes who caused the latest economic crysis, you live in a society and you must adhere to "we"

We're talking libertarianism; you're talking democratic statism.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A society based on the principles of Proudhon and Bakunin would be extremely free as human beings would not be placed in a hierarchical society. Of course, that is true anarchy not the distorted version of anarchy whodey and you are referring to.

Only KN is trying to equate libertarianism to anarchy. To folks of that ilk total control by some government is opposed only by no government control.

Individual liberty is a foreign concept they don't wish to consider.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I disagree with your position that an anarchist society is the most "free."

He never said that.

Originally posted by normbenign
We're talking libertarianism; you're talking democratic statism.

obviously, i don't agree with libertarianism. so why should i argue its merits.



no good society is or can be one thing.
even what is good now for a society can change in the future.

normal people [should] view systems critically and see what parts are good and what parts are not, what parts can be fitted together and when rules must be bent so that society thrives.

there is no greater example for this than the bailout for AIG. in a laissez-faire economy, AIG should have been left to bleed out and die in horrible agony. the world economy would have collapsed, but hey, tough cookie, right?

Originally posted by normbenign
We're talking libertarianism; you're talking democratic statism.

another answer to this is "read the damn post i was replying to and understand i wasn't talking about either system".

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
obviously, i don't agree with libertarianism. so why should i argue its merits.



no good society is or can be one thing.
even what is good now for a society can change in the future.

normal people [should] view systems critically and see what parts are good and what parts are not, what parts can be fitted together and when rules must be bent so ...[text shortened]... nd die in horrible agony. the world economy would have collapsed, but hey, tough cookie, right?

The firms that were bankrupt should have went through bankruptcy. Taxpayers should not have had to bail out poor investment and lending decisions made by the uber rich. If that would have collapsed the world economy so be it; it is based on sand anyway and the can will only be kicked down the road so far.