Australian Election 2013

[Frank Merton]

I don't see this "Libertarian" business, either in the States or in Australia or anywhere else. It makes a fetish of freedom, something I think comes from the propaganda of liberty Americans are fed all their lives ("The land of the Free"). Freedom is a good thing to have, but there are other important things where freedom gets in the way, such as running a government and collecting taxes and controlling monopolies and persecuting thieves. I doubt there is any country on the planet that doesn't use taking away freedom as a deterrent of crime.

Once we concede, as, if we are rational, we must, that no freedom is without exceptions, cannot not we also recognize that a number of social and economic needs trump freedoms, such as the fact that we cannot be allowed the freedom to enslave others.

How is it to be decided when to limit freedom and when not to? All else being equal, should freedom always prevail -- should the state or the community or the family limit freedom only when there is an overarching need to do so -- a genuine need, not just a preference., or are there other values, such as fairness, prosperity, happiness, public health and safety, and so on, that are sometimes more important than freedom.

In short, I would argue that the standard objection to regulation, that it impinges on freedom, is insufficient. You also need to show that what the regulation does is not otherwise needed for an equally or even more worthy objective. So also the standard objection to anti-discrimination regulation, the standard objection to public policy trumping private contract, and many other areas.

[Arbenol]

I don't see this "Libertarian" business, either in the States or in Australia or anywhere else. It makes a fetish of freedom, something I think comes from the propaganda of liberty Americans are fed all their lives ("The land of the Free"). Freedom is a good thing to have, but there are other important things where freedom gets in the way, such as running a government and collecting taxes and controlling monopolies and persecuting thieves. I doubt there is any country on the planet that doesn't use taking away freedom as a deterrent of crime.

Once we concede, as, if we are rational, we must, that no freedom is without exceptions, cannot not we also recognize that a number of social and economic needs trump freedoms, such as the fact that we cannot be allowed the freedom to enslave others.

How is it to be decided when to limit freedom and when not to? All else being equal, should freedom always prevail -- should the state or the community or the family limit freedom only when there is an overarching need to do so -- a genuine need, not just a preference., or are there other values, such as fairness, prosperity, happiness, public health and safety, and so on, that are sometimes more important than freedom.

In short, I would argue that the standard objection to regulation, that it impinges on freedom, is insufficient. You also need to show that what the regulation does is not otherwise needed for an equally or even more worthy objective. So also the standard objection to anti-discrimination regulation, the standard objection to public policy trumping private contract, and many other areas.

From what I can understand from the members here, Libertarianism seems to be about valuing the wishes of the individual over the needs of the society. Sounds rather psychopathic to me.

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, I see he's making great strides already establishing his image as a modern and forward-looking Leader. -->

• Is This The Most Sexist Cabinet Ever?
  

Oh, sorry, sexist. I thought it said sexiest.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So he's appointed a bully to be the speaker and another bully to be Foreign Minister (case in point - "we have our plans and we don't need Indonesia's approval for them" yes you bloody well do if it involves towing boats back to Indonesia or bribing Indonesian citizens to report people smugglers!).

[Professor Buzzkill]

From what I can understand from the members here, Libertarianism seems to be about valuing the wishes of the individual over the needs of the society. Sounds rather psychopathic to me.

The greatest democracies protect the individual against the majority.

If you dont want to watch the video, the main points are:

1) Majority belief in something does not necessarily mean that it's true.

2) Majorities are capable of being just as tyrannical as kings

3) Historically, democracies have elected tyrannical leaders.

[Arbenol]

1) Majority belief in something does not necessarily mean that it's true.

2) Majorities are capable of being just as tyrannical as kings

3) Historically, democracies have elected tyrannical leaders.

Wouldn't argue with any of that.

My problem with libertarianism (and maybe this is more the American version) is it's 'every man for himself' attitude. If you can't keep up you're left behind.

Individualism should not trump the needs of society - a balance needs to be struck. Unconditional freedom is anarchy - and it would take a nation of exceptional individuals to make that work.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Wouldn't argue with any of that.

My problem with libertarianism (and maybe this is more the American version) is it's 'every man for himself' attitude. If you can't keep up you're left behind.

Individualism should not trump the needs of society - a balance needs to be struck. Unconditional freedom is anarchy - and it would take a nation of exceptional individuals to make that work.

Well, i would argue that we should be striving to have a nation of exceptional individuals, but i can't argue with your point.