You will like this:
Great! Even leftist europeans can move towards freedom from its leftmost ‘border’.
this is cool but they constantly say that what drug users need is help and not punishment… I have a feeling Portugal is going to create government programs to ‘help those drugs users’
If even Libertarians don’t understand that these sort of deregulations have nothing to do with individual freedom, then there really is no hope for freedom.
If even Libertarians don’t understand that these sort of deregulations have nothing to do with individual freedom, then there really is no hope for freedom.
Why you think so?
Allowing the cattle on the farm more room and time to play because it is thought to be more productive does not make them any more free.
The principle that it is not up to the individual to choose what is allowed and how much of it is basically not in dispute here.
IF this is freedom to you, then thank you very much, but I’ll pass!
Cato did a pretty good study on Portugal a few years ago.
This is the problem with the libertarian movement. All too busy begging for handouts from the State. Let me smoke a joint at least when I’m sick. Let me keep another 1% of my money.
How much fu#$N time and resources can you people spend on begging the State to let you smoke a little joint? What a waste of time and money. This is no way to fight for freedom. It is cowardly and shameful. Libertarians deserve to remain slaves.
Exactly why I used to be against the legalization of drugs. I didn’t care if people did them, but I sure as hell didn’t want to pay for it. I don’t remember how to convince people that drugs should be legal anymore. It took a long time to convince me, but now it’s just like common sense and I have no idea what to say to people who are skeptical.
Allowing the cattle on the farm more room and time to play because it is thought to be more productive does not make them any more free.
The principle that it is not up to the individual to choose what is allowed and how much of it is basically not in dispute here.
IF this is freedom to you, then thank you very much, but I’ll pass!
I partially agree, but the motivation behind the move is of secondary importance. Does it really matter whether that nazi officer spared you because he found the last grain of humanity in himself or because they need you to falsify ponds? You are alive, and that does not matter?
If being dead and being alive to please your guardian is the same to you, than we don’t agree here. Modern Switzerland is not the same as medieval Turkey. The ‘why’ is secondary.
I partially agree, but the motivation behind the move is of secondary importance. Does it really matter whether that nazi officer spared you because he found the last grain of humanity in himself or because they need you to falsify ponds? You are alive, and that does not matter?
If being dead and being alive to please your guardian is the same to you, than we don’t agree here. Modern Switzerland is not the same as medieval turkey. The ‘why’ is secondary.
PS: plus, in anarchy too we’ll have ‘ranches’. People will not become more intelligent or entrepreneurial under anarchy. The folks at Kowloon walled city certainly where no ‘better’ than other Hong Kongers. Even in anarchy they’ll still need ‘leaders’, authority figures who’ll ‘farm’ people.
The modern catholic church would be a case in point: not exercising coercion anymore, still wielding enormous power. But does this means that anarchy would only be anarchy if everyone was Henry Ford reincarnated?
This I find to be a general problem with Molieneux’s otherwise fine arguments: he sees no difference between physical aggression and ‘moral’ aggression. The thing is that physical aggression can plausibly be minimised, but ‘moral’ aggression would require the birth of a new ‘libertarian man’ to be eliminated. So, what does this leave us with? Are we any better than communists if we say that our system cannot work with the current human scum, but will need some moral superman to even be plausible? This is not the system I have in mind.
Interesting, that’s pretty much the situation in the UK I think, vis a vis alcohol. Teenagers and alcoholics drink stupid amounts I suspect, with full knowledge of the fact their healthcare will be subsidised.
False analogy.
To be free is something that is completely different from just being alive. A man that chooses death over bondage has died a free man. Do you see your error?
I am not against being alive and I am not against the State allowing you to smoke your joint. I am troubled by the idea, that most libertarians and people here hold, that allowing you to smoke has somehow made you more free. It has not.
I am troubled by the idea, that most libertarians and people here hold, that allowing you to smoke has somehow made you more free. It has not.
You will no longer be coercively kept from doing something you like and harm no one. You are freer, as in subjected to less coercion, ceteris paribus.
Otherwise, if we agree that the modern state allows for quite some liberties as opposed to the ancient state, would you say that we are today no freer than the ancient Egyptians where? Has liberty gone nowhere in between? And if it did, was this advancement procured solely by folks being no longer willing to take the coercion that our grandparents where subjected to?
I know what life in a communist state meant, and I can say that the resolve of the people (weak today as it was in 1945) is not what brought us the liberties we have today.