www.ditl.org

Personaly, I don't think the death sentance is necassary. All it is is a quick way out for particularly evil people. It would be a far greater punishment to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives.

Depends if you're a religious individual or not. the terror of knowing you're going to die soon, is much harsher imo then knowing you'll live out the rest of your lives, dry, with 3 meals a day, and even TV if you're good. =/



the problem with capital punishment, isn't in the punishment itself, it's with our flawed justice system.

Innocent people are constantly locked up.



I now see where teaos is coming from, I just disagree that we're all that different from being libertarian.

which is seperate from anarchy, in that anarchy is utter chaos without rules or order. libertarianism is like.. freedom without infringing on the freedom of others, I think.

Which is alot like we have now, and echoing a previous post, we have that for the most part. the things that are restricted to us, are pretty uh.. well... done for a reason. regarding drugs, minus marijuana, drugs are deadly to people and often cause psychotic illnesses, I know I've been through that road(my ex step dad was a cocaine addict, nearly killed my mom and used to beat me when I was younger personal, i know.. but it's out there).


The only thing Teaos is I think you don't see it from a outside perspective, or a non biased one. you say..

There are many many things you cant do for no good reason apart from it annoys someone who has no right to dictact the way you live your life.

And you have no right to dictate theirs either, you have no right to force that upon them, which is why they restrict it.


as the tau say.. for the greater good.

Other then that I do see Teaos's point.

libertarianism is like.. freedom without infringing on the freedom of others, I think.

Thats pretty much the best way to sum it up with out going on for several pages

And you have no right to dictate theirs either, you have no right to force that upon them, which is why they restrict it.

But thats the thing I dont want to dictate anything. I want people, everyone, to have the personal freedom to do what ever they like with their own body and property so long as it doesnt infringe apon the fundamnetal rights of someone else.

As an example I'll take the people who want porn totally censored and banned.

They say that by it existing it is infringing on their rights to have it not exist. But by banning it you infring apon others rights to see it if they wish. So the only logical step is for the people who dont like it to not look at it while leaving the people who do like it to do as they wish.

One of the best quotes in the world is from a porn king "If you dont like it dont read it"

Me reading porn does not hurt anyone, me owning a gun does not hurt anyone, me owning a book that other may not like is not hurting anyone.

But rape/murder/violence, they do infringe apon other rights unless the person I murder gives me the ok to do it.

Like Azrael said, A man is the ultimate decider apon what he does with his own body and property and no one can should take those rights away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

That is an ok run down of it but like all of Wiki its not perfect.

Teaos wrote:
Thats pretty much the best way to sum it up with out going on for several pages

k good.

But thats the thing I dont want to dictate anything. I want people, everyone, to have the personal freedom to do what ever they like with their own body and property so long as it doesnt infringe apon the fundamnetal rights of someone else.

Okay, I see where you're coming from here, but the fundamental flaw with that is.. some of the things you do to your own body, or with your own property effect others.

I'll use the example me and my brother get all the time; we're both audiophiles, and we like loud bass, and we often get complaints, and even have had the cops called on us, for playing it too loud, before when I was younger and in a rebellious phase I thought this was BS, until I lived in an apartment complex...

Just because i like my music loud, doesn't give me the right to interupt those around me; because they also have the right to silence if they want it.

As an example I'll take the people who want porn totally censored and banned.

They say that by it existing it is infringing on their rights to have it not exist. But by banning it you infring apon others rights to see it if they wish. So the only logical step is for the people who dont like it to not look at it while leaving the people who do like it to do as they wish.

One of the best quotes in the world is from a porn king "If you dont like it dont read it"

Me reading porn does not hurt anyone

Now this I am ENTIRELY IN AGREEMENT; As long as it's consenting adults.. they should be allowed to do whatever they want in this regard. not much to say about that, you said it pretty well, i'm all for the freedom of speech, obscene or not.

me owning a gun does not hurt anyone, me owning a book that other may not like is not hurting anyone.

As for the gun part, that may be true, but the person next door may harm someone, they can't base the rule or law, on only one individual. this is where the greater good come in, in the united states you can own almost any gun out there, except military weaponry which only design is to kill other people in warfare, take down tanks, peirce armor.. that sort of thing.. so we're pretty goddamn lenient on that respect.

As for the books? I'm not aware of a book that's banned here in the USA, I know i've read the satanic bible, and the necronomicon, including a art book by the same name of the latter which is utterly disturbing. I've read and own Mein Kampf, and the anarchist cookbook.

But rape/murder/violence, they do infringe apon other rights unless the person I murder gives me the ok to do it.

Now the thing here is.. the person that gives you the okay to MURDER them(we're not referring to human euthnization ?)(spelling)

Are typically not in their right mind, like say someone is ultra depressed and suicidal.. and they want you to kill them say for religious reasons they view suicide is bad. It's not so black in white for this point.

Like Azrael said, A man is the ultimate decider apon what he does with his own body and property and no one can should take those rights away.

Well while that's not a direct quote, I agree about 85 percent. I just think many things are not so black and white, there are many shades of grey.

Oh I agree that there is a grey area in there but...

This is just my personal belief.

I am willing to give up some of my personal comfort such as having silence and being exposed to things which make me uncomfortable (sock puppets for example) to protect the natural rights of freedom.

Teaos, you just don't understand.
Have you ever heard the saying that it is worse for one innocent man to go to prison, than ten guilty ones to walk free.
Welfare must be given to avoid the suffering of one, even if it is for the (non required) benefit of ten.

Teaos, you just don't understand.
Have you ever heard the saying that it is worse for one innocent man to go to prison, than ten guilty ones to walk free.
Welfare must be given to avoid the suffering of one, even if it is for the (non required) benefit of ten.

That statement is neither right nor wrong. It is honorable to think like that and many people myself included do try to help those out who need it. The issue I have is with forcing someone to help against their will.

Welfare can and will always be given. It is the manner in which it is given that is the problem.

Teaos wrote:
Welfare can and will always be given. It is the manner in which it is given that is the problem.

I don't claim it to be wonderful, but it is required and should be given. Yes, it should be better, but I don't know how you could pick and choose those who really need it. If you've got an idea, you should submit it to your government.

Teaos wrote:(sock puppets for example)

Hi-larious.

As I said earlier, I agree with Teaos' take on libertarianism, but for the fact that I think it's impossible to translate perfectly from theory to practice. However, the grey area is broader than you think.

I am of the same opinion as you expressed - that is, don't watch it/do it/use it if you don't like it, but leave my ability to watch it/do it/use it alone. However, some people who are anti any particular issue are so because of a religious tenet - which tenet also includes removing that issue from society or convincing others of the rightness of that belief.

In other words, by telling a pro-lifer that they can do as they want but don't try to impose their beliefs on others, you are actually violating that pro-lifer's belief system. Whihc is more important - person A's freedom to do as he will without harassment, or person B's freedom to worship as he will? I know what Teaos' quick answer will be, but it's not that simple. Unless your brand of libertarianism includes a state-mandated religion, and then your going down a really problematical path.

In other words, by telling a pro-lifer that they can do as they want but don't try to impose their beliefs on others, you are actually violating that pro-lifer's belief system.

Exactly; I always get fed up whenever people say that someone's 'imposing their belief system' on them...after all, isn't all criminal law simply an 'imposition' of society's beliefs over that of the criminal? In my view, at least, the question is not, would putting this into effect by an imposition, but, is this issue important enough to impose it on others. Some issues are generally accepted as important enough to warrant this (such as issues of hate crimes, murders, etc), whereas others are still in dispute. But to simply dismiss all moral judgement as an 'imposition' is just plain crazy.

Thank you. Now, let me be clear: I don't agree with a pro-life stance - which issue I am only using by way of example - and I don't agree with proselytizing. But I'd be an amazing hypocrite if I were to tell someone else that they can't hold their own beliefs... which beliefs may very well include proselytizing.

Wow, we're off topic? How'd this happen? Oh, right, DITL.

Would we consider Picard's initial response to the Borg when he was kidnapped a mistake? Should they have fled hoping to draw the Borg on a chase til the fleet came together? Obviously they tried it, but why meet them face to face at all?

Oh I definatly see your point when it comes to religion. But there is no way to avoid pissing religious people off when it comes to free will. Which I find ironic since gods greatest gift to man was free will. Which they state every time you ask why God doesnt help out more than he does. Yet they take that very right away from you at every opertunity.

Frankly I say tuff shit. Personal freedom trumps there screwed up beliefs. If they dont like it they can form their own little communities and can have fun talking about how I am going to hell.

Teaos wrote:If they dont like it they can form their own little communities and can have fun talking about how I am going to hell.

I'll see you there.

All you need to know about the religious can be gained by watching them leave church/temple/etc. That's when they get angry at each other and even yell and flip the bird. 10 minutes after praying and wishing each other peace... you get this. Nuff said.