Not Yours to Give

[kandrathe]

I think you're exaggerating.

I might be allowing my passion to show.

... then all is lost, always has been lost, and probably always will be lost. Maybe you might consider moderating this, and other, positions a touch. There could very well be something important to your libertarianism; if so, I'm pretty sure it isn't helpfully served by generalizations that are both ahistorical and excessive.

I could have been clearer. I am not against laws. We need a framework of agreed upon laws in which we can guarantee freedoms, such as copyright protections, or trespass laws. We need those laws which protect citizens and their property. What I am opposed to are the laws which generally usurp freedom for the benefit of some. Again I reach for Bastiat, "Either fraternity is spontaneous, or it does not exist. To decree it is to annihilate it. The law can indeed force men to remain just; in vain would it would try to force them to be self-sacrificing."—from Journal des Economistes

The premise of this thread is that we are in a place in our societies where the government is boiling the frog one degree at a time (no pun intended on Bastiat). We have over time assented to our governments removing a sizable chunk of our incomes to enforce our benevolence. I have also offered some other examples of where "the government knows best" how we should live our lives and criminalizes what it deems to be wrong behavior. It might be considered mean spirited or rude to not allow a suffering person access to your restroom, but is it criminal?

Would it be wrong for an establishment to be all smoking? I don't smoke, and in fact I hate it. If there was an establishment that was all smoking I would not go into it. But this is freedom. Freedom for me and the owner of the establishment. I abhor the alcohol industry as well, but I believe Occhi has a right to enjoy his libations. He has the choice, not me, or the government.

My concern and question still remains, whatever happened to the French and American revolutionary understanding of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" or "with Liberty and Justice for all"?

Thank you for the nod of allowing that there might be a shred of value in my exhortations; Libertarian, yes I guess, but I am further an avid Jeffersonian. I'd offer one sentiment of his;

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. Thomas Jefferson -- First Inaugural Address

You might share Swiss' POV that after 200 years changes are needed. But, what I see are mostly are erosions. The principles of liberty, equality, justice and freedom are slowly being sacrificed on the alter of social welfare. We might need new laws to regulate planes, trains and automobiles, but poverty is not new. Don't get me wrong! I'm not advocating poverty, and quite the opposite I desire everyone to be productive and successful. I've been poor and it is miserable, so I opted instead for a life of hard work and moderate success. There will always be those unfortunate persons who are unable to cope due to accident or birth defect who having no living relatives would become wards of the State. Yes, we should pay taxes to insure their lives are moderately comfortable. That is a population many factors smaller than what is being shouldered now.