RonPaulalways
03-01-2008, 02:46 AM
So I had a debate with my sister on google chat about libertarianism, I thought it would be good to share it, since I think my sister's is a view often held by those who vote for leftist policies.
Sister: i was just reading this:
2:34 PM http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=57228
2:35 PM me: what's this?
Sister: the us and canadian military have signed a deal to unify them in many ways
without the approval of congress
me: does it concern you?
2:36 PM Sister: yes because these are steps tpwards a totalitarian militaristic governance of two nations under one body and less democratic as a result
it is not a type ofworld I want my child to grow up in, or any child
2:37 PM me: I see
yeah the west is decaying into tyranny
me: taxation is the ultimate form of tyranny
freedom is where taxes and regulations are low
2:38 PM Sister: yeah but it is not all or nothing
me: of course it's not, but the west is seriously deluded politically
2:39 PM Sister: freedom of speech is one thing and freedom to destroy the environment and let stronger bodies dominate everything from the production of knowledge to the production of goods
is another
me: as long as domination does not come from coercion, it is legitimate
2:40 PM it is not really domination if it comes from legimitate business practices
Sister: imposing your will upon others is not done forcefully through physical violence alone
me: yes it is
Sister: it comes from trickery and deceit
me: that is a form of physical domination
at its core, fraud is a form of coercion
2:41 PM Sister: which are harmful and unjust except that people don't see it as force because they don't see the lie and do not have the knowledge to be critical of what is fed to them
for example energy companies and cigarette companies
me: the proposed antidote to the perceived domination of powerful interests over the masses is more regulation and taxes, which only furthers the domination that those interests yield, or shifts the domination from one political faction to another, the only solution is equal justice for all and low regulations and taxes
Sister: oil companies for destroying the environment
2:42 PM me: I disagree with your positions, I believe they are wrong
2:43 PM Sister: i don't think any wild and crazy capitalist who wants to make a buck and at the same time destroy the environment and use and abuse people shouild be given the reins in the pursuit to give everyone the freedom to do whatever shit they want
me: destroying the environment is illegal is a just society
but the solution is not more regulations and government control, it is criminal law disallowing the emission of toxic materials into the air
Sister: deregulation means letting companies do what they want
2:44 PM me: no it isn't, deregulations means removing the principle of prior restraint
Sister: restraint to do what?
me: in a deregulated environment, there are still laws against coercion, fraud, theft and violence, but 'prior 'restraint' is removed
prior restraint means that a person is not allowed to do something before getting approval from some government body
2:45 PM as the years have gone by, the west has more and more resorted to prior restraint
prior restraint is a principle that existed for speech before, in that certain publishers were not allowed to publish without prior approval
it was eventually rejected as a tyrannical, but this same principle now applies to non-speech activities
2:46 PM it is tyrannical
Sister: freedom of speech has to do with the publishing and I am all for freedom of speech but for example if a company want to sell a product that is harmful to children, should we allow them to just create it? Should not a government body not give them the approval to destroy the health of children?
2:47 PM me: no, parents should decide what products to buy
there should be no prior restraint
if they lie and sell a product that has a toxic chemical in it, the owners of the corporation should face criminal proceedings
2:48 PM Sister: parents are like kids themselves. if companies that have power over the production of knowledge, for example a formula company hires a medical doctor to do research showing tha formulais better for babies than breast milk. they go ahead and publish tis fake data and make people buy formula . that has serious negative consequences including most importantly the health of newborns
2:49 PM since it has been proven that brast milk is better
me: then we will live under tyranny
we have to treat adults as free individuals responsible for themselves, or we have to live under tyranny
2:50 PM as soon you treat adults as children, then the government has a right to control the population
Sister: adults were once children and if a child is never given the tools to make responsible choices then they are as good as children
me: this is the justification used by those who want to control people
2:51 PM coercion is always justified with this argument
Sister: the way you govern a society is not controlling people
me: prior restraint is controlling people
Sister: you can say everything is control
me: it makes it impossible for small companies to compete against big ones
control is coercion
prior restraint is control
2:52 PM it is backed by the threat of prison sentences/fines
Sister: no, it has nothing to do with company size
me: it does
those in the business world will tell you that small companies cannot compete with big ones when there are regulations
big companies have the armies of lawyers and accountants, not to mention political connections, to navigate a regulated business environment. Small companies don't
2:54 PM Sister: if a body wants to create a product that is going to mess up the environment and destroy the ecosystem and give us cancer, some smart person should tell the dumb person next door that this is poison. ah, just let people be, let the decrepid life of that child tha turned into another decrepid existence of an adult turn another little innocent baby into a serial killer, a rapist, a sad suicidal person, etc. because the crazy parents had the right to do it. i don't think so.
2:55 PM me: if someone creates a product that has a toxin in it, they should go to jail
the fear of prison should deter people from doing that
not prior restraint
2:56 PM Sister: we create our society. we discuss through logic what is good collectively and what is not, because likeit or not, we are social beigns and we live in groups and societies and cultures and we have patterns in our behavior and we have to duscuss and agree as to how certain aspects of our lives shouldbe run. that is not control. that is knowledge, it is knowing that when you want to make a product, its science is not only comprised of making the bottom line, it is about the responsibility we have as individuals who belong to a civil society to work together to make thigns work smoothly and peacefully for all creatures of the world
2:57 PM me: control is prior restraint
Sister: I never told people that they have to breastfeed but i give them the knowledge without fear od taboo or fear of government
2:58 PM if the corporations who have money pay politicians, which we see they do, thn giving themthe 'freedom' to destroy the environment and give false info to the people is not really freedomn
me: I reject prior restraint, which is increasing in the west
2:59 PM corporations should have no control over politicians, the best way to ensure that is to remove regulations and let objective courts and law enforcement deal with infractions of the law
the focus should be to make the law and impartial as possible, and as apolitical as possible
Sister: you seem to have no logical reasons as to why you repeat what you are repeating and nothing against the points I have made
me: the more politicians and regulations get involved, the more biased and compromised the law will be
the courts are the best place to create objective justice
that does not favor the powerful
3:00 PM prior restraint will always be rejected by courts..
Sister: the law is always biased and subjective and alot of it is based on out morals and culture so we cannot , in the name impartiality, let people create things that are harmful to the environment
it should not called prior restraint
me: I never said we should let people create things that are harmful, we should deter them with criminal proceedings
3:01 PM prior restraint means forcing people to get approval before being allowed to do some activity. Prior restraint is wrong and harmful./
and it has destroyed the west's economy
it has destroyed the ability of people to make a life for themselves
3:02 PM Sister: that is not a an inclusive term for a process of approval that is much deeper than restraint or the right of an individual, it is about taking care of our young, weak, sick, and the environment, the earth and all its creatures
me: prior restraint is exactly what I described
Sister: ok, we will leave it at that. intersting conversation
Sister: i was just reading this:
2:34 PM http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=57228
2:35 PM me: what's this?
Sister: the us and canadian military have signed a deal to unify them in many ways
without the approval of congress
me: does it concern you?
2:36 PM Sister: yes because these are steps tpwards a totalitarian militaristic governance of two nations under one body and less democratic as a result
it is not a type ofworld I want my child to grow up in, or any child
2:37 PM me: I see
yeah the west is decaying into tyranny
me: taxation is the ultimate form of tyranny
freedom is where taxes and regulations are low
2:38 PM Sister: yeah but it is not all or nothing
me: of course it's not, but the west is seriously deluded politically
2:39 PM Sister: freedom of speech is one thing and freedom to destroy the environment and let stronger bodies dominate everything from the production of knowledge to the production of goods
is another
me: as long as domination does not come from coercion, it is legitimate
2:40 PM it is not really domination if it comes from legimitate business practices
Sister: imposing your will upon others is not done forcefully through physical violence alone
me: yes it is
Sister: it comes from trickery and deceit
me: that is a form of physical domination
at its core, fraud is a form of coercion
2:41 PM Sister: which are harmful and unjust except that people don't see it as force because they don't see the lie and do not have the knowledge to be critical of what is fed to them
for example energy companies and cigarette companies
me: the proposed antidote to the perceived domination of powerful interests over the masses is more regulation and taxes, which only furthers the domination that those interests yield, or shifts the domination from one political faction to another, the only solution is equal justice for all and low regulations and taxes
Sister: oil companies for destroying the environment
2:42 PM me: I disagree with your positions, I believe they are wrong
2:43 PM Sister: i don't think any wild and crazy capitalist who wants to make a buck and at the same time destroy the environment and use and abuse people shouild be given the reins in the pursuit to give everyone the freedom to do whatever shit they want
me: destroying the environment is illegal is a just society
but the solution is not more regulations and government control, it is criminal law disallowing the emission of toxic materials into the air
Sister: deregulation means letting companies do what they want
2:44 PM me: no it isn't, deregulations means removing the principle of prior restraint
Sister: restraint to do what?
me: in a deregulated environment, there are still laws against coercion, fraud, theft and violence, but 'prior 'restraint' is removed
prior restraint means that a person is not allowed to do something before getting approval from some government body
2:45 PM as the years have gone by, the west has more and more resorted to prior restraint
prior restraint is a principle that existed for speech before, in that certain publishers were not allowed to publish without prior approval
it was eventually rejected as a tyrannical, but this same principle now applies to non-speech activities
2:46 PM it is tyrannical
Sister: freedom of speech has to do with the publishing and I am all for freedom of speech but for example if a company want to sell a product that is harmful to children, should we allow them to just create it? Should not a government body not give them the approval to destroy the health of children?
2:47 PM me: no, parents should decide what products to buy
there should be no prior restraint
if they lie and sell a product that has a toxic chemical in it, the owners of the corporation should face criminal proceedings
2:48 PM Sister: parents are like kids themselves. if companies that have power over the production of knowledge, for example a formula company hires a medical doctor to do research showing tha formulais better for babies than breast milk. they go ahead and publish tis fake data and make people buy formula . that has serious negative consequences including most importantly the health of newborns
2:49 PM since it has been proven that brast milk is better
me: then we will live under tyranny
we have to treat adults as free individuals responsible for themselves, or we have to live under tyranny
2:50 PM as soon you treat adults as children, then the government has a right to control the population
Sister: adults were once children and if a child is never given the tools to make responsible choices then they are as good as children
me: this is the justification used by those who want to control people
2:51 PM coercion is always justified with this argument
Sister: the way you govern a society is not controlling people
me: prior restraint is controlling people
Sister: you can say everything is control
me: it makes it impossible for small companies to compete against big ones
control is coercion
prior restraint is control
2:52 PM it is backed by the threat of prison sentences/fines
Sister: no, it has nothing to do with company size
me: it does
those in the business world will tell you that small companies cannot compete with big ones when there are regulations
big companies have the armies of lawyers and accountants, not to mention political connections, to navigate a regulated business environment. Small companies don't
2:54 PM Sister: if a body wants to create a product that is going to mess up the environment and destroy the ecosystem and give us cancer, some smart person should tell the dumb person next door that this is poison. ah, just let people be, let the decrepid life of that child tha turned into another decrepid existence of an adult turn another little innocent baby into a serial killer, a rapist, a sad suicidal person, etc. because the crazy parents had the right to do it. i don't think so.
2:55 PM me: if someone creates a product that has a toxin in it, they should go to jail
the fear of prison should deter people from doing that
not prior restraint
2:56 PM Sister: we create our society. we discuss through logic what is good collectively and what is not, because likeit or not, we are social beigns and we live in groups and societies and cultures and we have patterns in our behavior and we have to duscuss and agree as to how certain aspects of our lives shouldbe run. that is not control. that is knowledge, it is knowing that when you want to make a product, its science is not only comprised of making the bottom line, it is about the responsibility we have as individuals who belong to a civil society to work together to make thigns work smoothly and peacefully for all creatures of the world
2:57 PM me: control is prior restraint
Sister: I never told people that they have to breastfeed but i give them the knowledge without fear od taboo or fear of government
2:58 PM if the corporations who have money pay politicians, which we see they do, thn giving themthe 'freedom' to destroy the environment and give false info to the people is not really freedomn
me: I reject prior restraint, which is increasing in the west
2:59 PM corporations should have no control over politicians, the best way to ensure that is to remove regulations and let objective courts and law enforcement deal with infractions of the law
the focus should be to make the law and impartial as possible, and as apolitical as possible
Sister: you seem to have no logical reasons as to why you repeat what you are repeating and nothing against the points I have made
me: the more politicians and regulations get involved, the more biased and compromised the law will be
the courts are the best place to create objective justice
that does not favor the powerful
3:00 PM prior restraint will always be rejected by courts..
Sister: the law is always biased and subjective and alot of it is based on out morals and culture so we cannot , in the name impartiality, let people create things that are harmful to the environment
it should not called prior restraint
me: I never said we should let people create things that are harmful, we should deter them with criminal proceedings
3:01 PM prior restraint means forcing people to get approval before being allowed to do some activity. Prior restraint is wrong and harmful./
and it has destroyed the west's economy
it has destroyed the ability of people to make a life for themselves
3:02 PM Sister: that is not a an inclusive term for a process of approval that is much deeper than restraint or the right of an individual, it is about taking care of our young, weak, sick, and the environment, the earth and all its creatures
me: prior restraint is exactly what I described
Sister: ok, we will leave it at that. intersting conversation