sanjavalen

Because you don't need the greatest minds to have a competent government.

In such a case, as long as the government is founded strictly in accordance with a respect for individual rights, there is no problem with secession. Though to be honest I find the hypothetical a bit incredulous. And of course you have no right to found a competent tyranny if dissatisfied with an incompetent free company.

"Looking" weak is not a reason to initiate the use of force.

1) Why would I want to live in a town of (in the end) less than 40 people? I need to work, you know. 2) You can rarely get 4 Objectivists to agree on where to go for lunch, let alone how to run a city government 3) The town government probably doesn't even exist outside of the mayor, who does nothing at all. This is a silly idea. What kind of LFC de-regulations would happen in a town of 40 dudes?

Good ol' Kane, never fails...

Oh, they can advocate it all they want. As soon as they establish one, though, and as soon as anyone in the areas disagrees with it, its the initiation of force.

OK guys, thread's over, go home.

Unless the secessionists have literally 100% support for their secession movement, they will be initiating force against some citizens - they will be forcing them to accept their taxes, regulations, etc. This is the initiation of force, and no one has the right to secede from a free country in order to establish a less free one. If they wish to secede to form their own Laissez-faire capitalist government - well, weird, but I don't see any moral problems with it.

A moral government never initiates the use of force. Any person may deny that such a body is necessary, but that body never initiates force against them. Only if they themselves initiate force does the government act against them. In that case, obviously, the members of the government who are attacked are not initiating, but responding to, the use of force. Edit: Needless to say, nobody forces them to accept the government. It doesn't need acceptance by any one person to carry out its function, morally speaking. You can deny that its legitimate all you want, it will ignore you until such a time as you violate someone's rights.

I can't imagine whats remotely funny about that.

Thats ridiculous. What kind of a standard is that? How is one to judge who does and doesn't learn from their mistakes by government bailouts?

Its not "a few bad apples," its a rotten tree. A lot of this thread has demonstrated that the LP is anti-freedom in principle.

That still leaves the problem of my first objection. It was my first one for a reason.

So uh, 5 pages, have we concluded that Obama is bad yet?

First problem: the people that "charities" help MUST be helped, the way they are helped is irrelevant, they simply must be. Second: What about all the charity that, you know, DO function solely off of voluntary donations?

Premise: Being in any office more than 1 term is inherently corrupting. Not true - in a free country. Term limits are a band aid on the problem of pressure group warfare. It doesn't solve the underlying cause (that there are tons of incentives for elected officials to "get friendly" with pressure groups and for those pressure groups to form and attempt to get cozy with elected officials,) just attempts to mitigate the problem by tossing politicians all around. Kind of like taking advil for your brain tumor. Edit: Which I hope Ted Kennedy does, while we're on the subject.

The age range this is targeted to is a bit young to be introduced to the complicated concepts of government and taxation. Unless the child had already been intellectually prepared for such subjects, the book will have little (if any) effect on them. Art's purpose is not to teach. In fact, this specific format of art (ie a children's book) treats the subjects so lightly that it makes trying to teach with it confusing to the child at best, disastrous (dogmatic child, floating abstractions, etc,) at worst. Proper childrens' books would properly be about positive, life-and-freedom-affirming subjects - but subjects that the child is intellectually prepared to grasp and integrate. Stories reinforce taught morals, knowledge gained, etc. They can point out errors and allow you to change the way you are acting (ahem, Atlas Shrugged,) but it must be emphasized that they can only do this if you have sufficient knowledge to grasp the subject. No one would suggest that you ought to read Atlas Shrugged to a 7 year old. Vocabulary aside, they simply aren't prepared to deal with the concepts contained in that book - the context of their knowledge is too low in the hierarchy to integrate what is being said. You do not "dumb down" that message to transmit it to a younger audience - you just wait until they are ready for it. So, as a children's book, I think its a stupid idea. I might buy it for me, though, because it looks funny and entertaining. Edit: As an aside, I find this very much a good example of why libertarians are wrong. When you deny generally that the intellect - ie the process of coming to a conclusion - is the most vital part of any political conclusion, you come up with cheap propaganda like this who's nominal goal is to "teach libertarian ideals," but who's actual method (due to the age group targetted) is to make children into dogmatic libertarians, without really understanding why.

Well, I suppose if you want to bang your head against a brick wall and call it entertaining, thats your prerogative.

Stop wasting your time on people who are that far gone. I call this the fallacy of "trying to talk reason to the unreasonable." When someone exhibits such dogmatism, to the point where they reject out of hand any proposition that does not agree with their own conclusions, they are not worth talking to.

Wow, way to miss the whole point of exactly what you quoted? The libertarian party is NOT an idealistic, principled party, and they DO pay only lip service to freedom.

No, the US - and any state, the whole world and every sentient being in the universe - does have a one size fits all. Freedom.

It doesn't matter as long as both are restricted from enacting laws which initiate the use of force. Personally in such a situation I'd find States being able to make laws superfluous. The system is designed under the idea that the initiation of force is proper on individuals, or at least unavoidable, and to minimize this harm to individual liberty, as much power as can be is delegated to as low a level as it can be, in order so that the people making the laws are most responsible to a displeased electorate.) But there's nothing wrong with such a split up per se.

Well said.

No, I would argue that the fundamental form of a free market makes the above idea impossible.

There is a certain kind of mistake that people make when they put "a good time" or "having fun" as a primary. Certain situations, mental states, etc., are fun due to your own subconscious and the emotional reactions it has automated. This is why, for example, a (completely) rational person does not enjoy getting wasted and passing out. The sensation of being drunk (unable to think clearly, drastically decreased motor skills, etc,) are not pleasurable to them. Meanwhile, a completely irrational person, who has little if any self-confidence, who fears the responsibility of thinking, might think the sensation of being wasted as the best feeling he could have. Not making a direct comparison between you (or anyone who drinks or does drugs recreationally - there is such a thing as an honest mistake, after all) and the latter example. But the examples get to the heart of the issue. Personally I know for sure I would find something that "made me laugh and laugh for hours" very much NOT fun at all. The reason is because I like being clear headed, I like thinking, and I don't see any reason to voluntarily enter a lower mental state (where silly/common things seem funny enough to laugh over, for example.) That is why I have yet to hear of a recreational drug that I think is rational to use in that recreational context. They seem to fall into two categories, one that consists of a "good time" of mentral disintegration, and another that consists of a "good time" of a lot of energy/endorphins for a period followed by a longer crash period. The latter I can see as useful in certain emergency and near-emergency situations where one needs to stay up and alert for a period, but not recreationally.