Hard to be a social libertarian and a Republican...

Well, if no one wanted to follow them, they would not exist. That society would have a different set of rules. For example, we take freedom of expression as a given in our Western society. In Islamic states, there is not even such a concept. They live by a different set of rules because, as a society, they have arrived at a different conclusion.

 

Then morality is subjective?

 

Morality being subjective is exactly what I was talking about. Nothing more nothing less

 

Of course.

 

Many don't agree with that. But even if morality is subjective which it is, I still will uphold my subjective personal preferences concerning how my life is ran (for instance, political decisions/laws enforced on me).

 

Join the Libertarian Party.

 

Liberty is vague.

 

Sure, we all have preferences. But sometimes out preferences do not completely jive with our fellow citzens. What do you do then?

 

So I ask again, what's a boy to do?

 

That is not a civil liberty neither a social liberty. That is pure economic, and yes, could be considered as the liberty to enslave people.

 

The "libertarian" definition of liberty is, more often than not, articulated something like this: "you may do anything you wish as long as you do not harm another person".

Is this an agreed upon definition? Do any self labeled libertarians wish to dissent?

 

From the first point that the word libertarian has a new meaning from the 50s when liberals started to call themselves libertarian. Then yes.

Because for me a libertarian is that person that is antiauthoritarian and will fight any vertical organization.

 

A statement that finds a referent in reality is objective. A statement that finds no such referent or makes no effort to do so (regardless of any facts) is arbitrary. Subjectivity is the theory that truth is relative to a subject and that it is not possible to correspond a statement to reality. Morality is a code of proper thought and action. How do you know what is proper if you cannot or will not validate it's truth (correspond it to the facts)?

 

For me can be bad and immoral kill someone that has killed someone else. For you it is right to kill that person, death penalty.

What moral value is good or not?

There is no objective moral. But however I consider wrong the people that believe that can kill someone just because that person did it before.

Ah, and he won't answer you anymore. He is banned.

 

Yes, his profile shows him as banned but I thought he had been banned for several days and is still posting somehow. How does that work?

 

Civil liberties are any individual liberty. Voluntary agreements between individuals are part of civil liberties.

Social liberty is rather ill defined. For the context of this discussion I would define a social liberty as cultural freedom. And in the context of government, preserving social liberty would entail maintaining flexibility to encompass different beliefs in a diverse population. And example of this would be say, male circumcisions. Even in a libertarian society it would be reasonable to argue that a child, who is unable to consent, should be protected by the government from what some might consider to be a barbaric medical procedure.

In any event, as a minimum wage is limiting the freedom of individuals to enter into contract with one another voluntarily on conditions they see fit for moral purposes. Minimum wage laws not only infringe upon civil liberties but also social liberties.

I can even offer an example of an instance where people are negatively effected by such a law. Say you wish to hire high school kids to life guard a pool a couple hours a day. They might be perfectly willing to do so for $4 an hour perhaps even less as it's an easy and fun job. Or what about tutoring junior high kids in math? That would look great on a resume and offer intangible benefits outside of a wage under minimum wage. Why should it be illegal to offer a job doing so for a few hours a week at less than minimum wage just to offer some compensation.

Minimum wage laws are just a ban on low value labor. Minimum wage is almost universally reserved for teenagers and right now we have pretty high youth unemployment. It's a tragedy as working part time in high school (at least over the summer) is in my opinion just as valuable as school.

And to compare such a salary to slavery is just pure stupidity.

There is a place for labor laws. However the vast vast majority of them are simply illiberal and have no place in a free society.

 

As a "lower-case l" libertarian, I think your definition is fine. However, I like to add a minor codicil to my definition: "Discretion is the better part of valor." IOW, just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should.

Liberty requires great responsibility on the part of the user. Sadly, it would appear, many of our fellow citizens didn't get the memo. So what do we get then? We get the civil bulwark of stifiling beauracracy and a 50,000 page tax code.

 

It's orbably not a "ban" but rather a suspension. S/He'll be back.

 

This is a good thread. Thing is, not even the democrats believe in liberty, and the republicans do not believe in free markets.

What do you do? Grab a paddle and try to make it through all the (*)(*)(*)(*) they've thrown in the river.

 

I have this theory that if you believe your religion should be imposed on others by force of law... you're a religious zealot.

 

Anything you want, as long as it's physically possible. Now I might not want that to happen for any reason, but oh well. The laws of physics govern the universe, not "free will" or any other vague meaningless concept.

 

The problem is obviously, what defines "harming" another person??? That will never be entirely agreed upon by that high of a percentage of any entire society.