ClearWest

. You have clearly never parented a teenager. It's true, I haven't. Have you? And if so, did you raise them or did the government? I suggested that the government shouldn't be everybody's nanny, and from that you deduced that I have never parented a teenager. So I guess someone who supports gov't raising their children for them is obviously a parent? I don't understand your logic. Anyways, just to restate my view. I think that creating an 'age of consent' is futile, seeing as how people should be allowed to decide for themselves based on their individual circumstances. However, the part about age difference, about relationships between a 20 year old and a 14 year old--This should not be assumed wrong (even though most of us judge it to be), but if the 14 year old feels he/she is being taken advantage of (or if the parent of the 14 year old feels likewise) he or she can press charges for rape or sexual assault. It would then be looked into, not just ASSUMED to be wrong. Because, hey, there are relationships out there different from our own that work out. Arranged Indian marriages, for instance. They shouldn't have to adjust their culture and traditions to blend into ours. It doesn't have to be any of our business unless they want it to be. That's when the law comes in in the form of a lawsuit.

Well I think that parents SHOULD have more say over their children while they're living at home. It takes parents to raise a child, and their job is often taken over by gov't in the form of teachers and counsellors and psychiatrists. However, what was once a child eventually becomes his or her own person--and they can make decisions for themselves. Hopefully I'll have time to talk more on the subject later, gotta go!

These laws are created with the best intentions. We're looking out for the children, trying to protect them. But that kind of attitude carries on (as it so often does with the gov't) to everybody else. They feel like they have to protect us from everything. The last thing we need is more and more regulation. Do we need to regulate the relationship between a 40 and 18 year old? No, they can both decide things for themselves. Can a 14 year old decide things for themselves? It's an interesting question. I think that generally people can make their own decisions, and where they can't their parents can, and where the parents can't another family member or trusted person can. No need for government to be everybody's nanny. People mature at different ages. I felt ready to vote when I was 16. Some feel ready for drugs and alcohol when they are 14. Some feel ready for an intimate relationship when they are 15. The number is different for everyone--Whether they actually ARE ready at that age isn't for us to decide, it's a matter of opinion. That's why there should be no all-encompassing age where government finally grants you permission to do something. It should be between the individual and their parents and the people around them depending on their specific situation.

Funny...

What makes people go right or left? My thoughts: Independence (right) versus Dependence (left). People begin formulating their opinions at a young age. Also at a young age people are very dependent on those around them--their parents, their friends. And when they're fresh out of high school things can get difficult for them. So they develop a very socialist-like desire for dependency on others. Thus they start at left. People who start out on the right are likely becoming that way because they're following their right-wing parents. When people are older they begin to realize that they can take care of themselves, and they become more independent. Most of these people will take pity on others who are going through the same thing that they went through, and desire to help them. Some, unfortunately, go about this by supporting more government social programs. Thus a shift to left. Others realize that things work out better when people achieve their own wealth, as was the case in their own lives. Thus a shift to right.

Oh dang, that must be the case. It doesn't look like it's available to me yet. How many posts do you need before you get to that rank?

Clever poetry, scary idealogy. The Melting-Pot theory is one that calls for conformity and monoculture. Are you suggesting that we all have to live the same culture? It looks like that is what you're saying. Do we not have freedom of religion? Apparently not when people's religions are different from our own. If they want to wear their burkas and their turbans that's their own business. You can wear your Nike's and your golf shirts and I won't say a word about it, nor would I expect you to assimilate if everyone else was wearing something different. Man, government thinks it can do anything. It needs to butt out of people's business--their culture included. Of course, it can be just as bad when government tries to impose multiculturalism. Just butt out altogether! Let people decide their own cultures and don't expect anyone to change their ways to suit another person.

I'm stumped. How do you edit your 'member status'?

I disagree. Imagine that your suggestion was brought up a couple hundred years ago, only that it wasn't immigrants from Muslim countries that were discriminated against--but from European countries (or perhaps wherever your family originated, assuming you are not native american). If they had disallowed Europeans from entering the country, a lot of us wouldn't be here today, we'd be in Europe or somewhere else, or not born at all. Racial profiling and religious profiling are not the way we should go. What is a Canadian citizen anyways? A human being with permission from the government to live within the Canadian borders? Why should government be able to pick and choose who gets favoured in such a way and who doesn't. Especially based on something that they have no control over--the country where they originate. Is terrorism a Muslim problem? I'd say no. I'd say it's more of an idealogical or political problem. One that likely would not have occured if it were not for religious intolerance such as you are suggesting we use against them.

I agree with Charles. I don't think he's suggesting that we disallow contracts between two people. Just that there should be no legal definition of marriage, nor should anyone have to get the government's approval to make such a contract. If two people want to pool economic resources, they may do so. They can sign a paper between themselves or make a verbal commitment. No government necessary to regulate a voluntary exchange between two people. It shouldn't matter whether they consider themselves husband and wife, husband and husband, brother and sister, or roommate and roommate. It's none of the government's business. Of course, this would be less complicated if it weren't for taxation, which is a government imposition in the first place which leads to all sorts of other complications such as spousal benefits. Do platonic partnerships get any tax benefits? How can you pick and choose which partnerships get public support and which do not? Gov't should stop being so robotical and mathematical about deciding who gets welfare and who doesn't. People with no income in their minds need support--but Oh! They're 'married' to someone making 100k. Add that variable to the formula. Then they try to define marriage; problem! Different people have different definitions. The original definition was one set by the church several thousand years ago, between man and woman. Of course, some people don't like that so they change it to mean between two people. Add another variable to the equation. What next? Oh, the polygamists aren't being included. There's going to be a whole debate about that now. Another variable. And after that? I don't know but I'm sure they'll come up with something. And I'm sure it's going to be the same old same old battle between the traditional Conservatives and the progressive Liberals and socialists. It will be a constant tug-o-war and it will take years, but eventually all the definitions that different people have lived by over the years will be infused into one big stew of mono-culture. Just as it always happens. Let's just get government out of the way and let people decide their own morals and standards and traditions without having to get the approval of the rest of society.

August, are you still planning to update the mapping? Looking forward to it!

I recommend Sam Apelbaum if he's running again. You may not have a representative from his party in your riding--but it still wouldn't hurt to learn about his policies.

Can people not empathize with a person who has been the victim of theft? If I came into your house and took half of your belongings, that would be deemed at wrong. Yet, if a person who got the most votes at the last election signs a paper saying we have to give him this much money, that's suddenly okay. Then if we don't want to give them our money, they send men in fancy uniforms with guns to take our property from us by force. They may even put us behind bars, taking away our liberty. Let's talk about slavery. The most obvious way to tell that someone is enslaved is if they are forced to work for no pay. A more indirect way is that they can let you work for whoever you want and then take large portions of what you earn. Property is the product of someone's life and liberty. You work for forty years to buy a nice house on a nice piece of property. You worked all these long years, and what do you have to show for it? Well, your good health--but of course, the government has the power to take your kidneys if he thinks someone else needs it more after you're dead. You also have your piece of property--but of course, the government can take it from you if they think someone else (or even all of society) needs it more to build a road through it. You have your money--but of course, we are taxed all along, often 20-40% income tax, plus all the other indirectly collected taxes. Sales tax, taking more of your money everytime you get to the till. If you own a business it's another 15% or so of your return. Property tax from your local municipality. So they take around half of the fruit of our labours, measured in a value of dollars. Are we not slaves to them? It seems like I'm working for the government more than I am for myself. I don't think anyone should be allowed to do this. Not even a democratically elected beurocrat.

Oh, sorry. I completely skimmed over the farmer part. Well, it's the farmer's right to keep his property. But if the highway will provide "huge economic benefit either directly or indirectly to everyone", then perhaps the farmer will soon realize this, and desire to sell a portion of his land, if he gets a good deal for it. If a government uses force to solve a problem like this, property rights are downright trampled on. In my city a few years ago, one of our local factories wanted to expand. They got permission from the municipal government to do so--even though there were already people residing on that land. The factories bought out each house for a flat rate (I don't think they even got 'market value'). They didn't have a choice over the matter. They took their money, moved on, and their houses were demolished to allow for the factory's expansion. This kind of practice is unfair, and should be discontinued.

ClearWest, but what you have not resolved is what happens when voluntary participation is not sufficient, does that scuttle that infrastructure. Let me take an example. A highway is required to link two cities. Because there is massive trade and population flow between the cities, the highway will provide huge economic benefit either directly or indirectly to everyone. Because of geographic constraints, there is only one choice for the route for the highway. Farmer A owns land which is along the route of the proposed highway. Everyone else who owns land has come to a voluntary agreement to sell the land for the highway. Farmer A, refuses to sell at any price. How does this get resolved voluntarily? Highways are easy--you can set up a tollbooth and pay for the road that way. Or you can sell it to a private company and they'll set up a tollbooth. Or you can keep the highway free, and get corporate sponsors to fund it, and in return they get to advertise on the highway, and even sell their products at rest stops along the highway. Or a private company can buy the road, let people use it for free, and sell their products on the highway. There are SO many alternatives to taxation that I think work just as good if not better! Where it gets complicated is once you consider a system of streetlights within a municipality. Almost everyone in the city uses them, but should they all be forced to pay for them? I, of course, say no. They can run on voluntary donation--or if that isn't possible, you can get sponsorship from local businesses. If that still isn't enough, then obviously nobody knows and nobody cares. But in a free society, people will be free to try to educate others about the road which needs repairs, and they might be compelled to contribute a bit. I agree with your metaphor to an extent. The fire can be useful if it is kept small and in a safe place and does only what we expect it to do. The problem is, we have let the fire get too big to the point where it tries to engulf all of us, it is everywhere, and it does far more than we originally intended for it to do. Democracy has let this happen, representative democracy. That's the nature of the system. So now the choice isn't between big dangerous fire or little useful fire, it's a matter of where the big fire will go, and how many people it will burn. We choose who gets to hold the fire, but they still burn us.

Riverwind, ClearWest, you have the exact same complaint if no countries existed and taxes were imposed by private companies that existed from before you were born. However, you are infinitely better off in the system we have now because you have democratic rights. In the feudal/liberatrian system you advocate you would have no rights if you did not inheirit property. I disagree. In the free market there will always be a demand (and therefore a supply) of property, because people can profit from buying and selling property. So, you just have to be able to afford it. People aren't locked into their financial situation either. There are too many riches to rags stories for me to believe that poor people can't become rich without inheritance. Private Companies cannot take, they rely on voluntary funds--as opposed to governments which take. What difference do democratic rights make? Democracy was supposed to mean government by the people--but our "Representational" democracy is just a means for us to choose the people who get to control us. They can decide how much of our money they get, and what they get to use it on. They can decide which laws we need to live by who needs to live by them, and what penalities they can inflict upon us if and when we do not live by those laws. Governments throughout history have been able to kill us, enslave us, and steal from us. (The antithesis of Life, Liberty, and Property). This isn't acceptable to me--and it cannot be solved simply by electing a different person who promises not to do these things with their majority-given powers. It can be solved, however, by not letting them have these powers over us in the first place. Renegade, True, I understand that in cases this may be necessary--As August has argued concerning the streetlight. Sometimes order and organization requires some command. However, I think that if there must be a chain of command, then it should be voluntary. For instance, the Army could never run in a Libertarian/voluntary fashion, where people can choose which wars they want to fight, or they can choose which drills to take part in. But, it can be Libertarian and voluntary in the sense that you voluntary sign up to join the army, knowing the risks beforehand. (Which is why we should eliminate conscription, it's worse than the death penalty). Anyways, the same can be with whatever socialism needs to exist. Whether it be through roads or whatever the case may be.

You are describing a municipal government that pays for streetlights through property taxes. I was describing a society which raised its funds voluntarily--not through taxation. Perhaps I should have made that clear; the organization can own the streetlight, but they cannot take people's money unless they have specifically agreed to it--which brings us to your next two points. This could work, and would likely be the case if such a system of non-force came in today. Many people would voluntarily become a part of a socialist community because that is what they're used to. Paying taxes and giving the responsibility to someone else. As long as that is a choice, and it doesn't affect others, then it's fine, and it fits under Libertarian society. Non-force. If the person, upon entering the community, agreed to be subject to a municipal government which can legally tax, and raise taxes, and make and change laws, then it is perfectly within the contract for them to do that. I would personally never sign such a contract--which is sad, because, frankly, we are all part of a contract like that, living in Canada, sadly not having a choice over it. You make a good point. Once we get into contracts thing get complicated, because theoretically you can make a contract say anything you want. Some would debate this--Should contracts be limited so that you cannot 'agree' to being subject to an entity which can take away your life, liberty, or property? It's a tough one. I think that you should always be able to 'opt-out' of an agreement. But then, what if the agreement was to not opt-out? Would that be undermining the agreement? Yes. But was the agreement unconstitutional in the first place? Is it even constitutional for an agreement to be unconstitutional, because afterall individuals should be free to make agreements and trades between one another. It's tough to say. We could get into endless philisophical debates about this. The point is, forcing everyone to conform to the will of the majority (or the largest minority as some have put it) isn't right. People should always have individual choice over what they do with their own life, liberty, and property--so long as they do not affect others. Bytheway, thank you for the links. I'll be sure to check them out.

What was the 'deciding factor'? Superior force of arms. Exactly, by the Colombian Army.

Or a private non-profit organization could improve the situation. One that didn't take it's funds forcefully. You guys seem to desire that the streetlight be in the ownership of a collective group. That, to me, is fine--so long as they do not use force to get their way. It is force that makes the difference between a government and a voluntary institution. How about this for an idea to a non-force solution; "The Society for Streetlights"-- a voluntary organization (not a government) which can own and operate the streetlight within a city or region. People who wish to be a part of the decision making process can sign up to be a part of this society. People who wish to support this society can contribute their funds. The group can even run themselves democratically, so long as they don't think try to enforce the groups decisions on people outside of the society. The Rotary, The Legion, The Shriners, The Red Cross, and several more all do charity all the time. All on voluntary funds. And it doesn't have to be a pain (or even a noble deed) to donate money. It can be that you just want to play bingo, and proceeds from every game goes to The Streetlight. And even if such society doesn't exist in your area, there's always a business opportunist ready to step up and fund the streetlight. Why? Because it will give his company a good name--plus you can use the post as advertisement space. Combine that with voluntary donations, then you've got a streetlight in the bag. I had a look through a write-up about them. Apparently the United Fruit Company had to go through governments in order to obtain their 'unequal land holdings'. It wouldn't have been possible in a free and competitive market. Love it!

I noticed that he did that a couple of times during one of the debates before the 2004 presidential election. At first I thought it was odd-- then it was made apparent that his wife was in the audience. He was likely winking at her, kind of saying "I've got this one under control". I'm not a Bush advocateby any means. But to be fair, we should consider this. Isn't it possible that this was the case at the Press Conference? Was his wife in the audience? Was he just being a good husband? I dunno--feel free to dispute me.

Economic Left/Right: 7.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

Rubbish, this is pure 'commie talk'. As a 'libertarian', (or a capitalist), you wouldn't care one whit where the bananas went (to each, according to his need?). You would strive for sole ownership, and charge as much for the bananas as you could get away with, solely for your own personal gain. You yourself have argued that this is the best way to do things. Are you kidding?? Capitalists aren't stupid, nor monsters, as depicted in your scenario. If they are both starving their main concern will be for survival, not for trying to scrape an extra buck. The difference is that in capitalism, the owner of the bananas (if that was even an issue under the circumstances) wouldn't be forced to contribute his crop for the benefit of the group. That's not to say he won't share willingly.

August, Marriage is an involuntary relationship? I don't think so! You picked your spouse, you signed the contract, you bought the ring. If you don't want to be married to someone anymore you can always cancel your contract through divorce--but that doesn't make the marriage involuntary. Thus I see no reason for government to be involved. An agreement doesn't necessarily involve contracts and signatures. Verbal Contracts. Or a road can have posted on its entry-way "By using this road you agree to obeying all traffic signs and road symbols herein." Funny, I thought this was a democracy where we can change laws and change the system. If we disagree with the government we don't have to leave, we can change it. It will be the same, but better, in Libertarianism. The difference is that government won't be able to take people's life, liberty, or property. You're kidding, right?Have you ever tried to obtain voluntary contributions? Should everyone pay the same amount? What happens if one of the neighbours says he doesn't need a street light because, as he claims, he's blind. No, I haven't tried to raise funds for a charity. But there are other ways to do it. Create an incentive for people to contribute. Put on a raffle and sell tickets. All proceeds go to the new streetlight. No, not everyone should have to pay the same amount. People can pay whatever they want, or nothing at all. It's not for government to decide. Yes, if someone feels they don't want to pay for the streetlight (whether because they're blind or whatever, it shouldn't be anyone else's business) they shouldn't have to. Non-force. A Libertarian government wouldn't demand unconditional obedience and cooperation from their citizens and a communist one would. A Libertarian government wouldn't force anyone to do anything! All this talk about voluntary funds is because I think that things can be done voluntary rather than by FORCE. It doesn't mean that people have to become saints! It could even be for their own benefit while still benefitting others. That's how capitalism works. Thelonius, It's not even close to communism! You guys keep comparing Communism and Libertarianism because they both claim to have the answers which are much different from yours, but they are polar opposites. In communism people are FORCED to cooperate for the good of society. In Libertarianism people are free to make their own choices, and they do not have to cooperate, but they likely will because that's how they can trade and get the things they need and want.

Dead people are the remains of living people, who once had interests. And their interests may have included a proper burial with all organs in tact. That's why I think it should be up to the person to make the arrangement if they really want to donate their organs. No one should ever assume rights over someone else or their property. A person's corpse (along with their property) should become the property of the executor of the estate, and then passed on accordingly as required in the person's will.

August, Two people can make an agreement without involving the government. My stance is that government shouldn't be involved in marriage, and they shouldn't be involved in many other things. Prenuptial Agreements. That's all you gotta do. It says not only that you will commit, but it often outlines arrangements for property division in case of divorce. Thus, there is no need for alimony. The difference is that people choose whom they marry. They don't choose their government. Democracy or not, I didn't ask Stephen Harper and his cabinet to take my money and use it the way they're using it. So I don't have a choice. Maybe I misunderstand your point, but I really don't think it's necessary for government to conduct people's personal relationships. Is that what you're implying? Because I'm sure I can get a date without the government-- Please clarify if that's not what you meant. ClearWest, that comment made me laugh! Governments are intrinsically involved in our relationships with others. Indeed, that is the point of the whole thread. (Human relationships are not limited to finding a suitable partner to go to the movies on Saturday night.) My point is that you don't need a government to organize human relationships. What sort of human relationships are you referring to that need government dictation? Colectively and voluntarily? Really? What's your scheme. I'm all ears. Someone notices that the streetlight needs replacing (or that a streetlight is needed), they raise awareness in the community, they raise money to pay for the streetlight. They pay to have it installed by a private company. Again, no government (force) required. Everyone who uses the road agrees to obey the traffic rules involving the streetlight. If there is a problem with people breaking these rules, a private security guard can be hired to maintain order on the road.