https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQWSm6DSpm4
I'm not advocating all of this in one bold move, but it certainly address's some of the concerns of those that think only government can handle specific problems in society.
It's long and he talks in monotone, but damn it's got some great insight into Anarcho-Capitalism which I lean more and more towards as we go more and more towards a centrist government.
Enjoy and discuss.
Quote:Too radical.
I agree, I just find it interesting and he address's some points people love to through at you to justify big government.
I don't even think it would be implemented just an interesting lecture.
I subscribe to the FA01 Theory.
Any laws passed that limit, restrict, or alter a civil liberty should require a 90% vote. In FA01 land, he thinks 90% of the people are normal and logical (relatively), but there's always a 10% perverse population. You couldn't get 90% of the population (electorate) to vote in favor of slavery, even 200 years ago. You wouldn't be able to get 90% of the electorate to support murder, theft, and rape, among many other things. Things that would likely be legalized are things like many banned substances, prostitution, and simple fighting. Things like abortion wouldn't get a 90% vote in either direction, but you could probably get a 90% vote on certain aspects of abortion; like abortion at 40 weeks w/o any underlying health concerns for mother or baby when no rape has occurred.
I would require laws that don't necessarily involve civil liberties to reach a 65% vote to pass. This way its unlikely that the results of a revote would change from year to year. If a law can be passed today, but next week it wouldn't have, then it shouldn't be a law. You could get a 65% vote on things like interstate highways, a strong national defense, and anti trust laws. A 65% vote would possibly fail on issues such as ACA, immigration reform, and funding of certain agencies.
I don't know if he explains it later, but I'm not sure how he can say that 'contract insurance' premiums would be low for law abiding citizens. There's more risk for the poor to commit crime, which means that the poor would ultimately end up having higher premiums -- just because they're poor. Which means they'd be unable to find jobs, or engage in many transactions.
It's a system that ultimately only benefits those who are wealthy.
You have enough money to kill someone? By all means, go ahead and do it! You just have to pay Y million dollars.
Imagine your child gets kidnapped, but you can't afford a private detective to investigate their kidnapper. That kidnapper doesn't have to worry about his premiums going up. After all, if he doesn't get caught (and targeting people who are too poor to hire private detectives is a good way to go about that) his premiums won't go up.
Quote:I subscribe to the FA01 Theory.
Any laws passed that limit, restrict, or alter a civil liberty should require a 90% vote. In FA01 land, he thinks 90% of the people are normal and logical (relatively), but there's always a 10% perverse population. You couldn't get 90% of the population (electorate) to vote in favor of slavery, even 200 years ago. You wouldn't be able to get 90% of the electorate to support murder, theft, and rape, among many other things. Things that would likely be legalized are things like many banned substances, prostitution, and simple fighting. Things like abortion wouldn't get a 90% vote in either direction, but you could probably get a 90% vote on certain aspects of abortion; like abortion at 40 weeks w/o any underlying health concerns for mother or baby when no rape has occurred.
I would require laws that don't necessarily involve civil liberties to reach a 65% vote to pass. This way its unlikely that the results of a revote would change from year to year. If a law can be passed today, but next week it wouldn't have, then it shouldn't be a law. You could get a 65% vote on things like interstate highways, a strong national defense, and anti trust laws. A 65% vote would possibly fail on issues such as ACA, immigration reform, and funding of certain agencies.
How do you decide which laws involve civil liberties and which do not?
Don't we already have a Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court to decide this? The Bill of Rights sets out our civil liberties, and any law we pass cannot cancel any civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
As far as your point about slavery, I think if you took a vote in Alabama 200 years ago, you would easily get 90% in favor of slavery.
Quote:Don't we already have a Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court to decide this? The Bill of Rights sets out our civil liberties, and any law we pass cannot cancel any civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
That's not quite right. The text of the 9th says that the people have unenumerated rights that are free from government interference as well. That's why the Constitution limits the power of the government, not the rights of the people.
Quote:How do you decide which laws involve civil liberties and which do not?
Don't we already have a Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court to decide this? The Bill of Rights sets out our civil liberties, and any law we pass cannot cancel any civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
As far as your point about slavery, I think if you took a vote in Alabama 200 years ago, you would easily get 90% in favor of slavery.
I would strongly disagree with you about Alabama reaching a 90% vote on slavery. Maybe 50 or 60%, but 90% would have been unlikely. Only less than 20% of the population owned slaves in Alabama. The whole point is moot anyways because it would have been impossible to get a 90% vote nationally.
As far as deciding which law involves civil liberties, its pretty simple to figure out. If there is an objection raised to whether something is a civil liberty or not, then that's what the judicial system is there for - to decide. I don't see anywhere in the Bill of Rights describing its stance on abortion, drugs, etc.
Quote:Libertarians think the cooking, distributing, and usage of Meth should be legal, right?
Up to individual states and communities, most libertarians are against legislation on natural substances. Meth requires chemical manipulation in an unstable enviroment very different from other narcotics.
At the core Libertarians are leave me alone so long as I'm not hurting anyone else, blowing up my neighbors with a meth lab would qualify as hurting someone else.