Although it would be ideal if we could all enjoy the same freedoms and simultaneously get along, I'm just not sure if it's ever going to work that way. There are some universal freedoms we could probably all agree upon, but there are too many circumstances where affording a certain group of people a certain freedom only results in oppression for some other group. For instance: Noise-pollution. If you live in an area where you and your neighbors are literally 5 ft. apart, this becomes a serious quality-of-life issue. If one of your neighbors decides they want to blast music at 120 dB for all hours of the day, should you have to flee your home just to respect their freedom to play obnoxiously loud music? I guess you're screwed if you need to rest during that time, have to study, meditate, care for a small child, etc.

You'd think it wouldn't be that big of a deal to require that a person use headphones, or go to some remote / enclosed area where they could blast music to their heart's content, but I'm sure someone is going to cry that it's unfair.

... but, where do we draw the line with this? Should we remove other freedoms because many / most people cannot tolerate them? How am I entitled to say that certain rights need to be made available to certain people, when I simultaneously want to strip certain rights from others? I don't want to side with the tyranny of the majority, for that matter. There are certain rights that the majority would possibly take away from me based on their own prejudices, and inability to tolerate some way of life that I lead.

An individual just can't be happy in a society full of other individuals...

Good libertarianism only makes sense when we talk about maximizing personal rights instead instead of maximizing personal freedoms. We do not have the right to violate the rights of others, and a sensible government based on libertarian ideals must be cognizant of that.

The 18th century anti-Federalist movement probably comes closest to representing a workable system of government based on libertarian ideals, whereas communitarianism and laissez-faire capitalism both represent perversions of a libertarian ideal of limited government.

Should the government restrict companies from spewing pollution in order to protect the air and water we all use? Your "libertarian" friends in congress seem to disagree quite strongly on that...

Here's what I define freedom to be: the right to do any and all things that do not directly impose on the equal rights of another individual. In this case, I would consider the person playing obnoxiously loud music to be imposing on the second person's right to not have to listen to obnoxiously loud music, not the other way around; and I'm sure you can understand why. The one who directly causes the conflict of interests is the one who is imposing. I'd challenge you to demonstrate a practical situation in which two parties are equally imposing on the rights of each other.

Especially in this case since loud music can be shown to be permanently physically harmful to the other individual.

It has been medically demonstrated that loud music causes physical damage, but so do many other things that are legally acceptable. (second-hand smoking, degrees of pollution and environmental waste exposure, radiation, certain food-additives, et al.) Some of these things, we can avoid; some, we can't.

It's difficult to try to ensure some sense of equal freedom when it comes to how one person's lifestyle encroaches on another person's property in such an abstract sense. For instance: If someone is playing loud music next to my property, I can (subjectively) hear it while I'm on my property. Does that give me the right to demand that the music be terminated, so that it no longer causes me distress in my own home? Well, then I'm dictating what this person can and cannot do in their own home.

What if decide to be nude on my front lawn, in plain view of the rest of the neighborhood? Because other people find it repulsive or awkward, should I have that freedom taken away from me? I'm not technically encroaching on their property, of course. It's strictly a matter of subjective tolerance.

I mean, really. I fail to see how the Libertarian philosophy of doing whatever you want to do as long as you're no infringing upon another's rights doesn't work. I mean, a large chunk of this philosophy is already a reality in the U.S. All that's left to do is eliminate this control the state and federal government have over rights which they should not have control over.

The other day, I was having a debate with my friend who believes that certain issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. are morally wrong and therefore those rights should not be 'given' to anyone. So I spent a little while explaining to him that on a philosophical level, what's morally right or wrong are subjective; I then explained how even objective moral standard should not factor in human rights, since objective moral standard is, by definition, unknowable by humans anyway, if it does exist at all. I explained that it really boils down to this: whether or not an action is moral (which, again, is just subjective) is not important; what doesn't impede on the rights of others should be your right. Unfortunately, a lot of opposition to this mindset usually stems from some kind of dogmatism. Anyway, there are my two cents.

The political party and the philosophy are two different but related things. Steps I believe we could take politically to become a Libertarian nation include nation-wide legalization of issues such as gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc; more active support for the advancement of potentially world-changing research such as that on stem cells, biotechnologies, etc. unhindered by dogmatic opposition; cutting federal funding from special-interest groups and let Economic Darwinism take over; provide an environment for the growth of privatized healthcare, business, etc.

IMHO, the U.S. Government at the moment is far too large and far too spendy. A government's purpose is to sit back and moderate, NEVER control, influence, or even stimulate business or the economy. Bail-out programs, for example, are very counter-intuitive. I'm a big believer in the application of "survival of the fittest" to almost every aspect of life.

I'd love to hear some feedback. =3

----



Again, here's how I see it: it does not matter. The bottom line is, if playing the music is detrimental to the health or general well-being of guy #2, but not playing the music is not detrimental to the health or general well-being of guy #1, it's obvious whose rights are being truly infringed upon. And again, if there's any conflict of personal rights, the one whose actions started the conflict is the one in the wrong. But I can see a small point I think you might be raising, which is that what's harmful to each person involved is subjective. I mean, practically, you're probably not gonna get this kind of utopian society. Humans are flawed beings by nature.

Abortion is arguably an infringement on the rights of an unborn child, which is why many libertarians like Ron Paul are also pro-life. I'm not going to argue about morality in this thread since I agree with your stances on same-sex marriage, etc, but libertarianism certainly isn't about amorality.


The beginning of your post, and the end of it don't mesh. Socio-Economic Darwinism is not compatible with the preservation of personal rights.

I guess I just can't see it this way, given the example with noise-pollution. I would still feel like I'm depriving someone else of their rights. I wish there were a more comfortable compromise.

I'm starting to think how I was raised plays a role in this, because it seems my family has always defended other people on these issues. If I explained, for example, that something like loud music was going to make me uncomfortable, the response would be something along the lines of, "... but that's another person's right. Just because you can't tolerate it doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to do it."

This actually has been an issue, because I have hypersensitive hearing. I can't be around construction, loud music, and many, many other levels of noise. I've had to deal with panic attacks and psychosomatic disturbances because of how loud noises have affected me. I have neighbors who do construction almost 24-7, using a bulldozer. Another set of neighbors are frequently operating chainsaws, and some sort of saws that cut through metal. Many of them repeatedly shoot firearms as if they were at a firing range. As soon as I sit down to focus on work or projects, my heart nearly jumps out of my chest as the loudest bang I've ever heard in my life literally shakes my house. It's agonizing, all day. Despite this, I can't just force my neighbors to stop living their lives. It's their right to build on their own property, or use firearms for recreation. At the same time, I can't just up and move to a new place. That takes time, luck and financial resources.

It's a moral impasse I can never resolve. Either I or my neighbors have to make sacrifices. I've sacrificed having any sense of peace in my own home, as well as my mental well-being. Am I wrong for wanting to encroach on my neighbors' rights, for the sake of having some quality of life for myself?

Causing physical damage to your body is not their right.

Don't forget it's not black and white. A reasonable compromise would be headphones or softer music.

----

And that's just one example. For less extreme instances, the violator and the violated need to come to a compromise, which is almost always possible.

You can't exactly put headphones on heavy construction equipment...

Which is what selectboard meetings and zoning permits are for - to make sure local commercial projects don't trample on the rights of local individuals.

Your Republican friends seem to think that's big government intruding on their rights...

Corporatists can kiss my a$$. Unfortunately they seem to be running both parties at this point.

They get into office because people like you and the Tea Party vote for them. I haven't really seen much evidence of corporate ties on the democratic side, unless you count unions, which are collections of people who elect their own representatives. There are a few, don't get me wrong, but for the most part it would appear that Democrats care primarily about the working man.

I voted for this guy.


Are you frakking kidding me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
etc.


I know exactly 0 union members who actually want to be union members. They are because they are required to pay dues or they can't get hired because no-one wants to piss the unions off.
It's a racketeering scheme.

How do you figure? How is allowing Socioeconomic Darwinism to occur not compatible with the belief in personal rights and freedoms?

That's a good point, I completely forgot about those. But if I recall correctly, plenty of Republicans are in their pockets too.



You clearly don't understand what a union is, what they've done for us, or what they were made for. Unions are why we have the 40-hour work week, why workers can take time off if they're sick, why children can't be forced to work, why we have minimum wage, why we no longer have sweatshops, why women can work in textile factories without fear of catching on fire, etc. There are a few that have perverted that meaning, I'll grant you, but they're largely a fighting force for the working man, and when they work, they do really good work.